Clayton City Council
January 17, 2023

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETINGS
* * *

CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
and

OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT

DISTRICT (GHAD)
* * *
TUESDAY, January 17, 2023
7:00 P.M.
*** NOTICE***
Members of the public will be able to participate either in-person at Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library
6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA 94517
or
remotely via Zoom.

Mayor: Jeff Wan
Vice Mayor: Jim Diaz
Council Members
Peter Cloven
Holly Tillman
Kim Trupiano
• A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each public item is available for public review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov • Agendas are posted at: 1) City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail; 2) Library, 6125 Clayton Road; 3) Ohm’s Bulletin Board, 1028 Diablo Street, Clayton; and 4) City Website at www.claytonca.gov • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet and regarding any public item on this Agenda is available for review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov
• If you have a physical impairment that requires special accommodation to participate, please call the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 673-7300. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda January 17, 2023 Page 2
Instructions for Virtual City Council Meeting – January 17 Tonight’s meeting will be available to the public both in-person and remotely via Zoom. As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to provide live remote oral comment via the Zoom video conferencing platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.

To follow or participate in the meeting:

1. Videoconference: to follow the meeting on-line, click here to register:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_suxMeIgbQNWPGzIqaBNXFw After clicking on the URL, please take a few seconds to submit your first and last name, and e-mail address then click “Register”, which will approve your registration and a new URL to join the meeting will appear.

Phone-in: Once registered, you will receive an e-mail with instructions to join the meeting telephonically, and then dial Telephone: 877 853 5257 (Toll Free)

2. using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.

E-mail Public Comments: If preferred, please e-mail public comments to the City Clerk, Ms.

Calderon at [email protected] by 5 PM on the day of the City Council meeting. All E-mail Public Comments will be forwarded to the entire City Council.

For those who choose to attend the meeting via videoconferencing or telephone shall have 3 minutes for public comments.

Location:

Videoconferencing Meeting (this meeting via teleconferencing is open to the public) To join this virtual meeting on-line click here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_suxMeIgbQNWPGzIqaBNXFw To join on telephone, you must register in the URL above, which sends an e-mail to your inbox, and then dial (877) 853-5257 using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail. * CITY COUNCIL *
January 17, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Wan.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Mayor Wan.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public may address the City Council on items within the Council’s jurisdiction (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To assure an orderly meeting and an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Mayor’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.

Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the City Council.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by one single motion of the City Council. Members of the Council, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question, discussion or alternative action may request so through the Mayor.
(a) Approve the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of December 20, 2022 and City Council’s special meeting of January 10, 2023. (City Clerk) (View here) (b) Approve the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance) (View here) (c) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings as Needed during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361. (City Manager) (View here)
(d) Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Clayton Declaring a Local Emergency Due to Adverse Weather Conditions Beginning December 31, 2022. (City Manager) (View here) (e) Approve a Grant Application for the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Funding Including: 1) Adopting a Resolution Approving the Grant Application, Finding the Project is Categorically Exempt Under CEQA and Authorizing Filing with the County Clerk Recorder, and 2) Adopting a Resolution to Exempt the City of Clayton from Forming a Separate Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Designating the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee as the Review Body for TDA Funding. (City Engineer) (View here) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda January 17, 2023 Page 4
(f) Adopt a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates through June 30, 2024 with up to Four One-Year Renewals, for City Engineering Services, Continuing the Appointment of Larry Theis, PE as City Engineer and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement.
(City Manager) (View here)
(g) Establish a City Council Ad Hoc for Energy Services & Infrastructure Renewal and Appoint Mayor Wan and Councilmember Trupiano to the Committee. (City Manager) (View here)

5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Certificates of Recognition to public school students for exemplifying the “Do the Right Thing” character trait of “Kindness” during the months of November and December 2022. (Mayor Wan) (View here)

6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager/Staff

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Adoption the City of Clayton 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Associated Land Use Element Amendments, and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Project.
(Community Development Director) (View here)

8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Request by Mayor Wan to Discuss Potential Support for the “Our Neighborhood Voices”. (Mayor Wan) (View here)
(b) Resolution Approving an Employment Agreement for an Interim City Manager with Rowland Bernal, Jr. (City Manager) (View here)
(c) Adopt a Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Clayton’s Miscellaneous Employees. (City Manager) (View here)

9. COUNCIL ITEMS – limited to Council requests and directives for future meetings.

10. COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda January 17, 2023 Page 5

11. CLOSED SESSION – None.

12. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be February 7, 2023. # # # # #
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda January 17, 2023 Page 6
* OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT *
January 17, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Chair Trupiano.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public may address the District Board members on items within the Board’s jurisdiction, (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To facilitate the recording, assure an orderly meeting and provide an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Chair’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Board may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.

Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the Board.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by the Board with one single motion. Members of the Board, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question or input may request so through the Chair.
(a) Approve the Board of Directors’ minutes for its regular meeting December 6, 2022. (Secretary) (View here)
(b) Adopt a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates through June 30, 2024 with up to Four One-Year Renewals, for Assessment District Management Services for the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District, Continuing the Appointment of Larry Theis, PE as the General Manager for the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. (City Manager) (View here)

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None.

5. ACTION ITEMS – None.

6. BOARD ITEMS – limited to requests and directives for future meetings.

7. ADJOURNMENT – the next meeting of the GHAD Board of Directors will be scheduled as needed.
# # #
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 1

MINUTES
OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, December 20, 2022
6:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL – The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Wan held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman, and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent:

None. Staff present: City Manager Reina Schwartz, City Attorney Mala Subramania04n, and Community Development Director Dana Ayers.

2. CLOSED SESSION
A. Public Employee Appointment (Gov. Code 54957)
Title: Interim City Manager
B. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Mayor Wan and Vice Mayor Diaz Unrepresented Employee: Interim City Manager
- Short Recess -
* * * * *

3. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL – The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Wan held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman, and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent:

None. Staff present: City Manager Reina Schwartz, City Attorney Mala Subramanian, and Community Development Director Dana Ayers.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Mayor Wan.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to approve the Consent Calendar items 5(a) – 5(h), as submitted. (Passed 5-0). ____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 2
(a) Approved the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of December 6, 2022. (City Clerk)
(b) Approved the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance) (c) Adopted Resolution No. 85-2022 of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings as Needed during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361. (City Manager)
(d) Adopted Resolution No. 86-2022 / Successor Agency Resolution SA01-2022 / Public Facilities Financing Authority Resolution FA01-2022 Approving a Debt Management Policy. (Interim Finance Director)
(e) Adopted Resolution No.87-2022 Renewing Signature Authorizations For Investing City Funds In The Local Agency Investment Fund. (Interim Finance Director) (f) City Council Approval of Declaring Certain Police Department Equipment as Surplus. (Police Chief)
(g) Adopted Resolution No. 88-2022 of the City Council of the City of Clayton Amending a Professional Services Agreement with GovInvest for Interim Finance Director Services and for a Comprehensive Fee Update in the Amount of $35,875 for a Total Not-ToExceed Amount of $65,875. (City Manager) (h) Receive and File the Quarterly Financial Reports on the City’s Investment Portfolio for the Periods Ending March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022. (Interim Finance Director)

6. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
County Connection update - Keith Haydon, City Council’s designated liaison, provided a brief verbal Annual Report of County Connection activities.

7. REPORTS
(a) City Manager Reina Schwartz provided an update on the Finance Director recruitment and advised City Hall will be closed December 23, 2022 – January 2, 2023. (b) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.

Councilmember Cloven attended the Clayton Business and Community Association holiday dinner, attended the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation for Central Contra Costa (TRANSPAC) meeting, attended the Wreaths Across America event, attended the Rainbow Community Center fundraiser, called and emailed constituents.

Councilmember Tillman attended the Anti-Biased/Anti-Racist meeting, attended the Clayton Business and Community Association holiday dinner, attended the Cal Cities holiday dinner, attended the city of Oakley swearing in ceremony, attended the city of San Ramon swearing in ceremony, attended the Clayton Budget/Audit Committee Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 3
meeting, attended the Elected Women’s Luncheon, attended the Wreaths Across America event, met with the City Manager recruitment firm, and met with the City Manager.

Councilmember Trupiano attended the Clayton Business and Community Association holiday dinner, attended the Menorah lighting, met with the Police Chief, met with the City Manager and met with the City Attorney.

Vice Mayor Diaz attended the Clayton Business and Community Association holiday dinner, met with the Morgan Territory Community Organization, attended the Wreaths Across America event, met with the Police Chief, met with the City Manager, and met with the City Manager recruitment firm.

Mayor Wan attended the Clayton Budget/Audit Committee meeting, attended the Wreaths Across America event, met with City staff, and met with the City Manager recruitment firm.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS – None.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.

10. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Resolution 89-2022 Amending the Order of Business Taken up by the City Council at City Council Meetings Pursuant to Clayton Municipal Code Section 2.04.070. (City Attorney)
City Attorney Mala Subramanian presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the public comment.

Keith Haydon does not support elimination of Council Reports from the regular meeting agenda.

Aaron Levy does not support elimination of Council Reports from the regular meeting agenda.

Roy Correa suggested the City Council report out on more economical reports benefitting Clayton.

Christine Muller does not support the elimination of Council Reports from the regular meeting agenda.

Mayor Wan closed public comment.
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 4
It was moved by Councilmember Tillman, seconded by Councilmember Trupiano, to adopt Resolution No. 89-2022, Amending the Order of Business Taken Up by the City Council at City Council Meetings Pursuant to Clayton Municipal Code Section 2.04.070, as amended. (Passed; 5-0)
(b) Appoint Two Members to the Community Financial Sustainability Committee as Recommended by the City Council’s Budget & Audit Subcommittee. (City Manager)
City Manager Reina Schwartz presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the public comment; no comments were offered.

It was moved by Mayor Cloven, seconded by Vice Mayor Diaz, to appoint Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford to the Community Financial Sustainability Committee. (Passed; 5-0)
(c) Discuss and approve City Council Committees and Assignments for Standing/Ad-Hoc Committees and Liaison Positions. (City Manager)
Mayor Wan presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the public comment.

Keith Haydon expressed his concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Concerts in the Park Committee.

Roy Correa expressed his concerns regarding liability and reporting from the City’s current concert promoter and supports Council regaining leadership over this event.

Mayor Wan closed public comment.

It was moved by Mayor Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to Approve City Council Committees and Assignments for Standing/Ad-Hoc Committees and Liaison Positions as Amended. (Passed; 5-0) (d) Request by Mayor Wan to Discuss Potential Solar Lease Project and Provide Direction to Staff. (City Manager)
Mayor Wan presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the public comment.

Ed Miller expressed concern regarding the use of public property for this project and suggested using American Rescue Plan Act funding if available.

Roy Correa expressed support of this item regarding solar.

Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 5
Doug Moore expressed the difficulty he has experienced in obtaining permits and partnership with the City in moving forward with this project.

Mayor Wan closed public comment.

It was moved by Mayor Wan, seconded by Vice Mayor Diaz, to direct staff to work with Oakhurst Country Club on the Feasibility of a Solar Lease Project. (Passed; 5-0)

11. COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Trupiano requested a future agenda item to include Diamond Terrace fee increases.

City Manager Schwartz confirmed this item is on the Council tracking list.

12. CLOSED SESSION – Continued
Mayor Wan announced the City Council will adjourn into Closed Session for the following noticed items (9:28 p.m.):

A. Public Employee Appointment (Gov. Code 54957)
Title: Interim City Manager
B. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Mayor Wan and Vice Mayor Diaz Unrepresented Employee: Interim City Manager
Report out of Closed Session:
(9:49 p.m.) Mayor Wan reported Council provided direction to its negotiator.

13. ADJOURNMENT– on call by Mayor Wan, the City Council adjourned its meeting at 9:50 p.m.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be January 17, 2023. # # # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 6

APPROVED BY THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
# # # # #
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes May 31, 2022 Page 1

MINUTES
OF THE

SPECIAL MEETING

CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 10, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Wan held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent:

None. Staff present: City Manager Reina Schwartz, City Attorney Mala Subramanian, Community Development Director Dana Ayers, and City Clerk/HR Manager Janet Calderon.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Mayor Wan.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS – None.

4. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Conduct Study Session on the City of Clayton Draft Housing Element Update for the 6th Cycle, 2023-2031 and Provide Feedback to Staff.
(Community Development Director)
Community Development Director Dana Ayers presented the report.

Following questions by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the public comment.

Ann Stanaway expressed concerns regarding ADA accessibility.

Alice Bristol requested consideration to not over-develop and trail accessibility.

Mayor Wan Closed public comment.

Direction was provided to staff.

5. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Wan announced the City Council will adjourn into Closed Session for the following noticed items (9:15 p.m.):

A. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Government Code Section 54957.6
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 2
Agency designated labor negotiator: City Manager

1. Miscellaneous City Employees (Undesignated Group):

Accounting Technician, Administrative Assistant/Code Enforcement Officer, Assistant to the City Manager, Chief of Police, City Clerk/HR Manager, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Maintenance Supervisor, Senior Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Worker II, Maintenance Worker I, Assistant Planner, Police Administrative Clerk, Police Office Coordinator
B. Government Code section 54957
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
Report out of Closed Session:
(10:47 p.m.) Mayor Wan reported Council provided direction to its negotiator.

6. ADJOURNMENT - on call by Mayor Wan, the City Council adjourned its meeting at 10:48 p.m.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be January 17, 2023. # # # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk

APPROVED BY THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
# # # # #
Agenda Item: 4(b)

STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JENNIFER GIANTVALLEY, ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
DATE: 01/17/23
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL DEMANDS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council, by minute action, approve the financial demands and obligations of the City for the purchase of services and goods in the ordinary course of operations.

Attachments:

1. Obligation report dated 1/3/23 (2 pages)

2. Obligation report dated 1/17/23 (1 page)

3. Payroll Reconciliation Summary report PPE 12/25/22 (2 pages)

4. Payroll Reconciliation Summary report PPE 1/8/23 (2 pages) Attached Report Purpose Amount
Obligations paid in advance of meeting (1/3/23) Accounts Payable $ 349,811.47 Obligations Accounts Payable $ 78,591.39
Payroll Reconciliation Summary Payroll, Taxes $ 89,663.08 Payroll Reconciliation Summary Payroll, Taxes $ 93,141.11 Total Required $ 611,207.05
City of Clayton Obligations for 1/3/23
Vendor name Invoice date Invoice number Invoice description Amount Payment method American Fidelity Assurance Company 12/30/2022 2151313C FSA PPE 12/25/22 $75.00 Bank draft American Fidelity Assurance Company 12/30/2022 D530290 Supplemental Insurance December 2022 $641.78 Bank draft Authorize.net 12/30/2022 December22 Online bankcard gateway fee December 2022 $31.35 Bank draft CalPERS Health 12/30/2022 17029967 MedicaL January 2023 $33,976.06 Bank draft CalPERS Retirement 12/30/2022 122522 Retirement PPE 12/25/22 $19,341.76 Bank draft Mission Square Retirement 12/30/2022 122522 457 Plan contributions PPE 12/25/22 $1,263.46 Bank draft Nationwide 12/30/2022 122522 457 Plan contribution PPE 12/25/22 $500.00 Bank draft Neopost (add postage) 12/30/2022 121522 Postage added $300.00 Bank draft Paylocity Corporation 12/30/2022 INV1216748 Payroll fees December 2022 $524.00 Bank draft Paysafe Payment Processing 12/30/2022 November2022 OTC Bankcard fees November 2022 $574.33 Bank draft Paysafe Payment Processing 12/30/2022 November2022 Online bankcard fees November 2022 $147.26 Bank draft Paysafe Payment Processing 12/30/2022 December2022 OTC Bankcard fees December 2023 $157.07 Bank draft Paysafe Payment Processing 12/30/2022 December2022 Online bankcard fees December 2023 $98.74 Bank draft Wex Bank-Fleet Cards 12/30/2022 85951109 Fleet fuel stmt end 12/25/22 $4,802.48 Bank draft Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc 12/30/2022 51051 Elevator Service December 2022 $128.00 Check AEDs Today 12/30/2022 46893 Replacement AEDs $13,957.52 Check All City Management Services, Inc. 12/30/2022 81371 School crossing guard svcs 10/30/22-11/12/22 $2,368.44 Check All City Management Services, Inc. 12/30/2022 81728 School crossing guard svcs 11/13/22-11/26/22 $1,315.80 Check All City Management Services, Inc. 12/30/2022 82117 School crossing guard svcs 11/27/22-12/10/22 $2,631.60 Check AnchorCM 12/30/2022 22-003-4455 Engineering Svcs November 2022 $62,906.29 Check Apex Technology Management 12/30/2022 PS29743 APXQ29743 - Total Support Gold, IT Support $3,750.00 Check Apex Technology Management 12/30/2022 TS1355100 IT Service December 2022 $2,000.00 Check Apex Technology Management 12/30/2022 TS1355104 IT Service January 2023 $2,000.00 Check AT&T (CalNet3) 12/30/2022 19249933 Phones 11/22/22-12/21/22 $1,283.41 Check AT&T (HH Internet) 12/30/2022 8233415707 Hoyer Hall Internet Setup $785.12 Check AT&T (HH Internet) 12/30/2022 322941575 122122 Hoyer Hall Internet 12/22/22-1/21/23 $197.24 Check Bay Cities Paving & Grading 12/30/2022 4115 #2 Paving Project Retention release $37,853.70 Check CCWD 12/30/2022 120622 Water 10/4/22-12/6/22 $34,184.28 Check Cintas Corporation 12/30/2022 4131547422 PW uniforms 9/15, 9/22, 11/10, 12/15, 12/22/22 $320.95 Check Cintas Fire Protection 12/30/2022 OF44787323 Clayton Fire Extinguisher service $3,748.82 Check CME Lighting Supply, Inc 12/30/2022 251175 Lamps $466.49 Check CME Lighting Supply, Inc 12/30/2022 251353 Lamps $232.71 Check Comcast Business (The Grove Park) 12/30/2022 121022 The Grove Park internet 11/15/22-1/14/23 $246.48 Check Contra Costa County Public Works Dept 12/30/2022 705519 Traffic signal maintenance November 2022 $2,547.24 Check De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. 12/30/2022 78565187 Copier lease January 2023 $1,004.49 Check Diablo View Construction, Inc 12/30/2022 1515 Sheet rock removal, replacement for heat exchange relocation $5,550.00 Check Dillon Electric Inc 12/30/2022 4782 Replace light pole @ Indian Wells $614.00 Check Dillon Electric Inc 12/30/2022 4783 Street light repairs 12/13/22 $763.00 Check Globalstar LLC 12/30/2022 42965679 Sat phone 12/16/22-1/15/23 $135.13 Check Hammons Supply Company 12/30/2022 121610 Janitorial supplies December 2022 $177.66 Check Hammons Supply Company 12/30/2022 121611 Janitorial supplies December 2022 $26.37 Check Harris & Associates, Inc. 12/30/2022 55494 CIP engineering svcs November 2022 $700.00 Check Health Care Dental Trust 12/30/2022 325140 Dental January 2023 $1,648.14 Check HercRentals, Inc 12/30/2022 33184926-001 Trailer Vac rental $1,972.18 Check J&R Floor Services 12/30/2022 Twelve2022 Janitorial svcs December 2022 $6,621.00 Check City of Clayton Obligations for 1/3/23
Jennifer Giantvalley 12/30/2022 2022 #2 Reimbursment for home use printer $43.60 Check JJR Enterprises for Caltronics Business Systems 12/30/2022 3653117 Copier usage 11/19/22-12/18/22 $52.25 Check JJR Enterprises for Caltronics Business Systems 12/30/2022 3658002 Copier usage 11/18/22-12/17/22 $40.05 Check LarryLogic Productions 12/30/2022 2069 Planning Commision Meeting Production 12/13/22 $240.00 Check LarryLogic Productions 12/30/2022 2071 CC meeting/Budget Committee mtg production 12/14 & 12/20/22 $960.00 Check League of CA Cities East Bay Division 12/30/2022 5004 East Bay Division Meeting 12/8/22 $40.00 Check LSA Associates Inc 12/30/2022 185933 Consultant svcs November 2022 $2,966.25 Check MPA 12/30/2022 918-30708 Life/LTD January 2023 $1,830.92 Check MSR Mechanical, LLC 12/30/2022 JC100523 Library HVAC - Furnace replacement $24,640.00 Check MSR Mechanical, LLC 12/30/2022 SVC006734 CH HVAC - adjustments @ PD $495.00 Check MSR Mechanical, LLC 12/30/2022 SVC006862 Library HVAC maintenance December 2022 $1,645.00 Check NBS Govt. Finance Group 12/30/2022 202212-2566 CFD Admin Q3 FY 23 $5,306.59 Check Pacific Telemanagement Svc 12/30/2022 2098546 Courtyard pay phone January 2023 $70.00 Check Pavement Engineering Inc 12/30/2022 2203-019R Pavement - Deflection Analysis $8,500.00 Check PG&E 12/30/2022 2572177359-3 122122 Energy (Gas) 11/20/22-12/20/22 $540.60 Check PG&E 12/30/2022 7293447797-6 122122 Energy 11/16/22-12/13/22 $27,567.45 Check Pond M Solutions 12/30/2022 7332 Fountain maintenance December 2022 $650.00 Check Prestige Printing & Graphics 12/30/2022 82200 PD forms $187.48 Check Prestige Printing & Graphics 12/30/2022 82202 Clayton Letterhead $336.38 Check Rex Lock & Safe, Inc. 12/30/2022 134678 Keys $22.50 Check Rowena Lee 12/30/2022 EH121022 EH Deposit refund $500.00 Check Rural Pig Management, Inc 12/30/2022 CC010223 Pig control January 2023 $3,000.00 Check SCA of CA, LLC 12/30/2022 104822CS Street sweeping December 2022 $4,500.00 Check Schwaab, Inc 12/30/2022 7796425 Pre-inked stamp $55.88 Check Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 12/30/2022 124698022-002 Irrigation parts $1,566.69 Check Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 12/30/2022 125833654-001 Irrigation parts $84.84 Check Staples Business Credit 12/30/2022 1646152921 Office supplies $409.65 Check State Water Resources Control Board 12/30/2022 WD-0212868 SWRCB annual permit fee FY 2023 (Stormwater) $3,453.00 Check Stericycle Inc 12/30/2022 3006292617 Medical waste disposal $71.66 Check Swenson's Mobile Fleet Repair 12/30/2022 I005801 PW Service to 2017 F350 $1,186.45 Check T Mobile 12/30/2022 981497076 120222 PD cell phones November 2022 $516.14 Check Texas Life Insurance Company 12/30/2022 SM0F1B20221218001 Supplemental insurance $42.25 Check Vision Service Plan (CA) 12/30/2022 816774891 Vision January 2023 $90.85 Check Wizix Technology Group, Inc 12/30/2022 303273 Service to connect PW Printer $175.00 Check Wizix Technology Group, Inc 12/30/2022 304814 Service to connect PW Printer $417.51 Check Workers.com 12/30/2022 135147 Seasonal workers week end 12/11/22 $1,869.62 Check Workers.com 12/30/2022 135247 Seasonal workers week end 12/25/22 $1,168.51 Check Total $349,811.47
City of Clayton Obligations for 1/17/23
Vendor name Invoice date Invoice number Invoice description Amount Payment method American Fidelity Assurance Company 01/08/2023 2151318A FSA PPE 1/8/23 $75.00 Bank draft CalPERS Retirement 01/08/2023 010823 Retirement PPE 1/8/23 $18,735.87 Bank draft Mission Square Retirement 01/08/2023 010823 457 Plan contributions PPE 1/8/23 $1,263.46 Bank draft Nationwide 01/08/2023 010823 457 Plan contribution PPE 1/8/23 $500.00 Bank draft R3 Consulting Group, Inc 01/04/2023 122413 Republic negotiation svcs December 2022 $2,505.00 Bank draft Ace Sierra Tow 12/15/2022 62617 PD vehicle tire change $50.00 Check AnchorCM 01/12/2023 22-003-4476 Engineering Svcs December 2022 $19,823.00 Check AT&T (HH Internet) 01/21/2023 322941575 12123 Hoyer Hall Internet 1/22/23-2/21/23 $187.25 Check Big O Tires 12/22/2022 5011-194400 Tires for PW '15 F250 $1,396.52 Check Cintas Corporation 01/05/2023 5139582742 Restock first aid kit - PW $84.85 Check Comcast Business 01/05/2023 010523 Internet 1/10/23-2/9/23 $237.52 Check Contra Costa County - Office of the Sheriff 12/29/2022 CL 21/22 CLETS FY 22 $718.68 Check Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Developmen 12/31/2022 2023Q2 CASp fee Q2FY23 $268.60 Check Diablo View Construction, Inc 01/10/2023 1522 Sand & Stain benches @ The Grove Park $5,460.00 Check Digital Services 01/07/2023 12173 IT services 11/21/22-1/7/23 $3,185.00 Check Dillon Electric Inc 01/10/2023 4791 Install new head on pole knocked off by downed tree $582.32 Check Dillon Electric Inc 01/10/2023 4792 Street light repairs 1/6/23 $381.00 Check Division of the State Architect 12/31/2022 2023Q2 CASp fees Q2 FY23 $31.60 Check Environtech Enterprises 11/16/2022 A001C-2B-22 Weed abatement Nov-Feb 23 $12,500.00 Check Kennedy & Associates 01/05/2023 22-244 Consultant svcs The Olivia Nov & Dec 2022 $1,456.25 Check LEHR 01/06/2023 SI82455 Labor - replace dome light $105.00 Check LEHR 01/06/2023 SI82456 Labor - Replace light on PD vehicle $420.00 Check Travis Hill 01/10/2023 CAP0399 Deposit refund $3,000.00 Check Verizon Wireless 01/01/2023 9924251512 PW cell phones 12/2/22-1/1/23 $208.98 Check Voler Strategic Advisors, Inc 01/11/2023 1743 Strategic Communications support January 2023 $5,000.00 Check Workers.com 01/06/2023 135298 Seasonal workers week end 1/1/23 $415.49 Check Total $78,591.39
Payroll Totals
Payroll Checks Check Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Regular 26 0.00 67,590.22 67,590.22
Totals 26 0.00 67,590.22 67,590.22 ĺ 67,590.22
Payroll Checks Check Type Agency Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Agency EFSDU 1 0.00 358.15 358.15
Agency Regular 1 0.00 663.50 663.50
Totals 2 0.00 1,021.65 1,021.65 ĺ 1,021.65
Total Net Payroll Liability 0.00 68,611.87 68,611.87 ĺ 68,611.87 Tax Liability
CA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA SDI - Employee EXEMPT Semi-Weekly 98,160.00 89,250.37 California SITW Semi-Weekly 96,646.54 96,646.54 4,887.72 Totals 4,887.72 0.00 ĺ 4,887.72
CASUI and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA Edu & Training 0.001000 Quarterly 98,160.00
California SUI 0.020000 Quarterly 98,160.00
Totals 0.00 0.00 ĺ 0.00
FITW and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount EE Medicare High
Income
Semi-Weekly 9,909.52 9,909.52 89.19
Federal Income Tax Semi-Weekly 96,646.54 96,646.54 13,059.12 Medicare Semi-Weekly 98,160.00 98,160.00 1,423.32
Medicare - Employer Semi-Weekly 98,160.00 98,160.00 1,423.32 OASDI Semi-Weekly 1,359.12 1,359.12 84.27
OASDI - Employer Semi-Weekly 1,359.12 1,359.12 84.27
Totals 14,655.90 1,507.59 ĺ 16,163.49
Total Tax Liability 19,543.62 1,507.59 ĺ 21,051.21
Transfers
Type Date Source Account Amount
Dir Dep 12/29/2022 67,590.22
Tax 12/29/2022 21,051.21
Total Payroll Liability 89,663.08 ĺ 89,663.08
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 12/30/2022 at 11:33 AM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 12/30/2022
Pay Period: 12/12/2022 to 12/25/2022
Process: 2022123001
Trust Agency 12/29/2022 1,021.65
Totals Transfers 89,663.08 ĺ 89,663.08
Tax Deposits
Required Tax Deposits Tax Due On Amount
( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SITW 1/5/2023 4,887.72 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) Federal Income Tax 1/5/2023 16,163.49 Total Tax Deposits 21,051.21
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 12/30/2022 at 11:33 AM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 12/30/2022
Pay Period: 12/12/2022 to 12/25/2022
Process: 2022123001
Payroll Totals
Payroll Checks Check Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Regular 35 0.00 70,019.35 70,019.35
Regular 1 110.82 0.00 110.82
Totals 36 110.82 70,019.35 70,130.17 ĺ 70,130.17
Payroll Checks Check Type Agency Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Agency EFSDU 1 0.00 358.15 358.15
Agency Regular 1 0.00 663.50 663.50
Totals 2 0.00 1,021.65 1,021.65 ĺ 1,021.65
Total Net Payroll Liability 110.82 71,041.00 71,151.82 ĺ 71,151.82 Tax Liability
CA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA SDI - Employee EXEMPT Semi-Weekly 99,250.96 99,250.96 California SITW Semi-Weekly 97,737.50 97,737.50 4,512.27 Totals 4,512.27 0.00 ĺ 4,512.27
CASUI and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA Edu & Training 0.001000 Quarterly 99,250.96 95,850.37 95.85 California SUI 0.020000 Quarterly 99,250.96 95,850.37 1,917.01 Totals 0.00 2,012.86 ĺ 2,012.86
FITW and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount Federal Income Tax Semi-Weekly 97,737.50 97,737.50 12,202.22 Medicare Semi-Weekly 99,250.96 99,250.96 1,439.16
Medicare - Employer Semi-Weekly 99,250.96 99,250.96 1,439.14 OASDI Semi-Weekly 3,093.82 3,093.82 191.82
OASDI - Employer Semi-Weekly 3,093.82 3,093.82 191.82
Totals 13,833.20 1,630.96 ĺ 15,464.16
Total Tax Liability 18,345.47 3,643.82 ĺ 21,989.29
Transfers
Type Date Source Account Amount
Dir Dep 1/12/2023 70,019.35
Tax 1/12/2023 21,989.29
Total Payroll Liability 93,141.11 ĺ 93,141.11
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 1/9/2023 at 4:57 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 01/13/2023
Pay Period: 12/26/2022 to 01/08/2023
Process: 2023011301
Trust 1/12/2023 110.82
Trust Agency 1/12/2023 1,021.65
Totals Transfers 93,141.11 ĺ 93,141.11
Tax Deposits
Required Tax Deposits Tax Due On Amount
( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SITW 1/19/2023 4,512.27 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) Federal Income Tax 1/19/2023 15,464.16 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SUI 5/1/2023 2,012.86 Total Tax Deposits 21,989.29
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 1/9/2023 at 4:57 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton

Check Date: 01/13/2023
Pay Period: 12/26/2022 to 01/08/2023
Process: 2023011301
Agenda Item: 4(c)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings as Needed during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council allowing for video and teleconference meetings as needed during the COVID-19 state of emergency under AB 361.

BACKGROUND
Last year, the State Legislature passed, and Governor Newsom signed AB 361 which continues many of the provisions related to the Brown Act that were in place under Executive Orders, which expired September 30, 2021 that allowed for video and teleconferencing during the state of emergency. Since AB 361 has been signed into law, the City can continue to meet virtually until such time as the Governor declares the State of Emergency due to COVID-19 over and measures to promote social distancing are no longer recommended by the County Health Officer.

On September 20, 2021, February 2, 2022, March 1, 2022, April 15, 2022, June 14, 2022, July 5, 2022, August 9, 2022, September 1, 2022, October 4, 2022, December 7, 2022 and January 5, 2023 the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings and continues to encourage on-line meetings over in-person public meetings if feasible. If in-person meetings occur, the County Health Officer recommends physical distancing of six feet of separation between all attendees to the extent possible. The proposed resolution provides that the City Council and all subsidiary City boards and commissions may choose to hold fully virtual video and teleconference meetings while the state of emergency is still in effect and physical distancing is recommended.

Subject: Resolution Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
Date: January 17, 2023

In order to continue to be able to hold video and teleconference meetings as needed for COVID/public-health related reasons, the City Council will need to review and make findings every thirty days that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote physical distancing.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Attachments
Resolution of the City Council Allowing for Video and Teleconference Meetings during the COVID-19 State of Emergency Under AB 361
Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (issued 01/05/2023 by Contra Costa County Health Officer)
Resolution ##-2023 AB 361 January 17, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON

ALLOWING FOR VIDEO AND TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS DURING THE COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER AB 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency for COVID-19;
WHEREAS, AB 361 was passed by the State Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom and went into effect immediately and allows the City to continue to meet virtually until such time as the Governor declares the State of Emergency due to COVID-19 over and measures to promote physical distancing are no longer recommended; WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, February 2, 2022, March 1, 2022, April 15, 2022, June 14, 2022, July 5, 2022, August 9, 2022, September 1, 2022, October 4, 2022, December 7, 2022, and January 5, 2023, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings and encourages on-line meetings if feasible and if in person meetings occur then recommends physical distancing of six feet of separation to the extent possible and masking for all attendees; WHEREAS, in light of this recommendation, the City Council desires for itself and for all other City legislatives bodies that are subject to the Brown Act to be able to choose to meet via video and/or teleconference as necessary; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 361 the City Council will review the findings required to be made at least every 30 days.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council hereby finds on behalf of itself and all other City legislative bodies: (1) a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor; (2) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City’s legislative bodies to meet safely in person; and (3) local health officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and all other City legislative bodies may continue to meet via video and/or teleconference as needed during the COVID-19 emergency.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Clayton City Council, State of California, on this 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

Resolution ##-2023 AB 361 January 17, 2023
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON,
CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID 19 transmission during a public meeting.

1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of January 5, 2023 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and Covid-19 wastewater surveillance are stable but remain elevated. In addition to this, the predominant variant of Covid-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of Covid-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.

2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.

3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.

4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.

5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.

6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.

7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.

Revised 1-5-2023
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
Agenda Item: 4(d)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
DATE: January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Clayton Declaring a Local Emergency Due to Adverse Weather Conditions Beginning December 31, 2022 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Clayton declaring a local emergency due to adverse weather conditions beginning December 31, 2022.

BACKGROUND
The City of Clayton and surrounding areas have been significantly impacted by significant storms with heavy rain and strong winds over the last couple of weeks. City maintenance and police staff have been working diligently to address storm impacts as they have occurred in the community.

On January 4, 2023, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency statewide beginning as early as December 27, 2022. Because Clayton did not have any significant storm impacts or costs prior to December 31, 2022, the local state of emergency begins on December 31, 2022. In order to ensure that any extraordinary costs the City incurs related to storm impacts beginning as of December 31, 2022 are eligible for reimbursement if funds are available, the City of Clayton’s Director of Emergency Services must issue a proclamation of local emergency within 10 days of the start of the emergency. The Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) issued the local proclamation on January 10, 2023.

Additionally, declaration of a local emergency will allow the City greater flexibility in procuring needed services and equipment to respond to storm-related damage. This is important in order to be able to respond quickly and limit risks to property and our community.

Subject: Resolution Ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring a Local Emergency due to Adverse Weather Conditions beginning December 31, 2022 Date: January 17, 2023

Government Code also requires that the City Council ratify and adopt the declaration of local emergency within seven days of such declaration in order for the declaration to remain active, thus the placement of this item on the City Council agenda for January 17th.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact directly relating to the declaration of a local emergency. The City has already incurred at least $30,000 in extraordinary expenses related to adverse weather beginning on December 31, 2022 and continuing through at least the first two weeks of January 2023 and the ultimate costs for road and trail repairs will likely be much higher.

Given that there have been both statewide and national emergency declarations, Clayton must have a local declaration of emergency to be eligible for any reimbursement funding if it is made available. At this point it is not clear whether the City would be eligible for any reimbursement. However, absent a local emergency declaration the City would not be eligible for any reimbursement.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Clayton Dated January 10, 2023 Declaring a Local Emergency Beginning as of December 31, 2022 Resolution ##-2023 Weather Emerg Decl 1 January 17, 2023 RESOLUTION NO. ##-2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY BY THE DIRECTOR OF

EMERGENCY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8558(c) and 8630 authorize the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 8630 such an emergency may be proclaimed by the governing body or by an official designated by ordinance adopted by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, Clayton Municipal Code section 2.08.060 provides that the Director of Emergency Services, who is the City Manager, may proclaim the existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services determined that the circumstances of extreme peril to public safety described below are so severe and require immediate remedial action and adopted a proclamation declaring a local emergency on January 10, 2023; and WHEREAS, the proclamation of a local emergency is warranted by virtue of the extreme peril to the safety of persons and property in the City caused by powerful storm systems beginning on December 31, 2022, with additional and continuing major storms and a series of atmospheric river systems threatening the San Francisco Bay Area with a high volume of continuous rain as well as strong winds starting on January 4, 2023, which are beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and
WHEREAS, heavy rains and strong winds have resulted in damage to numerous trees and tree limbs requiring extraordinary efforts to maintain safe roadways and freely flowing creeks; WHEREAS, much of the damage to trees and tree limbs required additional specialized equipment and crews to immediately respond to protect public safety; WHEREAS, Mt. Diablo Creek has suffered flooding due to exceptionally heavy rains, cresting over its banks and onto adjacent trails.

WHEREAS, Contra Costa County and the Governor of the State of California have issued Proclamations Declaring a State of Emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proclamation of a local emergency is warranted by virtue of the extreme peril to the safety of persons and property in the City caused by continuing major storms as described above.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Clayton that it is hereby proclaimed and ordered that the Proclamation of Local Emergency, issued by the Director of Emergency Services, is hereby ratified and confirmed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local Resolution ##-2023 Weather Emerg Decl 2 January 17, 2023 emergency and shall proclaim the termination of the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of said local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the Emergency Organization of the City shall be those prescribed by state law, ordinances and resolutions of the City, and by the City of Clayton Emergency Operations Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Clayton City Council, State of California, on this 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk

Agenda Item: 4(e)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Larry Theis, City Engineer
DATE: January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Approve a Grant Application for the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Funding Including: 1) Adopting a Resolution Approving the Grant Application, Finding the Project is Categorically Exempt Under CEQA and Authorizing Filing with the County Clerk Recorder, and 2) Adopting a Resolution to Exempt the City of Claytonfrom Forming a Separate Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Designating the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee as the Review Body for TDA Funding
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant application for the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement project and find the project categorically exempt with respect to CEQA by adopting the attached resolution. In addition, the City Council is recommended to adopt another resolution to exempt the City of Clayton from forming its own bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee and designate the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee as the review body for TDA funding.

BACKGROUND
The City currently has a Downtown Pedestrian Improvements project within the approved capital improvement program (CIP). The City has already secured $252,000 in funding from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program for this project. Based on the City Engineer’s preliminary review of the project, this project would be eligible for another grant program, TDA, that is focused on bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The initial estimate for the project indicates that it is not fully funded by the existing grant funds. Therefore, staff is requesting the City Council approve the TDA grant application which is seeking $40,421 to fully fund the project which includes engineering design, construction improvements, and inspection/construction management services.

The City Engineering team has started the preliminary design for the project and has reached the 35% stage. The proposed improvements include 1) adding a raised crosswalk with rectangular rapid flashing beacons just north of the Oak St./Center St. intersection to align with the existing pedestrian path that heads west into Mt. Diablo Elementary School; 2) converting existing crosswalks to raised crosswalks for the free right turn from southbound Marsh Creek Road onto Main St. and the southern leg across Marsh Creek Road from the Plaza/Trail area to The Grove Park. See aerial map below for locations.

The MTC allocation for the TDA grant varies annually. MTC has not yet notified Contra Costa County of the amount of TDA funding available for bicycle and pedestrian projects within the County for fiscal year 2023-2024, however the recent total funding pool for the County has been between $800,000 to $1,100,000. Generally, most agencies who are awarded TDA grants receive funding ranging between $25,000 and $150,000 per project. It is possible that an award for less than the request is granted which will require the city to identify additional funding sources to proceed with the project.

DISCUSSION
As part of MTC’s TDA grant requirements, it is required that all project applications be reviewed by the local agency’s designated bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, with members appointed/selected by their elected city council. Since the City of Clayton, along with many other Contra Costa Cities, have not designated a specific bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, MTC allows those agencies to have their applications pre-screened by the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee (CCCBAC) if their City Council passes a resolution (attached) confirming so.

The CCCBAC accepted Clayton’s preliminary application for review pending a resolution being passed by its Council. The CCCBAC was convened on December 12, 2022 to prescreen TDA applications from the County and all the cities that do not have their own bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. City staff were not invited to participate in the meeting.

The review was convened over ZOOM and reviewed the preliminary applications of eleven proposed projects with the aid of using Google maps and street view. The CCCBAC’s comments on the City of Clayton’s application are highlighted on page 3 of 6 (attached). To summarize their comments, the committee would like more clarifying maps of the project locations, concerns of the effectiveness of the improvements, more consideration of bicycle line of sight, consider different crosswalk surface from pavers, and a relatively high contingency of 25%.

Staff is seeking further clarification on these general comments to pinpoint which of the locations are of specific concern to blind spots for bicyclists and why pavers should be reconsidered prior to the final application deadline. The designer and traffic engineering consultant have reevaluated the proposed improvements and determined they are still appropriate and best meet the challenges of improved pedestrian safety and vehicular speed reduction. Staff believes more explanation and better maps will provide better context for the reviewers, including having an in-person field meeting.

Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 (c) “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines. The City Engineer will file the CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk; submission of the filed Notice is required as part of the application process.

Final applications are due to the County and TDA Subcommittee on January 26, 2023. A field review will be conducted by the TDA Subcommittee in late February 2023 to evaluate the competing projects in Contra Costa County and recommend zero, partial or full grant funding for submitted projects. The grant funding recommendation will be presented at the Mayor’s Conference for approval in April/May 2023 and County’s Board of Supervisors approval in May/June 2023. Lastly, the final recommended applications will be forwarded to MTC for allocation approval. Historically, MTC does not formally approve the project list and funding allocation until late summer or early fall. If the project is recommended for TDA grant allocation, the project funding will be updated in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT/CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the TDA grant application for $40,421 to provide an opportunity for supplemental funds to the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements project. There is minimal downside to seeking these annual grant funds aside from the time and effort of staff to prepare the application and participate in the field review evaluation. If the project does not receive any TDA funding, the City may choose to supplement gas tax or Measure J Return to Source funds for any costs beyond the already secured $252,000 TLC grant; or choose to down scope the project to fit within the existing secured funding.

Attachments: 1. TDA Grant Application including Resolution [11 pp.]

2. Notice of Exemption (CEQA) [1 pp.]

3. Resolution approving Countywide BAC [2 pp.]

4. Comments from Countywide BAC [6 pp.]
FY 2023/2024 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Fund Application
Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project
City of Clayton
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON REQUESTING FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AN ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING

AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 CLASS 1 (C)

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton, California declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Clayton directs the City Engineer to file a Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act for this project; and furthermore, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Clayton to carry out the project; and furthermore, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Clayton attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.

Resolution ##-2023 FY24 TDA Application January 17, 2023 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Attachment: Attachment A
Attachment B
Resolution No. ##-2023
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding Findings

1. That the City of Clayton is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Clayton legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.

2. That the City of Clayton has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.

3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).

4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.

5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).

7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Clayton within the prior five fiscal years.

8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project.

9. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual or is in a National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document.

10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years).

11. That the City of Clayton agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 1 Resolution No. ##-2023 page 1 of 7
Attachment B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form

1. Agency City of Clayton

2. Primary Contact Larry Theis, City Engineer

3. Mailing Address 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, CA 94517

4. Email Address [email protected] 5. Phone Number (925) 890-9732

6. Secondary Contact (in
the event primary is
not available)
Jason Chen

7. Mailing address (if
different) N/A☒

8. Email Address [email protected] 9. Phone Number (415) 606-5317

10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from above):

11. Project Title Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project

12. Amount requested $40,421 13. Fiscal Year of
Claim
2023/2024

14. Description of Overall Project:

15. Project Scope Proposed for Funding: (Project level environmental, preliminary planning, and ROW are ineligible uses of TDA funds.)

16. Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project location is provided below:

Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)

17. Is the project in an Equity Priority Community? Yes☐ No☒ Please see project description below.

Construction
Please see project location map attached.

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 2

18. Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit-Oriented Community? Yes☐ No☒

19. Project Budget and Schedule
Project Eligibility
A. Has the project been reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? Yes☒ No☐ If “YES,” identify the date and provide a copy or link to the agenda. December 12, 2022 If "NO," provide an explanation).

B. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? Yes☒ No☐ If "NO," provide expected date:__________________
C. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? Yes☐ No☒ (If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page)
D. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria N/A Yes☐ No☐ pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? E. 1. Is the project categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15301(c), Yes☒ No☐ Existing Facility?

2. If “NO” above, is the project is exempt from CEQA for another reason? Yes☐ No☐ Cite the basis for the exemption. __________________________ N/A☐ If the project is not exempt, please check “NO,” and provide environmental documentation, as appropriate.

F. Estimated Completion Date of project (month and year): March 2024 G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has Yes☒ No☐ the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility, please identify below and provide the agreement.

H. Is a Complete Streets Checklist required for this project ? Yes☐ No☒ If the amount requested is over $250,000 or if the total project phase or construction phase is over $250,000, a Complete Streets checklist is likely required. Please attach the Complete Streets checklist or record of review, as applicable. More information and the form may be found here: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets The requested amount is less than $250,000 and the construction phase is less than $250,000 Project
Phase
TDA 3 Other Funds Total Cost Estimated Completion
(month/year)
Bike/Ped
Plan -
ENV -

PA&ED -
PS&E 60,148 60,148 March 2023
ROW -
CON 40,421 205,852 246,273 March 2024
Total Cost 40,421 266,000 306,421
TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 3 Description of the overall project:

The project consists of the following elements to improve pedestrian safety in the downtown of Clayton:
• Raised crosswalk north of the intersection of Oak Street and Center Street. • Raised crosswalk at the southern leg of Marsh Creek Road and Main Street intersection with the potential for an additional raised crossing at the existing southbound slip lanes. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing beacon (RRFB) at each intersection and signing and striping updates.

Project location map:

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 4 Site Map:

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 5 Additional Information:

This crosswalk leads to a pedestrian bridge to the west which heavily travelled by students and parents who enter and exit the rear of Mt. Diablo Elementary School to the west (left) of Oak Street.

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 6 The City’s downtown park , The Grove, is a major congregation spot and is located to the southwest of this intersection. The raised crosswalks will also slow vehicular traffic using Marsh Creek Road, in particular when traveling southbound coming off Clayton Road which is four lane major arterial into the downtown core.

The Grove Park
TDA Article 3 Claim Applications TDA Article 3 Attachment B Page 7 Detail Cost Estimate:

Notice of Exemption
To: County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
555 Escobar St.
□ Martinez, CA 94553
From: City of Clayton, Lead Agency & Applicant
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Project Title: Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project
Project Location – Specific: Near the intersection of Oak St/Center Street and Marsh Creek Rd/Main St.

Project Location – County: Contra Costa
Project Location – City: Clayton
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:

The project consists of the following elements to improve pedestrian safety in the downtown of Clayton:
• Raised crosswalk north of the intersection of Oak Street and Center Street. • Raised crosswalk at the southern leg of Marsh Creek Road and Main Street intersection with the potential for an additional raised crossing at the existing southbound slip lanes. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing beacon (RRFB) at each intersection and signing and striping updates.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Clayton Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Clayton Department of Engineering Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption, 15301 Class 1 (c) Reason Why Project is Exempt:

Section 15301, Class 1: minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. The pedestrian improvements do not create additional automobile lanes.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Larry Theis, City Engineer
Telephone: 925-890-9732
Signature: ____________________________________
City of Clayton
Date: _______________
Resolution No. ##-2023 Countywide BAC Page 1 of 2 January 17, 2023 RESOLUTION NO. ##-2023

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE LOCAL BICYCLE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC)/BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (BPAC) REQUIREMENT AND DESIGNATING THE CONTRA COSTA

COUNTYWIDE BAC AS THE REVIEW BODY FOR TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FUNDING IN THE

CITY OF CLAYTON

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for establishing policies and procedures for Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle (TDA 3) grant funding; and
WHEREAS, in June 2013, the MTC updated TDA 3 policies by adopting Resolution 4108 which require each jurisdiction to have a local Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)/Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle plans; and WHEREAS, MTC guidance allows a local agency to apply for an exemption from using a local BAC/BPAC if it can demonstrate that the countywide BAC/BPAC provides for expanded city representation; and
WHEREAS, each member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has appointed a representative on the Contra Costa Countywide BAC; and WHEREAS, said representation for each Supervisorial District in turn represents the local agencies within each District.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Clayton, California:

1. The Contra Costa Countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation in the City of Clayton.

2. The City of Clayton hereby directs the City Manager or designee to apply to MTC for exemption from the city BAC/BPAC requirement.

3. The City of Clayton hereby identifies the Contra Costa Countywide BAC as the review body for Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funding of pedestrian and bicycle projects in the City of Clayton.

4. The City of Clayton hereby identifies the County Supervisorial District 4 representative on the Contra Costa Countywide BAC as the City of Clayton representative on said committee.

Resolution No. ##-2023 Countywide BAC Page 2 of 2 January 17, 2023 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CBAC)
DECEMBER 12, 2022
5:00 - 7:00 P.M.

VIA ZOOM

MEETING MINUTES

1. Meeting began at 5:02 pm. – Called to order by Chair Bruce “Ole” Ohlson.

ATTENDEES: Peter Culshaw, Jill Ray (District II), Glenn Umont (District II), Norm Cohen (District III), Bruce “Ole” Ohlson (District V), Mark Ross (Mayor’s Conference), Jerry Fahy (County), and Sherri Reed (County)
Introduction of newest member, Norman Cohen.

2. Public Comment: There was no Public Comment.

3. Nomination and Election of the Chair and Vice-Chair: Peter Culshaw was nominated and selected as the new Chair. Norm Cohen was nominated and selected as Vice-Chair.

4. Review preliminary 2023/2024 Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 applications for funding of bicycle and pedestrian projects:

General: The Committee commented they would like to see more applications include letters from the schools and other agencies supporting and/or acknowledging projects that are intended to reduce stress on bicyclists and pedestrians.

CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Project
CBAC Comments: The Committee commented their projects are well-deserved, plus the Committee noticed the in-kind contributions or Local Match.

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

CITY OF ANTIOCH
• West 10th Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Improvements CBAC Comments: The Committee commented that crosswalks should be provided at all four quadrants of the intersections. The proposed project is expensive, and the City is not providing any Local Funds as a match. There is not clear signage for bicyclists or a stated bike lane, but 10-foot lanes are appreciated. Committee asked if 10-foot lane is for parking too. The submittal is unclear. Sharrows were suggested, but Committee is divided about how they feel about them, but okay with the recommendation. This project is all signage and stripping. Committee doesn’t see how this design reduces stress on bicyclists. Committee recommends City add language as to how this project will reduce the level of stress.

CITY OF OAKLEY
• Pedestrian Crossing Lighting System Installation
CBAC Comments: The Committee would like to see the City include some Local Funds as a match for this project. Committee agrees there is not much traffic on Live Oak Avenue (at Big Break Trail), but more on O’Hara Avenue. Committee commented the buttons work well but recommend the pavement/concrete extends to the post and back to make the pushbuttons accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Committee would like to see on maps other areas in the community with similar signage. Committee commented the signage is for pedestrian crossing and not multiuse trail. There is a lot of signage for motorists. Trees should be trimmed around signs. Committee recommends green paint in the crosswalk for bicyclists. Committee members would like to see that bicycles and pedestrians are automatically detected as they are approaching the street-crossing while using the trail. This detection would be in addition to the push-button on the post.

CITY OF EL CERRITO
• El Cerrito del Norte TOD Complete Street Improvement Project CBAC Comments: The Committee commented on how this project reduces the stress for bicyclists. County reminded Committee the City is only reimbursed for what they use and build. The Cost Estimate stated ‘revocable’ on many line items; County clarified definition. Committee complimented the use of crosswalks in all quadrants.

Committee recommends push buttons and easy access to them. The placement of the button near on-ramp is unclear. If bicyclist doesn’t see it, they may think they have

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

the right of way. Where the pole is located may work for the pedestrian but not the bicyclist. It's not clear how bicyclists are supposed to access the button. Committee commented that there is one way traffic and are concerned how bicyclists will get around. Committee felt that stronger riders would use the green markings and would travel through and go around. Committee commented travel for bicyclists should be counterclockwise. City should identify path of travel for bicyclists. Committee asked for definition on several words and acronyms. Members and other attendees provided definitions, but Committee would like City to make it clear.

CITY OF CLAYTON
• Town Center Pedestrian Improvement Project
CBAC Comments: The Committee is pleased to see the City is contributing a good Local Match to the project. Committee would like to see maps of a larger area and how this project fits in the community and library. The Committee feels better site maps are needed. The Committee commented this project looks like it may be more dangerous with improvements than as is. The crosswalks recommended appears to create blind spots for the bicyclists. Motorists coming out of the turn do not have enough time to see the bicyclists. The Committee commented the existing design may be better than what is proposed. The Committee discussed the use of pavers creating raised crosswalks. The Committee is divided on the use of pavers. The Committee doesn’t fully understand what the project is proposing. The Committee asks where the storm drains are located and if there is flooding in this area. The contingency percentage seems high. Are they asking for the whole contingency? The Committee is unclear about what the City is asking for.

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
• Spruce Street Sidewalk
CBAC Comments: The Committee would like to see more bicyclist projects come from the City, instead of sidewalk projects. The Committee commented the school district should be building or at least contributing to the construction of sidewalks in and around the school. The Committee questioned other money sources as well. The Committee says the City can improve their application by getting other funding. The Committee would like to see a letter of support from the school.

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

CITY OF SAN PABLO
• Safe Routes to E.M. Downer Elementary School Project
CBAC Comments: The Committee commented that the City, at their own admittance, haven’t even conducted their own studies yet, so project does not appear ready. On page 4 of the Cost Estimate, line 3, Remove Traffic Stripe, $1.50 sf seems too cheap as it reads. Should it possibly be linear foot? The estimate should be reviewed to ensure accuracy. The City will maintain flex post marker. Committee didn’t like the north arrow as it was tough to locate on certain pages.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
• Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
CBAC Comments: The Committee wasn’t clear if the City needed to acquire land for this project. County commented TDA requires projects must have total right of way.

The Committee is pleased about additional funding. This project will probably move forward even if not allocated TDA Funds. The Committee commented the area around the library is very active. The Committee is happy with this project but thinks the cost is high. Staff added the cost could be coming from the paving improvements. The Committee recommended relocating the radar sign for traffic calming. Also, the cost of Best Management Practices is high. The Committee would like to see the project upgraded from a Class 3 to a Class 2 bicycle facility. The Committee questions where the scope of the whole project is. On the table for 5-year plan, it is unclear what the blue represents. The Committee would like to see bike lanes put in after paving. The Committee wants assurance there will be a bike lane on Oak Park Road. If it’s in the plan, the Committee would like to see crosswalks on the map. The Committee asks about line 17 of the Cost Estimate, is ‘ca’ a typo, should it be ‘ea’? There are two contingencies, Estimated contingency and Construction contingency. It’s unclear why there are two and what’s the difference. On page 9, item D, there is a check box for yes and one for no. Neither box is checked. That should be clarified. The Committee asks if parking is allowed where the bike lane is indicated.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS – WEST COUNTY
• Tara Hills Drive Crosswalk Improvements
CBAC Comments: The Committee recommends shark teeth striping/markings. The Committee asks why there are so many stop signs and if the reflective barrier is in the way of the crosswalk. The Committee commented there is no room for the

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

proposed pole. It is already too crowded there. The Committee questioned whether that area was even ADA compliant. The Committee doesn’t see how this project is calming traffic. It seems pedestrians are in more danger. Speed is posted as 25 mph, but speeding is a problem. The Committee recommends implementing something to change the behavior of the motorists. Not sure how, maybe stop signs or speed humps. The Committee likes the idea of second crosswalk. The Committee asks whether bicycles will be able to pass bulbouts without having to enter the travel lane – maintain the bicycle lane along the bulbout. The Committee questions if this project can calm traffic. The Committee is happy about the Local Match provided for funding.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS – CENTRAL COUNTY
• San Miguel Drive Pedestrian Path
CBAC Comments: The Committee asks about the City of Walnut Creek agreeing to match sidewalks. The City said they are committed to coordinating with the County.

The Committee recognized this project was submitted before and the sidewalks weren’t favorable because they couldn’t be widened later for bike lane. The Committee noticed there are no page numbers on this application. The Committee asked if there would be asphalt berm cutouts along the right of way in case of an emergency. The Committee liked there were many letters of recommendations, but then realized they are several years old. The Committee would like current letters of support. On the Cost Estimate, item 4, should it be linear feet or lump sum since there is only one. • Hemme Avenue Pedestrian Path
CBAC Comments: The Committee recommends connecting to the existing sidewalk; looks like it connects in front of the school to the Iron Horse Trail. There is no sidewalk around the park. The goal is to match width of existing sidewalk. The Committee agrees traffic is bad in this area.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS – EAST COUNTY
• Kevin Drive Bike Lanes
CBAC Comments: Some of the Committee members questioned if this project is really needed. The Committee recommends a bike lane on Kevin Drive in its entirety.

The Committee discussed why a bicyclist would cut through Kevin Drive instead of continuing along Willow Pass Road or Port Chicago Highway. Mostly because there is a slight incline and heavier traffic. The Committee recommends taking out red no parking zones in front of park to add bike lane. The Committee recommends a

Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda

crosswalk to the park and on both sides of Willow Pass Road. The Committee discussed parking near the park. There were many suggestions, but Committee was divided. The Committee recommends widening the sidewalk to 10 feet to make up for no bike lane in front of the park on Kevin Drive, possibly add crosswalk and curb cutout. The Committee would like to see more sharrows and signage for bicycles.

5. Next Steps – Jerry Fahy
• CBAC Comments sent out week of December 19, 2022- to be reviewed by Chair (Peter) and Vice-Chair (Norm). Peter will be out of town so Ole’ will review. • Final Applications Due Thursday, January 26, 2023
• Field Review – TBD (possibly end of February)

6. Adjourned – 7:40 p.m.

JF:sr
G:\transeng\TDA Grant\2023-2024 TDA\CBAC Minutes - December 12 Meeting.docx Agenda Item: 4(f)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: REINA J. SCHWARTZ, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH THEIS ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2024 WITH UP TO FOUR ONE-YEAR RENEWALS, FOR CITY

ENGINEERING SERIVCES, CONTINUING THE APPOINTMENT OF LARRY

THEIS, PE AS CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF CLAYTON, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Resolution, approve a Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates for contract City Engineer services through June 30, 2024, with up to four one-year renewals by mutual agreement, continue the appointment of Larry Theis, PE as Clayton’s City Engineer and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

BACKGROUND
In March 2022, the City Council approved a professional services agreement for City Engineering services with the firm Anchor CM and appointed Larry Theis, PE of that firm as City Engineer.

Recently, Mr. Theis has established his own firm, Theis Engineering & Associates. Staff has provided notice to Anchor CM of the City’s intent to retain Larry Theis as the City Engineer for Clayton and thus will terminate its agreement with Anchor CM. To continue with Larry Theis, PE as City Engineer for Clayton, staff recommends approval of a new agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates under the same terms and conditions as the existing agreement with Anchor CM.

DISCUSSION
In early 2022, the City went through a comprehensive RFP process to select a new firm for City Engineer and Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) services. Based on that process, the City awarded the firm of Anchor CM with the agreement and the principal with Anchor CM who was named to serve as the City Engineer/Oakhurst GHAD General Subject: Adopt a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates through June 30, 2024 With up to Four One-Year Renewals, Continuing the Appointment of Larry Theis, PE as City Engineer for the City of Clayton, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Date: January 17, 2023

Manager for the City of Clayton was Larry Theis, PE. Prior to joining Anchor, Mr. Theis was the Public Works Director and City Engineer for the City of Orinda.

Since the contract began, Mr. Theis has done an excellent job on behalf of the City of Clayton, bringing a number of projects forward for completion and providing a more comprehensive approach to Clayton’s Engineering needs.

The City was notified on Tuesday January 10th that Mr. Theis has started his own firm.

Although the City’s experience with Anchor CM has been positive and productive, it is in the City’s best interest to retain Mr. Theis as City Engineer/Oakhurst GHAD General Manager and avoid the disruption of changing City Engineers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Theis Engineering & Associates is proposing to provide services to Clayton under the same terms and conditions as has been the case under Anchor CM. This means that there is no financial change associated with executing the new agreement.

Attachment:1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates Attachment 3: Consultant Proposal
Resolution ##-2023 City Engineer January 17, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPROVING

A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THEIS ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024 WITH UP TO FOUR ONE-YEAR

RENEWALS, FOR CITY ENGINEERING SERVICES, CONTINUING THE

APPOINTMENT OF LARRY THEIS, PE AS CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF

CLAYTON AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, in March 2022, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Anchor CM for City Engineering Services and named Larry Theis, PE as the City Engineer for the City of Clayton;
WHEREAS, Mr. Theis has now started his own firm, Theis Engineering & Associates; WHEREAS, Mr. Theis has performed well as the City Engineer for Clayton and the City desires to retain Mr. Theis as the Clayton City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice to Anchor CM of its intent to terminate the agreement effective January 20, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Clayton, California, does hereby:

1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Theis Engineering & Associates for city engineering services including serving as City Engineer for the period of January 20, 2023 through June 30, 2024 with up to four one-year renewals authorized by mutual agreement of the parties;

2. Continue the appointment of Larry Theis, PE as City Engineer for the City of Clayton; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution ##-2023 City Engineer January 17, 2023

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk
1 CITY OF CLAYTON

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of March 15, 2022 by and between the City of Clayton, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California 94517 (“City”), and Theis Engineering & Associates, a California S-Corporation with its principal place of business at 4309 Rose Lane Concord CA 94518 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services related to City engineering and assessment district services (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B”, Consultant’s Proposal. b. The Schedule of Charges may be adjusted by mutual agreement of the City and the Consultant once annually beginning July 1, 2023 and each July 1st thereafter (effective July 1st through the following June 30th). The rates and monthly fee shall be adjusted by the CPIU San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, April to April. In no case shall the adjustment be less than 3% annually or more than 5% annually.
c. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed including work completed and hours of services rendered by Consultant. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

2 3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Time of Performance.

Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The initial term of this Agreement is January 18, 2023 through June 30, 2024. The Agreement may be extended by written amendment and mutual agreement of the parties for up to four additional one-year terms.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.
3 8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Consultant
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or equivalent.
(iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract 4 (8) Broad Form Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period 5 required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include limited contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
6 g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
7 i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor the City Council, nor any member of the City Council, nor any of the officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. To the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s obligations under the above indemnity shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, but shall not otherwise be reduced. If Consultant’s obligations to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arise out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional services” (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then upon Consultant obtaining a final 8 adjudication that liability under a claim is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, Consultant’s obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.
9 14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Larry Theis, PE as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.
10 21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Attn: City Manager
CONSULTANT:

Theis Engineering & Associates
4309 Rose Lane
Concord, CA 94518
Attn: Larry Theis, PE
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, 11 Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

31. Disputes
In the event of any dispute between the Parties related to this Agreement, the Parties agree to first negotiate in good faith toward a resolution with participation by representatives of each Party holding sufficient authority to resolve the dispute. If such dispute cannot be resolved in this manner, before any action or litigation is initiated other than as required to secure lien rights, and upon mutual agreement of the parties, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation using the American Arbitration Association or another mediator as mutually selected by the Parties. Such mediation shall be completed within a reasonable period of time following either Party’s written demand with each Party to bear an equal share of the mediation fees and its own respective attorney and consultant fees and costs.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
12 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAYTON

AND THEIS ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF CLAYTON Theis Engineering & Associates
By: By:

Reina J. Schwartz Its:

City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
Lawrence Theis, President
13 EXHIBIT A

1. City Engineering Services
The role of the City Engineering includes the administration of engineering related processes and procedures. These duties include:
 Assist in CIP scoping, prioritization, and budgeting
 Representation as City Engineer at internal and agency meetings  Approval of permits and waivers
 Availability to the public and private developers to handle matters dealing with the engineering functions of City government
 Coordination with other agencies for the review of plans, projects and studies  Assistance in the solicitation of proposals for CIP design work  Assistance in the procurement of contractors and vendors for public works construction.

The City Engineer will also address failed infrastructure for immediate safety concerns and coordinate preliminary opinion on repair approach as well as coordinate with Maintenance staff on the maintenance, operations, and repair of public facilities.

City Engineer should be familiar with:
 Various regional, state and federal transportation funding entities and the application process, fund/project management and reporting requirements for those entities.
 The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional permit (MRP) 2.0 and the upcoming MRP 3.0, including annual report preparation and submittal.
 Contra Costa Clean Water Program and applicable C-3 Guidebook.

2. General Engineering Services (Non-General Fund Capital Projects) The firm is to provide access to specialized technical staff ready to perform studies, designs, project and construction management on any tasks or projects the City identifies.

These efforts include the preparation of site evaluations, planning and preliminary engineering reports, plans and specifications for CIP construction projects, along with detailed schedules and cost estimates. This work would also include any necessary field work, drafting, design, surveying, environmental documents, bid assistance, construction management & inspection, and project management – as well as the preparation of specialized engineering studies on a variety of subjects including, but not limited to drainage studies, traffic studies, and pavement evaluations. 14 3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
The firm is to provide staffing to represent the City and interact with the public in processing the City’s public permit applications. This work includes plan check for civil engineering design plans which includes, but is not limited to street, sewer, water, stormwater, recycled water, green infrastructure, storm drain, fiber optic, grading, erosion control, signing & striping, street lighting, traffic signal and all related engineering studies, including hydrology and hydraulics, soils, water and sewer studies and structural analyses. It should be noted that water service for the City of Clayton is provided by Contra Costa Water District. Sewer service is provided by the City of Concord including maintenance, plan review and sewer capital projects.

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services
i. The City currently has eight (8) districts (listed below) that require the services listed below for annual administration and assessment levies. It should be noted that some of the districts have restrictions on the amount of funding that can be spent on administration of the district.

District Name Type of District
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District
(1,484 parcels)
Geological Hazard Abatement District,
Public Resources Code, Sec 26500 et seq
Streetlight Assessment District (3,482) 1919 Act Streetlight District High Street Bridge Assessment District (5) Permanent Road Division Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District (16) 1913 Act
Oak Street Bridge Assessment District (9) Permanent Road Division Oak Street Sewer Assessment District (10) 1913 Act District Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District (24) 1972 Act, 1982 Act District Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (18)
Public Services
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of
1982
A. Research - Obtain all available information from the City regarding the districts, including the current assessment data files, electronic map files, listing of projected expenditures and revenues and any additional information that is available. Update the current assessment data files with the latest Assessor’s parcel number and land use code information if needed.
15 B. Meetings and Coordination - Meet with City staff to review the districts, receive budgets and confirm schedule, conduct one status meeting in conjunction with the draft Engineer’s Reports and one for the final Engineer’s Report, if required, attend the City Council meetings considering the Resolutions of Intention and the public hearings, and provide technical support and answer questions. At the public hearing provide a presentation to present at the public hearing. Total of up to 8 (eight) meetings.

C. Estimated Budgets - Review budgets for the upcoming fiscal year by establishing projected costs based on prior year estimates and actual/projected changes in costs and improvements. Review debt service schedule for the assessment districts and ensure the current year levy follows the debt service schedule for each assessment district.

D. Engineer’s Reports - Prepare the Engineer’s Reports setting the annual assessment rates for the next fiscal year based on budget estimates from City, and including reduced copies of the updated Assessment Diagrams, if revised. The Engineer’s Reports will also incorporate any new annexations into the districts during the previous year. Provide copies of the draft Reports for review and comment. Provide a PDF copy and up to 4 (4) bound copies of the finalized Reports and up to (2) bound copies of the Preliminary Assessment Rolls for processing and filing.

E. Diablo Estates BAD Noticing and Mailing - Provide to the City packets including a notice of the public hearing with a copy of the draft Engineer’s Report, to be mailed to the owner of record for each property within the Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District. This packet shall be in a mailing envelop with the appropriate mailing label with a Assessor parcel number, owner name and mailing address, ready to have postage applied and mailed by the City.
ii. Submittal to Contra Costa County - After confirmation of assessments, prepare an Assessment Roll in electronic format, as required by the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion of assessments on the property tax bills.

Submit the roll for each district to Contra Costa County and, after receipt of the County’s exception report, make any required corrections. Deliver a copy of the electronic files for each district to City staff. iii. Formation/Annexation Services
The City may require the following services for any additional development that may occur within the City limits. The following tasks would be required for any Formation or Annexation. The City will require a detailed proposal for each formation or annexation taking into account the tasks listed below:
16 A. Kick-off Meeting - Meeting with City staff and property owner representative (if appropriate) to discuss the scope of the work, the proposed project schedule, the mechanisms and/or liaisons for obtaining the necessary information for the analysis (such as improvement plans, proposed land use designations, Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information, etc.) any properties that may have special needs, considerations or exemptions, and other information regarding the proposed improvements and properties.

B. Research - Gather support data, proposed development plans, proposed zoning information, preliminary improvement plans, cost estimates for all construction and maintenance components, locations of the proposed public improvements to be maintained, and any other pertinent information relating to the proposed improvements. A database will need to be compiled based on the Assessor’s Roll and Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information for the properties within the Development Area, including property size, land use data and property ownership.

C. Coordination - Coordinate with City staff, property owners, legal counsel, and other project consultants via conference call, email, or in person.

Participate in meetings with City staff, and the project team as requested.

D. CFD: Rate & Method of Apportionment - Review construction cost estimates including direct and indirect costs. Develop a special tax revenue model based on the proposed development product mix. Prepare preliminary special tax rate calculations based on the above analysis.

Determine the special tax allocation methodology and formula to be applied in accordance with the Act. Apportion the costs of facilities in the form of special taxes to be levied upon the parcels of land within the CFD using the special tax methodologies determined above. Prepare the Rate and Method of Apportionment for attachment to the Resolution of Intention. Review comments with City staff, the project team and property owners and finalize based on comments received
E. LLMD: Engineer’s Report - Prepare a preliminary & final Engineer’s Report which contains all items as required by the Code, including the 1972 Act, Proposition 218, and relevant case law, including a description of the proposed improvements/ services, an engineer’s estimate of the construction costs/ service costs and incidental expenses, a description of the assessment methodology, boundary map/assessment diagram and the assessment roll.

F. CFD: Proposed Boundary Map - Prepare the proposed Boundary Map for recordation pursuant to the Mello‐Roos Act and the County Recorder’s Office. The ability to provide a reduced copy of the Boundary Map for inclusion in reports.

G. CFD: Community Facilities District Report - Prepare a draft CFD Report to reflect final estimated cost of facilities. In summary the report should include:
17  Description of the CFD (including the Proposed Boundary Map)  Description of Facilities and Services
 Cost Estimates
 Rate and Method of Apportionment
 A list of Property Owners
H. Review comments with City staff and financing team and finalize based on comments received. Provide a final PDF copy of the CFD Report I. City Council Meetings - Attend City Council meeting for Resolution of Intention & Public Hearing and election.

J. CFD: Notice of Special Tax Lien - Prepare the required the Notice of Special Tax Liens and record after district formation
K. Bond Issuance - As needed, provide Special Tax Tables including the overlapping debt tables and up to five (5) special tax tables for the preliminary official statement, as required by the Bond Counsel and/or Disclosure Counsel. Certificate of the Special Tax Consultant - Review and execute the certificate of the special tax consultant, as provided by the Bond Counsel.

L. Annexations - All applicable services listed above or as amended as needed.

18 EXHIBIT B
CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL
City of Clayton
Scope of Service Proposal for:

City/Municipal Engineering, Assessment District Services, and Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Management
Theis Engineering and Associates, Inc.

January 12, 2023

2 January 12, 2023
Attn: Reina Schwartz, City Manager
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
RE: City of Clayton – City/Municipal Engineering and Assessment District Services Proposal Dear City Manager Schwartz,
Theis Engineering & Associates, Inc. (Theis Engineering) is pleased to propose our City/Municipal Engineering and Assessment District Services to the City of Clayton (City). Theis Engineering is led by me, Larry Theis, P.E. I have been serving as Clayton’s City Engineer since March of 2022 and am proposing to continue to provide the same services to the City. I spent almost the entirety of my 22 years career as a public agency staff member. My most recent public agency experience was with the City of Orinda (Orinda), where I was the City of Orinda (Orinda) Director of Public Works and Engineering Services as well as their Assistant City Manager. I still approach issues more like a public agency civil servant than a consultant. I think that is the biggest differentiation between my approach compared to other consultants. I understand the expectations of the public agency staff.

I will continue to lead our team of subconsultants: CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) for land development, City Surveyor, civil design work, and environmental support; Advance Mobility Group (AMG) for traffic/transportation, BSK Associates (BSK) for geotechnical and material testing, and Francisco & Associates (F&A) for assessment district administration. Our team of subconsultants are the same subconsultants that have been providing the same services to the City since March of 2022. After having a year of experience, our team has gained valuable experience and knowledge of the City’s needs. Our team has improved some of the existing operations and looks forward to continuing to build on the progress we have already made.

Please contact me at (925) 890-9732 if you have any questions. We look forward to continuing to provide quality services to the City and its residents.

Sincerely,
Larry Theis, P.E.

President

3 Firm Information:

Theis Engineering & Associates was founded in 2023 and led by Larry Theis, P.E. Having spent more than 20 years in the public sector, Larry is very familiar with the challenges that public agency staff face every day. He would like to bring his own expertise and his connections to other talented firms to build the best team for his clients. Most technical consultants do not provide these niche services. It is with this understanding, Larry decided to form his own firm to provide services that are geared toward assisting public agencies by performing the work typical of inhouse staff. His initial goal with founding his firm is to bring hands-on client service to a select number of clients.

Names and Roles of Personnel:

Clayton’s scope of work is broken down in four categories:

1. City Engineering Services:

Larry will perform the typical City Engineer duties and provide oversight to consultants. Larry will provide the majority of the day-to-day city engineering needs of the City and the subconsultants will provide additional technical expertise when needed. Larry will attend city council and committee meetings when needed and be a representative on behalf of the City when working with other agencies, utility companies, or countywide entities.  Larry Theis (Theis Engineering): City Engineer
 Cristiano Melo: Geotechnical
 Hal Williams (CSG): Civil engineering design and evaluation  Joy Bhattacharya (AMG): Traffic/Transportation

2. General Engineering Services (Non-General Fund Capital Projects) As indicated in the above category, Larry will provide oversight of the work and represent the interests of the City under this category.
 Larry Theis (Theis Engineering): City Engineer
 Cristiano Melo: Geotechnical engineering and material testing  Hal Williams (CSG): Civil Engineering design and evaluation  Joy Bhattacharya (AMG): Traffic/Transportation design and evaluation

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
As indicated in category 1 above, Larry will provide general oversight of the work under this category.
 Larry Theis (Theis Engineering): City Engineer including encroachment permit and construction activity permit review and issuance
 Cristiano Melo: Geotechnical engineering
 Joy Bhattacharya (AMG): Traffic/Transportation design and evaluation  Mario Camorongan (CSG): Development review
 David Rubcic (CSG): Final and Parcel Map review

4. Annual Administration/Assessment Levy Services/GHAD Management Similar to the other categories above, Larry will provide the general oversight of the work under this category. Larry will also be the GHAD Manager.  Larry Theis (Theis Engineering): GHAD Manager
 Brian Brown (Francisco & Associates): Assessment District Administration  Cristiano Melo: Geotechnical engineering and field monitoring services

4 Organization Chart:

Resume: Larry Theis, President/Principal Engineer
Licensed State of California Professional Engineer License #C67662 exp. 6/30/23 State of California Notary Public – Contra Costa County #2282509 exp. 3/23/23 Graduated University of California – Berkeley – B.S. Civil & Environmental Engineering 22 Years of Municipal Engineering Experience
Consists of: 1 year as President/Principal Engineer – ANCHOR, public agency engineering firm including City Engineer of Clayton since March 2022 5 years as Director of Public Works and Engineering Services – ORINDA; including 2 years as Assistant City Manager

3 years as City Engineer – ORINDA
11 years as Associate Engineer/Project Manager – CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; including 8 years in Capital Project Design and Delivery and 3 years in Development Review
2 years as Transportation Engineer – CALTRANS District 4 Honors & Awards
o California City Management Foundation (CCMF) member and 2019 New and Future City Manager Seminar Participant
o APWA NorCal 2018 Project of Year – Miner Road Sinkhole Repair (Emergency, Small Cities) o Managed/Oversee Orinda Paving Program; improved the City Average Network Pavement Condition Index from 48 in 2014 to 85 in 2019; 2017 ASCE Outstanding Sustainable Engineering Project
o APWA NorCal 2017 Project of Year – Lamorinda Paving Partnership (Small/Rural Cities) o Contra Costa Local Government Leadership Academy – 2015 graduate o CCCPWD J. Michael Walford Award – 2012 Employee of the Year o APWA NorCal 2007 Project of the Year (over $2 million – Emergency Repair) Lower Walnut Creek Interim Protection Measures Project
o County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) – 2007 Regional Employee of the Year

5 Scope of Services and Planned Approach
Larry has over 20 years of experience working for public agencies, with almost all his experience being for public agencies within Contra Costa County. Larry’s last position at a public agency was at Orinda, where he was their Director of Public Works and Engineering Services as well as their Assistant City Manager. In many ways, the Clayton and Orinda are similar. Larry will be able to draw on those experiences and bring them to the City. In addition, Larry has built many professional relationships with staff at other public agencies that the City regularly coordinates with, such as Caltrans, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Contra Costa County, etc.

Since being appointed to the Clayton’s City Engineer position in March of 2022, Larry has been performing the functions of the City Engineer successfully. Larry assisted and completed some backlogged tasks as well as embarked on new process improvements. There are multi-year tasks that Larry has been working on and he looks forward to assisting the City to complete them.

1. City Engineering Services:

Larry will provide the City Engineering services and provide oversight of all work performed by the subconsultants. Larry is familiar with the needs of the City as he has been performing in this role since March of 2022.

Larry has participated in the City Council meetings as well as other City and regional committee meetings. Larry looks forward to continuing to present updates and provide recommendations to the City Manager and the City Council.

Larry understands it is important to work along with City staff from other departments and not be in a silo. Larry participates in the City’s executive meetings regularly and built professional relationships with the City department heads. Larry has been working closely with the Maintenance Supervisor on a variety of public works maintenance needs and assisted in completing a number of maintenance projects. Larry has been working closely with the Community Development Director on issues such as Contra Costa County Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) on an action plan update as well as development reviews. Larry also worked closely with the Finance Director in switching the Capital Improvement Plan into a new format for fiscal year 2022/2023. When there were staff departures, such as the resignation of the Assistant to the City Manager as well the departure of the Finance Director, Larry has pitched in to assist where he can. Larry looks forward to continuing to participate with the City’s leadership team as if he is a City staff member. Larry prides himself on being able to approach issues as if he is a public agency staff and believes his role is to advocate for the best interests of the City.

As for the interfacing with the general public, Larry has been meeting with residents as well as developers on engineering issues. With Larry located nearby, when needed, Larry has been able to meet onsite. Larry plans to continue to be available to help respond to engineering inquiries.

Outside of the City, Larry has represented the City in meetings with other public agencies that the City regularly collaborates with. Larry's past experience collaborating with staff at these agencies has been helpful as professional working relationships have been already established. Larry plans to continue to bring that benefit to the City as your representative.

6 During the past year, Larry has led his team to complete the requested tasks. With his wealth of public agency experiences, Larry takes a comprehensive approach to the City’s engineering needs. If technical expertise is needed beyond the day-to-day engineering, CSG will provide civil engineering design support and development review, AMG will provide traffic/transportation analyses, and BSK will provide geotechnical services.

2. General Engineering Services (Non-General Fund Capital Projects):

Larry will provide general oversight of the work under this category; similar to how an in-house project manager would oversee a consultant. CSG will perform the civil engineering design work.

AMG will perform traffic/transportation work. BSK will perform geotechnical work as well as material testing. If needed, Larry has professional relationships that he has built over the years that he can outreach for additional technical subconsultants. Larry and CSG have been working together to complete the design of two current of capital improvement projects. Beside technical detail design, there has been extensive coordination with the funding agencies, such as Caltrans and CCTA, which has Larry led. Larry and the CSG design team are looking forward to completing the design of these projects that which will lead to valuable improvements for the City.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services:

Larry will provide general oversight of the work under this category. CSG will provide the land development review. If technical review is required, AMG will perform traffic/transportation review and BSK will perform geotechnical review. During the past year, Larry and CSG have performed development reviews and collaborated with the Planning Department through the development process.

As for permitting, Larry has established a new encroachment permit tracking system for the utilities to better understand their activities within the City. After introducing the new system to the utilities, the utilities have been responding well with the new tracking system. The new system not only helps track their activities, it also assists in the proper invoicing of the services. Larry looks forward to continuing to look for ways that will improve other City’s operations.

4. Annual Administration/Assessment Levy Services/GHAD Management:

Larry will provide the general oversight of the work under this category. Larry will also be the GHAD Manager.

Francisco & Associates (F&A) will perform the annual administration/assessment levy services.

Larry and F&A have been successful in performing the annual administration/assessment levy services for fiscal year 2022/2023. In addition, Larry and F&A have assisted the City in creating the new Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Public Services) (CFD No. 2022-01). Although the need for an assessment district stems from one of the conditions of approval for a development, Larry and F&A recommended and assisted the City in creating this CFD No. 2022- 01 that would not only satisfy that condition for that one development but will allow future development and annexation into this CFD No 2022-01 efficiently. This is an example of Larry and his subconsultants taking a comprehensive approach as they perform their work.

F&A will continue to review Engineer’s Report to provide recommendations to strengthen them and inform the City of potential issues related to compliance with state laws.

7 BSK will provide geotechnical support to Larry. In the past year, Larry and BSK have embarked on evaluating the GHAD. Their efforts included the reconstruction of the Ahwanee sidewalk, and a comprehensive site assessment of the district. Larry and the BSK team look forward to continuing their review of the GHAD and its potential liabilities and providing recommendations.

Cost of Services

1. General City Engineering Services
The City’s past contract service model has been to propose a monthly fee (with a breakdown by hours per position) for general city engineering services which include meetings, responding to public inquiries and emails, general research, city council presentations, field visits, including coordination with city staff and other agencies or utilities. Theis Engineering is proposing a monthly fee of $12,000 which will be subject to annual increase per Section 2 of the agreement.

This monthly fee roughly breaks down to a combination of 28 hours (~7 hours per week) of City Engineer at $239 per hour and 24 hours (~6 hours per week) of Deputy City Engineer at $217 per hour.

If the actual hours exceed the typical hours listed above by more than 20% on a consistent basis (3 consecutive months or more), then Theis Engineering reserves the right to notify the City that additional hours are needed and an increase to the monthly fee would be open for negotiation.

If additional technical services and studies are required for the subconsultants, additional costs will be above the monthly fees mentioned above. The additional costs will be based on the subconsultant fees plus 10%.

Special Tasks as requested by City (not included in monthly fee) a. Clayton Representative to Contra Costa Clean Water Program o Attend two monthly meetings (two committees) and participate at conferences as needed – average 5 hours per month
o Perform stormwater related inspections and monitoring tasks – average 2 hours per month
o Prepare and submit annual report – estimate 20 hours yearly (typically Aug-Sept)  Total Hrs per year = 104 at $239/hr = $24,856 estimated per year (not to exceed) b. Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District – Facilities Management o Provide resident customer service similar to an HOA management company – average 1 hour per month
o Hire/manage ornamental landscape maintenance company – average 1 hour per month
o Coordinate with City maintenance staff on Streetlighting and Open Space maintenance activities - average 1 hour per month
o Perform annual stormwater facilities inspection and prepare checklist for Clean Water Report – average 8 hours annually
 Total Hrs per year = 44 at $239/hr = $10,516 estimated per year (not to exceed)

8 If the actual hours exceed the typical hours listed above for the special tasks by more than 20% on a consistent basis (3 consecutive months or more), then Theis Engineering reserves the right to notify the City that additional hours are needed and an increase to the monthly fee would be open for negotiation.

2. General Engineering Services (non-General Fund Capital Projects) Since it is not feasible to estimate the costs of the non-general fund capital projects at the time for this proposal, each project will be evaluated separately and reviewed by the City Manager for an authorization to proceed. A separate proposal will be prepared for each capital project based on the hourly rates for Theis Engineering and the subconsultant listed below. If it involves subconsultant(s), the additional costs will be based on subconsultant fees plus 10%. Grant requirements may require the City to perform separate solicitations. In those cases, the cost proposals will be based on the requirements at the time of those solicitations and not subject to the hourly rates listed in this proposal.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
These services are based on actual review/processing time which are paid by the applicant from their deposit. The cost will be billed based on the hourly fee listed below. If it involves subconsultant(s), the additional costs will be based on subconsultant fees plus 10%.

4. Annual Administration/Assessment Levy Services/GHAD Management The cost for Larry to provide general oversight of the assessment districts, except for GHAD Manager duties, will be included in the monthly fee for City Engineering Services. For GHAD Manager duties, Theis Engineering’s fee will be $4,780 based on the assumption of 20 hours per year. If actual hours exceed that amount by more than 40 hours per year, Theis Engineering reserves the right to notify the City that additional hours are needed and an increase to the fee would be open to negotiation.

F&A proposes the following lump sum fees for the assessment districts:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District Annual Administration Fee $2,500 per year Street Light Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $3,500 per year High Street Bridge Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $500 per year Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $500 per year Oak Street Bridge Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $500 per year Oak Street Sewer Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $500 per year Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $3,500 per year

COMMUNITIES FACILITIES DISTRICT
Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 Annual Administration Fee $1,500 per year

REIMBURSABLES
Reimbursable expenses such as overnight mailings, recordation fees, mileage, County maps and data are in addition to the lump sum fees above and will be billed at cost plus 10%, but reimbursables will not exceed $500. Mileage will be billed at the annual Federal mileage rate.

9 It is not feasible to determine the geotechnical needs of the GHAD at this point. If it is necessary for the GHAD to require geotechnical engineering work, this would be considered an additional cost. If it involved subconsultant(s), the additional costs will be based on subconsultant fees plus 10%.

The following are rate sheets for hourly services:

Theis Engineering Hourly Rate Schedule is as follow:

Expert Witness $357
City Engineer $239
Deputy City Engineer $217
Senior Engineer $200
Associate/Staff Engineer $150-$165
Engineering/Permit Technician $98-$156
Inspector $150-$165 or prevailing wage as determined by the State Administrator $74-$156
Other direct costs and subconsultant fees will be billed with a 10% mark-up.

10 11

12 13

14 15

16 17
Francisco & Associates – additional billing rates
Please find below the current billing rates for all project personnel of Francisco & Associates.

Additional services including Community Facilities District (CFD) formations and annexations will be billed on a time and materials basis (T&M) at the hourly rates below unless a lump sum fee is agreed to by both parties.

Agenda Item: 4(g)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Reina J. Schwartz, City Manager
DATE: January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Establish a City Council Ad Hoc for Energy Services & Infrastructure Renewal and Appoint Mayor Wan and Councilmember Trupiano to the Committee ____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council establish by Minute Order an Ad Hoc Committee for Energy Services & Infrastructure Renewal and at the Mayor’s request appoint Mayor Wan and Councilmember Trupiano to serve on the Committee.

BACKGROUND
In October 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Climatec, LLC for a two-phase program that will help the City address aging infrastructure, support resiliency efforts, mitigate the impact of utility cost escalations, protect against energy market volatility, and aid operational efficiencies while creating budget relief for the General Fund as well as potentially the Street Light fund and the Landscape Maintenance District fund.

DISCUSSION
As the project with Climatec is getting started, there will need to be close coordination between Climatec and the City. While staff have already begun working with Climatec on the technical assessments, it would be beneficial for the process to establish an Ad Hoc to facilitate additional discussions between the City and Climatec. The Ad Hoc Committee would be established for the limited purpose of providing additional feedback to Climatec during Phase I of the project. Once Phase I is complete, the Ad Hoc will sunset. Mayor Wan is recommending that the Ad Hoc Committee be established and that the members be himself and Councilmember Trupiano.

FISCAL IMPACTS
No direct fiscal impact from establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee. The project and agreement with Climatec will result in savings for the City in future years.

MATTHEW DONDERO
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Mt. Diablo Elementary School
by exemplifying great
“Kindness”
November and December 2022

LIAM WANG
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Mt. Diablo Elementary School
by exemplifying great
“Kindness”
November and December 2022

CHIAMAKA NWADIGO
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Diablo View Middle School
by exemplifying great
“Kindness”
November and December 2022

CLARENCE CAMPOSANO
for
“Doing the Right Thing”
at
Diablo View Middle School
by exemplifying great
“Kindness”
November and December 2022
Agenda Item: 7(a)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, AICP, Community Development Director
DATE: January 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Adoption of the City of Clayton 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Associated Land Use Element Amendments, and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Project ___________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider adoption of the update to the City of Clayton General Plan Housing Element for the 6th housing cycle (2023-2031). The updated Housing Element includes programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting existing and projected housing needs of all income levels and identifies how the City of Clayton (City) plans to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of at least 570 units.

In addition to update of the Housing Element, associated amendments to land use descriptions, goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan are proposed to increase residential densities to support greater variety in housing types in the City.

Amendments to the land use designations on the General Plan Land Use Map are also proposed for the following properties:
• 1578 Kirker Pass Road, Assessor’s Parcel No. (APN) 118-031-054, proposed amendment from Kirker Corridor Commercial to Institutional Density • Diablo Creek Place, APN 118-230-002, proposed amendment from Public Park/Open Space to Single-Family Low Density Residential • 6955 Marsh Creek Road, APN 119-080-009, proposed amendment from Public Park/Open Space and Single-Family Low Density Residential to Multifamily Low Density Residential
• Clayton Road at Peacock Creek Drive, APN 118-370-073, proposed amendment from Private Open Space to Multifamily Medium Density Residential 2 • Oakhurst Golf Course Driving Range, portions of APNs 118-370-017, 118-370-086, 118-370-087 and 118-370-088, proposed amendment from Private Open Space to Multifamily High Density Residential
• 1970 Eagle Peak Avenue, portion of APN 118-370-040, proposed amendment from Rural Estate to Multifamily Medium Density Residential
On December 13, 2022, the Clayton Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-2022 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project and adopt the update to the Housing Element and the associated Land Use Element and Land Use Map amendments. Upon adoption by the City Council, the updated Housing Element and the amended Land Use Element land use descriptions, goals and policies would apply to properties throughout the City.

Environmental Determination: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.), a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030086) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts on the environment that could occur with adoption of the Housing Element update and related land use amendments. The City Council must consider and make findings certifying the Final EIR prior to making a decision regarding adoption of the recommended General Plan amendments.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council open the public hearing and accept written and spoken testimony, close the public hearing and, after deliberation, adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Making findings and certifying the Final EIR and adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the Housing Element Update and related General Plan and Zoning Amendments (Exhibits A and B to Resolution);

2. Making findings that the adoption of the amendments to the Housing and Land Use Elements of the Clayton General Plan are in the public interest, as enumerated in Exhibit C to the Resolution;

3. Repealing in entirety the General Plan Housing Element for the 5th Housing Cycle (2015-2023), adopting the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 6th Housing Cycle, as shown in the attached Exhibit D to the Resolution, including the revisions listed in Exhibit D to the Resolution, and giving authority to the Community Development Director to make non-substantive revisions directed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in their review of the adopted Housing Element Update, such as correction of typographical and grammatical errors and revisions to data for internal consistency of tables and text that do not change programs, policies or the inventory of sites; and
3 4. Amending the Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram of the General Plan for internal consistency with the Housing Element Update, as shown in the attached Exhibits E and F to the Resolution.

BACKGROUND
Legislative Context for General Plans and General Plan Amendments: In accordance with Government Code section 65583, every California city and county must have a general plan, and every general plan must address eight mandatory elements, one of which is housing. The housing element of a general plan must:
…consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provisions for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (Government Code section 65583)
The housing element of the general plan must have, at a minimum, all of the components listed in Government Code section 65583, which are summarized below. a) An assessment of existing and projected needs for housing households of all income levels, including an inventory of the resources and the regulatory and financial constraints to meeting those needs; an inventory of lands suitable for residential development and the jurisdiction’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA); an evaluation of existing household characteristics and housing stock condition; identification of locations for emergency shelter; and analysis of affordable units at-risk of conversion to market-rate.
b) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. c) A program of actions that the jurisdiction commits to implementing during the eight-year housing cycle to achieve the goals and policies of the housing element.

Such actions must include, but are not limited to, actions to rezone properties as needed to achieve densities that would accommodate the RHNA; removal of governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for people of all income levels and abilities; and incentives for construction affordable accessory dwelling units. The housing element must also commit to affirmatively furthering fair housing by identifying and correcting disparities in access to housing for all persons, “regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act…and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.”
4 The housing element must be adopted every five to eight years by the legislative body of the city or county, following a process of community input and public hearings. The housing element is the only mandatory general plan element that must also be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), who will review and certify the housing element upon finding that it is compliant with State law. Noncompliance with housing element legislation of the State could result in a jurisdiction’s loss of eligibility for certain grant funds, fines and financial penalties, litigation, or loss of decision-making authority for certain housing development and housing planning projects.

Community Engagement Efforts and Agency Review of the City of Clayton Housing Element Update: Since Summer 2021, the City has been working on an update to the Clayton General Plan Housing Element for the 6th housing cycle (2023-2031). Since kickoff of the Housing Element Update process, the City has sought community feedback through individual meetings with City Council members and Planning Commissioners, as well as, during a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on September 28, 2021 and a City Council meeting on January 4, 2022. On February 22 and March 8, 2022, staff held workshops with the Planning Commission to provide additional legislative context for the Housing Element Update, and to receive comments on the scope of the environmental impact analysis to be prepared for the Housing Element and related land use and zoning amendments. Videos, meeting minutes, slide decks and staff reports for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings are on the Housing Element webpage, at https://claytonca.gov/community-development/housing/housing-element/ .

A virtual community meeting was held on October 20, 2021, and two online engagement opportunities were provided in November/December 2021 (Maptionnaire) and March/April 2022 (Balancing Act) to give interested community members another platform to provide input on housing preferences in the City. To publicize the Balancing Act simulation and raise awareness around the Housing Element update process, door hangers announcing the engagement opportunity were delivered to all homes in Clayton. Summaries of the feedback received from the community workshop and two online engagement tools, as well as written comments received from interested parties, are provided in Attachment 6 to this staff report.

City staff made publicly available between the dates of May 20 and June 20, 2022, the Public Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle. The 30-day public review period met the requirements of California Government Code section 65585 that requires the City to give the public an opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element before the City submits the document to HCD for review. On May 24 and June 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held comment sessions for the purposes of receiving community input on the Public Review Draft, and on May 31, 2022, the City Council also held a comment session for the same purpose. On June 23, 2022, the City Council directed staff to make additional changes to the draft and to submit the draft document to HCD. On July 14, 2022, staff submitted a digital copy of the HCD Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle to HCD, followed by a print copy delivered to HCD offices on July 19, 2022.

HCD completed their review of Clayton’s HCD Review Draft Housing Element and sent comments to City staff on October 12, 2022. HCD’s comment letter is attached to this staff 5 report as Attachment 5; in that attachment, annotations are provided to indicate how MIG, the City’s Housing Element consultant, and City staff have addressed the HCD staff member’s comment through revisions to the text and/or tables of the draft Housing Element.

The Planning Commission reviewed HCD’s comment letter and discussed the revisions made to the draft Housing Element at a study session held during their regular meeting of November 22, 2022, and the City Council held a similar study session during their special meeting of January 10, 2023. A summary of revisions directed by the Council at their special meeting, to be incorporated into the adoption draft Housing Element (Attachment 1, Exhibit D), has been included as an appendix fronting the document. The revisions include minor phrasing changes, revision of Town Center densities to up to 25 units per acre (such that realistic capacity, or 80 percent of maximum, affords a presumed density of 20 units per acre), and clarification on the relationship between historic land use patterns and demographics in the City.

Other information about the Housing Element and the Housing Element Update process, including the current and previous drafts, and staff reports and minutes from previous public meetings can be found on the City’s website at https://claytonca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing/housing-element/.

Final EIR: CEQA requires agencies to identify potential impacts to the environment that could occur as a result of implementation of a proposed project, prior to making a decision about whether to approve the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an EIR was the appropriate level of analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Housing Element update and related amendments. An EIR is an informational document that is used to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the potentially significant environmental effects of a project; to identify possible ways to mitigate or avoid those significant effects; and to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts.

The Draft EIR prepared for the Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments was circulated for 46 days, between August 19 and October 3, 2022, for public and agency review and comment in accordance with the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and Clayton’s Local CEQA Guidelines (Resolution No. 62-2012). During the 46-day review and comment period, members of the public and other public agencies were invited to provide input on the analysis and discussion of alternatives contained within the Draft EIR, in writing or at a public comment session held during the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2022. The comments received, responses to all substantive comments on environmental issues of the Draft EIR, as well as revisions to the Draft EIR that resulted from those responses, were subsequently incorporated into a Final EIR (Attachment 2). The Final EIR also incorporates the Draft EIR by reference. The Draft and Final EIR documents are also on the City’s website at https://claytonca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing/housing-element/. 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Housing Element Amendment: The updated Housing Element for the years 2023-2031 will establish programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting existing and projected housing needs of all income levels and will identify how the City plans to accommodate its RHNA of at least 570 units, as assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments, through 2031.

The current draft of the Housing Element, attached to this staff report as Exhibit A to the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1), provides a plan for Clayton to zone sufficient land for a potential of 796 new housing units of various types and densities throughout the City. The current draft Housing Element contains programs that would commit the City to implement efforts to not just increase but to diversify its housing stock, including policies in support of accessory dwelling units, upward shifts in the currently adopted density ranges of the General Plan and Zoning Code to foster multifamily housing options, and expanded flexibility in development regulations in multifamily residential zoning districts and sites owned by religious institutions. The document also includes programs that would commit the City to reviewing and updating its codified permitting processes to reduce the length of the development entitlement process for new housing units. Additional programs and policies identified in the draft Housing Element are proposed in support of ongoing code enforcement and housing accessibility programs in the City, as well as environmental sustainability in new construction.

Land Use Element Amendments: The City also proposes updates to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to correspond to the Housing Element’s housing plan, and to maintain internal consistency among the elements of the General Plan. The amendments proposed to be made to the General Plan Land Use Element are described in proposed Program D1 of the draft Housing Element, and are restated below:

Program D-1: General Plan Amendments
The City will amend the General Plan Land Use Element to clarify the density ranges for multi-family housing. Parallel amendments will be made to the Zoning Code. These revisions will increase zoning capacity for multi-family housing and thereby encourage development of housing for people of all income levels and desired housing choices.

The amendments will be as follows:
• Amend Objective 1 and related policies to reflect higher allowed densities along major corridors.
• Amend the Multifamily Medium Density land use designation to describe a broader range of desired housing types and establish a density range of 10.1 to 20 units per acre.
• Amend the Multifamily High Density land use designation to describe a broader range of desired housing types and establish a density range of 20.1 to 30.0 units per acre.
• Amend the Institutional land use designation to allow for residential development within a density range of 10.1 to 30 units per acre, and at a 7 minimum density of 20 units per acre on sites where religious assembly uses already exist.
• Amend the allowed uses in the Town Center designation to accommodate ground-floor residential under prescribed circumstances, such as alongside streets or behind street-facing commercial uses on Center and Main Streets and to allow for densities of up to 30 units per acre. Revisit the lot coverage standards to provide conditions that can accommodate higher densities. • Amend the General Plan land use map to identify housing sites inventory properties for affordable housing as Multifamily High Density. • Amend the General Plan to include policy language that allows for 100 percent affordable housing developments at 40 units per acre.
• Amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions to comply with current state law.
• Adopt a new policy in the Land Use Element requiring that development be built in accordance with minimum densities of the land use designation in which they are located.

These changes have been drafted into a proposed revised Land Use Element chapter of the General Plan, attached as Exhibit E to the proposed Resolution. The exhibit shows the General Plan text amendments using track changes from the adopted Land Use Element.

In addition to text, the Land Use Diagram appended by reference to the Land Use Element is proposed to be amended to include land use designation changes to some of the sites identified in the draft Housing Element sites inventory. The sites proposed for amendment specifically include:
• 1578 Kirker Pass Road, APN 118-031-054, proposed amendment from Kirker Corridor Commercial to Institutional Density
• Diablo Creek Place, APN 118-230-002, proposed amendment from Public Park/Open Space to Single-Family Low Density Residential • 6955 Marsh Creek Road, APN 119-080-009, proposed amendment from Public Park/Open Space and Single-Family Low Density Residential to Multifamily Low Density Residential
• Clayton Road at Peacock Creek Drive, APN 118-370-073, proposed amendment from Private Open Space to Multifamily Medium Density Residential • Oakhurst Golf Course Driving Range, portions of APNs 118-370-017, 118-370-086, 118-370-087 and 118-370-088, proposed amendment from Private Open Space to Multifamily High Density Residential
Zoning Amendments: Following adoption of the General Plan amendments, subsequent Zoning Code amendments will also be necessary to implement the Housing and Land Use Elements, as amended. Those amendments will be the subject of future public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council planned for Winter and Spring 2023. 8 Final EIR: The Final EIR prepared for the Project describes the potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed Housing Element Update and Associated Land Use Element and Zoning Code Amendments. The Final EIR also identifies mitigation measures that would avoid or mitigate to less-than-significant levels the significant adverse environmental effects that are anticipated to result from the Project. As noted above, the Final EIR encompasses the Draft EIR by reference, comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to substantive comments on environmental issues analyzed in the Draft EIR, and revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR.

The comprehensive environmental impact analysis of the General Plan and zoning amendments is contained in chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Based on the analysis, the amendments would have potentially significant impacts in the following resource areas:
• Air Quality (two impacts);
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (five impacts combined); • Geology and Soils (one impact);
• Greenhouse Gases (three impacts);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (one impact);
• Noise (two impacts);
• Transportation (vehicle miles traveled - two impacts); • Utilities and Service Systems (three impacts); and
• Wildfire (one impact).

Mitigation measures are proposed in the Draft EIR document for each of the impacts identified in the document. These measures are intended to reduce the significance and severity of the impacts; however, as described in sections 4.3 and 4.17 of the Draft EIR, potentially significant Greenhouse Gas and Transportation (vehicle miles traveled) impacts resulting from the amendments would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.

As required by CEQA, Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR includes description of three alternatives to the project, as well as a qualitative comparison of the anticipated environmental impacts of each alternative relative to the proposed project as described in Chapter 3 - Project Description of the Draft EIR (the “Draft EIR Project”). CEQA further requires that one of the alternative scenarios is a “no project” scenario, wherein no action is taken with respect to update of the Housing Element or implementation of its associated General Plan and zoning amendments. The Draft EIR also evaluates two other scenarios that were developed based on feedback received during the May 2022 and June 2022 community comment meetings on the Public Review Draft Housing Element:
• Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Development Capacity at Site M (3 du/ac) and Town Center Sites (20 du/ac); and
• Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center Sites and Addition of Sites U (Golf Course Driving Range) and V (Eagle Peak Avenue) to the Housing Element.
9 Alternative 2 has a lower residential unit count of maximum 704 units compared to the maximum 868 units described in Draft EIR Chapter 3, while Alternative 3 has a higher residential unit count of maximum 966 units. The comparative analysis in the Draft EIR concludes that Alternative 2 would meet the objectives of the Project, with comparably fewer environmental impacts than the Draft EIR Project or either of the other alternatives.

Alternative 2 was therefore identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the Draft EIR.

DISCUSSION
Required Findings for Certification of the Final EIR: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090 and the CEQA statutes referenced therein, and prior to adopting the General Plan amendments, the City Council must certify that:

1. the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

2. the Final EIR was presented to the Council, and that the Council body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to making a decision on the amendments; and

3. the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091 and the CEQA statutes referenced therein, “[n]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

All findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record; finding 3 must also describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures or project alternatives. When making the above findings for certification of the Final EIR, the Council must also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. Because the proposed amendments would have potentially significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas and transportation impacts, the Council must also adopt a statement of overriding considerations, finding the adverse environmental effects of the 10 project to be acceptable due to the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the amendments that outweigh the amendments’ unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

As enumerated in Exhibit A to the Resolution (Attachment 1), staff believes that the Council can make the necessary findings to certify the Final EIR. The recommended findings in Exhibit A also explain the rationale for finding the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended amendments to be acceptable, as the amendments are necessary to meet the California statutory requirements for the City to provide a plan for meeting its projected housing needs for all income levels and ensure equitable housing opportunities in the City regardless of any individual resident’s legally protected status. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that must also be included in the Council’s action to certify the Final EIR is attached to the proposed Resolution as Exhibit B.

As noted above, Alternative 2 of the Draft EIR was identified as environmentally superior to the Draft EIR Project and either of the other alternatives. Although CEQA statute and guidelines require the EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative among the project and alternatives, CEQA does not obligate the lead agency to approve the environmentally superior alternative when deciding to approve the project. The Draft Housing Element recommended for adoption encompasses the land use densities and assumptions in Alternative 3 of the Draft EIR. Because the recommended General Plan and related amendments do not encompass the land use densities and assumptions of the environmentally superior alternative, the proposed Resolution identifies and provides justification for selection of Alternative 3 of the Draft EIR as the preferred alternative to the Draft EIR Project and Alternative 2. Though it is not the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3’s increased unit count goes further than Alternative 2 or the Draft EIR Project toward meeting the objectives of the Project, as well as the goals of the State, to provide opportunities for a greater number of housing units, expand the range of densities for new housing in Clayton, ensure greater equity in housing opportunity in the City, and maintain ongoing compliance with the City’s RHNA for the duration of the 6th housing cycle.

Alternative 3 would have impacts similar to the Draft EIR Project, including significant and unavoidable Greenhouse Gas and Transportation impacts.

Required Findings for General Plan Amendment: California Government Code section 65000 et seq. requires each California city or county to adopt a comprehensive, integrated, internally consistent and long-term general plan for “the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to is planning.” The general plan must include a land use element, a circulation element, a housing element, a conservation element, an open space element, a noise element, a safety element and an environmental justice element, and it may include other optional elements at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. In accordance with Government Code section 65358, the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors), on recommendation from the jurisdiction’s planning commission, may amend all or part of the local agency’s general plan upon finding that the amendment is in the public interest.
11 Staff believes that the City Council can make the findings necessary to adopt the proposed amendments to the Housing and Land Use Elements of the Clayton General Plan. As detailed in the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1 to this staff report), the draft Housing Element incorporates all of the required components listed in State law and summarized above, including an assessment of existing and projected needs for housing households of all income levels; an inventory of the resources, regulatory and financial constraints to meeting housing needs, and lands suitable for the City’s RHNA; an evaluation of existing household characteristics and housing stock condition; identification of locations for emergency shelter; analysis of affordable units at-risk of conversion to market-rate; a statement of housing goals, quantified objectives, and policies; and a program of actions that the City will commit to implementing during the 6th housing cycle. The specific sections of the draft Housing Element in which each of the mandated component is included, is listed in each respective statement in the proposed Resolution describing the statutory requirement of State law.

Staff believes that the proposed amendment to the Housing Element is in the public interest.

The Housing Element amendment identifies constraints to the construction and improvement of housing in the City, and it identifies programs and policies to remove those constraints. Implementation of these policies and programs would streamline existing zoning approval processes, reducing the number of discretionary decisions that are currently required while maintaining objective standards that would help to preserve aesthetic characteristics of the City. Implementation of these policies and programs would also reduce costs of planning, permitting and construction for new home developers, as well as, for current homeowners who want to invest in improvement of their properties through expansions of their existing home or construction of accessory and second dwelling units. (Goal 1 and Goal 4 and attendant programs and policies) Additionally, the goals, policies and programs in the Housing Element amendment would foster a broader range of housing densities than City land use policy currently provides, allowing opportunities for increased diversity in housing types (single-family and multifamily) and tenures (rental and ownership). Greater diversity in the City’s housing stock would facilitate greater equity and fair access to housing choices for future residents, while also providing smaller unit sizes that are more affordable, more energy efficient and more accessible for recent graduates, young adult children and aging parents who currently live in Clayton and want to remain in the community. Expanded housing choices also facilitate more opportunities for special needs households as well as employees of the local servicebased and public sector workforce to reside in the community, thereby reducing workers’ and their customers’ transportation costs, traffic congestion and automobile pollution emissions generated by vehicle trips to work from outside the City. (Goals 2, 3, 5 and 6 and attendant programs and policies)
Staff believes that the amendments to the City of Clayton General Plan Land Use Element, inclusive of the amendments to land use designations of certain sites on the Land Use Diagram, are in the public interest. The amendments to the Land Use Element ensure internal consistency with the City’s General Plan and constitute the first step in implementation of the overall objectives of the Housing Element, as recommended, to 12 increase the diversity in the housing stock and expand opportunities for housing for existing and future residents.

FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no new fiscal impacts associated with tonight’s action. Additional work by staff and MIG to complete the Housing Element update and resubmit the adopted draft to HCD is within the scope of the budget previously approved by the Council upon execution of the contract with MIG in May 2021.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Exhibit A to Resolution: Findings for Certification of the Final EIR Exhibit B to Resolution: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit C to Resolution: Findings for Amendment of the General Plan Exhibit D to Resolution: Adoption Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle, December 2022, and Revision Summary
Exhibit E to Resolution: General Plan Land Use Element Amendments (Text) Exhibit F to Resolution: General Plan Land Use Diagram Amendments

2. Final EIR

3. Draft EIR and Draft EIR Appendices (weblinks provided)

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-2022

5. HCD Comment Letter with Annotated MIG/City Staff Comments

6. Public Comments
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 1 of 117 January 17, 2023
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), CERTIFYING THE CITY OF CLAYTON 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND

ASSOCIATED LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE

AMENDMENTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
#2022030086), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT TO ADOPT
THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE 6TH HOUSING CYCLE

AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE ELEMENT AND LAND USE DIAGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code sections 65300 and 65300.5, each planning agency of each California city or county is required to adopt a comprehensive, integrated, internally consistent and long-term general plan for “the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to is planning;” and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65302 and 65303, the general plan must include a land use element, a circulation element, a housing element, a conservation element, an open space element, a noise element, a safety element and an environmental justice element, and it may include any other elements that, in the judgment of the city or county’s legislative body, relate to the physical development of the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, and pursuant to Government Code section 65588(e)(3), the City Council identified the Clayton General Plan Housing Element update as one of its goals for the 2021/22 fiscal year, and subsequently, on May 18, 2021, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to a consulting firm to work with City staff to prepare the amendment of the Clayton General Plan Housing Element for the 6th housing cycle encompassing years 2023-2031; and
WHEREAS, in fall 2021, the City of Clayton (City) commenced a General Plan amendment to update its Housing Element for the 6th housing cycle, which spans years 2023 through 2031, to specify the programs, policies, and actions to which the City would commit to advance the goal of meeting existing and projected housing needs of all income levels, and to identify how the City plans to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of at least 570 units; and
WHEREAS, following one virtual community workshop, a voluntary online preferences survey, a voluntary online housing planning simulation, various stakeholder interviews, and three public study sessions held during Planning Commission or City Council meetings between May 2021 and March 2022, the City released the Public Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (May 2022) for public comment between the dates of May 20 and June 20, 2022 (Government Code section 65585), and during the public comment period, held two additional study sessions with the Planning Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 2 of 117 January 17, 2023
Commission and two additional study sessions with the City Council to receive public comment on the draft document; and
WHEREAS, the City addressed comments received from the community and decision-makers during the 30-day review period on the Public Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (May 2022) as revisions to the document that were incorporated into the subsequently produced HCD Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (July 2022); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65585, the City submitted the HCD Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (July 2022) to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) electronically on July 14, 2022, followed by a print copy delivered to HCD on July 19, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, staff of the HCD issued a letter documenting their review of and comments on the HCD Review Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (July 2022) and finding that although “[T]he draft element addresses many statutory requirements; … revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code);” and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development included in the Department’s letter to the City dated October 12, 2022, and revised the draft Housing Element to address the comments provided by HCD and produced an Adoption Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (December 2022) to substantially comply with the requirements of State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, not all of the properties that are designated and zoned for residential use would allow adequate density yields to achieve the RHNA through private development efforts, to accommodate its RHNA of 570 or more units for this 6th cycle Housing Element, and therefore, the City will need to amend policies in its General Plan Land Use Element to increase residential densities and assign new land use designations to support greater variety in multifamily housing types, and to amend the Zoning Code to provide for consistency with General Plan policy and rezone properties to reflect parallel General Plan land use designations; and
WHEREAS, the updated Housing Element, the amended Land Use Element land use diagram and land use descriptions, goals and policies, and the amended zoning map and zoning code text (the Project) would apply to properties throughout the City of Clayton, which is located at the base of the north slope of Mt. Diablo, bordered by the unincorporated ghost town of Nortonville to the northeast, the City of Concord to the west, and Walnut Creek to the southwest; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Clayton is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 3 of 117 January 17, 2023
WHEREAS, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on March 2, 2022, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2022030086) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, three comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on March 8, 2022, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and, two comments were received; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Utilities & Service Systems and Wildfire; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Transportation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on August 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), on August 19, 2022, the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR and notice of the Draft EIR public comment meeting in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15087, including filing of the notice with the County Clerk; mailing by first class or electronic mail to interested parties and other public agencies and utilities providers; posting on three City notice boards at City Hall, the Clayton Community Library, and in the Clayton Town Center; publishing in the East Bay Times; and posting to the City website;; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at Clayton City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Clayton Community public library; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 46-day public review and comment period from August 19, 2022 to October 3, 2022; and
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 4 of 117 January 17, 2023
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received two written comment letters on the Draft EIR, and spoken comments on the Draft EIR were accepted at the regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Commission on September 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2022, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on December 2, 2022, the City posted the Final EIR to the City’s website and sent notice of availability of the Final EIR by first class and electronic mail to commenting agencies on the Draft EIR and other parties who had previously expressed interest in the Housing Element.

The City subsequently provided printed copies of its responses to public agencies who had provided comments on the Draft EIR at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of certification of the Final EIR, on January 6, 2023; and WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory (Alternative 3) have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project and Alternative 3 sufficiently analyzes the Project and Alternative 3’s potentially significant environmental impacts, including its potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, and the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to a lesser level of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 5 of 117 January 17, 2023
evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project and Alternative 3, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project and of Alternative 3 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project and Alternative 3 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project and Alternative 3 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might reduce the significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project and of Alternative 3 to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and of Alternative 3; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project or of Alternative 3 under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 6 of 117 January 17, 2023
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65351 and 65352 obligate the local planning agency to provide opportunities for citizens, Native American tribes, other public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education and other community groups to be involved in amendments to the jurisdiction’s general plan, through public hearings and any other means the planning agency deems appropriate, and to that end, the City conducted four discussion sessions at Clayton City Council meetings, four discussion sessions at Clayton Planning Commission meetings, a virtual community workshop, two online surveys to solicit input on community housing preferences, various individual interviews with stakeholders, virtual outreach through the City website and online community forums, and distributed informational door-hangers to each residence in the City to invite community input into the Housing Element update process; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65352.3, on April 20, 2022, the City sent to seven local Native American tribes, invitations to consult on the proposed Housing Element update, and subsequently received one response from a tribal representative of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, who requested copies of the documentation for the Housing Element update. In response, the City directed the tribal representatives to the City webpage where the draft Housing Element and its related documents had been posted. The City did not receive any other or subsequent requests for information or consultation within the 90 days following the April 20, 2022 invitation to consult; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Clayton Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and the Housing Element Update and related amendments to the Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram, and solicited comments on the document and on the draft General Plan amendments. After hearing all relevant testimony on the EIR and draft General Plan amendments from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-2022 recommending that the City Council adopt the Adoption Draft Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle (December 2022) as the Housing Element of the Clayton General Plan for the 6th housing cycle (2031-2031), and adopt corresponding amendments to the Land Use Element text and Land Use Diagram of the Clayton General Plan, and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Project and EIR Alternative 3.

A copy of adopted Resolution No. 04-2022 with its amendment exhibits describing the recommended General Plan amendments was posted to the dedicated Housing Element webpage of the City website on December 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code sections 65090 and 65091, on or prior to January 6, 2023, notice of the Clayton City Council public hearing to consider the amendment to the General Plan Housing Element for the 6th Housing Cycle and corresponding amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram was published as a one-sixth page ad in the East Bay Times; was posted to the notice boards at Clayton City Hall and Clayton Community Library, and to Ohm’s board in the Town Center; and was virtually posted to the Housing Element webpage accessible via the main City homepage at www.claytonca.gov. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed electronically or via first class mail to interested parties who had requested such notice and to owners of property that were the subject of proposed General Plan land use Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 7 of 117 January 17, 2023
map amendments, as well as, to other public agencies, special districts, public utility companies, local school districts, responsible agencies as defined CEQA, and local Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project and Alternative 3 was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact,” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of Alternative 3. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby selects Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory as the preferred alternative among the other alternatives and the Project as described in chapter 3 of the EIR. The Housing Element Update for the 6th Housing Cycle, attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution, and the associated amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 8 of 117 January 17, 2023
Diagram for the Project, which are attached as Exhibit E and Exhibit F, respectively, to this Resolution, are reflective of Alternative 3 of the EIR.

SECTION 6. In accordance with Government Code section 65358, the City Council hereby finds that the Housing Element Update for the 6th Housing Cycle (Exhibit D) and the associated amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram (Exhibits E and F) are in the public interest, and incorporates by reference the elaborated findings in Exhibit C, “Findings for Amendment of the Clayton General Plan.” SECTION 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Council hereby repeals in entirety the Housing Element for the 5th Housing Cycle and adopts the Housing Element Update for the 6th Housing Cycle (Exhibit D) as the Housing Element of the Clayton General Plan, and adopts the associated amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram (Exhibit E and Exhibit F, respectively) and finds that the Housing Element Update for the 6th Cycle (Exhibit D) substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq. and is consistent the with Land Use and other elements of the City's General Plan. The proposed amendments are required to bring the Housing Element into consistency with State law and are consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed policies and proposed implementing regulations are compatible and ensure that the goals and policies of the General Plan can be adequately implemented to achieve the community's vision.

SECTION 8. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at Clayton City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk.

This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 9. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 10. The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all nonsubstantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification. The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code sections 65357 and 65589.7.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 9 of 117 January 17, 2023
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 10 of 117 January 17, 2023
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 11 of 117 January 17, 2023

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Clayton, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the City of Clayton 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Associated Land Use Element and Zoning Code Amendments (Project), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Project.

SECTION I.

INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 12 of 117 January 17, 2023
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 13 of 117 January 17, 2023
SECTION II.

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3, are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Mt. Diablo and its foothills to the south, and portions of the Briones Hills the west, are visible from the Planning Area. Existing views of these areas can be, depending on location within the City, partially obscured by buildings, trees, telephone and power lines, cell towers or other structures typical of a suburban and rural environment.

Although such obstructions are usually minimal in nature, they do exist, and they are typical of any type of built environment within a city. Existing General Plan Land Use Element Goal 3, Land Use Element Objective 2 and its attendant policies (inclusive of proposed amendments thereto), and Community Design Element Objective 5 and its attendant policies aim to preserve the natural beauty, feeling of openness, ecology of the Planning Area; to preserve scenic corridors and vistas and views of Mt. Diablo from within the Clayton area; and to preserve ridgelines, limit development in the hills and cluster development in less sensitive areas. An Open Space land use designation is required to be applied to undeveloped portions of parcels. These various goals and policies of the existing General Plan demonstrate the City’s commitment to protecting visual resources and scenic vistas, and they would remain unamended with Alternative 3 and therefore applicable to future development in the City. Although Alternative 3 would result in somewhat more intensive and higher density uses over time, any impacts from Alternative 3 on scenic vistas would be minimal given that views of mountains, hillsides and open spaces are already affected and partially obscured by the existing built environment including buildings, trees, telephone and power lines, cell towers or other structures typical of a suburban and rural environment. In addition, the proposed 6th cycle housing inventory sites identified in Alternative 3 are all within developed portions of the Planning Area, and no development pursuant to Alternative 3 would occur in hillside areas.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 14 of 117 January 17, 2023

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Scenic resources include occurrences of aesthetically pleasing features such as rock outcroppings, trees, ridgelines and hilltops.

Scenic resources can also be man-made, such as historic buildings and structures. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways: a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista, and/or the vista itself may be altered (through development of said scenic resource). No state scenic highways occur within or in close proximity to Clayton, so Alternative 3 has no impacts in that regard.

The nearest officially designated state scenic highway to the Clayton Planning Area is Interstate 680, which is located approximately 9 miles southwest of Clayton and visually separated from Clayton by high elevation lands in the Mt. Diablo State Park so as not to be visible to motorists on that freeway corridor. The Clayton General Plan designates Clayton Road, Oakhurst Drive/Concord Boulevard, and Marsh Creek Road as scenic routes because of their panoramic views. Clayton’s location just north of the Mt. Diablo State Park offers residents wide, unobstructed views of the mountain and the park’s open space. Although there are no scenic highways within the Planning Area, there are several historic buildings within the Planning Area. The General Plan includes goals and policies supporting protection of historic resources, including Community Design Element Objectives 1 and 8 and their attendant policies, which support the protection of historical structures, sites of historical significance, and the system of scenic routes in Clayton coordinated with the scenic routes and corridors in the proximate city of Walnut Creek and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. These General Plan objectives and policies would remain unchanged with Alternative 3 and applicable to future residential development. There would be no impacts to scenic vistas and resources in the Planning Area, as all potential housing sites under Alternative 3 are located in already developed portions of the Planning Area or are on vacant lots in developed areas the City. For the same reason, future residential development under Alternative 3 would not damage or alter locally designated scenic routes. As such, implementation and development of new housing under Alternative 3 will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 15 of 117 January 17, 2023

3. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would Alternative 3 substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Potential housing sites that have been identified in Alternative 3 are located in incorporated areas of Clayton, and are either already developed or in a developed area, or are vacant properties in developed areas. Temporary impacts to the visual character of Clayton could occur during proposed housing site construction, including but not limited to utility installation, landscaping, roadway improvements, site preparation, and building construction, and construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, concrete crushing machines, backhoes, and other equipment would be present during construction activities. The visual changes anticipated during construction of future projects in Clayton would not be permanent and would not substantially degrade its visual character or the visual character of surrounding areas. Additionally, grading and construction operations would be subject to compliance with Clayton Municipal Code (CMC) chapters 8.09 and 15.60 that would reduce lighting impacts from construction sites and authorize the City Engineer to impose vegetative and screening measures to reduce erosion, with secondary benefits of reducing visual impacts from grading activities. Language in Housing Element Update Goal 1 and Policy 1.1 is proposed to facilitate maintenance and enhancement of long-established housing and neighborhoods while accommodating moderate growth and preserving the architectural and design quality of established residential neighborhoods. Land Use Element Goal 1 and its attendant policies, and Land Use Element Goal 2 and its policies, inclusive of proposed amendments thereto, encourage a balance of housing types that include lower densities that fit in with the City’s historically rural character and increased residential densities in appropriate locations near transportation, jobs and services. Land Use Element Goal 7 and its policies encourage enhancement of the sense of identity and pride in and to encourage historical awareness of Clayton. Adopted Land Use Element Goal 9 and its policies aim to create and maintain an attractive Town Center area and to make it the commercial, civic, and heritage focus for the community. Future development under Alternative 3 would be limited to developed areas within the city boundary of Clayton. Future development pursuant to Alternative 3 would be required to comply with all development standards of the Zoning Code and the design policies of the General Plan Land Use Element. With the continued application of City zoning standards and design policies, future Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 16 of 117 January 17, 2023
developments would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Planning Area and its surroundings.

4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Existing lighting within the Planning Area is typical for urbanized areas during nighttime hours and includes streetlights, traffic signals, security lighting around businesses and homes, auto headlights and illuminated business signs. The potential housing sites under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in the number of light sources within the Planning Area; however, all sites have already been developed or are vacant lots in developed areas, and as such, any increase would be inconsequential. Reflective surfaces can also cause glare. Sources of daytime glare typically occur around commercial areas and parking lots with large concentrations of reflective materials like window glass, car surfaces, and open spaces of pavement. According to CMC chapters 15.03 and 15.07, lighting fixtures shall be installed so as not to create glare to passerby pedestrians and vehicles. Furthermore, there is guidance for specific standards for lighting sources in multi-family dwellings and parking lots; passageways associated with the building complex are to be illuminated by lights with an intensity of at least 0.25 foot candles during times of darkness. In accordance with Clayton Municipal Code, lighting fixtures are required to be shielded such that no light spillover onto adjacent properties occurs. While potential housing sites would include windows and other glass features, as well as possible exterior metallic elements and trims, these elements are generally made from materials designed not to create glare, including but not limited to stucco, wood and powder-coated or painted metals (as for building gutters and downspouts). Standards of review for new construction (CMC sections 17.28.170 and

17.44.040) also include a determination that the new development would include complementary materials and colors to the City’s existing structures, which generally incorporate non-reflective elements. Adherence and implementation of these requirements would mitigate any potential impacts with respect to light and glare.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 17 of 117 January 17, 2023
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: According to the State Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, the Clayton Planning Area is designated as either:
“Urban or Built-Up Land”, which refers to land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres; “Grazing Land”, which refers to land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock; or “Other Land”, which refers to land not included in any other mapping category but that could include wetland or strip mines. There is no land in the Planning Area considered Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, nor Farmlands of Local Importance. Site I of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is zoned (A) Agricultural; however, Site I is no longer used for farming or grazing activities and is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance.

There are no other areas within the corporate City boundaries zoned for agricultural use and none of the other housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are zoned for agricultural use. For these reasons, no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use would occur as a result of Alternative 3. In addition, there are no goals or policies of Alternative 3 that deal with loss or conversion of traditional agriculture

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are properties in the Clayton Planning Area that are subject to Williamson Act Contracts: the south of the Planning Area is considered Williamson Act Non-Renewal, or enrolled lands for which non-renewal has been filed pursuant to Government Code section 51245. Parts of the north, west, and southeast of the Planning Area are Williamson Act Mixed Enrollment Agricultural Land, or enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the county. However, none of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 have Williamson Act Contracts. Site I of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is zoned (A) Agricultural; however, Site I is no longer used for farming or grazing activities. There are no other areas within the corporate City boundaries zoned for Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 18 of 117 January 17, 2023
agricultural use, and none of the other housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are zoned for agricultural use. In addition, there are no goals or policies of Alternative 3 that deal with Williamson Act contracts or loss of agriculture. For these reasons, and because none of the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites identified by the City in Alternative 3 are under a Williamson Act contract, no impact to an agricultural use or Williamson Act contract would occur

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are no existing portions of the Planning Area dedicated to the conservation and protection of forestry resources, and none of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are zoned as forest land. In addition, there are no goals or policies of Alternative 3 that deal with zoning for timber or forest land. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production areas, or result in the loss or conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses, as none exist in the City or Planning Area.

4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are no existing portions of the Planning Area dedicated to the conservation and protection of forestry resources, and none of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are zoned for forest land. In addition, there are no goals or policies of the adopted or proposed Housing or Land Use Elements that deal with loss or conversion of forest land. Therefore, no conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur under Alternative 3.

5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 19 of 117 January 17, 2023
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are no traditional large-scale or commercial agricultural uses within the corporate City boundaries. Site I of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is zoned (A) Agricultural; however, Site I is no longer used for farming or grazing activities. There are no other areas within the corporate City boundaries zoned for agricultural use, and none of the other housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur as a result of implementation of Alternative 3.

C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 includes standards and guidelines that would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not result in an increase in trip generation that exceeds the projected increase in service population. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control strategies designed to reduce ozone precursors, protect public health, and serve as a regional climate protection strategy. There are 85 control strategies identified in the 2017 Clean Air Plan; many of the control strategies are not intended or designed to be achieved by local government. Table 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR identifies the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures that are relevant to the Project and Alternative 3 and summarizes how the Project and Alternative 3 would incorporate standards and guidelines that are consistent with and similar to applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures.

Based on the analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable control measures, the Project and Alternative 3 would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and Alternative 3’s impact is less than significant.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend lead
agencies evaluate the projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 20 of 117 January 17, 2023
vehicle trips in relation to projected population increases when considering the adoption of a plan-level document, and specifically, that the projected VMT or vehicle trips are less than or equal to the projected population increase. The Draft EIR compares the potential increases in trip generation, VMT, and population of the amended Housing Element to the trip generation, VMT and population conditions under the existing 2020 conditions and under 2040 conditions without the Housing Element Update. The projected increase in VMT under Alternative 3 would not exceed the projected population increase that would occur under Alternative 3. In addition, the projected increase in trip generation under Alternative 3 would not exceed the projected population increase that would occur under Alternative 3. Thus, Alternative 3 would not result in a significant increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants, including ozone precursor pollutants, and the Project impact is less than significant.

The City is located within an area shown by CalEnviroScreen to have pollution burden percentiles ranging from the 5 to 26 percentile, which indicate relatively low health risks in the City as compared to other areas of the state. In addition, the City is not an impacted community identified under the BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program and is not considered a disadvantaged community pursuant to Senate Bill 535. Therefore, although Alternative 3 could result in potentially significant health risk increases (see Draft EIR Impact AIR-2), it would not do so in an area that is currently disadvantaged or disproportionately affected by adverse air quality. The potential health risks posed by implementation of Alternative 3 are solely related to those posed by construction activities, which are temporary in nature. Alternative 3 proposes residential and commercial land uses and would not include industrial or other land uses that have the potential to generate toxic air contaminant emissions from large stationary sources or industrial processes. The City is not located in or adjacent to a disadvantaged community, nor does it propose land uses that would generate long-term, stationary sources of emissions that could promote disparities in health risks. Alternative 3 would not increase health risk disparities in the Bay Area, and Alternative 3’s impact is less than significant.

2. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 21 of 117 January 17, 2023
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Construction occurring within the City could produce odors from fuel combustion and/or the use of solvents and paints.

These odors would be temporary, quickly disperse, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Alternative 3 would support an increase in the amount of residential and non-residential development in the City, including mixed-use development in Clayton’s Town Center that may include residential uses above ground-floor commercial and office uses. Alternative 3 does not directly authorize any new, major land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as a source of potential odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plant). This impact would be less than significant.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The Clayton Planning Area is within the area of coverage of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP). Implementation of
conservation measures described in Chapter 6.4 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP will be required as part of future development project approvals granted by the City pursuant to Alternative 3. The ECCC HCP/NCCP requires submission and approval of an HCP/NCCP application, including implementing planning and/or preconstruction biological surveys on a project-level basis and fee payment to offset potential development project impacts. Each housing inventory site in Alternative 3 would require individual applications and evaluations based on site plans that will be developed in the future. Further, compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP would require setbacks for sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands) that may support sensitive species identified in this analysis. It is expected that no additional mitigation for each project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by zoning updates are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a projectlevel basis.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 22 of 117 January 17, 2023

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Since the Clayton Planning Area is covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP, implementation of conservation measures described in Chapter 6.4 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP will be required as part of future development project approvals granted by the City pursuant to the Project. No known new sensitive communities are expected to be found within the Planning Area or Sites, which is mostly urban and rural. Riparian/Wetland habitat is evaluated during the HCP/NCCP application process, including implementing jurisdictional delineations on a project-level basis. Each Housing Inventory Site identified in Draft EIR Exhibit 3-4 that potentially possesses jurisdictional areas would require individual applications and evaluations based on site plans that will be developed in the future.

Further compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP would require setbacks for jurisdictional areas, including sensitive riparian habitats.

It is expected that no additional mitigation for each project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by the proposed General Plan and zoning updates are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a projectlevel basis for future entitlement requests, in accordance with CMC chapter 16.55 (Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation).

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Since the Planning Area is covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP, implementation of conservation measures described in Chapter 6.4 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP will be required as part of future development project approvals granted by the City pursuant to Alternative 3. The ECCC HCP/NCCP requires submission and approval of an HCP/NCCP application, including implementing jurisdictional delineations on a project-level basis. Each housing inventory site identified in Alternative 3 that potentially possesses Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 23 of 117 January 17, 2023
wetlands would require individual applications based on site plans which are not available for review. Further compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP and coverage under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit would require setbacks for jurisdictional areas. No other mitigation can be identified at the program level of review although, beyond compliance with HCP/NCCP requirement in CMC chapter 16.55, additional mitigation is not expected at the project-level, future site-specific development proposals.

4. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 does not directly entitle any development that would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No documented wildlife corridors are known within the Planning Area. Requests for development on each housing inventory site identified in Alternative 3 would require individual applications and evaluations based on site plans that will be developed in the future to ensure compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP. It is expected that no additional mitigation for each development project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by the proposed General Plan and zoning amendments are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a project-level basis for future entitlement requests, in accordance with CMC Chapter 16.55.

5. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City of Clayton has adopted the implementing ordinance (Ordinance No. 412) of the ECCC
HCP/NCCP and added Chapter 16.55 to the Clayton Municipal Code, which details implementation of and compliance with the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 24 of 117 January 17, 2023
ECCC HCP/NCCP for projects. The ECCC HCP/NCCP requires
submission and approval of an HCP/NCCP application, including implementing planning and/or preconstruction biological surveys on a project-level basis and fee payment to offset potential project impacts. Further, Alternative 3 does not conflict with and would not repeal any measures included in the City’s Municipal Code or General Plan with respect to biological resources protection. It is expected that no additional mitigation for each development project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by the proposed General Plan and zoning amendments are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a project-level basis for future entitlement requests, in accordance with CMC Chapter 16.55.

6. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The City of Clayton has fully adopted the ECCC HCP/NCCP, including enacting municipal codes, and permitting processes to promote and comply with the measures required of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. Alternative 3 would not conflict with nor repeal the requirements of the ECCC HCP/NCCP, and all evaluations for development proposals for each housing inventory site in Alternative 3 will be evaluated on an individual basis through the ECCC HCP/NCCP process to ensure compliance. It is expected that no additional mitigation for each future development project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by the General Plan amendments and zoning updates are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a project-level basis for future entitlement requests, in accordance with CMC chapter 16.55.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 25 of 117 January 17, 2023
Explanation: The Clayton Planning Area has a variety of local historic points of interest, landmarks and historic resources. Future development under Alternative 3 could result in adverse impacts or removal of historic buildings or resources, especially in the downtown portions of the City, if such development occurred on sites with historic resources. However, none of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is identified in the Draft EIR as containing cultural resources. In addition, the General Plan Community Design Element contains goals, objectives and policies that encourage maintenance of the rural and historical character of Clayton’s neighborhoods and protection of historical structures and sites of historical significance.

These goals and their attendant objectives and policies help to protect existing historical resources within Clayton. They are also the bases for local ordinances in CMC chapter 17.34 (Resource Overlay District) and CMC section 15.10.060 (Repair Criteria for Historic Buildings or Structures) that require: 1) maintenance of development and use for historic sites and structures that preserve the character of historic sites and adjacent areas; and 2) historic buildings and structures be repaired pursuant to the California Historic Building Code. With implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, as well as the existing preservation guidelines in the Municipal Code, potential impacts to historic resources by future development within the Planning Area will be less than significant.

F. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas within the City and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation of new land use developments. During construction of individual developments pursuant to Alternative 3, electricity would be consumed by lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by construction crews, and by small, off-road equipment (e.g., compressors) used during development activities. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the overall energy consumption in the City.

While substantial natural gas consumption is not anticipated to occur during construction activities that occurring pursuant to Alternative 3, Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 26 of 117 January 17, 2023
fuels used during construction would include diesel and gasoline consumed by heavy-duty construction equipment, delivery trucks and construction workers’ trips to and from construction sites. State regulations such as Low Carbon Fuel Standards would reduce the carbon intensity of transportation-related fuels, and all construction projects would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to 5 minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary at each location and further would be regulated under State measures, it would not be unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient.

Development facilitated under Alternative 3 would require electricity and natural gas consumption for multiple uses, including, but not limited to: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliance use (e.g., washer, dryer, microwave, etc.), and electronics (e.g., televisions). In addition, electricity use would also increase with greater adoption and reliance on electric vehicles. Year 2040 modeled electricity consumption with Alternative 3 would be several thousand gigawatthours more than the electricity consumption without the housing and land use amendments; however, on an efficiency basis, electricity consumption per resident per year would decrease. In addition, new development and land use turn over would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CALGreen Code), which would decrease estimated electricity consumption in new and/or retrofitted structures from current modeled conditions, further increasing the efficient use of electricity resources. Similarly, the demand calculations shown in the Draft EIR indicate that modeled natural gas consumption in 2040 with Alternative 3 would be more than the natural gas consumption in 2040 without the housing and land use amendments; however, on an efficiency basis, natural gas consumption per resident per year is estimated to be lower with Alternative 3 than without the housing and land use amendments.

This per capita decrease in natural gas consumption under Alternative 3 is primarily due to an increase in higher density residential units, which are smaller in size and generally use less natural gas for space heating and other purposes, as well as overall increases in efficiency in appliances and building systems installed in new development. The City would therefore achieve greater efficiency in natural gas consumption with the implementation of the Alternative 3 than without the housing and land use amendments.

This indicates that new development approved under Alternative 3 would use and consume natural gas in an efficient manner. In addition, new development and land use turn over would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CALGreen Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 27 of 117 January 17, 2023
Code), which would decrease estimated natural gas consumption in new and/or retrofitted structures from current modeled conditions, further increasing the efficient use of natural gas resources.

The development of housing sites pursuant to Alternative 3 would result in increased consumption of petroleum products (i.e., gasoline and diesel) over the next approximately 20 years. The trips that consume fuel would primarily be attributable to people traveling to or from Clayton for work, shopping, school, or other reasons. As shown in the Draft EIR, daily diesel and gasoline fuel consumption in 2040 with Alternative 3 would be higher than daily diesel and gasoline fuel consumption without the housing and land use amendments.

However, overall petroleum consumption per resident in 2040 is expected to be lower under Alternative 3 as compared to overall petroleum consumption per resident in 2040 without the housing and land use amendments. Total VMT and vehicle fuel use in the City is generally anticipated to increase over the next approximately 20 years, while VMT per capita is anticipated to decrease. Petroleumfueled vehicles are necessary for transportation while the state enacts its long-term plans to shift to non-petroleum vehicles. In addition, petroleum-fueled vehicles will become more efficient over time, as shown by modeling in the Draft EIR. Alternative 3’s petroleum consumption is therefore not wasteful or unnecessary.

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. Title 24 Building Code contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. These standards address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption. The 2019 Title 24 Building Code required the installation of solar panels on new residential development under three stories. The latest update to these standards, codified in 2022, extends solar requirements and introduces battery storage requirements to additional building types, including high-rise multifamily buildings, office buildings, and retail buildings. The City would enforce the 2019 Title 24 Building Code, and subsequent amendments thereto, during building permit plan check. Other state plans, such as increasing the Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, increasing fuel efficiency and incentives to increase the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 28 of 117 January 17, 2023
number of electric vehicles on the road, would be implemented at the state level. As shown in Section 4.6.2 of the Draft EIR, the draft Housing Element includes policies to ensure future development of housing sites does not conflict with renewable energy plans. For example, Policy 6.2 promotes the use of clean, energy-efficient appliances in new homes. Alternative 3 would comply with applicable state standards and would not impede any plan related to increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency, and in addition, Alternative 3 would implement mitigation measures that would support renewable energy and energy efficiency, and further reduce this less than significant impact.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are a number of geologic, seismic, soil constraints in and around the Planning Area. The Greenville Faultline intersects the northeastern portion of Clayton, and the Concord-Green Valley and Mt. Diablo fault lines neighbor the City to the west and southwest, respectively. Regional earthquakes in the Bay Area have and will continue to lead to moderate ground shaking in Clayton. Soil composition and seismic activity can induce slope failure and the occurrence of landslides in parts of the Planning Area, and more specifically, within the steeper south and southwest portions of Clayton located against Mt. Diablo and the quarry, and the neighborhoods around the hills in the north and east sections of the City. There is a large liquefaction zone diagonally located within Clayton. This liquefaction zone is associated with Mt. Diablo Creek, Mitchell Creek, and Donner Creek among other smaller bodies that flow down from Mt. Diablo State Park and the surrounding hills, eventually converging within the City. Clayton may experience liquefaction in the event of seismic activity due to local and regional faults, as well as sandy soil composition associated with local creek beds. Clayton’s location and physical surroundings can present potential geological hazards. In addition, the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) is located in the northeastern portion of the City because of slope and soil erosion in the area.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 29 of 117 January 17, 2023
The Safety Element of the current General Plan contains goals and policies that acknowledge these potential risks and require structures to provide adequate level of safety and mitigation for the community.

Objective 6 and Policies 6a-6c provide for the adequate identification of potential seismic effects in relation to areas susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence. Objective 7 and Policies 7a-7d establish specific mitigation for seismic activity such as requiring fault setbacks and reinforcing structural externalities that may be susceptible to ground shaking. The City requires the identification of areas susceptible to ground shaking as well as liquefication. The City also restricts development of land with a slope of 26 percent or greater, and an evaluation of any development expansion on instable and/or 15 percent slopes. Any areas with severe geologic limitations are designated as Open Space.

In addition to the General Plan, the California Building Code (CBC) has standards for building design and construction based on seismic constraints and expected ground shaking throughout California. The Clayton Municipal Code includes the CBC, the California Residential Code, and the California Existing Building Code. Chapter 15.60 of CMC Title 15, Grading Rules and Regulations, has guidelines for soil and geology engineering reports for new developments in the City.

Development projects are subject to slope guidelines and seismic design constraints in accordance with the state’s building codes, if applicable. With implementation of the above General Plan objectives and policies, the CBC, and guidelines for development on slopes and fault-lines in the municipal code, potential impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints on future development within the Planning Area would be less than significant.

2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Much of the northeastern portions of the City are in landslide zones.

These slopes in and around the City can be subject to erosion.

Additionally, large liquefaction zones intersect the City from the southeastern corner to the northwestern. Soils in and surrounding Clayton’s creek systems are susceptible to erosion by water. Local soil erosion can happen in the Planning Area as future developments occur under Alternative 3 on vacant and/or undeveloped land.

The Safety Element of the General Plan includes language on public safety with regards to possible soil erosion in the area. Objective 2, Policy 2d instructs the preparation of constraint maps identifying the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 30 of 117 January 17, 2023
location of geologic constraints including slope instability, expansive soil and high erosion potential. These maps are part of the Oakhurst GHAD’s mandate. Areas with severe geologic limitations are designated as Open Space.

CMC chapters 15.58, 15.60, and 15.70 establish measures and requirements to prevent soil erosion. CMC chapter 15.58 addresses flood hazards such as soil erosion in Clayton’s floodways. CMC chapter 15.60 details planning and grading regulations regarding soil erosion, which includes that exposed banks and slopes of any fill/excavation need to be protected from erosion through planting, walls or terraces, or other approved method. All erosion control standards are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, an applicant that has ceased work before completion of a project for any reason must take all necessary measures to stabilize the site and leave the area in a condition protects adjoining properties from erosion and other instabilities. CMC chapter 15.70 outlines the necessity of trees to the aesthetic and physical characteristics of Clayton, including their importance in mitigating soil erosion. With implementation of the above objectives, policies and regulations for erosion control in the municipal code, potential impacts related to erosion from future development within the Planning Area would be less than significant.

3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As indicated previously in section II.G.1, above, Clayton has a number of geologic, seismic, and soil constraints, including faultlines and liquefaction zones along creeks and creek tributaries. Other portions of the City are characterized by clay loam type soils and can be susceptible to subsidence. Areas vulnerable to subsidence are underlain by compressible clay-rich soils and excessive groundwater withdrawal; however, there are few wells within the City, and most neighborhoods and properties in the City are served by public water lines. Slopes in the northeastern and eastern parts of Clayton may be subject to landslides as a result of seismic activity. Due to the presence of local and regional faults, sandy soils, and shallow groundwater, portions of the City may experience subsidence, liquefaction, or landslides during strong seismic events. These seismic-related conditions could affect structures and their occupants of future development under the Project. The CBC has Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 31 of 117 January 17, 2023
standards for building design and construction based on seismic constraints and expected ground shaking throughout California.

During the City’s existing development review process, proposed private projects are evaluated against the seismic design constraints of the CBC. With implementation of the above General Plan objectives and policies and the CBC and CMC, potential impacts related to seismically-induced constraints on future development within the Planning Area would be less than significant.

4. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Land within Clayton is characterized by varieties of clay loam soils, which are generally considered expansive soils. Clay-type soils that become saturated with water can become expansive and could affect structures and occupants of future developments in the City under the Project. The Safety Element of the current General Plan contains Objective 2, Policy 2d, which acknowledges the potential geologic risks of expansive soils, and requires the identification of areas were this risk can occur. In addition to the General Plan, the CBC has standards for building design and construction based on soil conditions and limitations in California. During the City’s existing development review and building plan check process, proposed private projects are evaluated against the soil design constraints of the CBC. With implementation of the above General Plan objectives and policies and the California Building Code, potential impacts related to soil constraints, including expansive soils, would be less than significant.

5. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As previously indicated in section II.G.1, above, the Planning Area contains a number of soil constraints. Land in and around Clayton’s creeks is an alluvium sediment, while other areas are made up of clay-loam varieties. There may be portions of the City where local soils may constrain the placement of septic tanks or similar wastewater treatment facilities. Soil constraints like those previously Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 32 of 117 January 17, 2023
outlined could affect structures of future development pursuant to the Project. The CBC has general guidelines on infrastructure design and construction based on soil conditions and limitations in California. During the City’s existing development review and plan check process, proposed private projects are evaluated against the soil design constraints of the CBC, including those requiring septic or alternative wastewater treatment systems. The CMC dictates in chapter 15.56 that all excavations and openings, such as septic tanks, need to be filled with dirt, sand, or small rocks after the removal of a building. With implementation of the above General Plan objectives and policies, the CBC and the CMC, potential impacts related to soil constraints, including soils not capable of accommodating septic systems where proposed for future
development within the Planning Area, would be less than significant.

H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in an increase in residential dwelling units and non-residential square footage within the Planning Area. Construction associated with implementation of Alternative 3 would likely involve the use and disposal of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction would be limited, would comply with existing government regulations, and would not be considered a significant hazard. Hazardous materials associated with new residential uses could include, for example, liquid chemical products (e.g., household cleaners, used motor oil, building maintenance supplies, paints and solvents, pesticides, or other similar materials). The limited quantity of such products would not generate significant hazardous emissions or involve the use of acutely hazardous materials that could pose a significant threat to the environment. Future non-residential development within the Planning Area could involve the storage, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including building maintenance supplies, paints and solvents, pesticides and herbicides for landscaping and pest control, vehicle maintenance products, and similar substances. The City will require all new development to follow applicable local, state and federal regulations and guidelines regarding the storage, handling and disposal of Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 33 of 117 January 17, 2023
hazardous waste. In addition, all hazardous materials are required to be stored and handled according to manufacturer's directions and local, state, and federal regulations. Given the existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations already in place, Alternative 3’s potential threat to public health and safety and the environment from hazardous materials transport, storage, use, and disposal would be less than significant.

2. Accident or Upset
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As detailed in the Draft EIR, there are no hazmat facilities within the Planning Area, while there are eight former leaking underground storage tank sites (LUST) within the Planning Area and all are listed as “case closed.” In addition, there are three permitted tank sites with active underground storage tank facilities (UST), and there is one open Cleanup Program Site, which is a dry cleaner. Cleanup Program Sites are non-federally owned facilities regulated under the State Regional Water Quality Control Board Site Cleanup Program and/or a Regional Control Board. A designation of “open” status indicates that there is an ongoing case that has been opened by a regulatory agency and the site is undergoing assessment, remediation or site monitoring. A “closed” status indicates that a regulatory agency has determined that no further remediation activities are required. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database
shows no sites located within the Planning Area. Finally, based on available information, there are no active hazardous waste generators or disposal/remediation sites within the City of Clayton or in the Planning Area. None of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are located on or adjacent to the hazardous materials sites identified above.

It is possible that contaminants in soil or groundwater could expose future construction workers, residents, employees, or other members of the public to potential hazards. However, the potential for soil contamination would be addressed through the continued application of state and federal regulations that address and resolve underground contamination. In addition, the City Community Development Department Site Plan and Environmental Review processes and the Building Permit Issuance process require assessment of potential soil contamination on prospective Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 34 of 117 January 17, 2023
development sites where evidence, such as historical aerial photos, would suggest past uses or development may have caused ground contamination.

Demolition of existing structures in the Planning Area would involve removal and disposal of existing building materials. Some older buildings may contain hazardous materials, such as asbestos containing materials or lead based paint. If not properly abated, these materials could negatively impact construction workers or members of the public. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that may contain asbestos, and the manufacture of materials known to contain asbestos through its Rule

11. The BAAQMD is vested with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement and is to be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. BAAQMD regulations must always be followed when removing asbestos or demolishing buildings. With continued compliance with established local, state and federal environmental site assessment procedures, potential risks to human health or the environment due to existing hazardous materials contamination as a result of Alternative 3 would be less than significant.

3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are several schools within or proximate to the Planning Area, including one elementary school and one junior high school within the City’s corporate boundaries. New development within the Planning Area is expected to be primarily residential and commercial uses; these uses are not expected to emit hazardous materials affecting school sites. Hazardous materials associated with new residential and commercial uses could include, for example, liquid chemical products (e.g., household cleaners, used motor oil, building maintenance supplies, paints and solvents, and pesticides). The limited quantity of such products would not generate significant hazardous air emissions or involve the use of acutely hazardous materials that could pose a significant threat to the environment or human health. New development within the Planning Area could use and dispose of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction would be limited, would comply with existing government regulations, and would not be considered a significant hazard. Therefore, impacts Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 35 of 117 January 17, 2023
would be less than significant. In addition, individual development applications would be required to undergo a project-specific CEQA review which would include an evaluation of a project’s potential impacts on schools.

4. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Sites included on the list required by Government Code Section 65962.5 include hazardous materials contamination that can be detrimental to human health and the environment. There are no hazardous materials sites within the Planning Area; there are eight former LUST sites within the Planning Area, and all are listed as “case closed.” In addition, there are three Permitted Tank Sites with active UST facilities, and there is one open Cleanup Program Site which is a dry cleaner. Cleanup Program Sites are non-federally owned facilities regulated under the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Site Cleanup Program and/or a Regional Control Board. A designation of “open” status indicates that there is an ongoing case that has been opened by a regulatory agency and the site is undergoing assessment, remediation or site monitoring. A “closed” status indicates that a regulatory agency has determined that no further remediation activities are required. The SEMS database shows no sites located within the Planning Area. Finally, based on available information, there are no active hazardous waste generators or disposal/remediation sites within the City of Clayton or in the Planning Area. None of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is located on or adjacent to the hazardous materials sites identified above. If future redevelopment is proposed at any of these contamination sites pursuant to policy of the draft Housing Element, potential contamination (if not already remediated) would be addressed through the City’s development review requirements in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. For example, this information would be required during the preliminary assessment of historical, current, or proposed activities on the site involving the storage, handling, production, or transport of any hazardous materials. This information is specifically requested relative to the CEQA Checklist Questions IX.a through IX.d as well as the City’s development application. CEQA Checklist Question IX.d specifically inquires if a site is on the Government Code section 65962.5 (Cortese) List. Any site-specific hazards must be addressed in the CEQA process, even if a Categorical Exemption for Infill Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 36 of 117 January 17, 2023
Development is requested, because there can be no unusual circumstances on a site that might cause a significant environmental impact under a Categorical Exemption. With implementation of the City’s CEQA and development review processes, potential impacts related to sites that may be on the Government Code section 65962.5 list would be reduced to less than significant levels.

5. Public Airports
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The Contra Costa County/Buchanan Field Airport is located approximately 5.6 miles northwest of the City boundary. The City does not fall within the Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area for the airport. Since there are no aircraft influence areas in the City, the existing General Plan and Alternative 3 contain no goals, policies or regulations related to aircraft safety. Therefore, no impacts related to an airport or private airstrip are anticipated.

6. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As described in the General Plan Safety Element, primary exit routes out of Clayton to the north are Pine Hollow Road, Clayton Road, and Concord Boulevard. To the south, the primary route is Marsh Creek Road. These principal access ways are all well-maintained and can support an evacuation function. In any disaster warranting evacuation, the exact emergency routes used would depend on several variables, including the type, scope, and location of the incident. The Safety Element includes Objectives 10 through 13 and their attendant policies, which incorporate measures for fire protection into development proposals and City plans, reduce fire risk by promoting fire safe residences in high-risk areas, and evaluate the potential for disaster and to continue planning for mitigation and response to emergency. These objectives and policies will allow the City to maintain a high level of preparedness for emergency and disaster conditions, and to allow unhindered emergency access throughout the City. The City’s CEQA and Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 37 of 117 January 17, 2023
development review processes would also assure that future development pursuant to Alternative 3 is consistent with these policies and not hinder emergency access within the City or for individual sites. The City’s review process for new development specifically includes review by the applicable fire protection department (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or Contra Costa County Fire Protection District) review regarding fire protection, prevention, and emergency access. A similar level of review is provided by the City Police Department for emergency access related to police protective services. While it is possible that there may be temporary and limited circulation changes that may be required during discrete periods of time associated with specific construction projects, these changes would be temporary and would be of a nature that still allowed evacuation in the event of an emergency. Emergency access would be maintained to all properties within project limits and the surrounding vicinity during construction.

Potential adverse impacts of Alternative 3 on emergency access would therefore be less than significant
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: All projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 would be required to comply with relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, including requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Construction of development pursuant to Alternative 3 that would disturb more than 1 acre of land would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes best management practices to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project.

A SWPPP must be submitted to the City before permits for construction will be issued. Compliance with such requirements would protect water quality and minimize the potential for polluted runoff to leave the site during construction activities. Compliance with federal and state regulations and implementation of site-specific BMPs would ensure that water quality and waste discharge requirements would not be violated as a result of construction under the proposed future development. Post-construction, residential and non-residential development built pursuant to Alternative 3 would not Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 38 of 117 January 17, 2023
involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water because generation or discharge of polluted water is generally associated with industrial uses. Thus, typical operations of development under Alternative 3 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality, though the addition of impervious surfaces in the Planning Area could result in the generation of urban runoff, which could contain pollutants if the runoff comes into contact with vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or landscape fertilizers and herbicides. All jurisdictions within Contra Costa County are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City of Clayton has adopted County Provision C.3 (Stormwater Standards) of the Municipal Regional Permit, which requires site designs for new developments and redevelopments to minimize the area of new roofs and paving and reduce runoff. Under Provision C.3, new development and redevelopment projects built pursuant to Alternative 3 and that create or alter 5,000 or more square feet (SF) of impervious area are subject to requirements to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that conforms with the stormwater quality measures of the most recent Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, including maximizing opportunities for impervious surfaces that allow water to percolate into soil, and incorporating into site design stormwater treatment measures such as landscaped swales and bioretention basins for filtration of pollutants prior to stormwater discharge to the storm drain system. In some developments, the rates and durations of site runoff must also be controlled. With compliance with State and local permit requirements, projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that Alternative 3 may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides domestic water service to Clayton. The Treated Water Service Area (TWSA) in 2020 had a water demand of 32,600 acre-feet per year (AFY), with that demand projected to increase to 37,400 AFY in 2030. Water in the service area is primarily drawn from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which originates in the Sierra Nevada mountains and flows Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 39 of 117 January 17, 2023
through the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers into the delta. The additional residents, residences and non-residential floor area associated with Alternative 3 would result in a net increase in impervious surfaces and higher water demand in the Planning Area.

Because the main source of CCWD water is the Sacramento RiverContra Costa Water District Canal, and not groundwater, the potential increase in population and water demand that could occur under Alternative 3 would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. With respect to groundwater recharge, it is not anticipated that the additional impervious surfaces that could result from development pursuant to Alternative 3 would substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. First, many of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are already developed with impervious surfaces, and increases in the number of units on those previously-developed sites would not result in increases in impervious surfaces. As none of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is currently utilized for groundwater recharge, development of the vacant sites in the inventory would increase area of impervious surfaces but would not affect groundwater recharge. Further, projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 that would create or alter 5,000 or more square feet of impervious area would be required by the City to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan that conforms with the most recent Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook and that identifies site design and other measures to minimize the area of new roofs and paving and optimize use of pervious surfaces instead of impervious surfaces so that runoff can infiltrate to underlying soil. For these reasons, the additional impervious surface area that could potentially occur as a result of development pursuant to Alternative 3 would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Future development pursuant to Alternative 3 would result in grading of vacant land or the demolition and regrading of developed land.

New development and redevelopment would be subject to sections

15.60.130 (General Grading Regulations), 16.20.053 (Improvements Required), and 13.12.090 (Best Management Practices and Standards) of Clayton Municipal Code, which require compliance with erosion control standards, best management practices for Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 40 of 117 January 17, 2023
protection of stormwater quality and pollution prevention, and City Engineer approval of grading plans and erosion control measures prior to issuance of grading permits. By continuing to implement the City’s Municipal Code regulations and standards, projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

4. Flooding
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Development construction pursuant to Alternative 3 would be required to comply with CMC section 16.20.053 (Improvements Required), which requires all runoff from project sites to be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The storm drain systems would be required to be designed for ultimate development of the watershed. The storm systems would also be required to provide for the protection of abutting and offsite properties that would be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributed to a development. In addition, CMC section 13.12.090 (Best
Management Practices and Standards) establishes controls on the rate, volume, and duration of stormwater runoff from new developments and redevelopment. Every development or
redevelopment project subject to the development runoff requirements is required to submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Similarly, increases in runoff volume, flows, and durations are required to be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements. By continuing to implement the City’s Municipal Code standards for runoff, future projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or offsite flooding.

5. Runoff
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 41 of 117 January 17, 2023
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Future projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 that would create or alter 5,000 or more square feet of impervious area would be subject to the requirements of the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including the C.3 Standards, which are included in the City’s NPDES General Permit. Developers of those projects would be required by the City to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan that conforms with the most recent Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook and verifies that the proposed project would comply with all City stormwater
requirements. Where feasible, pervious surfaces would be required to be used instead of impervious pavement so that runoff can infiltrate to underlying soil. In some developments, the rates and durations of site runoff must also be controlled. In compliance with the C.3 Guidebook, remaining runoff from impervious areas would be required to be treated onsite using bioretention. In addition, future projects would be required to comply with CMC chapter 13.12 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) and section

17.80.100 (Stormwater Management. Implementation of Goal 1 and Policy 1.1 of the draft Housing Element would help accommodate growth and mitigate impacts of new housing on the stormwater drainage system. Where feasible, pervious surfaces would be required to be used instead of impervious pavement so that runoff can infiltrate to underlying soil. In some developments, the rates and durations of site runoff must also be controlled. In compliance with the C.3 Guidebook, remaining runoff from impervious areas would be required to be treated onsite using bioretention basins that remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. In addition, any proposed bioretention areas would be designed to accommodate runoff for treatment and
hydromodification as specified in the C.3 Guidebook. During operation, all projects developed pursuant to Alternative 3 would be required to comply with relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, including requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, and would be required to meet or exceed C.3
Standards.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Panel FIRM Maps 06013C0304G, 06013C0308F,
06013C0316F ,06013C0312F, a majority of the Planning Area is designated Zone X, which are areas determined to be of minimal flood hazard. Areas of higher elevation, such as neighborhoods in the east and northeastern portions of the City, are not located near potential flood areas. The downtown Town Center is most Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 42 of 117 January 17, 2023
susceptible to flooding, with intersections at Marsh Creek Road and Morris Street along Center Street designated as Zone X (shaded).

These are areas of 0.2% annual chance flood, areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Small pockets of these flood areas follow along Mt. Diablo Creek and its tributaries within the Planning Area. Areas along Mt. Diablo Creek and other waterways traversing the City are designated as Regulatory Floodways (Zones AE, AO, AH, VE, AR). Regulatory Floodways are channels and adjacent land that must be preserved to properly discharge floodwaters without increasing the water’s surface above a designated height. Special Flood Hazard Areas without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in the Planning Area are designated as Zones A, V, and A99. These areas are just outside of Regulatory Floodways, with the largest being in the Town Center on Clayton Road. Future development projects under Alternative 3 would occur on sites identified by the City as being appropriate for development, and while some parts of the Planning Area are susceptible to periodic flooding, there is little potential for new development under Alternative 3 to substantially alter flood flows. In addition, the General Plan Safety Element contains Objective 8 and Objective 9, and their attendant policies, which require the use of FEMA flood maps in approving new development and prevent encroachment into the floodplain, subject to federal, county and local standards and requirements.

6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would Alternative 3 risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The City and Planning Area have a very low risk of pollutants being released during flooding, tsunami, or seiche (i.e., dam failure) within the region. Portions of Clayton are located within a 100-, 200-, or 500-year floodplain, while a majority of the Planning Area is designated Zone X, which are areas determined to be of minimal flood hazard. As described above, the Town Center is most susceptible to flooding, and there are small pockets of flood areas along Mt. Diablo Creek and its tributaries within the Planning Area.

These areas are just outside of Regulatory Floodways, with the largest being in the Town Center on Clayton Road. There are no dams in the Planning Area, and the Planning Area is not located in any dam inundation zone. Future development projects pursuant to Alternative 3 would occur on sites identified by the City as being appropriate for development, including residential development.

While some parts of the Planning Area are susceptible to periodic flooding, the type of residential and commercial development that Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 43 of 117 January 17, 2023
would potentially occur as a result of Alternative 3 does not involve the use or storage of pollutants or toxic substances, and consequently, Alternative 3 would not result in the risk or release of pollutants into local waterways. The City and Planning Area are at elevations hundreds of feet above sea level (minimum 300 feet), and the City is located 35 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and 21 miles from San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the City has minimal to no risk from tsunamis, and there is little potential for significant release of pollutants within the Planning Area from a tsunami. Likewise, because there are no lakes or reservoirs within a 6-mile radius of the Planning Area, there is little potential for significant release of pollutants within the Planning Area due to seiche. In addition, the existing General Plan Safety Element contains Objective 8 and Objective 9 and their attendant policies to ensure future development under Alternative 3 would be protected from flooding.

7. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (Basin Plan) is the water quality control plan for the Contra Costa area, including the City of Clayton. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters addressed through the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan is continually being updated to include amendments related to implementation of the total maximum daily load (TMDL, a plan for restoring impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards) of specific potential pollutants or water quality stressors, revisions of programs and policies within the RWQCB region, and changes to beneficial use designations and associated water quality objectives. The General Plan requires the City and future development within the Planning Area to be consistent with the Basin Plan. The City uses its development review process to evaluate potential water quality impacts of new development to determine what short- or long-term measures must be implemented to protect the San Francisco Bay through the Basin Plan. New development pursuant to Alternative 3 would also meet these requirements.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 44 of 117 January 17, 2023
In 2014, the governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) into law which requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. SGMA empowers local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage basins sustainably and requires those GSAs to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for crucial groundwater basins in California. The Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin is not currently adjudicated and is not designated as a “critically overdrafted groundwater basin or subbasin” by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in their Bulletin 118 publication. The City and its future development activities must be consistent with the short- and long-term water quality requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Basin Plan to protect local groundwater supplies. Eventually, the local groundwater basin will be part of a GSP under a GSA. Once Alternative 3 is adopted, the City will inform the local water serving agency of its changes in land use and growth projections under Alternative 3. This information will then contribute to the planning process of the Delta Watermaster (relative to imported water) and any future GSPs for groundwater management in this region. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL1 from the Utilities Section would help reduce future demand on local groundwater resources from new development.

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The goals and policies of the draft Housing Element would help existing neighborhoods to remain cohesive and allow new development in the future to create additional cohesive neighborhoods for residents and businesses. These goals include Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 through 1.3, which encourage the City to “[m]aintain and enhance long-established housing and
neighborhoods while accommodating moderate growth” through preservation of architectural and design quality of established residential neighborhoods; consideration of and mitigation for impacts of new housing on the City’s infrastructure, open space, natural resources and public services; and targeting new housing development to areas in Clayton near major travel corridors and commercial centers. With implementation of these policies proposed with Alternative 3, Alternative 3 would not physically divide established neighborhoods now or in the future.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 45 of 117 January 17, 2023

2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 would result in changes in residential land use densities in the Planning Area to accommodate up to 966 additional dwelling units, 2,630 additional residents, 71 additional employees, and up to 13,000 square feet of additional non-residential building square footage within the Planning Area through 2031. These estimates of units, people and floor area are higher than the projections in the 2014 Housing Element. These changes in anticipated growth are a result of the City’s RHNA. As discussed in Section 4.14-4 of the Draft EIR, the Project is inconsistent with the growth projections of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Plan Bay Area 2050 because those long-term projections do not take into account jurisdiction-specific short-term RHNA requirements. Once the City has adopted the Housing Element update and related amendments, the City will transmit its new growth numbers to ABAG, and those estimates will be incorporated into the next revisions to the Plan Bay Area. Any further action by the City would not resolve the regional impact of the RHNA conflicting with the Plan Bay Area projections, and in any case would be infeasible because only ABAG can resolve this policy and program conflict. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation available to the City to reduce this potential impact. If growth occurs according to Alternative 3, substantial unplanned population and housing growth may be induced into the Planning Area. The City’s Land Use Element and updated Housing Element demonstrate the City has exercised adequate local planning to accommodate growth based on the mandated RHNA. However, the inconsistency between the RNHA and Plan Bay Area 2050 is a potentially significant population impact. Unfortunately, the City cannot feasibly resolve this inconsistency in adopted plans at this time, but it can accommodate this future growth according to the RHNA at the local level with adherence to the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element.

Therefore, potential population, housing, and employment changes from future development pursuant to Alternative 3 are considered to have less than significant impacts under CEQA, and no mitigation is required.

K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 46 of 117 January 17, 2023
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: According to the Department of Conservation, a large portion of the Clayton Planning Area is classified as MRZ-3, meaning there are minerals of an undetermined quantity. A western portion of the Planning Area is designated as MRZ-2, meaning there are significant mineral deposits, this portion is in line with where the CEMEX Clayton Quarry is located. The remainder of the City of Clayton is designated as MRZ-4, there being insufficient information on the presence of minerals. While there are significant mineral deposits located within the Planning Area, Alternative 3 would not impact any of the locations identified within the Planning Area boundaries as containing significant mineral deposits. All of the potential housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are either currently developed or located in mostly developed areas that are designated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element for development. Alternative 3 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the State.

2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As discussed in Section L.1, above, there are portions of the Clayton Planning Area where significant mineral deposits have been identified. However, because all of the potential housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are inside the corporate boundary and either developed or located in mostly developed areas that are designated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element for development, Alternative 3 would not result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site. Further, no impact to the CEMEX Clayton Quarry would occur as a result of Alternative 3.

L. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 47 of 117 January 17, 2023
project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: These potential land use changes associated with Alternative 3 would increase the number of residents and employees in the City which, in turn, would lead to increased vehicle traffic on the local roadway system. This increase in vehicle traffic could result in trafficrelated noise levels that pose land use compatibility issues or result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic-related noise levels throughout the City. The results of the traffic noise modeling indicate that traffic noise levels within the City would continue to be highest along major travel corridors such as Clayton Road, Kirker Pass Road, Marsh Creek Road, and Oakhurst Drive; however, Alternative 3 would not substantially increase traffic volumes nor result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels above existing conditions along these roadways. The implementation of Alternative 3 could also involve increases in stationary noise and other sources of noise within the City.

Pursuant to the State noise standards, California Building Code, Section 1207.4, new residential structures would be required to be constructed such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 Aweighted decibel day/night average sound level (dBA DNL).

Standard construction techniques and materials are commonly accepted to provide a minimum exterior to interior noise attenuation (i.e., reduction) of 22–25 dBA with all windows and doors closed (HUD 2009a and 2009b).ii These interior noise reductions would be adequate for some developments occurring pursuant to Alternative 3 to meet interior noise standards. New residential development along Clayton Road, Kirker Pass Road, and Marsh Creek Road could require additional noise attenuation design features since traffic noise levels along these roadways are estimated to exceed 70 DNL under conditions with and without Alternative 3. Adherence to the State’s mandatory noise standards would ensure residential and mixed-use structures within the Planning Area meet or exceed the 45 dBA DNL standard.

Stationary and other sources of noise in and near the City include, but are not limited to, landscape and building maintenance activities, stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, HVAC units), garbage collection activities, commercial and industrial activities (e.g., CEMEX Clayton Quarry), and other stationary and area sources such as people's voices, amplified music (e.g., Concord Pavilion), and public address systems. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short-term and intermittent. The City’s existing Noise Element policies would protect Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 48 of 117 January 17, 2023
residents from excessive stationary noise sources and ensure new land uses meet the Clayton Municipal Code noise standards through evaluation and design considerations. Thus, stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by the General Plan Noise Element goals and policies (Policies 2a, 2d, 3c and 3d), and CMC chapter 9.30, which establish standards related to noise, including a 55 DNL residential noise limit from sound and power equipment and specific prohibitions on certain potentially loud, annoying, and unnecessary noises that may disturb the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or annoy a reasonable person of normal sensitivity.

Therefore, stationary noise sources associated with the future development of housing sites would comply with City standards and would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in noise levels.

2. Vibration
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 would result in the development of new residential and mixed-use development projects on potential housing sites.

Alternative 3 would not result in the development of new and permanent stationary or mobile vibration sources. No long-term impact would occur; however, temporary vibration from construction could occur with the Project. Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and at high levels can cause sleep disturbance in places where people normally sleep or annoyance in buildings that are primarily used for daytime functions and sleeping (e.g., a hospital), or damage to foundations and exteriors of existing structures.

Construction equipment and activities are categorized by the nature of the vibration they produce. Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and pile-extraction equipment, while equipment or activities typical of single-impact or low-rate, repeated impact vibration include impact pile drivers, and crack-and-seat equipment. Since individual project-specific information is not available at this time, potential short-term construction-related vibration impacts that may result from Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 49 of 117 January 17, 2023
construction pursuant to Alternative 3 can only be evaluated based on the typical construction activities associated with residential, commercial, and industrial development. Potential construction source vibration levels were developed based on methodologies, reference noise levels, and typical equipment usage and other operating factors documented by State and federal transportation agencies (Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the California Department of Transportation).

Vibration estimates represent potential vibration levels based on typical equipment operations and assume there is no change in elevation between work areas and receptor locations and no change in subsurface conditions that may affect vibration transmission through soil media and structures. Future development of potential housing sites is not anticipated to have the potential to result in structural damage to buildings. Construction-related groundborne vibrations have the potential to be perceptible at buildings within approximately 150 feet of typical construction work areas and 400 feet or more of construction work areas involving impact hammer equipment. With regards to annoyance, although typical construction activities may generate perceptible ground-borne vibration levels at structures within approximately 150 feet of work areas, these levels would not be excessive because they would be intermittent (not occur every day), limited in duration (equipment would move throughout work areas and not operate in the same location for a prolonged amount of time), and occur during the daytime only (when receptors would not be sleeping and, therefore, are considered less sensitive to vibration levels). In addition, as would be required by Mitigation Measure NOI-1, any pile driving activities occurring near residential and commercial buildings would require pre-drilling with an auger rig to reduce vibration levels and pie driver run times. For these reasons, the future development of potential housing sites would have a less than significant impact on human annoyance and responses.

3. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The closest airport to the City is Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 5.6 miles northwest of the City boundary. The City is not located in any noise contour zone associated with this airport.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 50 of 117 January 17, 2023
There are no private airstrips located in the Planning Area, and the City is not located within the vicinity of a private air strip or in an airport land use plan area and would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive airport-related noise levels.

M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The updated Housing Element identifies how the City plans to accommodate its RHNA of at least 570 units. Alternative 3 has the potential to result in up to 966 additional dwelling units within the Planning Area. This increase in housing would result in a projected population increase of 2,630 additional persons. The 2000 General Plan had a maximum build-out of 3,399 units which would generate 11,217 persons at 3.3 persons per unit. This included the existing 1,540 units in the City but did not include the 555 units that could be developed outside of the City limits.

Table 4.14-1 of the Draft EIR shows that only 115 new units are projected by ABAG for the City from 2020 to 2040, while the current RHNA allocation for the City is 570 new units from only 2023 to 2031.

It should be noted the RHNA is based on the state’s encouragement of more housing throughout the state. Based on available evidence, Alternative 3 is inconsistent with the growth projections of ABAG and Plan Bay Area 2050 because those long-term projections do not take into account jurisdiction-specific, short-term RHNA requirements.

Table 4.14-1 also indicates the City’s population growth projected by ABAG is beyond what was anticipated when the City’s General Plan and its EIR were adopted in 2000. Once the City has adopted Alternative 3, it will transmit its new growth numbers to ABAG, and those estimates will be incorporated into the next revisions to the Plan Bay Area. Any further action by the City would not resolve the regional impact of the RHNA conflicting with the Plan Bay Area projections, and in any case would be infeasible because only ABAG can resolve this policy and program conflict. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation available to the City to reduce this potential impact. If growth occurs according to Alternative 3, substantial unplanned population and housing growth may be induced into the City. The City’s Land Use Element and updated Housing Element Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 51 of 117 January 17, 2023
demonstrate the City has exercised adequate local planning to accommodate growth based on the mandated RHNA. However, the inconsistency between the RNHA and Plan Bay Area 2050 is a potentially significant population impact. Unfortunately, the City cannot feasibly resolve this inconsistency in adopted plans at this time, but it can accommodate this future growth according to the RHNA at the local level with adherence to the proposed amended goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element. Therefore, potential population, housing, and employment changes from future development under Alternative 3 are considered to have less than significant impacts under CEQA, and no mitigation is required

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The preliminary 6th cycle sites in Alternative 3 indicates development of a total of 31 sites that could result in up to 966 new housing units spread across the City. This potential number of new units is 70 percent greater than the RHNA (570 units). The housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are a mix of developed and undeveloped sites.

Projects at undeveloped sites would not result in the removal of existing housing and, therefore, would not result in displacement of a substantial number of persons. The sites that are currently developed with residential uses—Sites E, H, I, M, N, T and O, with nine single-family houses among them—would be redeveloped with higher residential densities under Alternative 3 over a period of years. Persons inhabiting dwelling units on sites identified by the City under Alternative 3 would be given ample time under state law to find alternative housing accommodations should the owner of a given site decide to redevelop the site at a higher density. For these reasons, Alternative 3 would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing which could necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City.

N. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 52 of 117 January 17, 2023
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 fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 would increase the number of housing units and residents in Clayton, and these additional residents would generate an increased need for fire protection services. The existing General Plan contains a number of goals, objectives, and policies relative to fire protection services, including Safety Element has Goal 1 that deals with reducing risk in the City, and Objectives 10 and 11 that specifically address fire protection service and incorporating fire protection into development design to reduce risk, having the fire department review all new development, and using development impact fees to fund fire protection in the City. Objective 11 also aims to reduce fire risk by promoting fire safe residences in high-risk areas. Finally, Goal 1 of the Growth Management Element helps to ensure that new residential, business, and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. These existing General Plan goals, objectives, and policies help the City ensure adequate fire protection services are provided to its residents now and in the future. In addition, the draft Housing Element contains Policy 1.2 that calls for mitigation of the impacts of new housing on public services. With continued payment of fees for fire protection services from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD), future housing projects developed mainly within the urbanized portion of the Planning Area would not extend Clayton's service area beyond its current municipal boundary and would not have a significant effect on fire service demands. In accordance with CMC section 3.18.040, development impact fees (DIF) are also paid by developers of new housing for fire protection services and facilities are based on staffing levels plus overhead cost shares. In the event that additional fire protection facilities and/or resources are needed in the Planning Area, property tax revenue from new development would also provide the CCCFPD with a funding source to meet new growth needs. Additionally, development within the Planning Area would be subject to current Building Code and CCCFPD requirements for fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire flow, and equipment and firefighter access, as well as Fire Code requirements. Compliance with these standards would be ensured through the plan check process prior to the issuance of building permits and would reduce the potential for fire emergencies at future project sites. Finally, based on the location of the fire stations in and around the City and the location of housing inventory sites inside the current municipal boundary, it is expected that Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 53 of 117 January 17, 2023
response times would be within the national standard of 5 minutes or less for fires and basic life support, and 8 minutes or less for advanced life support after implementation of Alternative 3.

Construction or expansion of existing fire facilities would not be required as a result of adoption of Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities.

2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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 Law Enforcement Services?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The increase in City residents and land use intensity in the Planning Area would result in an increased demand for Clayton Police Department services and resources within the City. Future housing would incrementally increase service ratios and needs as growth occurs, but it is not expected to require construction of new police facilities. Property tax growth would provide the City with at least a portion of the funding needed to meet additional staffing and equipment needs generated by new growth. Finally, based on the way police services are distributed in and around the City (i.e., via patrol cars), the small size of the City, and the location of the housing inventory sites within City limits such that no expansion beyond the current municipal boundary would occur, it is expected that response times within the urbanized portions of the City where most of the growth would occur under Alternative 3, would be within the national standard of 5 minutes or less for primary emergency calls. The existing General Plan also contains a number of goals, objectives, and policies relative to police protection. The Safety Element has Goal 1 that deals with reducing risk in the City, and Objective 12 and its policy 12a encourage community involvement to help reduce the risk of crime over the long-term. In addition, policy 12b requires the Planning Commission and Police Department to review proposed new development projects to assure they contain crime reduction design and planning. Community Facilities Element Goal 1 requires planning for future infrastructure and programs to serve the community, which is supported by Objective 5 and its policies 5a-c to maintain fees on new development for various municipal services and/or improvements based on actual cost experience of the City (including police service). Finally, the Growth Management Element Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 54 of 117 January 17, 2023
contains Goal 1 under Public Facilities and Services that also requires crime prevention design for new development, as well as Objective 1 and its supporting policies 1a-c which require the City to maintain a mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs associated with growth. These existing General Plan goals, objectives, and polices help the City ensure that adequate police protection facilities and services are provided to its residents now and in the future. In addition, the draft Housing Element contains Policy 1.2 that calls for mitigation of the impacts of new housing on public services. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities.

3. Schools
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The increase in City residents and land use intensity in the Planning Area would result in a population that would include some schoolaged children. These new resident children would require school facilities and services for approximately 13 years (ages 5-18 and Kindergarten through 12th grade). The 966 potential new housing units under the Project could generate up to 2,630 additional persons within the Planning Area which, according to the School Fee Justification Study (2020) student generation factors, would result in an estimated additional 310 kindergarten through grade 12 students.

Staff of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) that serves the Clayton area have indicated that MDUSD does not have future capacity for additional students at this time in its current school sites and that any changes that result in additional housing would create increased need for student housing in the form of new schools. New residential development in Clayton is required to pay the legally established School Impact Fees (SIFs) at the time any new development is proposed. Since the SIFs are based on building square footage, it is not possible at this time to know exactly how much SIFs funds would be generated by new development pursuant to the Project. As stated in California Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 65995 and/or Education Code Section 17620 is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. MDUSD can Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 55 of 117 January 17, 2023
also enter directly into additional, voluntary mitigation agreements with residential developers in order to offset increased demand for school facilities from future residential development, and the City will continue to assist the MDUSD in this capacity by sending development applications to the MDUSD for future residential developments within the MDUSD’s boundaries. For the reasons stated above, impacts related to the need for new school facilities as a result of Alternative 3 would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations and statutory requirements for payment of SIFs

4. Parks
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The residents, employees, and visitors of the Planning Area use nearby parks and recreation facilities. Alternative 3 has the potential to result in development of up to 966 additional dwelling units and up to 2,630 new residents within the Planning Area. These increases in housing and population would generate an increased need for new or expanded recreational facilities or programs. Both the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) and the State Quimby Act (Government Code section 66477) recommend a city maintain 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Based on this guideline and the City’s 2020 population of 12,265 residents, the City should have

61.3 acres of parkland at present. Currently, the City has approximately 25.3 acres in 7 City parks to serve City residents; most of this acreage is in the 20-acre Clayton Community Park. The City therefore is currently deficient by 36 acres of dedicated parkland according to the NRPA and Quimby Act standards. However, the City does not currently have a locally-adopted parkland standard, and the General Plan does not identify a parkland deficiency within the City.

At present, the City maintains approximately 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and there does not appear to be an identified parkland deficiency within the City based on local standards. The relevant parks and recreational facilities goals, objectives, and policies of the existing General Plan, including Community Facilities Element Policy 3a and Open Space/Recreation Element Objective 2, would remain operative with Alternative 3 and demonstrate the City’s long-term commitment to providing sufficient parks and recreational facilities for its residents. In addition, the draft Housing Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 56 of 117 January 17, 2023
Element contains Policy 1.2 that calls for mitigation of the impacts of new housing on public services and open spaces. The additional 2,630 residents from implementation of Alternative 3 would generate a need for an additional 13.2 acres of parkland based on state and federal guidelines (5 acres per 1,000 population). Implementation of Alternative 3 would decrease the City’s existing park ratio of 2.0 acres per thousand residents, without accounting for regional and state parks just outside City limits and if no additional parks are added as housing increases under Alternative 3. All new dwelling units developed under Alternative 3 would be subject to payment of the City’s DIF for parkland dedication – the fee for single family residential is $2,569 per unit and the fee for multi-family residential is $1,666.00 per unit or $2,180.00 per duplex unit. This parks and recreation funding mechanism would offset the incremental increase in demand for park facilities from implementation of Alternative 3 by providing funding for additional parks in the Planning Area as population increases. All future residential development within the City would be required to pay the parkland DIF. For the above reasons, impacts to existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Other public facilities and services provided within the Planning Area include library services and City administrative services. The additional 2,630 residents that could result from implementation of Alternative 3 would generate an incremental need for additional library services and possibly City administrative services. Although many library and City services are now available online, it is possible this increased demand would result in an increased need for library or City administration facilities. The existing General Plan contains a number of goals, objectives, and policies relative to community facilities. The Community Facilities Element contains Goal 1 that emphasizes efficient infrastructure plans and Objective 1 strives to identify future community facility needs. Policy 1g specifically mentions City Hall, library, and other cultural facilities, while Objective 3 and Policy 3a focus on facilities desired by the community, such as soccer/playfields, swimming complexes, tennis courts, library, community playhouse and public meeting rooms. The Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 57 of 117 January 17, 2023
implementation measures for these various goals, objectives, and policies require the establishment and regular updating of impact fees for new development, which the City maintains as previously discussed. In addition, the Public Facilities and Services sub-section of the City’s Growth Management Element contains Goal 6 which states that “new residential, business, and commercial growth needs to pay for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth.” Objective 1 of that goal is to maintain a development mitigation program for that purpose (i.e., to pay for impacts of future growth). The draft Housing Element also contains Policy 1.2 that calls for mitigation of the impacts of new housing on public services.

In accordance with CMC section 3.16.020, the City currently maintains a DIF for “Community Facilities Development” that could be used for new or expanded library or City administration facilities in the future. Specific community facilities, either new, expanded, or rehabilitated, are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which typically projects planned public improvements over 5- year period so it is clear what facilities will be added in the future in the City as growth occurs. Based on available evidence, it is anticipated that existing library and City administrative services could accommodate the increase in demand due to implementation of Alternative 3 with creating new or expanded facilities. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities from growth in the area would be less than significant.

O. RECREATION

1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The residents, employees, and visitors of the Planning Area use nearby parks and recreation facilities. Alternative 3 has the potential to result in development of up to 966 additional dwelling units and up to 2,630 new residents within the Planning Area. These increases in housing and population would generate an increased need for new or expanded recreational facilities or programs. Both the NRPA and the State Quimby Act (Government Code section 66477)
recommend a city maintain 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population.

Based on this guideline and the City’s 2020 population of 12,265 residents, the City should have 61.3 acres of parkland at present.

Currently, the City has approximately 25.3 acres in 7 City parks to serve City residents; most of this acreage is in the 20-acre Clayton Community Park. The City therefore is currently deficient by 36 Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 58 of 117 January 17, 2023
acres of dedicated parkland according to the NRPA and Quimby Act standards. However, the City does not currently have a locallyadopted parkland standard, and the General Plan does not identify a parkland deficiency within the City. At present, the City maintains approximately 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and there does not appear to be an identified parkland deficiency within the City based on local standards. The relevant parks and recreational facilities goals, objectives, and policies of the existing General Plan, including Community Facilities Element Policy 3a and Open Space/Recreation Element Objective 2, would remain operative with the Project and demonstrate the City’s long-term commitment to providing sufficient parks and recreational facilities for its residents.

The additional 2,630 residents from implementation of Alternative 3 would generate a need for an additional 13.2 acres of parkland based on state and federal guidelines (5 acres per 1,000 population).

Implementation of the Project would decrease the City’s existing park ratio of 2.0 acres per thousand residents, without accounting for regional and state parks just outside City limits and if no additional parks are added as housing increases under Alternative 3. All new dwelling units developed under Alternative 3 would be subject to payment of the City’s DIF for parkland dedication – the fee for single family residential is $2,569 per unit and the fee for multi-family residential is $1,666.00 per unit or $2,180.00 per duplex unit. This parks and recreation funding mechanism would offset the incremental increase in demand for park facilities from implementation of Alternative 3 by providing funding for additional parks in the Planning Area as population increases. All future residential development within the City would be required to pay the parkland DIF. For the above reasons, impacts to existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.

2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does Alternative 3 include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Alternative 3 does not propose the construction or expansion of any specific recreational facilities. New housing pursuant to Alternative 3 would increase the City’s population (by approximately 2,630 residents) which would increase the need for new or additional recreational facilities. New development would be required to provide onsite facilities or contribute in lieu fees for providing offsite recreational facilities per the City’s General Plan (Community Facilities and Open Space/Recreation Elements). New
developments built pursuant to Alternative 3 (including those that Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 59 of 117 January 17, 2023
propose new recreational facilities) would be required to prepare and process CEQA compliance documentation and mitigate impacts from construction of new recreational facilities related to those developments, if necessary. In addition, any new parks or recreational facilities proposed by the City would require CEQA documentation and mitigation if necessary. Therefore, any impacts from new recreational facilities associated with new development under Alternative 3 would be less than significant.

P. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC

1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Implementation of Alternative 3 would be subject to and implement General Plan policies applicable to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and service. Additionally, development projects built pursuant to Alternative 3 would be subject to all applicable City guidelines, standards, and specifications related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Specifically, any modifications or new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. In particular, under General Plan Policy 2a, traffic shall be directed onto arterials with appropriate street and intersection design. Such appropriate street and intersection design may include but not be limited to: street widths; traffic control devices; street surface modifications (pavement scoring, surface markers or bumps, speed humps or undulations); traffic diverters or barriers. Policy 4d calls for the identification of acceptable traffic service levels at key interchanges as a base for development analysis. Policies 6a through 6c aim to provide alternative routes of circulation through the Town Center.

Policy 7b aims to identify pedestrian routes to school from different neighborhoods to make sure a safe route exists. Policy 7d calls for the coordination of trails with other jurisdictions such as East Bay Regional Parks District, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, Contra Costa County and Concord. Policies 8a and 8b require cooperation with Concord and Contra Costa County in design of the Regional Traffic System. Policy 9a requires developers to construct all streets within a development and to contribute an equitable share of the improvements of other streets serving the development. Policy 9c aims to provide systematic upgrade of streets and roads to applicable standards. Because implementation of Alternative 3 would be subject to all applicable City guidelines, Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 60 of 117 January 17, 2023
standards, and specifications, Alternative 3 would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a less-thansignificant impact to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

2. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Subsequent development pursuant to Alternative 3, including any new roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure improvements, would be subject to, and designed in accordance with City standards and specifications that address potential design hazards including sight distance, driveway placement, and signage and striping. Additionally, any new transportation facilities, or improvements to such facilities associated with subsequent projects would be constructed based on industry design standards and best practices consistent with the City’s zoning code and building design and inspection requirements. The City’s evaluation of projects’ access and circulation will incorporate analysis with respect to City standards for vehicular level of service and queueing, as well as for service to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to design feature hazards.

3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: There are no specific development projects associated with Alternative 3, and thus, specific housing sites developed pursuant to Alternative 3 cannot be analyzed for adequacy of emergency access at this time. However, the City maintains the roadway network that would provide access to new development sites in accordance with industry design standards, including the City of Clayton Standard Specifications (2015). Emergency access to new development sites proposed pursuant to Alternative 3 would be subject to review by the City of Clayton and responsible emergency service agencies, thus ensuring the projects would be designed to meet all emergency access and design standards. The City also requires that traffic control shall be in conformance with the latest State of California standards, and that adequate traffic control equipment or personnel Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 61 of 117 January 17, 2023
be provided during construction. Additional vehicles associated with new development sites could increase delays for emergency response vehicles during peak commute hours. However,
emergency responders maintain response plans which include use of alternate routes, sirens and other methods to bypass congestion and minimize response times. In addition, California law requires drivers to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes to ensure the safe and timely passage of emergency vehicles. Based on the above considerations, adequate emergency access would be provided to new development sites, and the impact would be less than significant Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve Alternative 3 that it has adequate capacity to serve Alternative 3’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Wastewater generated by land uses within Central Contra Costa County is conveyed by the City (under contract to the City of Concord) via existing infrastructure to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Treatment Plant for treatment and then discharged to surface waters or reused as recycled water. The Project would result in an estimated population increase of up to 2,630 persons in the Planning Area. Assuming an average future generation of 100 gallons of wastewater per person per day (from the CCCSD Wastewater Management Plan [WMP]), the Project would generate an additional 263,000 gallons of wastewater per day, or 0.26 million gallons per day (mgd). This represents 0.5 percent of the estimated 54 mgd dry weather flow capacity of the CCCSD Treatment Plant. The projected population increase estimated in the CCCSD WMP is similar to those of ABAG in their 2020 Plan Bay Area. Although those projections do not specifically take into account the population increase of 2,630 persons estimated for Alternative 3 by 2022-2030, it is unlikely the sewage demands of future development under Alternative 3 would exceed the capacity of the CCCSD Treatment Plant. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve Alternative 3’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 62 of 117 January 17, 2023

2. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority (dba RecycleSmart) provides solid waste and residential recycling services for areas within Contra Costa County. RecycleSmart holds franchise agreements with waste franchises that provide solid waste collection and disposal of residential and commercial solid waste.

According to CalRecycle, Contra Costa County generates 807,550 tons annually of solid waste. The County’s Keller Canyon Landfill is active with a current maximum daily tonnage limit for disposal of 3,500 tons per day. The landfill has a maximum capacity of 75,018,280 tons and has a remaining capacity of 63,408,410 tons.

Based on its maximum daily limit, the landfill currently has a remaining lifetime of approximately 50 years. Alternative 3 would result in a population increase of up to 2,630 additional persons who would generate solid waste and an increased need for solid waste disposal services in the future. Assuming 3.5 pounds of waste generated per person per day, the additional population added under the Project would generate a total of 9,205 pounds or 4.6 tons per day of additional solid waste. This represents 0.13 percent of the daily maximum total disposal limit for the landfill. The Community Facilities Element of the existing General Plan contains Goal 1 which requires the City to provide efficient plans to maintain and expand existing utility infrastructure as needed (which applies to solid waste services as well). In addition, Objective 1 in the Growth Management Element of the existing General Plan requires all new development to pay appropriate impact fees to assure adequate utility service (which includes solid waste). In these ways, the existing General Plan assures that new development would have adequate solid waste service in the future. As outlined above, Alternative 3 would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local (landfill) infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

3. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will Alternative 3 comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 63 of 117 January 17, 2023
Explanation: The City currently complies with the waste reduction requirements of Assembly Bill 341, which established a goal of 75 percent waste diversion (through prevention, reuse and recycling of refuse materials) by 2020. The growth projections of Alternative 3 are different than those of the existing General Plan or ABAG 2020 Plan Bay Area which do not take into account recent and current RHNA allocations for additional housing to meet state goals. However, residents of the added housing units and employees of future nonresidential development would comply with established solid waste reduction programs. In addition, the City is required by comply with state laws regarding source reduction and recycling. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not interfere with the City’s compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
R. WILDFIRE

1. Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would Alternative 3 substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Fire services in the Planning Area are provided by the CCCFPD. Fire Station 11 is located at the intersection of Clayton Road and Center Street near Clayton’s Town Center. Except for the City of Concord to the northwest, all areas surrounding the City of Clayton are designated State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), which are areas where the California Department of Fire and Forestry has responsibility for wildland fire protection. The large open spaces surrounding the Planning Area pose a potentially significant fire hazard. Slopes, high winds, and difficulty in access also increase the potential hazards. Wildfires in the hills are of continuous concern, and can be fueled by dry vegetation, occasional Diablo winds, and hot temperatures. Traffic congestion in the case of fire can hinder firefighting. Isolated homes set in wooded canyons or on ridge tops with only one narrow, winding, or steep road are subject to a high fire hazard. In any disaster warranting evacuation, the exact emergency routes used would depend on a number of variables, including the type, scope, and location of the incident. The Clayton General Plan Safety Element identifies primary exit routes out of Clayton to the north as Pine Hollow Road, Clayton Road, and Concord Boulevard (east of the Clayton municipal boundary, Concord Boulevard becomes Oakhurst Drive). To the south, the primary route is Marsh Creek Road. Clayton Road, Marsh Creek Road and Concord
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 64 of 117 January 17, 2023
Boulevard/Oakhurst Drive are arterial streets that carry traffic into, out of and through Clayton. Pine Hollow Road is one of the City’s collector streets, which is a classification of roadways that provide connections to and from arterial streets to neighborhood streets and destination points. All of the arterial streets provide two travel lanes in each direction; Marsh Creek Road varies between one to two lanes in each direction, and Pine Hollow Road has one travel lane in each direction in Clayton and widens to two lanes in each direction in the City of Concord. According to the Clayton General Plan Safety Element, two-lane roads such as Pine Hollow Road can carry as many as 1,000 vehicles per hour, while wider four-lane roads such as Concord Boulevard can carry as many as 3,000 vehicles per hour.

These principal access ways are all well-maintained and would function as evacuation routes under the Project.

Implementation of Alternative 3 could result in work off-site of future development areas and in public rights-of-way for purposes of installation of utility lines or connections to new residences, or to install circulation improvements such as sidewalks or bicycle lanes.

Prior to conducting any work in a public right-of-way, developers of future development projects would be required to obtain an encroachment permit in accordance with CMC chapter 12.04. The request for encroachment permit is subject to approval by the City Engineer, who can impose limitations on work hours and/or require that work in a roadway maintain at least one unobstructed travel lane in each direction at all times during construction, as appropriate for the type of work being performed. Such limitations and requirements would be consistent with standard traffic engineering practice and the temporary traffic control plan measures and guidance in the California Department of Transportation’s California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The General Plan Safety Element contains goals, objectives, and policies to reduce potential risk to new development through planning, communication and community engagement, and to minimize existing risk through coordinated CityCounty actions. These include objectives and policies include Objective 12, Policy 12a, Policy 12c, Objective 13, and Policies 13b through 13d. Safety Element Policy 13a requires major arterials to be kept free for evacuation in case of a major emergency and is consistent with the requirement for an encroachment permit that is codified in CMC chapter 12.04. While it is possible that there may be limited circulation changes that may be required during discrete periods of time associated with specific construction projects, these changes would be temporary and would be subject to encroachment permit requirements that would facilitate unobstructed evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 65 of 117 January 17, 2023
Additional General Plan goals, objectives, and policies ensure that adequate peak load water supply exists for firefighting, all-weather roads are constructed and maintained for firefighting equipment, and future development pursuant to Alternative 3 would be constructed according to proper code standards. In addition, since permanent closure of any existing public right-of-way would not be necessary for development on any of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3, existing emergency access routes would be maintained to all properties within the Planning Area and the surrounding vicinity during construction activities and once potential residential development is occupied. Potential adverse impacts on emergency access would be less than significant.

2. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such a roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: Except for the City of Concord to the northwest, all areas surrounding the City of Clayton are designated SRAs. The large open spaces surrounding the Planning Area pose a potentially significant fire hazard. Alternative 3 would not permit development of housing in any open space area. Moreover, the potential housing sites in Alternative 3 are all located in the developed portions of the City of Clayton, away from the urban-wildlife interface and the high fire hazard severity zones to the south and east. All new development that occurs pursuant to Alternative 3 would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CCCFPD’s requirements and
recommendations for new development pursuant to the California Fire Code 2019 and CCCFPD Ordinance No. 2019-37, Section 105.7. Future housing development would be located on existing roadways, would connect to existing utilities, and would not require such things as fire breaks or emergency water resources. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, powerlines, or other utilities that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 66 of 117 January 17, 2023

3. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: None of the potential housing sites in Alternative 3 are located in any of the hillside portions of the City or Planning Area. Future development that occurs pursuant to Alternative 3 would occur in the mostly developed, and relatively flat areas located within the City’s corporate boundaries. Development within designated open spaces, hillsides, and foothills would not occur as a result of Alternative 3.

Therefore, development would not occur within any high fire hazard severity zone. In addition, Safety Element goals and policies require existing and new development to be adequately protected from potential flooding or landslides and to not cause such hazards through careful site planning and construction.

SECTION III.

IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

A. AIR QUALITY

1. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Alternative 3 result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for federal ozone, State ozone, State “inhalable coarse” particulate matter (PM10), federal “fine” particulate matter (PM2.5), and State PM2.5 standards. The BAAQMD, in developing its CEQA significance thresholds, considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As stated in p. 2-1 in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines:

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 67 of 117 January 17, 2023
“In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The analysis to assess project-level air quality impacts should be as comprehensive and rigorous as possible.”
The analysis of potential air quality impacts described above indicates that Alternative 3 could result in potentially significant construction emissions impacts. All other impacts would be less than significant.

As described in the following paragraphs, each individual development constructed pursuant to Alternative 3 is anticipated to be below the construction screening size criterion determined by the BAAQMD to require a detailed construction air quality impact assessment; however, there are insufficient project-specific details at this point to determine if all projects would meet all BAAQMD construction screening criteria. In addition, individual construction projects would emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), a toxic air contaminant (TAC). The exposure of sensitive receptors near construction sites to DPM could have an adverse health risk impact if project construction activities were of sufficient intensity and duration to result in prolonged exposure to DPM emissions. Although unlikely, the potential for future development projects supported by the project to exceed BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance is considered a potentially significant impact.

To ensure projects achieve consistency with the BAAQMD’s construction screening criteria or, if consistency with the construction screening criteria cannot be demonstrated, the mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and AIR-2 (below) are recommended to be incorporated into future project development project approvals. MM AIR-1 would require future project development projects to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Measures to control fugitive dust emissions generated during construction activities, and MM AIR-2 would require future projects that cannot meet BAAQMD
construction screening criteria to prepare a detailed construction air quality impact assessment to ensure projects do not generate construction emissions that exceed BAAQMD construction
thresholds or otherwise result in substantial pollutant concentrations that could pose adverse health risks to sensitive receptors.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 68 of 117 January 17, 2023

2. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: Although it is unlikely given the size of individual project sites (fewer than 114 single-family residences, 240 multifamily residences, or 277,000 square feet of noncommercial space), emissions associated with equipment used for construction of future project development activities could exceed project-level CEQA significance thresholds recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Each individual development constructed pursuant to Alternative 3 is anticipated to be well below the operational screening size criterion determined by the BAAQMD (fewer than 325 single-family
residences, 451 multifamily residences, or 42,000 square feet of noncommercial space) to require a detailed operational air quality impact assessment. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would not cause or significantly contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations that exceed state or federal ambient air quality standards for CO, as the maximum number of vehicles moving through any study intersection (in this case, through the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and Clayton Boulevard during the PM peak hour) in a given hour in proximity of the Planning Area under the 2040 project conditions would be less than one fifth of the BAAQMD’s threshold of 44,000 vehicles per hour that could result in a CO hotspot. This impact would be less than significant
Although each individual development constructed pursuant to Alternative 3 is anticipated to be well below the construction screening size criterion determined by the to require a detailed construction air quality impact assessment, there are insufficient project-specific details at this point to determine if all projects would meet all BAAQMD construction screening criteria. To ensure projects achieve consistency with the BAAQMD’s construction screening criteria or, if consistency with the construction screening criteria cannot be demonstrated, mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2 are to be added as conditions of approval of future project development projects. MM AIR-1 would require future project development projects to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic
Construction Measures to control fugitive dust emissions generated during construction activities. MM AIR-2 would require future development projects that cannot meet construction screening criteria to prepare a detailed construction air quality impact assessment to: 1) estimate potential project construction emissions; Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 69 of 117 January 17, 2023
2) compare potential project construction emissions against BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance; and 3) incorporate measures to reduce construction emission impacts to levels below the BAAQMD’s construction thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants and TACs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with the following mitigation:

MM AIR-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new project development projects to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic
Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust
emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures
include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s phone number shall
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 70 of 117 January 17, 2023
also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.

MM AIR-2: Prepare Project-level Construction Emissions
Assessment. The City shall require new projects requiring discretionary review to include a quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis prior to the start of construction activities that shows project construction activities would not exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds of significance. The
analysis may rely on BAAQMD construction screening criteria to demonstrate that a detailed assessment of criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant construction emissions is not required for the project. If the project does not satisfy all BAAQMD construction screening criteria, the analysis shall estimate and compare construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions against the project-level thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the implement
measure to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds.

Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Watering exposes surfaces at a frequency adequate to
maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12
percent, as verified by moisture probe or lab sampling; • Suspending excavation, grading, and/or demolition
activities when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles
per hour;
• Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g.,
specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines
or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce
engine runtime);
• Installing wind breaks that have a maximum 50 percent air porosity;
• Restoring disturbed areas with vegetative ground
cover as soon as possible;
• Limiting simultaneous ground-disturbing activities in the same area at any one time (e.g., excavation and
grading);
• Scheduling/phasing activities to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time; • Installing
wheel washers to wash truck and equipment tires prior
to leaving the site;
• Minimizing idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to no more than 2 minutes or the shortest
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 71 of 117 January 17, 2023
time interval permitted by manufacturer’s specifications and specific working conditions;
• Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources
(e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed
natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g.,
U.S. EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for
equipment greater than 50-horsepower), and/or
utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel
Particular Filter);
• Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel
trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx
and PM;
• Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets
CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines; and
• Applying coatings with a volatile organic compound
(VOC) that exceeds the current regulatory
requirements set forth in BAAQMD regulation 8, Rule
3 (Architectural Coatings).

It is noted that development pursuant to Alternative 3 could place new receptors in close proximity to stationary sources of emissions that pose an adverse health risks and hazards. These stationary sources of emissions include the existing Pacific Bell, CEMEX, and Hanson Aggregates facilities, which may generate carcinogenic and annual average particulate matter concentrations that could exceed BAAQMD individual project thresholds of significance. This placement of development near emissions sources would be inconsistent with draft Housing Element policies related to quality living environments (Goal 5, Policy 5.4) and sustainable housing practices (Goal 6, Policy 6.1 and Policy 6.4), and the Draft EIR suggests future development be subject to Condition of Approval COA Air-1 requiring evaluation of air quality risks to new development from existing permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site.

B. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 72 of 117 January 17, 2023
Explanation: Prior to western settlement, areas within the Planning Area were occupied by Native Americans. The nearby Julpun saw what is now known as Mt. Diablo as the birthplace of the world, the Northern Miwok tribe saw it as a supernatural being, and the Central Miwok tribe included the mountain in their renewal ceremonies. According to Mission records, the Volvon tribe lived on the peak of Mt. Diablo, and held territory to the east along Marsh Creek, and in what is now the City of Clayton. The Chupcan tribe also held areas to the north of Mt. Diablo, where Clayton is today. Mt. Diablo and the surrounding area is also known to contain artifacts from the local Native American tribes, including mortar scars and obsidian arrows. The Planning Area is likely to contain artifacts from the Chupcan and Lisjan Tribes, and possibly other local tribes as well, particularly in the southern portion of the Planning Area closer to Mt. Diablo. Therefore, future development in the Planning Area, especially on vacant land, has a high probability of uncovering prehistoric (archaeological) resources.

Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code contain any goals, objectives, or policies related to archaeological/Native American resources. For these reasons, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is required to ensure that potential impacts to these resources are reduced to less than significant:

MM CUL‐1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plan shall include a requirement (via notation) indicating that if cultural resources, or human remains are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of the discovery. In such case, the City, at the expense of the project applicant, shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist and/or qualified tribal monitor for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as
appropriate. The archaeologist and/or tribal monitor shall be required to submit to the City for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the vicinity of the discovery, as identified by the archaeologist and/or tribal monitor, shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.

2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 73 of 117 January 17, 2023
Explanation: There are no formal cemeteries within the Planning area. The nearest formal cemetery is Live Oak Cemetery in the City of Concord. However, Native Americans have occupied this region for thousands of years, and the Planning Area has been developed by European settlers since the mid 1800’s. Therefore, it is possible that human remains could be discovered during excavation for development, especially on previously undisturbed sites, resulting in a potentially significant impact. State Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 7050.5 requires that, if human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered on a project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project proponent must then immediately inform the County Coroner and the City of the find.

The coroner is permitted to examine the remains under HSC section 7050.5(b) to determine if the remains are those of a Native American.

If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant must comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as outlined in PRC Section 5097. The coroner then contacts the NAHC to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will conduct an inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains is to be overseen by the MLD to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts, in consultation with the property owner and the lead agency (in this case, the City of Clayton). CEQA requires the City and any project developer, including the City if it is a public works project, to comply with the HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC 5097 if human remains are found during excavation. These statutes require careful consideration of tribal resources, including Native American human remains, which may be present within the Planning Area. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure proper handling and removal of any potential buried human remains that could be uncovered as a result of development pursuant to Alternative 3. Compliance with state law regarding human remains, Native American consultation processes described above, as well as adherence to Mitigation Measures recommended herein, would ensure that potentially significant impacts related to buried human remains and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

MM CUL‐2: Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(c) and State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found during construction, all work shall stop within 100 feet of the vicinity of the find, and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 74 of 117 January 17, 2023
be contacted immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall notify the person believed to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall work with the contractor to develop a program for re-internment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. Additional work shall not take place in the immediate vicinity of the find, which shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist at the applicant’s expense, until the preceding actions have been implemented.

C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: The University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) specimens database lists nearly 15,000 Middle Miocene to Late Pleistocene vertebrate records for Contra Costa County. The UCMP localities database includes 29 Miocene-Pleistocene sites within the Mt. Diablo Quadrangle map. In addition, there are over 2,000 known paleontological resources within Contra Costa County. According to soils maps, the Planning Area is underlain in some areas with soils of the Middle Miocene to Late Pleistocene type, which have the potential to yield significant paleontological resources and could be impacted by project-related excavations should they continue to depths beneath the Holocene deposits. Pleistocene vertebrate localities are also particularly abundant in the area. The Planning Area should therefore be considered moderately sensitive for undiscovered paleontological resources. As such, sub-surface construction activities in excess of 10 feet in depth such as grading and trenching could result in a significant impact to unknown paleontological resources, such as fossils from mammoths, sabertoothed cats, rodents, reptiles, and birds, if encountered. This would represent of potentially significant impact related to destruction of paleontological resources, and the following mitigation is required to reduce to less than significant the potential impacts to paleontological resources that may be discovered during project construction:

MM GEO-1: In the event that fossils or fossil‐bearing deposits are discovered during grading or construction of a
development project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the discovery is examined by Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 75 of 117 January 17, 2023
a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the applicable Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Standard
Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010), and assessed for significance under CEQA. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

D. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: Generally, the greatest potential for wildfire hazards occurs in areas adjacent to abundant natural vegetation. Except for the City of Concord to the northwest, all areas surrounding the City of Clayton are designated SRAs. Mt. Diablo and Black Diamonds Mine Regional Preserve are large open spaces that pose a potentially significant fire hazard. With an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires and other hazards, the State has developed new requirements for evacuation planning as a result of passage of three recent laws: Senate Bill (SB) 99, Assembly Bill (AB) 747, and AB 1409. These bills focus on enhancing the ability for local jurisdictions to facilitate safe evacuation from outlying high fire risk areas. AB 747 and AB 1409 (Government Code Section 65302.15) require
jurisdictions to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under various emergency scenarios as well as identify evacuation locations in the jurisdiction’s safety element. None of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 is located in a high fire hazard severity zone. However, Sites L and M are located in close proximity to high fire hazard severity areas. Housing that could be built in the City pursuant to Alternative 3 may be subject to significant wildfire risks, especially if those areas have inadequate evacuation routes.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to help reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Compliance with regulatory requirements, the recommended mitigation, and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s development review process for new development, would help minimize the potential for impacts related Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 76 of 117 January 17, 2023
to wildfire risks to people or structures. Therefore, with mitigation, Alternative 3 would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

MM HAZ-1: The City shall determine if it will prepare an update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) or
cooperate with Contra Costa County in an update to its
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). This update must
address the evacuation planning and coordination directives outlined in SB 99 and AB 747 as they apply to the City. The selected update shall address areas of the City or its Planning Area that have high fire risks and identify adequate
evacuation routes with ongoing maintenance needs and
operational and public education needs to support use of these routes during emergency conditions. The City shall decide which document update is most appropriate for the City within 90 days of adoption of the Housing Element
Update.

E. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: Implementation of Alternative 3 and the development of future housing sites would involve construction that would result in temporary noise generation, primarily from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Construction projects would be spread throughout the City; however, no two development projects would likely occur in close proximity contemporaneously. In addition, construction equipment would be spread throughout a work area and may not operate concurrently in the same area of the work site at the same time. Construction activities associated with potential development projects could include: staging, demolition, site preparation (e.g., land clearing), fine and mass grading, utility trenching, foundation work (e.g., excavation, pouring concrete pads, drilling for piers), material deliveries (requiring travel along City roads), building construction (e.g., framing, concrete pouring, welding), paving, coating application, and site finishing work. In general, these activities would involve the use of worker vehicles, delivery trucks, dump trucks, and heavy-duty construction equipment Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 77 of 117 January 17, 2023
such as (but not limited to) backhoes, tractors, loaders, graders, excavators, rollers, cranes, material lifts, generators, and air compressors. Demolition, site preparation, and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as bulldozers, excavators, graders, loaders, scrapers, and trucks. As shown in Table 4.13-7 of the Draft EIR, the worst-case Leq (equivalent) and Lmax (maximum) noise levels associated with the operation of construction equipment are predicted to be approximately 82 and 85 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment operating area. The concurrent operation of two or more pieces of construction equipment would result in noise levels of approximately 85 to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from equipment operating areas. Typically, sustained construction noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA or higher would require the implementation of construction noise control practices such as staging area restrictions (e.g., siting staging areas away from sensitive receptors), equipment controls (e.g., covered engines and use of electrical hook-ups instead of generators), and/or the installation of temporary noise barriers of sufficient height, size (length or width), and density to achieve targeted noise reductions.

Without mitigation, the future development of housing sites could result in construction activities that could temporarily increase ambient noise levels by 10 dB or more, which would be considered a doubling of loudness, or otherwise have the potential to annoy sensitive land uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to be incorporated into future development projects that could be supported by Alternative 3:

MM NOI-1: Reduce Potential Housing Site Development
Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from construction activities pursuant to the HEU, the City shall require that future development projects subject to
discretionary approval comply with the following:

1. Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of
Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be
provided at least one week prior to the start of any
construction activities, describe the noise control
measures to be implemented by the Project, and
include the name and phone number of the designated
contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Clayton responsible for handling constructionrelated noise complaints (per Section 7). This notice shall be provided to:
a. The owner/occupants of residential dwelling units
within 500 feet of construction work areas; and
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 78 of 117 January 17, 2023
b. The owner/occupants of commercial buildings
(including institutional buildings) within 100 feet of
work areas or within 400 feet of construction work
areas if pile driving equipment will be used.

2. Restrict Work Hours. Construction-related work
activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section

15.01.101. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, unless otherwise
authorized in writing by the City Engineer or designee
or other project conditions of approval. If such
authorization is granted, construction-related work
activities shall still conform to the requirements of
General Plan Policy 3b., which limits construction
activities to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends
when adjacent neighbors are affected. The
applicant/project representative and/or its contractor
shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction
workers, etc. of this requirement.

3. Control Construction Traffic and Site Access.

Construction traffic, including soil and debris hauling, shall follow City-designated truck routes and shall
avoid local roads in the City that contain residential
dwelling units as much as possible unless an
alternative route that provides access to the specific
project location is not available.

4. Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise
Control Measures. The following measures shall apply
to construction equipment used to develop housing
sites:
a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment
capable of safely completing work activities.
b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from
residential and commercial land uses as possible.
c. All stationary noise-generating equipment such as
pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall
be shielded and located as far from sensitive
receptor locations as practical. Shielding may
consist of existing vacant structures or a three- or
four-sided enclosure provide the structure/barrier
breaks the line of sight between the equipment and
the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and
equipment operations.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 79 of 117 January 17, 2023
d. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with
standard noise suppression devices such as
mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical
isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be
maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations during active construction
activities.
e. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression
device on the compressed air exhaust.
f. The applicant/project representative and/or their
contractor shall connect to existing electrical
service at the site to avoid the use of stationary
power generators unless electrical service is not
available or the electricity provider indicates service cannot be provided.
g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be
audible beyond the property line of the construction
site.

5. Implement Construction Activity Noise Control
Measures: The following measures shall apply to
construction activities in the Plan Area:
a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take
advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction
provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings,
and methods that minimize noise and vibration,
such as sawing concrete blocks and prohibiting onsite hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other pulverization activities, shall be employed when
activities occur adjacent to sensitive residential
areas.
b. Demolition Site Preparation, Grading, and
Foundation Work: During all demolition, site
preparation, grading, and structure foundation work
activities within 500 feet of a residential dwelling
unit or 400 feet of a commercial building (including
institutional buildings), a 6-foot tall physical noise
barrier shall be installed and maintained around the
work site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible
given site constraints and access requirements.

Physical barriers shall consist of a solid material
(i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep
holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss
value of 20 dB. The noise barrier may be removed
following the completion of building foundation work
(i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical
vertical building construction begins provided no
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 80 of 117 January 17, 2023
other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).
c. Pile Driving: If pile driving activities are required within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400
feet of a commercial building, the piles shall be predrilled with an auger to minimize pile driving equipment run times.

6. Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The
Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify
the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and
City representative responsible for addressing
construction-related noise issues; B) Includes
procedures describing how the designated project
representative will receive, respond, and resolve
construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon
receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the
complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D)
The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint
Plan may be included in the project-specific noise
evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a
separate document.

F. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: Prior to European contact, the Planning Area was inhabited by several Native American Tribes for many thousands of years. The nearby Julpun saw Mt. Diablo as the birthplace of the world, the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 81 of 117 January 17, 2023
Northern Miwok tribe saw it as a supernatural being, and the Central Miwok tribe included the mountain in their renewal ceremonies.

According to Mission records, the Volvon tribe lived on the peak of Mt. Diablo, and held territory to the east along Marsh Creek, and in what is now the City of Clayton. The Chupcan tribe also held areas to the north of Mt. Diablo, where Clayton is today. Mt. Diablo and the surrounding area is also known to contain artifacts from the local Native American tribes, including mortar scars and obsidian arrows.

The Planning Area is likely to contain artifacts from the Chupcan Tribe, and possibly other local tribes as well, particularly in the southern portion of the Planning Area closer to Mt. Diablo. Therefore, future development in the Planning Area, especially on vacant land, has a high probability of uncovering prehistoric (archaeological) resources. Based on currently available information, there are no indications the Planning Area contains any specific identified tribal cultural resources and there is no landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). None of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 contains known resources of historic importance.

However, given the long period of inhabitance of Native American Tribes in the area prior to European settlement, future development in the Planning Area, especially on vacant land, has a high probability of uncovering Native American historic and/or archaeological resources.

The General Plan Community Design Element contains goals, objectives and policies that support maintaining the rural and historical character of Clayton’s neighborhoods and protecting historical structures and sites of historical significance. The City’s existing Municipal Code also contains Historic Preservation Guidelines in CMC chapter 15.10 that facilitate implementation of these goals and policies. These goals and their attendant objectives and policies will help protect existing historical resources within Clayton as well as investigate potential new resources that should be classified as historical.

Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code contain any goals, objectives, policies or regulations specifically pertaining to archaeological/Native American resources. However, the City’s established development review procedures require an assessment of archaeological resources for new development, especially in previously undisturbed areas. The development review process also often requires compliance with the established Native American consultation procedures of SB 18 and/or AB 52 prior to approval of a CEQA document. In addition, Section 7050.5 of the California Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 82 of 117 January 17, 2023
Health and Safety Code requires that, if human remains are discovered during grading or earthmoving, work must be halted and the coroner contacted to determine the MLD. If the MLD is Native American, tribal representatives will be contacted to consult on the appropriate disposition of the remains.

HSC Section 7050.5 requires that, if human remains are discovered during grading or earthmoving, work must be halted and the coroner contacted to determine the MLD. If the MLD is Native American, tribal representatives will be contacted to consult on the appropriate disposition of the remains. CEQA requires the City and any project developer, including the City if it is a public works project, to comply with state law if human remains are found during excavation. The presence of human remains of Native American origin on a particular development site may, but does not automatically, indicate the presence of important tribal resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 (see section III.B, Cultural Resources, above) would impose requirements to halt work upon discovery of cultural resources or human remains and to retain a qualified archaeologist and/or qualified tribal monitor to evaluate the find. Compliance with state law regarding historic and archaeological resources, and implementation of Mitigation Measures, would ensure that Alternative 3 would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074.

G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Service System Facilities
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: Wastewater generated by land uses within Central Contra Costa County is conveyed by the City (under contract to the City of Concord) via existing infrastructure to the CCCSD Treatment Plant for treatment and then discharged to surface waters or reused as recycled water. Alternative 3 would result in an estimated population increase of up to 2,630 persons in the Planning Area. Assuming an average future generation of 100 gallons of wastewater per person per day (from the CCCSD WMP), Alternative 3 would generate an additional 263,000 gallons of wastewater per day, or 0.26 mgd. This represents 0.5 percent of the estimated 54 mgd dry weather flow Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 83 of 117 January 17, 2023
capacity of the CCCSD Treatment Plant. The projected population increase estimated in the CCCSD WMP is similar to those of ABAG in their 2020 Plan Bay Area. Although those projections do not specifically take into account the population increase of 2,630 persons estimated by the Project for 2022-2030, it is unlikely the sewage demands of future development under Alternative 3 would exceed the capacity of the CCCSD Treatment Plant. Therefore, no significant short- or long-term impacts regarding wastewater service are expected that would result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD or District) manages regional drainage plans throughout incorporated and unincorporated County areas. All stormwater drains into the San Francisco Bay via stormwater drainage systems and regional creeks and streams. The City is a co-permittee in Contra Costa County’s NPDES MS4 Permit. The District’s master planning for runoff management and storm drainage control is generally based on land use and growth projections for the areas within the County. The growth projections of Alternative 3 include development of currently vacant sites, which could incrementally increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the City.

The County manages regional stormwater facilities, and its planning is based in part on regional population projections as well as the general plans of its served agencies including the City of Clayton.

Based on the County’s master planning and the City’s proposed policies to reduce future offsite runoff, potential impacts related to stormwater conveyance would be less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not have significant short- or long-term impacts regarding stormwater collection and disposal service and with payment of fees to the local drainage district, and would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Electrical and gas services to the Planning Area are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) while telecommunication services are provided by AT&T, Comcast, and cable service providers including DirectTV and Dish. Each of these companies has its own master planning process in terms of regional and local electrical lines, gas pipelines, and telecommunications cables or towers. The various companies that provide energy and telecommunication services to the City regularly review and update their service networks based on population and land use changes. The growth projections of the Project are similar to those of the adopted 2020 Plan Bay Area by ABAG so the City growth would have only Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 84 of 117 January 17, 2023
incremental impacts on electrical, natural gas, or
telecommunications services in the Planning Area. The Community Facilities Element of the existing General Plan contains Goal 1 which requires the City to provide efficient plans to maintain and expand existing utility infrastructure as needed. Alternative 3 deals exclusively with housing but does contain Goal 6 to incorporate sustainability practices into housing, and Policy 6.3 (Energy Efficient Retrofits) promotes home retrofits that reduce consumption of energy resources. There are no other goals or policies that deal with energy or telecommunications systems. These various goals and policies would help maintain and enhance energy and
communications systems services to the City in the future. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts in regard to those services.

CCWD provides treated water services to the majority of central and northeastern Contra Costa County, including the City of Clayton.

Water in the service area is primarily drawn from the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta, which originates in the Sierra Nevada mountains and flows through the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers into the Sacramento Delta. With an estimated population increase of up to 2,630 persons in the Planning Area, and assuming an average future consumption of 150 gallons of water per person per day based on CCWD’s Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP), the Project would generate a need for an additional 394,500 gallons of water per day or 441 AFY. Table 4.19-2 of the Draft EIR demonstrates that the projected water supplies of the CCWD under normal or average nondrought conditions, or even during one year of drought, will be sufficient to serve the City’s projected population (i.e., surplus of water supply over demand). However, worst case conditions (i.e., multiple drought conditions for up to 5 years) would result in a cumulative deficit of water supplies to demand starting sometime after 2025 but definitely projected by 2030. According to ABAG, the City and Bay Area, along with the entire state, have already experienced 5 years of drought conditions (since 2017) which are expected to continue in the near future. The projected population increase estimated in the CCWD UWMP is only 530 persons from 2025 to 2045, so it does not account for the 2,630 persons estimated to be added to the population by Alternative 3 for the same period.

In addition, the UWMP shows a cumulative deficit of water demand over supply after 2030 under the multi-dry year 5 conditions. Since the Bay Area is already experiencing that level of drought, the EIR conservatively concludes conclude that water supply impacts of Alternative 3 are potentially significant if “multiple dry year” conditions continue beyond 2030. Therefore, Mitigation Measure UTL-1 is recommended to help assure that potential impacts related to water service in the future (i.e., beyond 2030) are reduced to less Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 85 of 117 January 17, 2023
than significant levels.

While Alternative 3 impacts to wastewater, stormwater, and energy and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant, impacts to water supply and infrastructure would be potentially significant. However, with the following mitigation, no significant short- or long-term impacts regarding water service are expected that would result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities over the life of Alternative 3 (2031), the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

MM UTL-1: Water Demand Management. Prior to receiving
entitlements for new residential development under the
Housing Element Update, project applicants must contact the CCWD and obtain confirmation that adequate water service can be provided and adequate water supplies are available consistent with their latest Urban Water Management Plan. If the CCWD indicates it cannot guarantee water supplies for the new development, or the project involves an increase over planned development (i.e., General Plan Amendment or
Rezoning) to a use or uses that would consume more water than under the current General Plan and zoning, then the development must implement one or more of the following water conservation measures to the degree necessary to
achieve the level of water use that would have occurred under the current General Plan and/or zoning designation(s):
• Install appliances and plumbing that exceed current
State Green Building Code water conservation
requirements (i.e., those “current” at the time of
application). Examples include but are not limited to
low or dual flush toilets, composting toilets, high
efficiency washing machines, shower timers, low-flow
faucet and shower aerators, insulate water pipes, etc.; • Prohibit installation of a swimming pool or allow only a spa;
• Prohibit installation of water-consuming landscape
features (fountains, ponds, etc.);
• Prohibit installation of turf and promote individual
gardens;
• Install all hardscape or all xeriscape (drought-tolerant) plants;
• Install only highly efficient drip irrigation systems - do not allow installation of any overhead sprayers or aerial sprinkler systems;
• Install rain barrels or other rain storage systems to reduce demand on domestic water needed for
landscaping;
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 86 of 117 January 17, 2023
• Evaluate feasibility of installing grey water collection and recycling system, and install the system if feasible; and
• For a General Plan Amendment or Rezoning, the
project must demonstrate that it would exceed state
and/or regional water conservation requirements
sufficient to achieve water use that would have
occurred under the existing land use and zoning
designations.

Projects are not limited to this list but can recommend additional improvements or systems as appropriate to
maximize water conservation. A project must identify the water conservation measures to be implemented with the
project prior to entitlement and must demonstrate full
compliance with this measure, including installation of specified improvements, prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department.

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As described above, with an estimated population increase of up to 2,630 persons in the Planning Area, and assuming an average future consumption of 150 gallons of water per person per day based on CCWD’s UWMP, the Project would generate a need for an additional 394,500 gallons of water per day or 441 AFY. Table 4.19-2 of the Draft EIR demonstrates that the projected water supplies of the CCWD under normal or average non-drought conditions, or even during one year of drought, will be sufficient to serve the City’s projected population (i.e., surplus of water supply over demand).

However, worst case conditions (i.e., multiple drought conditions for up to 5 years) would result in a cumulative deficit of water supplies to demand starting sometime after 2025 but definitely projected by 2030. According to ABAG, the City and Bay Area, along with the entire state, have already experienced 5 years of drought conditions (since 2017) which are expected to continue in the near future. The projected population increase estimated in the CCWD UWMP is only 530 persons from 2025 to 2045, so it does not account for the 2,630 persons estimated to be added to the population by Alternative 3 for the same period. In addition, the UWMP shows a cumulative deficit of water demand over supply after 2030 under the multi-dry year 5 Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 87 of 117 January 17, 2023
conditions. Since the Bay Area is already experiencing that level of drought, the EIR conservatively concludes conclude that water supply impacts of the Project are potentially significant if “multiple dry year” conditions continue beyond 2030. Therefore, Mitigation Measure UTL-1 is recommended to help assure that potential impacts related to water service in the future (i.e., beyond 2030) are reduced to less than significant levels.

H. WILDFIRE

1. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would Alternative 3 exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR) Explanation: The greatest potential for wildfire hazards occurs in areas adjacent to abundant natural vegetation. As previously stated, Clayton is served by the CCCFPD. The City collects DIFs for fire protection services, and the CCCFPD has requirements and recommendations for new development, including installation and maintenance of water supply systems for fire protection with flows equal or greater than those require by Fire District standards and guidelines (California Fire Code 2019; CCCFPD Ordinance No. 2019-37, Section 105.7). Hydrant spacing is required in accordance with CCCFPD standards and guidelines. Every new building in Clayton must be accessible to fire apparatus by means of streets or roads meeting or exceeding CCCFPD standards and guidelines related to driving surface widths, curve radii, grade changes, load support, and turnarounds. Access gates and fire roads must be provided for fire apparatus to reach open space area at locations specified by the CCCFPD. A plan to be approved by the CCCFPD for the perpetual control and abatement of hazardous weeds, grass, and brush in all open space areas must be submitted by project applicants, and may include disked firebreaks, cattle grazing, and/or fire-resistant planting. Travel time and distance demands for responding fire companies cannot be completely resolved by station establishment or relocations. Accordingly, CCCFPD fire flow delivery capabilities are limited to less than standard. To compensate for these limitations, compliance with the following additional standards is required pursuant to the Fire Code: all buildings in an area requiring a minimum fire flow in excess of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or located in an area requiring a minimum fire flow in excess of 1,000 gpm, shall have a fire retardant roof covering as specified by the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 88 of 117 January 17, 2023
CCCFPD; and all buildings requiring a minimum fire flow in excess of 1,500 gpm shall have automatic fire extinguishing systems specified and approved by the Fire District. Finally, the CCCFPD requires plans showing compliance with all the above measures to be submitted and approved by the CCCFPD prior to the
commencement of any construction.

Alternative 3 would not directly approve any development projects within any fire hazard severity zone. However, as shown in Exhibit

4.20-2 (Preliminary 6th Cycle Sites Wildfire Overlay) of the Draft EIR, housing sites L and M are located proximate to high fire hazard severity zones within State Responsibility Areas. Housing that could be built in the City pursuant to Alternative 3 may be subject to significant wildfire risks especially if those areas have inadequate evacuation routes. This is considered a potentially significant impact for which Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to help reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the City to determine whether it will prepare an update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) or cooperate with Contra Costa County in an update to its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). HAZ-1 requires this update to address the evacuation planning and coordination directives outlined in SB 99 and AB 747 as they apply to the City. The selected update is required to address areas of the City or its Planning Area that have high fire risks and identify adequate evacuation routes with ongoing maintenance needs and operational and public education needs to support use of these routes during emergency conditions. HAZ-1 requires the City to decide which document update is most appropriate for the City within 90 days of adoption of the Housing Element update. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, compliance with CCCFPD’s development review process for new development, and continued implementation of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies would help minimize wildfire risks. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure of persons to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant.

SECTION IV.

IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 89 of 117 January 17, 2023

1. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As described in section 4.8 and Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 2040 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that do not meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction or 2045 carbon neutrality goals. The implementation of Alternative 3 could also result in GHG emissions that interfere with the California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan and impede the ability to meet regional transportation GHG reduction goals established by ABAG/MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) under Plan Bay Area 2050. This is considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 3, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-5 and VMT-1 are
recommended to be incorporated into future housing site development projects.

MM GHG-1: Prohibit Natural Gas Plumbing and Appliances in New Housing Sites. The City shall prohibit natural gas
plumbing and the use of natural gas appliances such as cook tops, water heaters, and space heaters in all new housing site developments. Upon request by the project developer,
exceptions to this prohibition may be allowed in the following instances:
• Accessory dwelling units constructed on a parcel with an existing residential building with gas infrastructure. • Newly constructed buildings with a valid planning
entitlement or other effective development agreement
approved prior to the date of certification of this EIR. • It can be demonstrated there is no commercially
available technology capable of meeting the specific
appliance or building system application.

Projects subject to the above exceptions shall provide the necessary infrastructure to support future electrification of appliances and building systems. This prohibition on natural gas plumbing and natural gas appliances shall cease if and when the City adopts a ZNE ordinance per Mitigation Measure GHG-2.

MM GHG-2: Consider Adoption of a Zero Net Energy
Ordinance. Within one year of the adoption of the HEU, the Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 90 of 117 January 17, 2023
City shall complete an evaluation on the feasibility of adopting an ordinance that amends the City’s Municipal Code to
require all new residential and/or non-residential development subject to Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code to achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE) standards. If the City finds ZNE technology, programs, and/or other strategies are
feasible and cost-effective, the City shall adopt a ZNE ordinance as expeditiously as possible given City resources.

As defined by the California Energy Commission (CEC), ZNE standards require the value of the net energy produced by project renewable energy resources to equal the value of the energy consumed annually by the project, using the CEC’s Time Dependent Valuation.18 In the event the City adopts a ZNE ordinance, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would no longer apply to housing site projects in the City.

MM GHG-3: Residential Electric Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements. The City shall require new residential housing sites to comply with the Tier 2 electric vehicle charging and bicycle parking requirements in the latest edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) in
effect at the time the building permit application is submitted to the City. Currently, the 2019 CalGreen code, Section A4.106.8, Electric Vehicle Charging for New Construction, and Section A4.106.9, Bicycle Parking, require the following measures to facilitate the future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers and bicycle travel:
• New one and two-family dwellings and townhouses
with attached private garages include a dedicated
208/240-volt branch circuit rated at 40 amperes
minimum.
• New multi-family dwellings provide 20 percent of the
total number of parking spaces on a building site be
electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting
future electric vehicle supply equipment.
• New multi-family buildings provide on-site bicycle
parking for at least one bicycle per every two dwelling units, with acceptable parking facilities conveniently
reached from the street.

MM GHG-4: Non-Residential Electric Vehicle and Bicycle
Parking Requirements. The City shall require new commercial development included as part of mixed-use housing sites to comply with the Tier 2 bicycle accommodations, clean air vehicle parking, and electric vehicle charging requirements in the latest edition of the California Green Building Standards Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 91 of 117 January 17, 2023
Code (CalGreen) in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted to the City. Currently, the 2019 CalGreen code, Section A5.106.4.3, Changing Rooms,
Section A5.106.5.1, Designated Parking for Clean Air
Vehicles, and Section A5.106.5.3, Electric Vehicle Charging, require the following measures to facilitate bicycle travel, clean air vehicles, and the future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers:
• Non-residential buildings with more than 10 tenantoccupants provide changing/shower facilities for tenant-occupants in accordance with Table A5.106.4.3
of the CalGreen code.
• Non-residential development involving the installation, addition, or alteration of 10 or more vehicular parking spaces provide designated parking for any
combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and
carpool/van pool vehicles pursuant to Table
A5.106.5.1.2 of the CalGreen code.
• Non-residential development shall provide electric
vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting electric
vehicle supply equipment pursuant to Table
A5.106.5.3.2 of the CalGreen code.

MM GHG-5: Require a Project-level Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment for Housing Site Projects. The City shall require development projects that are determined not to be categorically exempt from CEQA, and that require the quantitative VMT assessment required by Mitigation Measure VMT-1, to submit a project-level greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions analysis. The GHG emissions analysis shall
evaluate the project’s consistency with adopted state-wide GHG emissions reduction goals using the latest guidance and recommendations from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, or another accepted methodology. If the project’s GHG emissions could interfere with state-wide GHG emission reduction goals, mitigation shall be identified and
implemented to reduce emissions. Mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Increasing the energy efficiency of the proposed
building(s) (e.g., identifying building practices that go beyond CalGreen Code standards, identifying specific
energy efficient appliances, etc.);
• Incorporating on-site renewable energy generation into project-design;
• Reducing the quantity of parking provided by the
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 92 of 117 January 17, 2023
proposed development;
• Reducing indoor and outdoor potable water
consumption; and
• Increasing solid waste diversion rates
It is not possible at this time to quantify the GHG emissions reductions that could be realized through the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-5 and VMT-1 for several reasons. First, it is unknown how many projects would be actually subject to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-5 and VMT-1.

Second, it is uncertain at this time if the zero net energy provisions called out in Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be adopted by the City. In addition, the specific GHG emissions reduction measures associated with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would be dependent on factors that are not known at this time, including the number of projects subject to review, building types/intensities, and each individual project’s specific site and trip generation characteristics. Finally, although Mitigation Measure GHG-5 would require a project-level evaluation for future discretionary projects proposed under implementation of Alternative 3, it cannot be assured at this time that every single one of those projects would be able to mitigate their emissions in line with State-wide goals. Since the GHG emissions associated with the implementation of Alternative 3 would not meet State GHG reduction goals and could conflict with plans adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions (e.g., 2017 Scoping Plan), and since the GHG reductions attributable to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-5 cannot be definitively assessed at this time, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

2. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: As described in section 4.8 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 2040 GHG emissions that do not meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction or 2045 carbon neutrality goals. The implementation of Alternative 3 could also result in GHG emissions that interfere with the California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan and impede the ability to meet regional transportation GHG reduction goals established by ABAG/MTC under Plan Bay Area 2050. This is considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 3, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-5 and VMT-1 are recommended to be Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 93 of 117 January 17, 2023
incorporated into future housing site development projects.

However, since the GHG emissions associated with the
implementation of Alternative 3 would not meet State GHG reduction goals and could conflict with plans adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions (e.g., 2017 Scoping Plan), and since the GHG reductions attributable to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG5 cannot be definitively assessed at this time, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

B. TRANSPORTATION

1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Threshold: Would Alternative 3 conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable. (Draft EIR)
Explanation: The Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model (Contra Costa Transportation Authority [CCTA] Model) was used to generate VMT estimates for the proposed land use amendments. The CCTA Model allows analysts to forecast regional travel behavior as a function of local land use development decisions, transportation network infrastructure planning, and land use and network policies. The CCTA Model reflects data included in Plan Bay Area 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that was recently replaced with adoption of Plan Bay Area 2050 by the MTC and ABAG. CCTA has prepared a
memorandum documenting the CCTA Model’s consistency with Plan Bay Area 2040, and the model is currently the best available tool for analysis of VMT impacts. Residential projects are evaluated based on the home-based VMT per resident VMT metric, where homebased VMT is defined as all home-based automobile vehicle trips traced back to the residence of the trip-maker. Non-home-based trips are excluded. This VMT includes the entire length of the trip. This home-based VMT is then divided by the number of residents to calculate home-based VMT per resident. Based on the data output from the model:
• The City of Clayton VMT per resident of 24.0 miles-per-resident is higher than the Countywide VMT per resident of 17.3 milesper-resident in the 2020 baseline, and is projected to be so in the 2040 scenario as well.
• Home-based VMT per resident in the County as a whole, and in the City of Clayton, is projected to decline between 2020 and 2040.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 94 of 117 January 17, 2023
• Home-based VMT per resident with the Project is projected to be higher than 85 percent of the baseline Citywide, in both 2020 and 2040.

These results suggest that Alternative 3’s impact with respect to home-based VMT would be potentially significant. Additionally, individual development proposals under Alternative 3 that do not screen out of further analysis due to small size or location proximate to quality transit, may exceed the VMT criteria on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, projects that do not screen out will require a projectspecific VMT analysis, and results of that analysis may exceed the VMT criteria. For these reasons, the impact is considered potentially significant, requiring mitigation.

VMT-1: Implement the following VMT Reduction Measures:
− Individual housing project development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall
provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods
applied in this EIR, with modifications if appropriate
based on future changes to City of Clayton practices
and CCTA VMT analysis methodology guidelines.

Projects which result in a significant impact shall include travel demand management measures and physical
measures to reduce VMT, including, but not limited to,
the measures below, which have been identified as
potentially VMT reducing in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for
Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions,
Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing
Health and Equity (December 2021). Project developers
may substitute any of the measures listed below with
one or more alternative measures; provided, that any
substitute measures would reduce GHG from VMT in an
amount that is equal to or greater than the reduction
achieved by the measure being replaced, and the
amount of the reduction is supported by evidence.

Potential VMT reduction estimates are included below,
but detailed requirements, calculation steps, and
limitations are described in the CAPCOA Handbook. In
addition, application of one or more of the measures
below is generally expected to result in a net VMT
reduction of 10 percent or less for development projects in suburban settings such as Clayton:
− Unbundle parking costs (i.e., sell or lease parking
separately from the housing unit). Effectiveness: up
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 95 of 117 January 17, 2023
to 15.7 percent reduction in GHG from VMT per the
CAPCOA Handbook.
− Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, or scooter
sharing programs. Effectiveness: 0.15 – 0.18
percent reduction in GHG from VMT for car share,

0.02 – 0.06 percent for bike share, and 0.07 percent
for scooter share, per the CAPCOA Handbook. The
higher car share and bike share values are for
electric car and bike share programs.
− Subsidize transit passes for residents of affordable
housing. Effectiveness: up to 5.5 percent reduction
in GHG from VMT per the CAPCOA Handbook.

Should a VMT mitigation fee program, bank or exchange program be implemented in the future, developers of individual development projects built pursuant to Alternative 3 could potentially pay into a fee program or purchase mitigation credits to achieve needed VMT mitigation instead of, or in addition to, onsite transportation demand management measures. However, because such a program does not exist at this time, and the effectiveness of the above measures in reducing an individual project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined in this analysis, the impact for projects that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis would
conservatively remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

SECTION V.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding Alternative 3’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

A. AESTHETICS
Alternative 3 would not contribute to significant adverse cumulative impacts on aesthetics. Construction and operation residential development on potential housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update would occur at locations inside the City of Clayton municipal boundary that are either already developed or are vacant properties in developed areas. Future projects would be subject to the City’s zoning standards that include regulations pertaining to permitted uses, minimum lot dimensions, and maximum building height. Given the location of potential development and the regulations to which such development would be subject, Alternative 3 would not entail a significant visual change such that the existing visual character and surroundings would be substantially degraded, and therefore, Alternative 3 would not contribute to cumulative impacts with respect to scenic vistas or degradation of visual character. Since the Planning Area is not visible from an eligible or officially designated State scenic highway, development within the Planning Area would not contribute to a potentially significant cumulative aesthetic impact to a scenic highway. Future residential development pursuant to Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 96 of 117 January 17, 2023
Alternative 3 would not damage or alter locally-designated scenic routes including Clayton Road, Oakhurst Drive/Concord Boulevard, and Marsh Creek Road, as future residential development would be similar in design to existing residential development along these routes; would be subject to the City’s development review process; and would be subject to General Plan goals and policies designed to protect these scenic routes. As such, potential cumulative impacts of Alternative 3 with regard to locally-designated scenic routes would be less than significant.

Lighting and building materials associated with cumulative development would be subject to review and approval by the City of Clayton. If detailed information regarding proposed lighting and building materials is not known during preparation of necessary environmental documentation for cumulative projects, then the adoption of applicant-proposed measures or mitigation measures would be required by the City to ensure that lighting and glare impacts are less than significant. Therefore, cumulative light and glare impacts of Alternative 3 would be less than significant.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would have no impacts on agriculture and forestry resources and therefore, would contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact. None of the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are subject to Williamson Act Contracts.

Site I of the housing inventory sites is zoned (A) Agricultural; however, Site I is no longer used for farming or grazing activities. There are no other areas within the corporate City boundaries that are zoned for agricultural or forestry use, and none of the other housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 City are zoned for agricultural or forestry use. Alternative 3 would not result in impacts related to agricultural resources, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, Williamson Act contracts, forest lands, timberland, or Timberland Production areas. Because Alternative 3 would not impact agricultural uses, Farmland, Williamson Act contracts, forest lands, timberland, or Timberland Production areas, Alternative 3 would not contribute to a cumulative significant impact related to agriculture and forestry resources.

C. AIR QUALITY
With mitigation, Alternative 3 would not contribute to a significant adverse cumulative air quality impact. As noted in sections II.C.1 and II.C 2, above, Alternative 3 would not occur in an area that is currently disadvantaged or disproportionately affected by adverse air quality. The City is not located in or adjacent to a disadvantaged community, nor does it propose land uses that would generate long-term, stationary sources of emissions that could promote disparities in health risks. Alternative 3 does not directly authorize any new, major land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as a source of potential odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plant). However, as described in section 4.3.1 of the Draft EIR and summarized in section III.A.1 above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for federal ozone, state ozone, state PM10, federal PM2.5, and state PM2.5 standards. The BAAQMD, in developing its CEQA significance thresholds, considered the emission levels at which a project’s Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 97 of 117 January 17, 2023
individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As described under Impact AIR-2 of the Draft EIR and in section III.A.1 above, each individual development constructed pursuant to Alternative 3 is anticipated to be well below the construction screening size criterion determined by the BAAQMD to require a detailed construction air quality impact assessment; however, there are insufficient project-specific details at this point to determine if all projects would meet all BAAQMD construction screening criteria. In addition, individual construction projects would emit DPM, a TAC. The exposure of sensitive receptors near construction sites to DPM could have an adverse health risk impact if project construction activities were of sufficient intensity and duration to result in prolonged exposure to DPM emissions. Although unlikely, the potential for future development supported by Alternative 3 to exceed BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance is a potentially significant impact.

To ensure projects achieve consistency with the BAAQMD’s construction screening criteria or, if consistency with the construction screening criteria cannot be demonstrated, the mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and AIR-2 (above) are recommended to be incorporated into future project development project approvals. MM AIR-1 would require future development projects to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Measures to control fugitive dust emissions generated during construction activities, and MM AIR-2 would require future projects that cannot meet BAAQMD construction screening criteria to prepare a detailed construction air quality impact assessment to ensure projects do not generate construction emissions that exceed BAAQMD construction thresholds or otherwise result in substantial pollutant concentrations that could pose adverse health risks to sensitive receptors. Therefore, while implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in individually or cumulatively considerable impacts pertaining to disparities in health risks or generation of bothersome odors, Alternative 3 would contribute to regional air emissions as a result of construction. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified (MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2), Alternative 3’s contribution to the cumulative regional impact would be de minimis.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to biological resources, as the housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are primarily in developed areas of the City that are within and have biological resources permitting coverage under the ECCC HCP/NCP. The ECCC HCP/NCCP requires submission and approval of an HCP/NCCP application, including implementing planning and/or preconstruction biological surveys on a project-level basis and payment of Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Fees (CMC section

15.55.060(c)) to offset potential project impacts, including potential cumulative impacts. It is expected that no additional mitigation for each future development project would be needed, and potential impacts caused by the proposed General Plan and zoning updates are less than significant, assuming appropriate implementation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP is conducted on a project-level basis for future entitlement requests, in accordance with CMC chapter 16.55.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 98 of 117 January 17, 2023
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The General Plan Community Design Element contains goals, objectives and policies intended to maintain the rural and historical character of Clayton’s neighborhoods and protect historical structures and sites of historical significance. These goals and their attendant objectives and policies will help protect existing historical resources within Clayton as well as investigate potential new resources that should be classified as historical. The City’s existing Municipal Code also contains Historic Preservation Guidelines that implement these goals and policies. Consistent with federal and state laws, the General Plans of the surrounding jurisdictions have similar goals and policies to protect cultural resources within their boundaries, as well. In addition, state law requires the City and surrounding jurisdictions to notify Native American representatives if tribal human remains are discovered. Finally, Mitigation Measures have been incorporated to ensure that impacts to archaeological and Native American resources are reduced to less than significant. For these reasons, potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant, and future development in the City of Clayton under Alternative 3 would not make a significant contribution to any cumulative regional impacts on cultural resources.

F. ENERGY
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to energy resources. Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas within the City and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation of new land use developments. However, construction of individual developments pursuant to Alternative 3 would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the overall energy consumption in the City. Additionally, construction activity and operation of construction vehicles and equipment would be State regulations such as Low Carbon Fuel Standards would reduce the carbon intensity of transportation-related fuels, and all construction projects would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to 5 minutes. Development facilitated under Alternative 3 would increase consumption of electricity, natural gas and petroleum products multiple uses, including, but not limited to: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliance and electronics use, and transportation. However, while the overall consumption of electricity, natural gas and petroleum products would increase with Alternative 3, per capita consumption would decrease as development constructed pursuant to Alternative 3 would: 1) be increasingly energy-efficient due to overall increases in efficiency of vehicles mileage rates (including expansion of the nonpetroluem vehicle fleet), as well as, appliances and building systems installed in new development; 2) include an increase in higher density residential units, which are smaller in size and generally use less natural gas and electricity for space conditioning, lighting and other purposes; 3) be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy and electricity reduction requirements outlined in the CALGreen Code. The City would therefore achieve greater efficiency in energy Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 99 of 117 January 17, 2023
consumption with the implementation of Alternative 3 than without Alternative 3.

Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources; would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency; and would not contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact to energy resources.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to geology and soils. The City of Clayton and its Planning Area contain a variety of geologic, seismic, and soil constraints, including the Greenville and Concord-Green Valley faults; landslide zones in eastern and southern portions of the Planning Area; liquefaction potential along creeks and creek tributaries in the City; and expansive soils. In accordance with State law, the Safety Element of the current General Plan contains objectives and policies that acknowledge these potential geologic risks and require identification of geologic instabilities and soil constraints on development sites, as well as, requiring structures to provide adequate levels of safety for the community, restricting development on certain steep slopes, and establishing setbacks for developments adjacent to faults. The Safety Element of the current General Plan as well as the CMC contain objectives, policies, and requirements that will continue to identify and protect the community from geologic and seismic risks and protect any possible paleontological resources. Likewise, the general plans for the surrounding cities and unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County are all required to identify potential risks from geologic and seismic conditions and to contain objectives and policies to address these risks and protect the public. These objectives and policies are intended to be consistent with state law. In addition to local general plans, the CBC has regulations on building design and construction based on seismic constraints and expected ground shaking throughout California. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to future development from geologic, seismic, and soil constraints would be minimized, and future development in the City of Clayton pursuant to Alternative 3 would not make a significant contribution to any cumulative regional impacts on geologic, seismic, soil, or paleontological resources
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. As described in the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 would result in GHG emissions that do not meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction or 2045 carbon neutrality goals. The implementation of Alternative 3 could also result in GHG emissions that conflict with plans adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emission, including the 2017 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050. GHG impacts from Alternative 3 would be significant and unavoidable even with recommended mitigation (see Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-5). Therefore, Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 100 of 117 January 17, 2023 Alternative 3 would also make an incremental but significant contribution to a cumulative GHG impact.

I. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are generally site-specific and not cumulative in nature because each project area has unique considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts is limited. Impacts associated with potential fire hazards occur at individual building sites. These effects are site‐specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development within the urban setting of the Planning Area. Continued application of existing General Plan Safety Element policies and compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations would help protect residents, sensitive receptors, and structures from exposure to hazardous materials or accidents and spills involving hazardous materials. It is assumed other surrounding jurisdictions have similar General Plan goals and policies as they generally reflect compliance with State laws regarding various hazards and hazardous materials. Compliance with the requirements of the General Plan Public Safety Element and federal, State, and local regulations would result in impacts from hazardous materials and fire that would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to hydrology and water quality. The Planning Area and surrounding communities contain water-related hazards as well as surface and groundwater resources that must be protected. State law requires that the Safety Elements of city General Plans, including Clayton, address potential flooding, erosion, changing drainage patterns, and other water-related hazards. The Safety Element of the current General Plan contains goals and policies that acknowledge these potential risks and require structures and infrastructure to provide adequate levels of safety for the community. In addition, the Growth Management Element requires the City to identify and coordinate with other agencies to protect surface and groundwater. The General Plan Safety Element and Growth Management Element contain goals and policies which will continue to identify and protect the community from flooding and other water-related hazards. General Plans for the surrounding cities and the County General Plan are all similarly required by State law to identify potential risks from flooding, geologic and seismic conditions and contain goals and policies to address these risks and protect the public. In addition to local general plans, various state laws including CEQA require the City as a lead agency to identify potential hazards related to new development as well as protect important water resources as development occurs in the future. Local water districts must prepare Urban Water Management Plans and Groundwater Sustainability Plans are required to provide long-term protection for both surface Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 101 of 117 January 17, 2023 and groundwater supplies for the region.

In these ways, potential cumulative impacts to future development from flooding and water-related hazards would be minimized, and the water quality of important regional water resources would be protected. In addition, Mitigation Measure UTL1 (from Draft EIR Utilities section 4.19) would help reduce future demand on surface and groundwater resources from new development which would indirectly help protect water quality. Therefore, future development in the City of Clayton under Alternative 3 would not make a significant contribution to any cumulative regional impacts on flooding or other water-related hazards and help protect the quality of surface and groundwater resources in the future.

K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to land use and planning. Alternative 3 would change land uses in the City over time by increasing the number of housing units over those projected in the 2015 Housing Element. Conversely, Alternative 3 represents a slight increase in non-residential uses (e.g., commercial, office, light industrial) and employment in the future compared to that projected in the 2015 Housing Element. These land use changes and their related housing and population increases result from the City’s increased RHNA assigned from ABAG, which is in turn based on the State’s goal of providing more housing throughout the State. However, the State housing goal conflicts with its desire to also reduce VMT in an effort to reduce vehicular air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The Land Use and Growth Management Elements of the existing General Plan and proposed Housing Element both contain a number of goals and policies for orderly growth consistent with local and regional plans, and surrounding jurisdictions have similar goals and policies to be consistent with state planning and housing laws. While Alternative 3 has cumulative implications for ABAG’s regional plans, the City itself cannot solve the inherent conflict between the goals and directives of the RHNA and the regional growth projections provided in the Plan Bay Area 2040. Once the City has adopted the General Plan amendments, the City will transmit its new growth numbers to ABAG, and those estimates will be incorporated into the next revisions to the RHNA and regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy (RTP/SCS). Alternative 3 would change land uses that would induce substantial housing and population growth within the Planning Area. However, this level of growth can be accommodated at the local level by the City of Clayton, so Alternative 3 does not represent a substantial adverse cumulative impact with respect to land use and planning.

L. MINERAL RESOURCES
Alternative 3 would have no impacts on mineral resources and therefore, would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to mineral resources.

While there are significant mineral deposits located within the Planning Area, namely in the location of the CEMEX Clayton Quarry just south of City limits, Alternative 3 would not impact any of the locations identified within the Planning Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 102 of 117 January 17, 2023 Area boundaries as containing significant mineral deposits. All of the potential housing inventory sites in Alternative 3 are either currently developed or located in mostly developed areas that are designated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element for development, and none of the potential sites include the quarry.

Alternative 3 would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources. Because of the developed nature of the Planning Area, and because Alternative 3 would not impact identified mineral resources within the Planning Area, there would also be no cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources.

M. NOISE
The development of future housing sites would result in construction noise and vibration as individual development projects are constructed over time. Each individual development would be subject to City regulations and policies regarding construction noise and vibration. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 includes measures to reduce construction noise levels associated with future development of housing sites through a combination of notification/disclosure, permissible work times, equipment noise controls, and construction activity management measures designed to ensure construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require equipment noise suppression devices (e.g., mufflers, engine covers, etc.), temporary shielding of stationary noise sources, and the use of temporary barriers during construction phases that usually involve the largest, loudest, and highest number of construction equipment (e.g., grading). In combination, these measures are expected to reduce potential construction noise levels by 5 to 15 dBA and result in less than significant individual construction noise levels. The measures would also reduce vibration associated with vibration-inducing equipment such as pile drivers. In general, when one source of noise is 10 dB higher than another, the perceived noise level will be the same as the louder source. In the unlikely event that two construction projects were occurring in the same area such that an individual receptor could be impacted by the combined noise level from both projects, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would minimize Alternative 3’s contribution to the combined effect. Therefore, potential noise generated by construction occurring pursuant to Alternative 3 would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative construction noise impact.

Once constructed, development projects would contribute to potential permanent increases in noise levels. Alternative 3 would not generate significant increases in traffic noise levels on a cumulative basis. The City’s existing General Plan Noise Element sets forth the City’s intent to establish clear and enforceable noise regulations for all land uses, to consider operational noise impacts during the development review process, and to limit new development in noise impacted areas unless the development includes mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. These policies would protect residents from excessive stationary noise sources and ensure new land uses meet the Cayton Municipal Code noise standards through evaluation and design considerations. Therefore, future housing site operations would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative operational noise impact.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 103 of 117 January 17, 2023 N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to population and housing. Alternative 3 would substantially increase the number of housing units and the population projected in the City over those projected in the 2000 General Plan. One reason for this change in anticipated growth is the City’s recent increased RHNA unit count from ABAG, which is in turn based on the State’s desire to encourage more housing throughout California.

However, the State’s housing goal conflicts with its desire to reduce VMT in an effort to reduce vehicular air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The existing Housing Element of the General Plan and Alternative 3 both contain a number of goals and policies to accommodate anticipated population and housing growth and prevent displacement of residents while providing more housing opportunities in the future. The surrounding jurisdictions in the region have similar goals and policies to be compliant with State planning and housing laws. While Alternative 3 has cumulative implications for ABAG’s regional plans, the City itself cannot solve the inherent conflict between the goals and directives of the RHNA and the growth projections of the Plan Bay Area 2050. Once the City has adopted the updated Housing Element, the City will transmit its new growth projections to ABAG, and those estimates will be incorporated into the next revisions to the RHNA and Plan Bay Area. Any further action by the City will not resolve the regional impact of conflicting RHNA and Plan Bay Area forecasts and is infeasible because only ABAG can resolve this policy and program conflict. Alternative 3 would change land uses that would result in housing and population growth within the Planning Area. However, this level of growth can be accommodated at the local level by assignment of zoning and land use designations on properties within the City of Clayton, so Alternative 3 does not represent a substantial adverse cumulative impact with respect to population and housing
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to public services. Alternative 3 does not include specific housing development projects on specific sites at this time. Future development in the Planning Area would generally increase land use intensities and add approximately 2,630 residents into the Planning Area. Though neither the Clayton Police nor CCCFPD identified need for new facilities as a result of these development projects, the increase in population as a result of Alternative 3 could then cause incremental and cumulative increases in the number of calls for fire and/or police protection services. These population increases could also incremental and cumulative increase in the need for park facilities, or expanded or new schools. Development of residential projects within the boundaries of the MDUSD that serves the Planning Area would lead to incremental increases in the number of students that need to be housed and educated. Development of residential projects in the Planning Area would also lead to increases in the number of people who use the City’s parks and library facilities and City services.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 104 of 117 January 17, 2023 The CCCFPD reviews fire station placement and fire services through its annual budget process, and resources are expanded or reassigned as necessary to meet increases in service demands. The increase in demand for public services in the City attributable to Alternative 3 would be incremental as growth occurred over time and would be offset to a large degree by development impact fee payments and other development fees and increased property tax revenues to the City.

These fees and taxes would help offset the costs of increased service needs as necessary and would ensure that performance objectives for fire and police services are not substantially affected by incremental increases in land use intensity within service areas. Projects constructed within the Planning Area over the life of Alternative 3 would also be required to be developed in accordance with applicable fire and building codes and emergency access requirements.

Compliance with these requirements would help prevent and/or ameliorate fire emergencies (automatic sprinkler systems and fire alarms) and would help facilitate more expedient emergency response (adequate fire flows, turning radii, width of emergency accesses). These design practices and operational practices would also help lessen the demand for police protection services within the Planning Area by creating “defensible space” as encouraged by the Police Department and other public safety organizations. Regarding school services, the contribution of future housing projects within the Planning Area to increased demand for such educational facilities and services could be substantial. However, MDUSD can accommodate increases in students resulting from specific development projects on specific sites in the future through the collection of School Impact Fees as prescribed by State Education Code and which is defined as providing “full and complete” for potential impacts to school facilities. With payment of fees and taxes and compliance fire and building code and emergency access requirements, Alternative 3 does not represent a substantial adverse cumulative impact with respect to public services.

P. RECREATION
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to recreation. Development of residential projects within the City or its Sphere of Influence would incrementally increase the usage of parks and recreational facilities in the City and surrounding area. This additional use could potentially result in the need for additional parks and recreational facilities. However, such new development would be subject to the City’s development impact fee for parkland. Other cities in the surrounding area, as well as Contra Costa County and the East Bay Regional Park District, have similar park funding mechanisms that would help offset the incremental and cumulative increase in demand for park facilities from implementation of Alternative 3 and other residential developments in the vicinity of the Planning Area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

Q. TRANSPORTATION
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to transportation system policy or ordinances, design feature hazards, Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 105 of 117 January 17, 2023 or emergency vehicle access. However, VMT impacts from Alternative 3 would be significant and unavoidable even with recommended mitigation (see Draft EIR Mitigation Measure VMT-1). Alternative 3 would result in new development that would result in increased transportation demand in the City. For individual development built pursuant to Alternative 3, the City’s evaluation of projects’ access and circulation will incorporate analysis with respect to City transportation goals in its General Plan, as well as standards for vehicular level of service vehicle queueing, service to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Additional vehicles associated with new development sites could increase delays for emergency response vehicles during peak commute hours. However, emergency responders maintain response plans which include use of alternate routes, sirens and other methods to bypass congestion and minimize response times. In addition, California law requires drivers to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes to ensure the safe and timely passage of emergency vehicles. Therefore, while implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact pertaining to transportation system policy or ordinances, design feature hazards, or emergency vehicle access, Alternative 3 would make an incremental but significant contribution to a regional (cumulative) VMT impact and would also make an incremental but significant contribution to a regional (cumulative) VMT impact.

R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
With mitigation, Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Planning Area and surrounding areas have been occupied by Native Americans for thousands of years, and the region has been inhabited by European settlers since the mid 1800’s. Therefore, it is possible that earthwork within the City or surrounding jurisdictions may disturb Native American tribal cultural or archaeological resources. State law requires local jurisdictions, including the City, to consult with local Native American tribal representatives when development or public works projects may affect tribal cultural resources (e.g., Government Code section 65352.3 and Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1). This consultation process is critical to identifying actions that could have significant impacts on tribal cultural resources before any ground disturbance occurs in the surrounding region.

While the General Plan does not contain any goals or policies directly related to tribal cultural resources, compliance with State law regarding human remains, the Native American consultation processes described above, and adherence to recommended Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, would ensure that potentially significant cumulative impacts related to buried human remains and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment, stormwater, energy or telecommunications facilities and systems. With mitigation, Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts to water supplies. With mitigation, Alternative 3 would not in Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 106 of 117 January 17, 2023 and of itself require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Future development projects implemented under Alternative 3 would have to assess potential impacts of specific developments proposed on specific sites through future analyses under CEQA.

Alternative 3 deals exclusively with housing and not other environmental issues, so it has no goals or policies that deal specifically with cumulative utility-related impacts.

Regional water, sewer, wastewater, and storm drain system operators maintain their own long-range master plans for these services. Energy services in this region are provided by both public agencies and private companies, while telecommunications services are provided by a large number of private companies of various sizes. Solid waste disposal is managed on a regional scale by the County and collection services from dozens of material recycling facilities spread throughout the region. Most utility master plans are based on the general plans of the cities within their particular service area like the City of Clayton. The growth projections of Alternative 3 are different than those of the existing General Plan but are generally consistent with the ABAG 2020 Plan Bay Area estimates except they do not take into account the City’s current RHNA allocation. The Community Facilities and Growth Management Elements of the Clayton General Plan address potential impacts to utility systems that could result as growth occurs in the City.

All of the local jurisdictions within the surrounding region have policies, similar to the City of Clayton’s, that require the capacity of existing infrastructure and the potential demand for public services be considered in future planning and review of new development. The City maintains its own Development Impact Fees similar to those of surrounding jurisdictions, as well. Once Alternative 3 is adopted, its growth projections would be incorporated as appropriate into the various master plans of the agencies and companies providing utility services to the City. In addition, Mitigation Measure UTL-1 is identified to help limit future water demand.

Therefore, Alternative 3 is not expected to have cumulative impacts on regional utility services.

T. WILDFIRE
Alternative 3 would not contribute to substantial adverse cumulative impacts pertaining to wildfire. Alternative 3 along with other projects in the region represent an incremental increase in potential fire service demand or subsequent impacts after wildfires. The potential cumulative impacts from multiple projects in a specific area can also cause fire response service decline. Despite the low expected increase in number of calls per year anticipated from Alternative 3, Alternative 3 could contribute to cumulative impacts on fire services, when considered with other anticipated projects in the study area. The cumulative impact could result in a situation where response capabilities erode, and service levels may slowly decline over time without adequate funding. To ensure adequate funding for firefighting and emergency medical resources for new development, new development projects are required to contribute fair-share funding toward fire services. Funding Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 107 of 117 January 17, 2023 provided by projects results in capital that can be used toward firefighting and emergency response improvements so that the County’s firefighting agencies are able to perform their mission into the future at levels consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan Safety Element contains Objectives 10, 11, 12, and 13 and attendant policies that would help protect residents and structures from wildfires. These goals and policies promote public education and awareness prior to fires; require safe design and construction of buildings within high fire zones; encourage cooperation and coordination with regional and other local agencies to monitor the City before, and protect/defend hillside areas during wildfires; and help protect downstream or downhill properties from potential landslides, runoff, or pollution associated with wildfires. It is assumed other surrounding jurisdictions have similar General Plan goals and policies, as they generally reflect compliance with State laws regarding wildfires and hazards related to wildfires. This would help minimize the incremental decline of fire response services. Finally, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the City to update its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or cooperate with Contra Costa County in an update to its Emergency Operations Plan in order to address the evacuation planning and coordination directives outlined in State Senate Bill SB (2019) and Assembly Bill 747 (2019) as they apply to the City. HAZ-1 requires the City to decide which document update is most appropriate for the City within 90 days of adoption of Alternative 3. With continued adherence to General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, and continued payment of fair-share funding towards fire services, cumulative wildfire impacts of Alternative 3 in combination with other projects in the area would be less than significant.

SECTION VI.

FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Because nearly all of the preliminary 6th cycle housing inventory sites identified in Alternative 3 are either developed or are designated for development in the City’s Zoning Code, and because Alternative 3 would not significantly change the circulation pattern nor make other major changes to backbone infrastructure facilities, there would not be Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 108 of 117 January 17, 2023 any significant irreversible physical changes caused by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would result in an irreversible commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline or diesel fuel for construction equipment and vehicles, as well as the use of these same resources during long-term operation of individual projects facilitated by Alternative 3. However, because development facilitated by Alternative 3 would be required by law to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24 (including updates over time) and adopted City energy conservation ordinances and regulations, implementation of Alternative 3 would not be expected to use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner.

The consumption or destruction of other non-renewable or slowly renewable resources would also result during construction, occupancy, and use of individual development sites under Alternative 3. These resources would include, but would not be limited to, lumber, concrete, sand, gravel, asphalt, masonry, metals, and water.

Alternative 3 implementation would also irreversibly use water and solid waste landfill resources. However, development under Alternative 3 would not involve a large commitment of those resources relative to supply, nor would it consume any of those resources wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily, especially considering ongoing City conservation and recycling programs.

SECTION VII.

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways a project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), aProject would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); • Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines provide that that growth inducement must not be assumed.

Alternative 3 would result in an allowable increase of up to 966 additional dwelling units, 13,000 square feet of non-residential space, 2,630 residents, and 71 jobs for the 2040 horizon year. However, no substantial, detrimental, growth-inducing effect is expected.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 109 of 117 January 17, 2023 The goals, polices and implementing actions, contained in the existing General Plan and in Alternative 3 address the potentially negative aspects of growth, and have been designed to facilitate development efficiently and effectively in an area where roads and infrastructure already exist. The more compact urban form with increased residential densities envisioned by Alternative 3 is expected to improve the livability of Clayton by enhancing housing opportunities in the City, improving walking and bicycling opportunities, increasing economic vitality and job opportunities, and reducing VMT. The potential growth-related impacts associated with Alternative 3 have also been evaluated in the topical chapters of the EIR (Aesthetics, Biological Resources, etc.) and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives), as appropriate, and mitigation measures have been applied to address such impacts. In addition, implementation of Alternative 3 would not involve the extension of roads, major sewer or water lines, or the construction of other major infrastructure facilities beyond City limits so as to induce growth in areas adjoining Clayton.

SECTION VIII.

ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA.

Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions.

Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 110 of 117 January 17, 2023 Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.

Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.

B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR):
• Maintain and enhance existing housing and neighborhoods. • Ensure adequate sites are available to accommodate moderate housing and population growth and achievement of the City’s regional housing needs allocation.
• Update City policies and regulations to allow for a greater number and diversity of housing units.
• Diversify the housing stock to increase housing opportunities at all income ranges and for both renters and homeowners.
• Minimize governmental constraints to housing production.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 111 of 117 January 17, 2023 • Ensure fair housing practices.
• Preserve and improve existing affordable housing stock.

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM DETAILED

ANALYSIS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.

Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project:
• Reduced Non-Residential Development Capacity
• Reduced (>40%) Residential Development Capacity
• Alternative Location
Finding: The City Council rejects the three alternatives, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternatives do not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternatives would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; (3) the alternatives do not meet the primary objectives of the Project; and (4) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that reduced residential development capacity or implementation of the Project in another City would not address Clayton’s statutory requirement to meet its RHNA. Therefore, these alternatives are eliminated from further consideration.

D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
• Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Housing Element (Draft EIR) • Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Development Capacity at Site M (3 du/ac) and Town Center Sites (20 du/ac) (Draft EIR)
• Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory (Draft EIR)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 112 of 117 January 17, 2023

1. Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Housing Element
Description: The No Project/Existing Housing Element Alternative (No Project Alternative) assumes that development would occur within the Planning Area, but only in the locations and at the densities allowed or anticipated under the 2014 Housing Element. The No Project Alternative assumes a continuation of the existing 2014 Housing Element, wherein sites identified for housing have a realistic development capacity of 278 units as summarized in Table 45 of that document.

Impacts: Compared to the Project, Alternative 1 would have reduced impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Tribal and Cultural Resources and Wildfire would be similar to the Project. Both the Project and Alternative 1 would have no impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources.

Alternative 1 would not have any impacts with a greater level of significance than the Project.

Attainment of Project Objectives: As this alternative would not update City policies and regulations to allow for greater number and diversity of housing units and would not provide the densities needed to allow the City to accommodate its RHNA of 570 or more housing units, it would not meet all of the Project objectives.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Housing Element Alternative, on the grounds that Alternative 1 does not provide the densities needed for the City to achieve its RHNA and therefore, does not meet the objective of the Project to ensure that adequate sites are available to accommodate moderate housing and population growth and achievement of the City’s regional housing needs allocation. Alternative 1 also does not meet the objectives of the Project to update City policies and regulations pertaining to housing and to remove existing governmental constraints to housing production.

2. Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Development Capacity at Site M (3 du/ac) and Town Center Sites (20 du/ac)
Description: Alternative 2 would reduce residential development capacity on housing inventory Site M from 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 3 du/ac and at the Town Center Sites from 30 du/ac to 20 du/ac, resulting in a decrease in potential residential development capacity from 868 dwelling units to 704 dwelling units, a 19 percent reduction in overall development within the Planning Area when compared to the project. This alternative assumes that policies and goals associated with the Housing Element Update would be applicable to development under this alternative.

Impacts: Compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would have reduced impacts to Aesthetics, Energy, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 113 of 117 January 17, 2023 Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Tribal and Cultural Resources and Wildfire would be similar to the Project. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would have no impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources. Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Transportation would be reduced compared to the Project but would remain significant and unavoidable.

Alternative 2 would not have any impacts with a greater level of significance than the Project.

Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would allow the City to accommodate its RHNA of 570 units similar to the project. However, the City must demonstrate that realistic development capacity on its potential housing sites would meet or exceed its RHNA for the duration of the eight-year housing cycle, and the City must continue to find that its housing plan could accommodate its RHNA, in the event that an individual development project is constructed under the Housing Element’s projected unit count for the subject site. This alternative would include the same policy and program language of the Project to reduce governmental constraints to housing and diversify the City’s existing housing stock, but it would not meet the primary objectives of the Project to the extent as the Project because it would support development of fewer housing units than the Project and a smaller buffer to the RHNA.

Finding: The City Council finds that Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Development Capacity at Site M (3 du/ac) and Town Center Sites (20 du/ac): (1) meets most of the Project objectives; (2) reduces the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to greenhouse gases and transportation; and (3) would not result in increased impacts relating to any other environmental resource.

However, the City Council further finds that Alternative 2 does not to the same extent meet the objective of the Project to provide opportunities for a greater number of housing units to ensure ongoing compliance with the City’s RHNA for the duration of the 6th housing cycle, and therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative.

3. Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory Description: Alternative 3 would include the reduced densities encompassed in Alternative 2, with addition of new Sites T, U, and V to the housing inventory.

Additional Site T is located at 6500/6530 Marsh Creek Road, additional Site U is located on a portion of the existing driving range at the Oakhurst Golf Club at 1001 Peacock Creek Drive, and additional Site V is located at 1970 Eagle Peak Avenue.

The respective owners of Sites T, U, and V have expressed interest in developing their properties with townhouses at an estimated density of 20 du/ac. The reduction of densities on Site M and the Town Center, with inclusion of Sites T, U, and V into the housing inventory would result in an increase in potential residential development capacity from 868 dwelling units to 966 dwelling units, an 11 percent increase in development potential compared to the Project. This alternative Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 114 of 117 January 17, 2023 assumes that policies and goals associated with the Housing Element Update would be applicable to development under this alternative.

Impacts: Compared to the Project, Alternative 3 would have similar, less than significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Tribal and Cultural Resources and Wildfire would be similar to the Project. Both the Project and Alternative 3 would have no impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources. Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Transportation would be reduced compared to the Project but would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 would have similar impacts with a similar level of significance to the Project.

Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would allow the City to accommodate its RHNA of 570 units similar to the project and generally meet the project objectives as does the Project. Alternative 3 provides a larger buffer to the RHNA than the Project and provides greater residential development capacity than the Project to ensure ongoing compliance with the City’s RHNA for the duration of the 8-year housing cycle.

Finding: The City Council finds that Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory, is feasible on the following grounds: (1) the alternative meets all of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative would have similar impacts with a similar level of significance compared to the Project, including the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. The City Council further finds that with the increased unit count of this alternative, Alternative 3 would meet the objectives of the Project to provide opportunities for a greater number of housing units to ensure ongoing compliance with the City’s RHNA for the duration of the 6th housing cycle. Alternative 3 reduces assumed densities on Town Center sites and on one low-density residential parcel but includes additional potential housing sites for which property owners have expressed an interest in residential development and for which residential development during the 6th housing cycle is therefore reasonably foreseeable.

E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Draft EIR) the Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Development Capacity at Site M (3 du/ac) and Town Center Sites (20 du/ac) alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 115 of 117 January 17, 2023 F. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The City Council finds that Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory, is the preferred alternative among the alternatives and is the preferred alternative to the Project.

Alternative 3 includes three sites in addition to the sites in the housing inventory for the Project; however, each of these three sites is within current City limits, adjacent to existing residential development and public roadways, and would not result in expansion of the City’s footprint into existing biologically-sensitive lands or high-fire-severity zones. While Alternative 3 would result in greater levels of significance in environmental impacts compared to Alternative 2, its impacts would be similar to the impacts of the Project.

Further, although Alternative 3 would result in greater significance of impacts compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would meet the objectives of the Project to a greater extent than Alternative 2, as Alternative 3 includes the highest development potential for new housing in the City, including on properties for which property owners have expressed interest in residential development at medium to high densities, and for which residential development during the 6th housing cycle is therefore reasonably foreseeable. Alternative 3 therefore goes further than Alternative 2 in meeting the objectives of the Project, as well as the goals of the State, to provide opportunities for a greater number of housing units, an expanded range of densities for new housing in Clayton, greater equity in housing opportunity in the City, and ongoing compliance with the City’s RHNA for the duration of the 6th housing cycle.

SECTION IX.

ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of Alternative 3: Reduced Residential Development at Site M and Town Center and Addition of Sites T, U and V to the Housing Site Inventory against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve Alternative 3. If the specific benefits of Alternative 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered acceptable.

Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Alternative 3 to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Alternative 3 against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to greenhouse gases and transportation – vehicle miles traveled. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from Alternative 3 are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of Alternative 3.

In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of Alternative 3.

Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 116 of 117 January 17, 2023 reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceeding.

The City Council therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Alternative 3, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:

1. Alternative 3 is necessary for the City to comply with State law in Government Code section 65583, which requires every city and county in California to adopt a Housing Element that assesses the existing and projected needs for providing housing for persons of all income levels; provides a housing plan including identification of adequate sites for accommodating the jurisdiction’s RHNA, including identification of and adequate zoning for sites for construction of the housing; and establishes goals, policies and programs to which the jurisdiction will commit to remove constraints to meeting its housing needs through construction, preservation, maintenance and improvement of housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing of all persons regardless of any protected status.

2. Implementation of the policies, programs and zoning amendments of Alternative 3 would streamline existing zoning approval processes for the construction and improvement of housing, reducing the number of discretionary decisions that are currently required while maintaining objective standards that would help to preserve aesthetic characteristics of the City. Implementation of these policies and programs would also reduce costs of planning, permitting and construction for new home developers, as well as, for current homeowners who want to invest in improvement of their properties through expansions of their existing home or construction of accessory and second dwelling units. In this way, Alternative 3 would help the City and State to achieve goals of providing and preserving housing for current and future residents.

3. The goals, policies and programs in the Housing Element amendment and the related Land Use Element and Zoning Code amendments in Alternative 3 would foster a broader range of housing densities than City land use policy currently provides, allowing opportunities for increased diversity in housing types (single-family and multifamily) and tenures (rental and ownership).

Greater diversity in the City’s housing stock would facilitate greater equity and fair access to housing choices for future residents, while also providing smaller unit sizes that are more affordable, more energy efficient and more accessible for recent graduates, young adult children and aging parents who currently live in Clayton and want to remain in the community.

Expanded housing choices also facilitate more opportunities for special needs households as well as employees of the local service-based and public sector workforce to reside in the community, thereby reducing Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact
Resolution No. ##-2023 Page 117 of 117 January 17, 2023 workers’ and their customers’ transportation costs, traffic congestion and automobile pollution emissions generated by vehicle trips to work from outside the City.

Resolution No. ##-2023 January 17, 2023

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-1
City of Clayton
5 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Clayton Housing Element Update Draft EIR. For each Mitigation Measure, the MMRP identifies the significant impact, the related mitigation measure, the implementation entity, the monitoring and verification entity, and timing requirements. 5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-2 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-3
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date

AIR QUALITY
Exposure of
Sensitive
Receptors to
Substantial
Pollutant
Concentrations.

MM AIR-1: Implement BAAQMD
Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures. The City shall require new
project development projects to
implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control
Mitigation Measures to address fugitive
dust emissions that would occur during
earthmoving activities associated with
project construction. These measures
include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking
areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times
per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil,
sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto
adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved
roads shall be limited to 15 miles
per hour.

5. All roadways, driveways, and
sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits and
throughout
construction.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-4 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized
either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes
(as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access
points.

7. All construction equipment shall be
maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and person to
contact at the City regarding dust
complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s
phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-5
City of Clayton
Exposure of
Sensitive
Receptors to
Substantial
Pollutant
Concentrations.

MM AIR-2: Prepare Project-level
Construction Emissions Assessment.

The City shall require new projects
requiring discretionary review to include a
quantitative project-level construction
criteria air pollutant and toxic air
contaminant emissions analysis prior to
the start of construction activities that
shows project construction activities
would not exceed BAAQMD project-level
thresholds of significance. The analysis
may rely on BAAQMD construction
screening criteria to demonstrate that a
detailed assessment of criteria air
pollutant and toxic air contaminant
construction emissions is not required for
the project. If the project does not satisfy
all BAAQMD construction screening
criteria, the analysis shall estimate and
compare construction criteria air pollutant
and toxic air contaminant emissions
against the project-level thresholds of
significance maintained by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown
to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the
implement measure to reduce emissions
below BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation
measures to reduce emissions could
include, but are not limited to:
• Watering exposes surfaces at a
frequency adequate to maintain a
minimum soil moisture content of 12
percent, as verified by moisture probe
or lab sampling;
• Suspending excavation, grading,
and/or demolition activities when
average wind speeds exceed 20
miles per hour;
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-6 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022
• Selection of specific construction
equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of
equipment with smaller engines or
equipment that will be more efficient
and reduce engine runtime);
• Installing wind breaks that have a
maximum 50 percent air porosity;
• Restoring disturbed areas with
vegetative ground cover as soon as
possible;
• Limiting simultaneous ground-
disturbing activities in the same area
at any one time (e.g., excavation and
grading);
• Scheduling/phasing activities to
reduce the amount of disturbed
surface area at any one time;
• Installing wheel washers to wash
truck and equipment tires prior to
leaving the site;
• Minimizing idling time of diesel-
powered construction equipment to
no more than 2 minutes or the
shortest time interval permitted by
manufacturer’s specifications and
specific working conditions.
• Requiring equipment to use
alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-
powered and liquefied or compressed
natural gas), meet cleaner emission
standards (e.g., U.S. EPA Tier IV
Final emissions standards for
equipment greater than 50-
horsepower), and/or utilizing added
exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel
Particular Filter);
• Requiring that all construction
equipment, diesel trucks, and
generators be equipped with Best
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-7
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Available Control Technology for
emission reductions of NOx and PM;
• Requiring all contractors use
equipment that meets CARB’s most
recent certification standard for offroad heavy-duty diesel engines; and • Applying coatings with a volatile
organic compound (VOC) that
exceeds the current regulatory
requirements set forth in BAAQMD
regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural
Coatings).

Cause
Substantial
Adverse
Cumulative Air
Quality Impacts.

See Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR2, above.Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments.

Prior to issuance
of grading or
building permits
and throughout
construction.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-8 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cause
Substantial
Adverse Change
in the
Significance of an
Archaeological
Resource
MM CUL‐1: Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the grading plan shall
include a requirement (via notation)
indicating that if cultural resources, or
human remains are encountered during
site grading or other site work, all such
work shall be halted immediately within
100 feet of the area of discovery and the
contractor shall immediately notify the
City of the discovery. In such case, the
City, at the expense of the project
applicant, shall retain the services of a
qualified archaeologist and/or qualified
tribal monitor for the purpose of
recording, protecting, or curating the
discovery as appropriate. The
archaeologist and/or tribal monitor shall
be required to submit to the City for
review and approval a report of the
findings and method of curation or
protection of the resources. Further
grading or site work within the vicinity of
the discovery, as identified by the
archaeologist and/or tribal monitor, shall
not be allowed until the preceding steps
have been taken.

Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits and
throughout
grading or other
land disturbing
activities.

Disturbance of
Human Remains
MM CUL‐2: Pursuant to State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) and State
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
if human bone or bone of unknown origin
is found during construction, all work shall
stop within 100 feet of the vicinity of the
find, and the Contra Costa County
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments.

During grading
and construction.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-9
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the Coroner shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission
who shall notify the person believed to be
the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The
MLD shall work with the contractor to
develop a program for re-internment of
the human remains and any associated
artifacts. Additional work shall not take
place in the immediate vicinity of the find,
which shall be identified by the qualified
archaeologist at the applicant’s expense,
until the preceding actions have been
implemented.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Directly or
Indirectly Destroy
a Unique
Paleontological
Resources.

MM GEO-1: In the event that fossils or
fossil‐bearing deposits are discovered
during grading or construction of the
Project, excavations within 50 feet of the
find shall be temporarily halted until the
discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist, in accordance with the
applicable Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology standards (Standard
Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources, Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010), and
assessed for significance under CEQA.

The applicant shall include a standard
inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform
contractors of this requirement. If the find
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments.

During grading
and
construction.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-10 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
is determined to be significant and if
avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall design and carry out
a data recovery plan consistent with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generation of
Greenhouse
Gases that May
Have a
Significant Impact
on the
Environment.

MM GHG-1: Prohibit Natural Gas
Plumbing and Appliances in New
Housing Sites. The City shall prohibit
natural gas plumbing and the use of
natural gas appliances such as cook tops,
water heaters, and space heaters in all
new housing site developments. Upon
request by the project developer,
exceptions to this prohibition may be
allowed in the following instances:
• Accessory dwelling units constructed
on a parcel with an existing residential
building with gas infrastructure.
• Newly constructed buildings with a
valid planning entitlement or other
effective development agreement
approved prior to the date of
certification of this EIR.
• It can be demonstrated there is no
commercially available technology
capable of meeting the specific
appliance or building system
application.

Projects subject to the above exceptions
shall provide the necessary infrastructure
City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-11
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
to support future electrification of
appliances and building systems. This
prohibition on natural gas plumbing and
natural gas appliances shall cease if and
when the City adopts a ZNE ordinance
per Mitigation Measure GHG-2.

Generation of
Greenhouse
Gases that May
Have a
Significant Impact
on the
Environment.

MM GHG-2: Consider Adoption of a
Zero Net Energy Ordinance. Within one
year of the adoption of the HEU, the City
shall complete an evaluation on the
feasibility of adopting an ordinance that
amends the City’s Municipal Code to
require all new residential and/or nonresidential development subject to Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code
to achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE)
standards. If the City finds ZNE
technology, programs, and/or other
strategies are feasible and cost-effective,
the City shall adopt a ZNE ordinance as
expeditiously as possible given City
resources. As defined by the California
Energy Commission (CEC), ZNE
standards require the value of the net
energy produced by project renewable
energy resources to equal the value of the
energy consumed annually by the project,
using the CEC’s Time Dependent
Valuation. In the event the City adopts a
ZNE ordinance, Mitigation Measure GHG2 would no longer apply to housing site projects in the City.

City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Within one year
of adoption of the
Housing Element
Update.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-12 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Generation of
Greenhouse
Gases that May
Have a
Significant Impact
on the
Environment.

MM GHG-3: Residential Electric
Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Requirements. The City shall require
new residential housing sites to comply
with the Tier 2 electric vehicle charging
and bicycle parking requirements in the
latest edition of the California Green
Building Standards Code (CalGreen) in
effect at the time the building permit
application is submitted to the City.

Currently, the 2019 CalGreen code,
Section A4.106.8, Electric Vehicle
Charging for New Construction, and
Section A4.106.9, Bicycle Parking,
require the following measures to
facilitate the future installation and use
of electric vehicle chargers and bicycle
travel:
● New one and two-family dwellings
and townhouses with attached
private garages include a
dedicated 208/240-volt branch
circuit rated at 40 amperes
minimum.
● New multi-family dwellings provide
20 percent of the total number of
parking spaces on a building site be
electric vehicle charging spaces
capable of supporting future
electric vehicle supply equipment.
● New multi-family buildings provide
on-site bicycle parking for at least
one bicycle per every two dwelling
City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-13
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
units, with acceptable parking
facilities conveniently reached from
the street.

Generation of
Greenhouse
Gases that May
Have a
Significant Impact
on the
Environment.

MM GHG-4: Non-Residential Electric
Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Requirements. The City shall require
new commercial development included
as part of mixed-use housing sites to
comply with the Tier 2 bicycle
accommodations, clean air vehicle
parking, and electric vehicle charging
requirements in the latest edition of the
California Green Building Standards
Code (CalGreen) in effect at the time
the building permit application is
submitted to the City. Currently, the
2019 CalGreen code, Section
A5.106.4.3, Changing Rooms, Section
A5.106.5.1, Designated Parking for
Clean Air Vehicles, and Section
A5.106.5.3, Electric Vehicle Charging,
require the following measures to
facilitate bicycle travel, clean air
vehicles, and the future installation and
use of electric vehicle chargers:
● Non-residential buildings with more
than 10 tenant-occupants provide
changing/shower facilities for
tenant-occupants in accordance
with Table A5.106.4.3 of the
CalGreen code.
● Non-residential development
involving the installation, addition,
City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-14 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
or alteration of 10 or more vehicular
parking spaces provide designated
parking for any combination of lowemitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles pursuant
to Table A5.106.5.1.2 of the
CalGreen code.
● Non-residential development shall
provide electric vehicle charging
spaces capable of supporting
electric vehicle supply equipment
pursuant to Table A5.106.5.3.2 of
the CalGreen code.

Generation of
Greenhouse
Gases that May
Have a
Significant Impact
on the
Environment.

MM GHG-5: Require a Project-level
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment for Housing Site Projects.

The City shall require development
projects that are determined not to be
categorically exempt from CEQA, and
that require the quantitative VMT
assessment required by Mitigation
Measure VMT-1, to submit a project-level
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
analysis. The GHG emissions analysis
shall evaluate the project’s consistency
with adopted state-wide GHG emissions
reduction goals using the latest guidance
and recommendations from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District, or
another accepted methodology. If the
project’s GHG emissions could interfere
with state-wide GHG emission reduction
goals, mitigation shall be identified and
implemented to reduce emissions.

Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-15
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Mitigation measures to reduce GHG
emissions could include, but are not
limited to:
● Increasing the energy efficiency of
the proposed building(s) (e.g.,
identifying building practices that go
beyond CalGreen Code standards,
identifying specific energy efficient
appliances, etc.);
● Incorporating on-site renewable
energy generation into projectdesign;
● Reducing the quantity of parking
provided by the proposed
development;
● Reducing indoor and outdoor potable
water consumption; and
● Increasing solid waste diversion
rates.

Conflict with an
Applicable Plan,
Policy or
Regulation
Adopted for the
Purpose of
Reducing the
Emissions of
Greenhouse
Gases
See Mitigation Measures GHG-1
through GHG-5, above.

City of Clayton
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to issuance
of construction
permits.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.

Cause
Substantial
Adverse Impacts
See Mitigation Measures GHG-1
through GHG-5, above.

City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Prior to issuance
of construction
permits.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-16 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
with Respect to
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Project
Proponent/Applicant
Development
Department. Prior
discretionary
project approval.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Exposure of
People or
Structures to
Wildfire.

MM HAZ-1: The City shall determine if it
will prepare an update to its Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP) or cooperate with
Contra Costa County in an update to its
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). This
update must address the evacuation
planning and coordination directives
outlined in SB 99 and AB 747 as they
apply to the City. The selected update
shall address areas of the City or its
Planning Area that have high fire risks
and identify adequate evacuation routes
with ongoing maintenance needs and
operational and public education needs to
support use of these routes during
emergency conditions. The City shall
decide which document update is most
appropriate for the City within 90 days of
adoption of the HEU.

City of Clayton
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Within 90 days of
the adoption of
the Housing
Element Update.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-17
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
NOISE
Exposure to
Noise Levels in
Excess of
Standards.

MM NOI-1: Reduce Potential Housing
Site Development Construction Noise
Levels. To reduce potential noise levels
from construction activities pursuant to
the HEU, the City shall require that future
development projects subject to
discretionary approval comply with the
following:
1)Notify Residential and Commercial
Land Uses of Planned Construction
Activities. This notice shall be provided at
least one week prior to the start of any
construction activities, describe the noise
control measures to be implemented by
the Project, and include the name and
phone number of the designated contact
for the Applicant/project representative
and the City of Clayton responsible for
handling construction-related noise
complaints (per Section 7). This notice
shall be provided to:

A) The owner/occupants of residential
dwelling units within 500 feet of
construction work areas; and
B) The owner/occupants of commercial
buildings (including institutional
buildings) within 100 feet of work areas
or within 400 feet of construction work
areas if pile driving equipment will be
used.
2)Restrict Work Hours. Constructionrelated work activities, including material Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval
(Include as
project
conditions of
approval).

Preparation and
City signoff on
Construction
Noise Plan prior
to issuance of
grading permits.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-18 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
deliveries, shall be subject to the
requirements of City Municipal Code
Section 15.01.101. Construction
activities, including deliveries, shall occur
only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, unless
otherwise authorized in writing by the City
Engineer or designee or other project
conditions of approval. If such
authorization is granted, constructionrelated work activities shall still conform to the requirements of General Plan Policy
3b., which limits construction activities to
the hours 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekends when adjacent neighbors are
affected. The applicant/project
representative and/or its contractor shall
post a sign at all entrances to the
construction site informing contractors,
subcontractors, construction workers, etc.
of this requirement.
3)Control Construction Traffic and Site
Access. Construction traffic, including soil
and debris hauling, shall follow Citydesignated truck routes and shall avoid local roads in the City that contain
residential dwelling units as much as
possible unless an alternative route that
provides access to the specific project
location is not available.
4)Construction Equipment Selection,
Use, and Noise Control Measures. The
following measures shall apply to
construction equipment used to develop
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-19
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
housing sites:

A)Contractors shall use the smallest
size equipment capable of safely
completing work activities.

B)Construction staging shall occur as
far away from residential and
commercial land uses as possible.

C) All stationary noise-generating
equipment such as pumps,
compressors, and welding machines
shall be shielded and located as far
from sensitive receptor locations as
practical. Shielding may consist of
existing vacant structures or a three- or
four-sided enclosure provide the
structure/barrier breaks the line of sight
between the equipment and the
receptor and provides for proper
ventilation and equipment operations.

D) Heavy equipment engines shall be
equipped with standard noise
suppression devices such as mufflers,
engine covers, and engine/mechanical
isolators, mounts, etc. These devices
shall be maintained in accordance with
manufacturer’s recommendations
during active construction activities.

E) Pneumatic tools shall include a
noise suppression device on the
compressed air exhaust.

F) The applicant/project representative
and/or their contractor shall connect to
existing electrical service at the site to
avoid the use of stationary power
generators unless electrical service is
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-20 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
not available or the electricity provider
indicates service cannot be provided.

G)No radios or other amplified sound
devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
6)Implement Construction Activity Noise
Control Measures: The following
measures shall apply to construction
activities in the Plan Area:

A) Demolition: Activities shall be
sequenced to take advantage of
existing shielding/noise reduction
provided by existing buildings or parts
of buildings, and methods that minimize
noise and vibration, such as sawing
concrete blocks and prohibiting on-site
hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other
pulverization activities, shall be
employed when activities occur
adjacent to sensitive residential areas.

B) Demolition Site Preparation,
Grading, and Foundation Work: During
all demolition, site preparation, grading,
and structure foundation work activities
within 500 feet of a residential dwelling
unit or 400 feet of a commercial building
(including institutional buildings), a 6-
foot tall physical noise barrier shall be
installed and maintained around the
work site perimeter to the maximum
extent feasible given site constraints
and access requirements. Physical
barriers shall consist of a solid material
(i.e., free of openings or gaps other than
weep holes) that has a minimum rated
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-21
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
transmission loss value of 20 dB. The
noise barrier may be removed following
the completion of building foundation
work (i.e., it is not necessary once
framing and typical vertical building
construction begins provided no other
grading, foundation, etc. work is still
occurring on-site).

C) Pile Driving: If pile driving activities
are required within 500 feet of a
residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a
commercial building, the piles shall be
pre-drilled with an auger to minimize
pile driving equipment run times.
7)Prepare a Construction Noise
Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise
Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify the name
and/or title and contact information
(including phone number and email) for a
designated project and City
representative responsible for addressing
construction-related noise issues; B)
Includes procedures describing how the
designated project representative will
receive, respond, and resolve
construction noise complaints; C) At a
minimum, upon receipt of a noise
complaint, the project representative shall
notify the City contact, identify the noise
source generating the complaint,
determine the cause of the complaint, and
take steps to resolve the complaint; D)
The elements of the Construction Noise
Complaint Plan may be included in the
project-specific noise evaluation prepared
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-22 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate
document.

Cause a
Substantial
Adverse
Cumulative
Impact with
Respect to Noise.

See Mitigation Measure NOI-1, above. Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to
discretionary
project approval
(Include as
project
conditions of
approval).

Preparation and
City signoff on
Construction
Noise Plan prior
to issuance of
grading permits.

TRANSPORTATION
Conflict or Be
Inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
Subdivision (b)..

Cause a
Substantial
Adverse
Cumulative
Impact with
VMT-1: The Project shall implement the
following VMT Reduction Measures:
• Individual housing project
development proposals that do not
screen out from VMT impact analysis
shall provide a quantitative VMT
analysis using the methods applied in
this EIR, with modifications if
appropriate based on future changes
to City of Clayton practices and CCTA
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-23
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Respect to
Transportation.

VMT analysis methodology
guidelines. Projects which result in a
significant impact shall include travel
demand management measures and
physical measures to reduce VMT,
including, but not limited to, the
measures below, which have been
identified as potentially VMT reducing
in the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA)
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse
Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing
Climate Vulnerabilities, and
Advancing Health and Equity
(December 2021). Project developers
may substitute any of the measures
listed below with one or more
alternative measures; provided, that
any substitute measures would
reduce GHG from VMT in an amount
that is equal to or greater than the
reduction achieved by the measure
being replaced, and the amount of the
reduction is supported by evidence.

Potential VMT reduction estimates
are included below, but detailed
requirements, calculation steps, and
limitations are described in the
CAPCOA Handbook. In addition,
application of one or more of the
measures below is generally
expected to result in a net VMT
reduction of 10 percent or less for
development projects in suburban
settings such as Clayton:
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-24 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
o Unbundle parking costs (i.e., sell
or lease parking separately from
the housing unit). Effectiveness:
up to 15.7 percent reduction in
GHG from VMT per the CAPCOA
Handbook.
o Provide car-sharing, bike sharing,
or scooter sharing programs.

Effectiveness: 0.15 – 0.18 percent
reduction in GHG from VMT for car
share, 0.02 – 0.06 percent for bike
share, and 0.07 percent for
scooter share, per the CAPCOA
Handbook. The higher car share
and bike share values are for
electric car and bike share
programs.
o Subsidize transit passes for
residents of affordable housing.

Effectiveness: up to 5.5 percent
reduction in GHG from VMT per
the CAPCOA Handbook.

Cause a
Substantial
Adverse
Cumulative
Impact with
Respect to
Transportation.

See Mitigation Measure VMT-1, above. Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-25
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Relocation or
Construction of
New or Expanded
Water,
Wastewater
Treatment,
Stormwater
Drainage, Electric
Power, Natural
Gas, or
Communications
Facilities.

MM UTL-1: Water Demand
Management. Prior to receiving
entitlements for new residential
development under the Housing Element
Update, project applicants must contact
the CCCWD and obtain confirmation that
adequate water service can be provided
and adequate water supplies are
available consistent with their latest
Urban Water Management Plan. If the
CCCWD indicates it cannot guarantee
water supplies for the new development,
or the project involves an increase over
planned development (i.e., General Plan
Amendment or Rezoning) to a use or
uses that would consume more water
than under the current General Plan and
zoning, then the development must
implement one or more of the following
water conservation measures to the
degree necessary to achieve the level of
water use that would have occurred under
the current General Plan and/or zoning
designation(s):
• Install appliances and plumbing that
exceed current State Green Building
Code water conservation
requirements (i.e., those “current” at
the time of application). Examples
include but are not limited to low or
dual flush toilets, composting toilets,
high efficiency washing machines,
Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-26 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
shower timers, low-flow faucet and
shower aerators, insulate water
pipes, etc.;
• Prohibit installation of a swimming
pool or allow only a spa;
• Prohibit installation of waterconsuming landscape features (fountains, ponds, etc.);
• Prohibit installation of turf and
promote individual gardens;
• Install all hardscape or all xeriscape
(drought-tolerant) plants;
• Install only highly efficient drip
irrigation systems - do not allow
installation of any overhead sprayers
or aerial sprinkler systems;
• Install rain barrels or other rain
storage systems to reduce demand
on domestic water needed for
landscaping;
• Evaluate feasibility of installing grey
water collection and recycling
system, and install the system if
feasible; and
• For a General Plan Amendment or
Rezoning, the project must
demonstrate that it would exceed
state and/or regional water
conservation requirements sufficient
to achieve water use that would have
occurred under the existing land use
and zoning designations.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Clayton Housing Element Update 5-27
City of Clayton

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date
Projects are not limited to this list but can
recommend additional improvements or
systems as appropriate to maximize
water conservation. A project must
identify the water conservation measures
to be implemented with the project prior to
entitlement and must demonstrate full
compliance with this measure, including
installation of specified improvements,
prior to receiving a certificate of
occupancy. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department.

Have Sufficient
Water Supplies
Available to
Serve the Project
and Reasonably
Foreseeable
Future
Development.

See Mitigation Measure UTL-1, above. Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.

Cause a
Substantial
Adverse
Cumulative
Impact with
Respect to
Utilities and
Service Systems.

See Mitigation Measure UTL-1, above. Project
Proponent/Applicant
City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Prior
discretionary
project approval.
5 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5-28 Final Environmental Impact Report
November 30, 2022

IDENTIFIED
IMPACT

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING VERIFICATION
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring
and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements Signature Date

WILDFIRE
Exposure of
Project
Occupants to
Pollutant
Concentrations
from a Wildfire.

MM HAZ-1: The City shall determine if it
will prepare an update to its Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP) or cooperate with
Contra Costa County in an update to its
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). This
update must address the evacuation
planning and coordination directives
outlined in SB 99 and AB 747 as they
apply to the City. The selected update
shall address areas of the City or its
Planning Area that have high fire risks
and identify adequate evacuation routes
with ongoing maintenance needs and
operational and public education needs to
support use of these routes during
emergency conditions. The City shall
decide which document update is most
appropriate for the City within 90 days of
adoption of the HEU.

City of Clayton City of
Clayton
Community
Development
Department.

Within 90 days of
adoption of the
HEU.