017579.0004\6299806.2
Response to Comments on the Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2021030302
Prepared for:
City of Hercules
Community Development Department
111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547
Prepared by:
MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Ave
Berkeley, CA 94710
May 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
017579.0004\6299806.2
3 017579.0004\6299806.2
Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were submitted in the form of comments from individuals attending a March 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting; and letters/emails received by the City during the Draft IS/MND public review period. In total, fifteen (15) comments were received at the Planning Commission public meeting, and twenty-nine (29) letters/emails were received during the Draft IS/MND public review period, which ended on April 15, 2021.
The individuals who commented at the public meeting, plus each individual, agency, and organization that commented in letter/email form during the Draft IS/MND public review period, are listed below alphabetically by personal name or agency/organization name. After the person’s name, each meeting comment and each letter/email comment received is also identified in parenthesis by a code number - e.g., PC comments PC-1, PC-2; Letter/email comments L-1, L-2, L-3. The code numbers are chronological in the order that the comments were received.
The public commenters are listed below:
• Scott Bedolla, Hercules resident (L-6; L-23)
• Kathleen Carter, Hercules resident (L-17)
• Karen Didomenicis, Hercules resident (L-10)
• Mignon Fernandez, Hercules resident (L-19)
• Jacquelyn Harbert, Hercules resident (L- 22)
• Dean Karay, Hercules resident (L-11)
• David Kavanaugh, Hercules resident (L-1; L-20)
• Charles Lucke, President, Silver Circle Senior Golf Club (L-5) • Melinda Manzo, Friends of Measure M (L-26)
• Katherine Perez, North Valley Yokuts tribe (L-9)
• Dan Romero, Hercules City Councilmember (L-7)
• Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commissioner Chair (L-27) • Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner (L-21) • Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner (L-14) • Richard Schneider, Hercules resident (L-24)
• Gillian Silva, Hercules resident (L-25)
• Chris Tallerico, Hercules resident (L-15)
• Jim Taylor, Hercules resident (L-3; L-12)
• Stephen Wahlstrom, Franklin Canyon Men’s Club (L-2; L-4) • Mary Wong, Hercules resident (L-18)
The City received five (5) comment letters in total from the following agencies, who submitted
4 017579.0004\6299806.2
comment letters during the public review period for the Franklin Canyon RV Resort IS/MND:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (L-28) • Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (L-13) • Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District (L-29) • East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) (L-16)
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (L-8)
The following commenters provided either spoken or written comments at the March 15 Planning Commission meeting:
• Mike Abelson (PC-8)
• Charlie Boots (PC-3)
• Linus Eukle, John Muir Land Trust (PC-1)
• Irina Galieva, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-14) • Steve Harker (PC-10)
• Jenae (PC-7)
• David Kavaunagh (PC-6)
• Richard L (PC-2)
• Melinda Manzo (PC-9)
• Kenneth Morrison, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-11) • D. Raquel (PC-5)
• Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commission Chair (PC-15) • Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC- 12) • Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-13) • Stephen Wahlstrom (PC-4)
5 017579.0004\6299806.2
LETTER RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF HERCULES
ON MEASURE M CONSISTENCY
6 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
7 017579.0004\6299806.2
MASTER RESPONSE
COMMENTS ON LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSISTENCY
AND PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH MEASURE M
Several commentors asked questions about the Project’s potential land use and planning impacts, and how the City determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of Measure M.
Chapter 13.5 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes the process for determining whether a proposed use is consistent with applicable land use and zoning requirements. Section 13-5.300 of the Zoning Ordinance explains that “allowable land uses within a zoning district are classified by general land uses rather than extensive lists of specific land uses.” (Hercules Municipal Code (HMC) § 13-
5.300.) This means that many, if not most, allowable land uses are not specifically listed as permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance for each zoning district. Rather, the Ordinance describes the general types of land uses that are allowed in each district and the determination of whether a particular, proposed use is allowed is made by the Community Development Director based on six (6) specific standards set forth in the ordinance. The Community Development Director’s determination is a discretionary decision and is valid if it is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the City’s administrative record for the Project. The Director’s determination is also subject to appeals to the Planning Commission and the City Council. (HMC § 13-5.300.) This process for determining whether a proposed use is allowed in a particular zoning district is the “zoning clearance procedure.” (HMC § 13-5.700.)
On June 26, 2019, pursuant to the zoning clearance procedure and in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 13-5.300, the City issued the project proponent a zoning clearance for the proposed project. The zoning clearance determination was sent to all property owners within 1,900 feet of the project site, posted at various City locations and on the City’s website, sent to all members of the City’s Planning Commission and City Council, and subject to a 14-day appeal period before it became final.
No one elected to appeal the zoning clearance determination, so it became final on July 10, 2019 and is now binding on the City.
The 2019 zoning clearance set forth in detail, based on specific facts and findings, how the proposed project meets each of the six standards set forth in Section 13-5.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. The 2019 zoning clearance determination is attached hereto as [exhibit or attachment] and summarized below.
1. General Plan Consistency. Measure M was adopted by the electorate of the City of Hercules as Ordinance No. 401, and it amended the City’s General Plan by incorporating Sections 4 through 20 of the Ordinance directly into the City’s General Plan. Therefore, consistency of the Project with Measure M constitutes consistency with the General Plan.
The purpose of Measure M, as stated in the Ordinance, is “to protect Franklin Canyon from harmful and unnecessary development by maintaining the existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses.” The Ordinance further states that its objectives are “to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.” In issuing the zoning clearance determination, the Community Development Director found the Project to be consistent with the purposes of Measure M “because it does not propose to develop any area of Franklin Canyon outside the envelope of the current existing golf course and therefore continues to preserve and protect nearby open space lands and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses.” The Director also found that the Applicant proposes to enhance the riparian corridor by reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation, as well as eliminate non-native and ornamental plant species from the existing golf course
8 017579.0004\6299806.2
which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and help eradicate non-native species onsite. The Director further found the Project to be consistent with the objectives of Measure M because, among other things, “[i]t will maintain and enhance the existing golf course in a smaller and more environmentally-sensitive configuration,” would not encroach on the existing open space area, and expand parking for and access to the open space and the John Muir Land Trust open space trails, thus serving to “protect natural resources while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for residents.”
2. Consistency with purpose and intent of the Zoning District. Measure M established the allowable uses and most of the zoning standards for the Project site. Other zoning standards may be applied to the Project to the extent that they are not inconsistent with Measure M and are in addition to or more restrictive than Measure M.
The Community Development Director found that the Project meets the stated purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district because the proposed use is consistent with “the purpose and general intent of the uses listed in Section 9(e) of Measure M,” for the following reasons. • It will provide facilities for the enjoyment of low intensity outdoor recreation activities including golf, pickle ball, basketball and bocce ball, and providing an outdoor swimming pool and hot tub area.
• It will promote and enhance nature observation, study and enjoyment by expanding access to and parking for the existing open space area and the John Muir Land Trust open space trails. • It will provide accommodations for short-term occupancy and provision for food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities) for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, enjoyment or study through the RV resort, walk-in campground, tent bungalows, and onsite club house with food and beverage facilities.
3. Similarity to uses that are specifically allowed in the zoning district without increasing intensity or density of uses and without generating greater environmental effects. For the reasons set forth above, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed uses are “consistent with and share common characteristics with the uses listed in Section 9(e) of Measure M.” In addition, the Director found the Project “does not appear to be of greater intensity or density than those uses listed in Measure M,” because the proposed uses would “not appear to require more infrastructure or impact natural resources more than neighborhood stores, any kind of healthcare use, or a use involving packing/processing/
storage/sale of agricultural products,” all of which are allowed by Measure M and all of which “would likely be more intense and may involve infrastructure and traffic in excess of that produced by the proposed RV resort.”
4. In addition, the Director found that it “does not appear that [the Project] will generate greater environmental impacts than the other uses listed in Measure M” because: (a) the entire proposal is located on existing fairways which are non-native; (b) it will be constructed within the existing building envelope (i.e., under 20,000 square feet) and consistent with FAR requirements in Sections 10, 11, and 12 of Measure M; (c) it proposes to pull back some existing uses to not impair critical wildlife habitat or the quantity or biological quality of wetlands and adjacent creek; (d) it would enhance the riparian corridor by considerably reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation; and (e) it would eliminate non-native and ornamental plant species from the existing golf course, which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and eradicate non-native aquatic species in the onsite man-made ponds.
5. Conformance to specific standards for similar uses allowed in the zoning district. The Community Development Director found that the proposed Project would appear to meet all of the specific and
9 017579.0004\6299806.2
applicable development standards set forth in Measure M, which would be confirmed and verified in the Design Review Permit process.
6. Ability of the proposed use to meet the performance standards of the zoning district and the City’s general performance standards set forth in HMC Chapter 13-31. As described above, the Community Development Director found that the proposed project would appear to meet the applicable performance standards of the zoning district. In addition, the Director found that the Project “can meet the City’s general performance standards in Section 13-31 of the Zoning Ordinance[.]”
7. The proposed use will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare of the community nor constitute a nuisance. The Community Development Director found that the “proposed uses for the Project are consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning standards set by Measure M and therefore should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare nor constitute a public nuisance.”
Measure M text is included on the next page.
10 017579.0004\6299806.2
11 017579.0004\6299806.2
12 017579.0004\6299806.2
13 017579.0004\6299806.2
14 017579.0004\6299806.2
15 017579.0004\6299806.2
16 017579.0004\6299806.2
17 017579.0004\6299806.2
18 017579.0004\6299806.2
19 017579.0004\6299806.2
20 017579.0004\6299806.2
21 017579.0004\6299806.2
22 017579.0004\6299806.2
23 017579.0004\6299806.2
24 017579.0004\6299806.2
25 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
26 017579.0004\6299806.2
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules, California
May 2021
27 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
28 017579.0004\6299806.2
The following comments were raised at the March 15 Planning Commission meeting and reflect community concerns with the project.
• Comment PC-1: Linus Eukle: This comment discussed the merits of the project.
Response PC-1: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required.
• Comment PC-2: Richard L: This comment asked about the time limit on RVs storage, and day use at the site, and if any road improvements are proposed for Highway 4.
Response PC-2: Per the applicant’s response during the Planning Commission meeting, there was no time limit to RV storage. The applicant also mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting that day use would be limited to the following: the restaurant, pool, clubhouse and banquet hall.
No improvements are required for Highway 4. Please refer to response L-6 for a response from the City's transportation engineer. Additionally, Caltrans District 4 was included in the IS/MND distribution list. Caltrans did not provide comments.
• Comment PC-3: Charlie Boots: This commentor asked if the Hercules Police would be enforcing the 30 day stay limit.
Response PC-3: Onsite security would enforce time 30-day limit. Refer to IS/MND Sections
6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection.
• Comment PC-4: Stephen Wahlstrom: This commentor has questions about Measure M consistency and the definition of “recreational facility” in the IS/MND Section 6.16 Recreation.
Response PC-4: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance, and Response L-3. This commentor also submitted comment letters L-2 and L-4 covering the same concerns.
• Comment PC-5: D. Raquel: This commentor asked how the project would impact police and City services.
Response PC-5: Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection. • Comment PC-7: Jenae: This comment discussed how the golf course provides access to nature and how this access is beneficial to children. The comment also covered the cost of the proposed project compared to renovating the existing facility.
Response PC-7: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required. • Comment PC-8: Mike Abelson: This comment discussed the operating cost and price of water for irrigation. The commentor calculated the operation loss and water needs to account for an increase in the price of playing a round of golf, less than what was projected in the applicant’s Powerpoint presentation.
Response PC-8: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required.
• Comment PC-9: Melinda Manzo, Friends of Measure M: This comment was about Measure M
29 017579.0004\6299806.2
compliance.
Response PC-9: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. This commentor also submitted comment letter L-26. • Comment PC-11: Kenneth Morrison, Planning Commissioner: This comment discussed the change in project plans from original, and well as how the applicant would monitor length of stay for RVs.
Response PC-11: This portion of the comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. The length of stays would be monitored by onsite security. • Comment PC-12: Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner: Comments discussed during the Planning Commission meeting covered concerns about Measure M compliance and operating costs. The Commissioner requested net revenue numbers for golf course versus RV park and requested source of golf and RV data from applicant’s Powerpoint presentation.
Response PC-12: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. Commissioner Sacramento also submitted a comment letter with other concerns, included as L-21. The comments related to golf revenue and the sources do not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. • Comment PC-13: Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner: This comment discussed Measure M consistency, and other agency approvals.
Response PC-13: Please refer to the Master Response included at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
• Comment PC-14: Irina Galieva, Hercules Planning Commissioner: Comments discussed during the Planning Commission meeting covered concerns about Measure M compliance and questions about the split of the parcel.
Response PC-14: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. The split of the parcel is discussed on page 108 in Section 6.11 Land Use and Planning: “The project site would be subdivided into two parcels to double the allowable structure square footage.”
• Comment PC-15: Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commission Chair: Comments covered Highway 4 hazards, and creek leaching concerns.
Response PC-15: Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.17 Transportation for a discussion about transportation.
Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, which discusses BMPs to manage water quality on and offsite. Please also see page 89 in Section 6.7 Geology and Soils, regarding the proposed septic system’s capacity, which would be adequate to serve the project. (Also see 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, pages 144-145)
30 017579.0004\6299806.2
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules, California
May 2021
017579.0004\6299806.2 31
This page intentionally left blank
017579.0004\6299806.2 32
In the following “responses to comments,” each comment is included, followed by the response. Based on the comments/responses, any revisions to the IS/MND are included at the end of this document (Revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).
Comment L-1
017579.0004\6299806.2 33
Response L-1
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required. These planning concerns can be raised during the design review hearing(s) on the Project. For those comments that do apply to the IS/MND (housing development, runoff, increased pavement, sewer and water demands), see below.
Per the IS/MND in Section 6.14 Population and Housing: “The RV campsites and tent bungalows are proposed to have a limited 30 day or less stay and would prohibit long-term RV occupancy.” (page 128)
Per the IS/MND in Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality: “Design measures would be implemented to prevent surface runoff and flooding on and off site. Furthermore, the City would require the project’s use of BMPs [Best Management Practices], as listed in the post-construction requirements. BMPs preventing flooding and runoff include protection of storm drains through vegetated filter traps and/or catch basins. The BMPs would prevent the alteration of site drainage or increase in surface runoff, and also would reduce flooding potential. Project Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would include limiting impervious surfaces, dispersing development into smaller areas, and creation of storm water detainment areas. With these design measures and BMPs in place, the impact would be less than significant.” (page 104) All potential impacts to surface runoff have been evaluated and not found to have a significant impact. Per the Triad Holmes and
017579.0004\6299806.2 34
Associates, 2020 Conceptual Drainage/Stormwater Management Plan, the project proposes construction of adequate treatment basins onsite so as not to degrade water quality.
Please see IS/MND Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, regarding increased water and sewer demands. The Project will not cause an increase in sewer and water demands on any new City residents. Further, regarding payment for this use, see page 153: “In addition, the project would be subject to development impact fees and property taxes to offset project- related impacts to public services and utility systems such as fire protection services, roadways, storm drain facilities, water facilities, and other public facilities and operations.”
Regarding the Muir Trust Open Space, the project applicant is collaborating with the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) to deed approximately 70 acres to the JMLT plus lease about 5 acres to the JMLT for a community garden (IS/MND pages 7 and 132).
The Project is not presently located on JMLT lands and thus is not subject to any JMLT rules; however, JMLT would manage that portion of the project donated as open space consistent with its own practices and policies, so long as consistent with requirements of Measure M.
017579.0004\6299806.2 35
Comment L-2
Response L-2
Thank you for your comment. The author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required. See the following email response to this email from Robert Reber, City of Hercules Community Development Director, dated March 12, 2021:
“Thank you for your questions regarding the Franklin Canyon RV Resort. The questions in your first two bullet points are not part of the City’s review and approval process, but I have forwarded those questions to the project applicants so that they can be prepared to respond and hopefully shed some light at Monday’s Planning Commission meeting.
Regarding tax revenues, the restaurant and pro shop generate a small amount of sales tax.
The property itself does generate property tax as well, though the City’s share of the base taxes is less than 5%. The City does not earn any tax revenue on green fees.
017579.0004\6299806.2 36
The RV resort would also be subject to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (10%) on the nightly costs of renting a space. Though the County could receive a 32% share (not to exceed $110,000 in any fiscal year) of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue, the City projects receiving TOT revenue in excess of $200,000 a year. Although a fiscal analysis is not typically required for the pending project applications (design review and vesting map), some economic analysis will likely be included as part of the project review but not as part of the environmental document.”
017579.0004\6299806.2 37
Comment L-3
Response L-3
Thank you for your comment. Most concerns raised refer to Measure M compliance.
Please see the Master Response to comments on Measure M at the beginning of this section.
Please refer to Section 6.16 Recreation beginning at p. 132 of the IS/MND for an analysis on the recreational aspect of the Project. In addition, the City does not consider a private golf facility a public park, open space, or a recreational facility. The project is also proposing access to the open space areas owned by JMLT and are proposing dedication of 70-acres of land adjacent to JMLT for open space use, which are considered recreational uses.
017579.0004\6299806.2 38
Comment L-4
017579.0004\6299806.2 39
Response L-4
This comment is a follow up to comment L-2. Please see Response L-2 for the City’s response to the questions previously submitted and noted as “additional questions beyond this Initial Study” in this comment.
Regarding concern #1: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding concern #2 relating to recreation: Please refer to Response L-3, and for a more detailed discussion, refer to Section 6.16 Recreation of the IS/MND.
Please also see Response L-1 regarding long term stays and occupancy.
017579.0004\6299806.2 40
Comment L-5
Response L-5
Thank you for your comment. Regarding recreation, please see Response L-3 and for a more detailed discussion refer to Section 6.16 Recreation of the IS/MND.
Regarding wildlife and habitat, please see IS/MND Section 6.4 Biological Resources beginning at page 54, which includes mitigation measures to protect wildlife and habitat.
The comments do not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND.
017579.0004\6299806.2 41
Comment L-6
Response L-6
Thank you for your comment. Two transportation studies were prepared for the proposed project: the Abrams Associates Transportation Impact Analysis (included as IS/MND Appendix D) and the Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Memo by DKS Associates. The following information was provided by Erin Vaca, Associate Planner of DKS Associates, in response to the IS/MND Section 6.17 Transportation CEQA checklist question (C):
"Would the project... Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature?"
017579.0004\6299806.2 42
The proposed project is not substantially increasing transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature. The proposed project would not worsen the conditions that are already in place. Because jurisdictional transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans for Highway 4) review project plans, the existing ramps, sight distance, and driveway were designed to the standards in place at the time of the Highway 4 expansion completed in 2002. Design standards do not vary by class of vehicle, and in circumstances where vehicles, including large or specialized vehicles, might need to reduce speed due to curvature or grade, warning signs are placed. No such warning signs are known to be in place today in the project vicinity on Highway 4, so no special hazards for larger vehicles have been identified.
In addition, Caltrans District 4 was included in the IS/MND distribution list. Caltrans did not provide comments.
The TIA prepared by Abrams & Associates (March 18, 2020) specifically analyzed this issue and noted the substantial uphill grade on eastbound SR4 between the Project site and Cummings Skyway. The TIA noted that vehicles exiting the site onto Highway 4 have an acceleration lane to safely merge with traffic before the hill. The TIA further noted that because the speed limit is only 55 mph in this area, vehicles merging on Highway 4 have a minimal impact on the regular flow of traffic (see pp. 15-16).
017579.0004\6299806.2 43
Comment L-7
Dan Romero, Hercules City Council
Response L-7
Thank you for your comment. Per Section 6.4 Biological Resources of the IS/MND: “No development is permitted that appreciably impairs the quantity or biological quality of water or habitat in a riparian corridor, except for flood control purposes necessary to protect human health and safety.” The IS/MND concluded that the Project will not appreciably impair the quantity or biological quality of water or habitat. “Riparian corridors” are the areas within 250 feet from the center of a permanent or
017579.0004\6299806.2 44
intermittent stream bed.” (page 75)
On page 89 in Section 6.7 Geology and Soils, the four septic tanks would have a capacity of 5,000 gallons each, totaling 20,000 gallons of septic capacity. (Also see Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, pages 144-145)
Section 6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials was based on conclusions of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed by Gribi Associates in 2016. A Hazardous Materials Survey Report completed by RGA Environmental, Inc. included both an asbestos survey and a lead-based paint survey of the golf course clubhouse. The report contains certifications showing compliance with both federal and state guidelines and statutes. A total of 12 building materials samples were collected and analyzed for asbestos- containing materials (ACM). ACM identified in the clubhouse included: (1) Roof flashing; (2) Acoustic spray; (3) Floor tile and mastic; (4) Linoleum and mastic; (5) Drywall, tape, and joint compound; and (6) Carpet mastic. A total of six paint chip samples were analyzed for lead-based paint, and two of the samples showed detectable concentrations of lead. All potential impacts of concerns were found to be less than significant.
Regarding the comment about text on page 107 in Section 6.11 Land Use of the IS/MND, see Master Response for project consistency with Measure M at the beginning of this section, including this text: “[The project] will provide accommodations for short -term occupancy and provision for food and drink (including low -intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities) for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, enjoyment or study through the RV resort, walk-in campground, tent bungalows, and onsite club house with food and beverage facilities.” The text on page 107 remains accurate.
Regarding RV storage noted on p age 123 in Section 6.13 Noise, also please see the letter from the City staff regarding responses to comments on Measure M at the beginning of this section.
In Section 6.5 Cultural Resources , please see page 79, answer b. for an explanation of cultural resources, which includes mitigation measures to protect undiscovered and known cultural resources. On page 79, text explains that the cultural resources records search results reported by the Northwest Information Center ( NWIC) indicate there are three prehistoric period archaeological resources located within the project’s boundaries. Also, “A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which was returned with negative results on August 6, 2020.” Consistent with the comment regarding offsite cultural resources, IS/MND page 89 explains: “In general terms, based on the evidence from the discussion above, the entire area of the project site should be considered sensitive for archaeological resources. The potential for the discovery of previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological resources is considered high and is considered moderate for previously undiscovered historic period archaeological resources.”
017579.0004\6299806.2 45
Comment L-8
017579.0004\6299806.2 46
017579.0004\6299806.2 47
017579.0004\6299806.2 48
017579.0004\6299806.2 49
017579.0004\6299806.2 50
Response L-8
Thank you for your comment. PG&E would be the electricity and natural gas provider for the proposed project (IS/MND pages 145 and 146). The PG&E mandatory, standard requirements noted in the comment will be required for the project.
017579.0004\6299806.2 51
Comment L-9
017579.0004\6299806.2 52
L-9 attachment 1
017579.0004\6299806.2 53
L-9 attachment 2
017579.0004\6299806.2 54
L-9 attachment 3
017579.0004\6299806.2 55
L-9 attachment 4
017579.0004\6299806.2 56
L-9 attachment 5
Response L-9
Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.5 Cultural Resources and 6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources for a full analysis on cultural resources. This section also recommends the adoption of mitgation measures to assure any potential impacts on cultural resources are mitigated as a result, the additional measures provided by the author are not necessary.
Section 1.10 Native American Consultation at page 8 of the IS/MND explains that a notice of tribal consultation was sent to all applicable tribal representatives. However, no requests by the tribes were made. The IS/MND contains specific mitigation measures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources. The primary goal is avoidance of impacts to archaeological resources. In order to do so, the main strategy is archaeological testing to identify if the project could have impacts to known and un known resources on the project site, and then preventing impacts based on those results. The archaeological testing is designed to go to a depth of two feet below the maximum depth of project excavation to ensure a buffer during construction. If archaeolog ical testing does discover archaeological resources, the mitigation ensures that the testing will not go any deeper, to prevent damage to the resource. Additionally, construction will not be allowed in the area of the resource (preventing damage through avoidance), unless there is a protective cap of fill with at least a two-foot buffer preventing construction work from disturbing the resource (preservation in situ).
Archaeological monitoring will be conducted , in case there are additional resources that were not identified by testing, although it is considered a low potential. If any Native American archaeological artifact or site is found, Native American consultation and monitoring will be required per the mitigation. The IS/MND has incorporated protections for human remains, avoidance of sites, archaeological training, and Native American
017579.0004\6299806.2 57
monitoring and consultation into the mitigation measures that are similar to those you recommended. Because an archaeological monitor will be on site at all times, some of your recommended mitigations would not apply, such as calling an archaeologist in the event a find was discovered.
Comment L-10
Response L-10
Thank you for your comment. The author’s comment does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no additional response is required.
017579.0004\6299806.2 58
Comment L-11
017579.0004\6299806.2 59
Response L-11
Thank you for your comment. The issues raised in these comments were analyzed in the IS/MND. Please consult the following sections of the IS/MND:
• Sections 6.3 Air Quality and 6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions discuss potential impacts, which are found to be less than significant.
• Section 6.17 Transportation finds impacts to be less than significant; please also refer to Response L-6 from the transportation consultant. • Section 6.16 Recreation finds impacts on recreational facilities to be less than significant.
• Section 6.1 Aesthetics finds impacts to be less then significant.
These conclusions are based on criteria defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and included in each environmental topic section. This comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts not already analyzed in the IS/MND.
017579.0004\6299806.2 60
Comment L-12
017579.0004\6299806.2 61
017579.0004\6299806.2 62
Response L-12
Thank you for your comment. These comments do not raise questions/concerns about the adequacy of the IS/MND so no specific response is required. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
017579.0004\6299806.2 63
Comment L-13
Response L-13
Thank you for your comment. The environmental topics noted by the commenter are covered in their respective sections of the IS/MND.
017579.0004\6299806.2 64
Comment L-14
Response L-14
Thank you for your comment. The Project applicant has confirmed, per an email from Scott Miyashiro, an engineer at Acuanti, Inc on May 14, 2021 the following:
“The septic tanks are not situated within five feet of any structure. Our own standard is to situate septic tanks, dose tanks, and grease interceptor tanks no more than ten feet of any foundation or hardscape. This is more stringent per the Contra Costa County Health Officer Regulations for Sewage Collection and Disposal 420-6.606. This is not a septic
017579.0004\6299806.2 65
design at this stage and our enlarged plans will show exactly the setbacks met to all structures, foundations, and other hardscape.”
The applicant is required to obtain permits from RWQCB through a Waste Discharge Permit for its proposed onsite treatment infrastructure. In addition, prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to provide the City Engineer, for review and approval, a detailed study indicating specifications of the new infrastructure.
017579.0004\6299806.2 66
Comment L-15
Response L-15
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. The proposed wastewater system is discussed in IS/MND Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems and also refer to response L-14 for additional information on the proposed sanitary system.
017579.0004\6299806.2 67
Comment L-16
017579.0004\6299806.2 68
Response L-16
Thank you for the comment. The Final draft IS/MND has been updated in the Project Description and Section 6.19 Utilities to reflect the accurate location of the water main near John Muir Parkway and Franklin Canyon Road. EBMUD would be the water provider for the proposed project (IS/MND pages 143 and 144). The EBMUD mandatory, standard requirements noted in the comment will be required for the project.
017579.0004\6299806.2 69
Comment L-17
017579.0004\6299806.2 70
017579.0004\6299806.2 71
Response L-17
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s comments do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no specific responses are required. See the responses below for the CEQA-related comment.
Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding wildlife and habitat, please refer to Section 6.4 Biological Resources for a discussion of potential impacts on biological resources resulting from the project and mitigation measures to avoid the impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels.
017579.0004\6299806.2 72
The comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential impacts that were not already addressed in the IS/MND.
017579.0004\6299806.2 73
Comment L-18
Response L-18
Thank you for your comment. The author’s comment does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document, so no specific response is required.
017579.0004\6299806.2 74
Comment L-19
Response L-19
Thank you for your comment. Some of the comments do not raise concerns on the adequacy of the IS/MND so no specific response is required. See responses below for CEQA-related comments.
Please note on page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).”
No firepits are proposed. Please see IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services and 6.20 Wildfire for information regarding fire protection and potential project impacts.
017579.0004\6299806.2 75
Comment L-20
017579.0004\6299806.2 76
017579.0004\6299806.2 77
017579.0004\6299806.2 78
017579.0004\6299806.2 79
017579.0004\6299806.2 80
017579.0004\6299806.2 81
017579.0004\6299806.2 82
Response L-20
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s comments do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no specific responses are required. See the responses below for the CEQA-related comments.
Regarding Measure M compliance, please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M concerns.
See Section 1.9 Project Description. Figure 3 and the accompanying IS/MND text have been revised to reflect the current site plan, which includes a total of 176 parking spaces.
The parking spaces are for the public to visit the public amenities on the site such as the restaurant, and banquet room, and access John Muir Land Trust trails; and to serve walk-in campers. The parking area and spaces for the Project are the same as what exists on the site currently. This change in the total parking spaces reflected on the revised plan does not affect the impacts, mitigations or conclusions of the IS/MND.
In Section 6.4 Biological Resources, the mitigations were prepared by a professional biologist and are adequate to assure the potential biological impacts will be mitigated. The implementation of these measures will be assured through the mitigation and monitoring plan enforced by the City.
Regarding comments on energy consumption for Section 6.8 Greenhouse Gases, please refer to page 7 of the IS/MND in Section 1.9 Project Description: “Per the transportation studies, the proposed project is anticipated to generate less trips to the site on a daily basis, and result in reduced or unchanged vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to and from the site
017579.0004\6299806.2 83
(Abrams Associates, 2020; DKS Associates, 2020).” Additional comments on Section 6.8 Greenhouse Gases do not provide substantial evidence to support the commentor’s opinions.
The author disagrees with the analysis and conclusions in Section 6.4 Biological Resources and believes the project will impact wildlife in the area. The author also questions the effectiveness of the mitigation measures but does not provide evidence to support their opinions that the recommended measures in the IS/MND are inadequate. The author does not provide evidence or information to support their conclusion which prevents the ability to provide specific response.
Regarding comments on Section 6.13 Noise, please see pages 122-123, where operational noise is discussed. Impacts were found to be less than significant by noise monitoring professionals under contract with the City.
Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection.
Regarding traffic jams, please refer to page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).” This section was prepared by professional transportation engineers under contract with the City.
Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, which discusses Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage water quality on and offsite. Please also see Section 6.7 Geology and Soils for a discussion of soil types. Regarding comments on Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the commentor does not provide evidence to support their opinions.
Regarding the comments on 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, please see Response L-14
Comments regarding traffic hazards can be found in Response L-6. The comment about the bridge and emergency access is responded to in the below paragraph. In 6.4 Biological Resources pages 69 and 70, the applicant will be required to submit more detailed plans for the widening of the existing access road that spans over Rodeo Creek As proposed, the widening will not occur within the Creek and will not impact the Creek. The comment about the onsite roadway and 9th hole crossing is considered an internal component of the project and not a public roadway. This design and function would be subject to Fire Department review and City Public Works engineering review.
No fire pits are proposed or would be allowed for the project. Regarding comments on Section 6.20 Wildfire, on page 150 of the IS/MND explains emergency response: “The proposed project would not impair the emergency response or emergency evacuation plan for the City. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) confirmed that the project would not create, interrupt, or otherwise reduce the ability of streets to circulate traffic, but rather, the project proposes a second access from Christie Road for emergency vehicles only (Abrams 2020). The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere in emergency response or evacuation plans. The impact would be less than significant. See
017579.0004\6299806.2 84
Section 6.9.f Hazards and Hazardous Materials for information on emergency response and evacuation.”
The commentor’s questions regarding IS/MND Section 6.16 Recreation and Section 6.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance are discussed in Response L-3. The City does not consider a private golf facility a public park, open space, or a recreational facility.
Comment L-21
Response L-21
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the email response to Nicole Sacramento from Robert Reber, City of Hercules Community Development Director, from April 14, 2021:
“While there may be strong arguments for interpreting “low-intensity outdoor recreation” as precluding RVs, that does not negate or undermine the legitimacy of the prior zoning clearance determination that the proposed project is allowed under Measure M. It’s not so much that the zoning consistency determination needs to be “correct”; it simply needs to be fair and reasonable. It’s best to let the June 2019 notice of decision speak for itself in explaining how Measure M was interpreted and applied to the project, yet as you rightly point out, Measure M specifically allows but unfortunately does not define “low-intensity campgrounds.” While an online search reveals a number of varying definitions for “campgrounds” and “camping,” a legal definition of camping provided in current federal regulations supports inclusion of RV use as “camping”: “the erecting of a tent or shelter of
017579.0004\6299806.2 85
natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy.” (36 CFR § 1.4) In reaching its zoning clearance determination, City staff found the RV resort to be clearly within the federal legal definition of a campground. Although the project has changed in the two years since that determination was made, the primary change (eliminating the last nine golf holes and deeding that land to the John Muir Land Trust for use as public open space) brings the project closer—not further—to achieving Measure M’s objectives of preserving open space for low-intensity outdoor recreation. Thus, there appears to be a reasonable basis for the prior zoning consistency determination, and courts are deferential to local zoning determinations as long as there is a reasonable basis for the underlying decision.
Notwithstanding the prior zoning determination, the Planning Commission and City Council could find that certain design elements of the project are not consistent with Measure M.”
Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
017579.0004\6299806.2 86
Comment L-22
017579.0004\6299806.2 87
Response L-22
Thank you for your comment. Regarding points 1-3, please refer to page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).” Also see Response L-6 for additional information relating to RVs entering onto Highway 4.
Regarding points 4 and 5, please refer to Sections 6.15 Public Services and 6.20 Wildfire
017579.0004\6299806.2 88
of the IS/MND for information regarding police protection, fire protection, and potential project impacts. The comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the IS/MND.
The author’s comment in point 5 does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required.
Comment L-23
017579.0004\6299806.2 89
017579.0004\6299806.2 90
Response L-23
Thank you for your comments. The author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document (except for the Measure M comment), so no specific responses are required. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
017579.0004\6299806.2 91
Comment L-24
017579.0004\6299806.2 92
Response L-24
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding Section 6.1 Aesthetics of the IS/MND, on May 17, 2021, City staff visited Fernandez Ranch trails and took photos to evaluate the views of the project site. See the below photos. These photos are in addition to the visual photos already contained in the IS/MND. Views of the portion of the golf course where the RV resort would be built are blocked by either topography or dense vegetation. City staff - concludes there would be little to no visual impact to views from south of the project and thus, no need to prepare additional photo simulations. In addition, this IS/MND visual analysis, in coordination with City design review, would continue to ensure that the project’s visual impacts would be less than significant.
017579.0004\6299806.2 93
The new RV resort is visible from one vantage point, shown in the below photo. This view is from an unmarked and overgrown fire road that terminates at the golf course and thus not part of the trail network.
017579.0004\6299806.2 94
017579.0004\6299806.2 95
Comment L-25
017579.0004\6299806.2 96
Response L-25
Thank you for your comment. The MIG biologist prepared the original, separate Biological Resources Assessment with a slightly different set of plans (dated 06/03/2020), then corrected the numbers for the IS/MND section, based on the slightly revised plans.
The biological resource analysis and conclusions did not require revisions based on these plan revisions.
Please refer to Response L-6 for a discussion of the traffic safety issue.
See Response L-24 regarding Section 6.1 Aesthetics of the IS /MND, Figures 14 and 15 shows the visual simulation from Christie Road.
017579.0004\6299806.2 97
Comment L-26
017579.0004\6299806.2 98
017579.0004\6299806.2 99
017579.0004\6299806.2 100
017579.0004\6299806.2 101
017579.0004\6299806.2 102
017579.0004\6299806.2 103
017579.0004\6299806.2 104
017579.0004\6299806.2 105
017579.0004\6299806.2 106
017579.0004\6299806.2 107
017579.0004\6299806.2 108
017579.0004\6299806.2 109
Comment L-26 attachment 1
Comment L-26 attachment 2
Table of Common Slopes in Architecture
The table below shows some common slopes. 1:20 sloped floors do not require handrails, but anything steeper than 1:20 is considered a ramp and requires handrails. 1:12 sloped ramps are the maximum slope allowed by ADA codes and they require handrails. Federal ADA codes indicate that the maximum cross-slope of an accessible route is 1:48, which is slightly more than 2%. However, we have seen some jurisdictions that allow a maximum cross slope of 1:50.
DEGREES GRADIENT PERCENT
0.6° 1 : 95.49 1.0%
1° 1 : 57.29 1.7%
1.15° 1 : 50 2%
1.19° 1 : 48 2.08%
2.86° 1 : 20 5%
017579.0004\6299806.2 110
https://www.archtoolbox.com/representation/geometry/slope.html ➔5% slope = 2.86° slope // 5% (x4) = 2.86° (x4) //therefore, 20% slope = 11.44° slope
Response L-26
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
4.76° 1 : 12 8.3%
7.13° 1 : 8 12.5%
10° 1 : 5.67 17.6%
14.04° 1 : 4 25%
15° 1 : 3.73 26.8%
26.57° 1 : 2 50%
30° 1 : 1.73 57.7%
45° 1 : 1 100%
56.31° 1: 0.67 150%
60° 1 : 0.6 173.2%
63.43° 1 : 0.5 200%
78.69° 1: 0.2 500%
89.43° 1 : 0.1 1000%
90° 1 : 0 inf.
017579.0004\6299806.2 111
Comment L-27
017579.0004\6299806.2 112
Response L-27
Thank you for your comment. The project engineer, Tom Platz of THA, has replied to Robert Reber, AICP, City of Hercules Director of Community Development: “Per the CPC, sewer and water can be in a common trench to serve RV sites. This is standard at RV parks as it is [a] private [system], maintaining 1’ vertical and 1’ horizontal (sewer on bottom) minimum separation in the common trench. The standards [provided in the comment] are per the State Health [Department] for mains and laterals within a street right of way.”
No fire pits are proposed or allowed as part of this project. Please see IS/MND Section
6.15 Public Services for fire protection requirements.
017579.0004\6299806.2 113
Comment L-28
017579.0004\6299806.2 114
017579.0004\6299806.2 115
017579.0004\6299806.2 116
017579.0004\6299806.2 117
017579.0004\6299806.2 118
Response L-28
Thank you for your comment. The author begins the comment by summarizing the project description and project setting. No response is necessary.
Withe respect to the author’s suggested revisions to certain mitigation measures in the IS/MND, the response is as follows:
1. BIO-8. This mitigation measure has been revised to include the new last sentence relating to enforcement of the leash requirements.
2. BIO-9. The suggested revisions request that construction activities end 30 minutes prior to sunset and not resume until 30 minutes following sunrise. Restrictions on construction hours are required by a standard condition of approval that requires the following: Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except work on Saturday shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This time constriction generally falls in line with the author’s request, although sunrise will be later than the City time restriction for a short amount of time leading up to, including, and following winter solstice. BIO-9 was updated to include the following sentence: “No nighttime work will occur, as required by the City's standard condition of approval.” The City's existing requirements are sufficient to assure
017579.0004\6299806.2 119
construction impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. BIO-11. The author recommends fencing be erected during project construction to exclude wildlife from the project site and be maintained daily by biological staff. A bullet point will be added to this existing measure to require such fencing; however, fencing may also be inspected/repaired by on-site construction personnel who have received the employee education program outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
As highlighted by the author, the landscaping plans will be revised to remove nonnative species.
With respect to the comments raised on Regulatory Requirements, please see below.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA):
• The author outlines the requirement for an incidental take permit (ITP) if the Project may impact CESA-listed species (endangered or threatened). This process is outlined in IS/MND Section 6.4 Biological Resources (California Endangered Species Act [CESA]). The City finds that the proposed mitigation measures avoid take of CESA-listed species. The mitigation measures avoid take, and no additional long-term ITP for the Alameda whipsnake or California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) would be needed. The project would not substantially restrict or reduce the range/population of a species.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA):
• The author outlines the process for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) which would be required if the project would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of Rodeo Creek. This process is outlined in the IS/MND (Sensitive Natural Vegetation Community Regulatory Framework: California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607). The applicant will be required to submit detailed plans for the widening of the existing access road that spans over Rodeo Creek As is currently proposed, the widening activities will not occur within the banks of the Creek and will not impact the Creek waters, either directly (through spillage, debris, equipment usage, etc.) or indirectly (e.g. project runoff water). The widening is proposed to be adjacent to the exiting access road and will continue to span over the Creek. Since the Creek will not be altered, recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary. If this aspect of the project changes and the access road widening is found to alter or impact Rodeo Creek, the applicant will need to file a notification for a Lake and Streambed Agreement through CDFW by completing the necessary application requirements and paying the associated fee.
017579.0004\6299806.2 120
Comment L-29
017579.0004\6299806.2 121
Response L-29
Thank you for your comment. These recommendations from Mosquito & Vector Control, a jurisdictional agency, would be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
017579.0004\6299806.2 122
REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules,
California
May 2021
None of the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption) has been met as a result of the revisions. In particular:
* No new, avoidable significant effect has been identified, and no new mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance;
* New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects;
* Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and
* New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
017579.0004\6299806.2 123
This page intentionally left blank
017579.0004\6299806.2 124
017579.0004\6299806.2 125
017579.0004\6299806.2 126
017579.0004\6299806.2 127
017579.0004\6299806.2 128
017579.0004\6299806.2 129
017579.0004\6299806.2 130
017579.0004\6299806.2 131
017579.0004\6299806.2 132