Tuesday, September 27, 2022
6:00 PM
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
Meeting Agenda
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 879 7682 6452
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-444-9171
Zoom Passcode: 113642
1 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
See last pages of agenda for information regarding meeting procedures To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:
1. 22-294 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Attorney
2. 22-295 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Manager
IV. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
1. 22-291 National Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation Attachments: National Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public to address issues not included in the agenda. In accordance with the Brown Act, Council will refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time, and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.
The public may log into the Zoom meeting (refer to agenda cover for Zoom login information) and provide their public comment (3 minute time limit). If attending in-person, please fill out a speaker card and provide to the City Clerk.
When the public comment period is open for the item you wish to speak on, use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom (or press *9 if connecting via phone audio only) at the time the Mayor calls for public comment. Please wait your turn and once you are brought into the meeting, state your name and city of residence for the record.
For additional alternatives to providing public comments please refer to the Notice of Important Instructions on how to Participate and Watch the Hercules City Council Meeting on the back pages of the agenda.
All public comments are allowed up to 3 minutes to relay their message or concern. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment at this point in the agenda. If any speakers remain at the conclusion of the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting to take the remaining comments.
City of Hercules Page 2
2 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 22-286 215 Skelly Residential Project
Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Vesting Subdivision Map, Planning Development Plan, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to Resolution), and adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and 2. Conduct the first reading of an Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation.
Staff Report - 215 Skelly 092722
Attach 1 - 215 Skelly CC Reso Map, PDP, DRP 092722
Exhibit A - 215 Skelly Conditions of Approval 092722
Attach 2 - 215 Skelly CC Ord w Exh A
Attach 3 - Staff Report_PC _Skelly Residential_Final ADD SIGNED PC RESOS Exhibit B-1 Hercules Skelly Residential Project Final ISMND_ISMND_Appendices COMBINED Exhibit B-2 Hercules Skelly ISMND Mitigation Measures
Exhibit C-1 Vesting Tentative Map Plan set 5.27.22
Exhibit C-2 Project Renderings
Exhibit C-3 Articulation - 4-Side Architecture Exhibit
Exhibit C-4 Color Materials Board
Attach 4 - Staff Presentation
Attach 5 - Applicant Presentation
Attachments:
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. 22-293 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2022.
Attachments: September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS
1. 22-297 Quarterly review of future agenda items
Recommendation: Review, comment and receive the quarterly review of future City Council agenda items.
Staff Report - Quartley Review of Future Agenda Items
Attach 1 - Future Agenda Items List
Attachments:
City of Hercules Page 3
3 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
2. 22-283 Discussion of Potential Short-Term Rental Ordinance Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding development of an ordinance and procedures for regulation of short-term rentals (STRs).
Staff Report - Short-Term Rentals
Attach 1 - Airbnb - Hercules Final VCA (4.20.20) (fully executed) Attachments:
3. 22-287 Authorization to Negotiate an Agreement with the Contra Costa County Housing Authority to Transfer Hercules Housing Successor Assets and Functions to the City
Recommendation: Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with the Contra Costa County Housing Authority to transfer Hercules Housing Successor assets and functions to the City of Hercules.
Staff Report - Housing Successor Negotiations_SR 09272022 Attach 1_Term Sheet_Hercules Housing Successor
Exhibit A_DOF Letter to Contra Costa County Housing Authority Exhibit B_HERCULES Housing Asset Transfer List
Attachments:
4. 22-296 Approving the formation of a 7-member ad-hoc parks and recreation master plan steering committee
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the formation and composition of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Steering Committee from the advisory boards, commission and committees, and community organizations specified in this report.
Staff Report - P&R Steering Committee Formation
Attach 1 - P&R Steering Committee Resolution
Attachments:
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.
XV. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS,
COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS
AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This is the time for brief announcements on issues of interest to the community. In accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, matters which do not appear on this agenda but require City Council discussion may be either (a) referred to staff or other resources for factual information or (b) placed on a future meeting agenda.
City of Hercules Page 4
4 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 7:00p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.
Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us and can receive e-mail notification of agenda and staff report postings by signing up to receive an enotice from the City’s homepage. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (510) 799-8215 (Posted: September 22, 2022)
City of Hercules Page 5
5 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE AND WATCH THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING
COMMISSION HYBRID MEETINGS
Attend in Person: Hercules City Council Chambers – 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 Attend via Zoom Teleconference: Details provided below and zoom webinar login, passcode and phone numbers provided on the agenda cover.
Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.
How to Submit Public Comments
In Person: Attend meeting at the Hercules City Council Chambers, fill out a public speaker card located on the side table and submit it to the City Clerk.
Via Zoom: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing.
Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here or go to: https://www.zoom.us/join. Zoom also allows you to join by phone at +1-669-900-6833 or +1-929-205-6099 or +1-253-215-8782. • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this information is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak and provide comment. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment during the first public comment period on the agenda. If any speaker comments have not been accommodated prior to the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting for the remaining public comments. • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.
When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute.
Written Comments Submitted Electronically: All comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted to the City’s agenda website and located by clicking on the “meeting details” tab. Written comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council and posted to the agenda website the following day. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected]. Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.
Written comments submitted in person or via mail: Additional ways to provide your public comment is to either drop off your comment in person to the front desk receptionist located in the City Hall lobby or to mail your comment to City of Hercules, ATTN: City Clerk – Public Comment (Meeting Date), 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 in time to reach the City Clerk no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting or you can submit your comment by telephone by calling (510) 799-8215 no later than 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
If you need assistance with public comment, please contact: Lauren Berges, City Clerk at [email protected] or by calling (510) 799-8215.
All public comments will become part of the official meeting record. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the website will not be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your written comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Council or Commission meeting.
City of Hercules Page 6
6 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
Live on Channel 28: City Council meetings will replay the following Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 1:00 p.m.
Planning Commission meetings will replay the following Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
Video Streamed Live on the City’s Website:
To view City Council and Planning Commission meeting videos online go to: Hercules Meeting Videos.
Instructions to view Live or On-Demand Videos from the City’s website:
1. Go to: Hercules Meeting Videos or https://hercules.legistar.com/calendar.aspx.
2. Locate the desired meeting and date.
3. Click the associated “Video” link (Video status is as follows):
Video = Video is available for on demand viewing.
In Progress = Video is available for viewing during live recording.
Not Available = Video is either unavailable or has not been recorded.
City of Hercules Page 7
7 City Council Meeting Agenda September 27, 2022
THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL ADHERES TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES,
PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special accommodations to participate at a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 510-799-8215 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
2. AGENDA ITEMS: Persons wishing to add an item to an agenda must submit the final written documentation 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City retains the discretion whether to add items to the agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council otherwise may make comments during the Public Communication period of the meeting.
3. AGENDA POSTING: Agendas of regular City Council meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall, the Hercules Swim Center, Ohlone Child Care Center, Hercules Post Office, and on the City’s website (www.ci.hercules.ca.us),
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: Persons who wish to address the City Council should complete the speaker form prior to the Council's consideration of the item on the agenda.
Anyone who wishes to address the Council on a topic that is not on the agenda and is relevant to the Council should complete the speaker form prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers will be called upon during the Public Communication portion of the meeting. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on items not listed on the agenda. The Council may refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.
In the interests of conducting an orderly and efficient meeting, speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes.
Anyone may also submit written comments at any time before or during the meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Council or a member of the public prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion to adopt.
6. LEGAL CHALLENGES: If you challenge a decision of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the meeting. Actions challenging City Council decisions shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
City of Hercules Page 8
8 NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
WHEREAS, National Hispanic Heritage month celebrates the culture, heritage and countless contributions of those whose ancestors were indigenous to North America as well as those who came from Mexico, Central America and South America; and
WHEREAS, the objectives of National Hispanic Heritage Month are to create a greater awareness of contributions to American culture, to illustrate the diversity of the Hispanic community, and to encourage a greater curiosity within young people about the history and cultural heritage of Hispanics; and
WHEREAS, Hispanics have made positive contributions to our community in many ways: as drivers of our economy as business owners, workers and entrepreneurs; as contributors to our academic environment as teachers and professors; as protectors of our health and well-being as nurses, doctors, police officers, firefighters, caretakers and childcare workers; as advocates for social equality and justice through civic leadership; as elected and public officials in our government; and through cultural enrichment as artists, singers, musicians, performers and writers; and WHEREAS, the City Council takes pride in the growing diversity of our community and encourages all residents to learn more about the rich culture, traditions and history of Hispanics and celebrate the valuable contributions Hispanics have made to the growth, prosperity and well-being of our region.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hercules, in deep appreciation to the diverse Hispanic population of our community, hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2022, as National Hispanic Heritage Month.
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Hercules to be affixed on this 27th day of September 2022.
________________________
Mayor Dion Bailey
9 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 27, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante G. Hall, City Manager
SUMBITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director Tricia Stevens, AICP, MIG Consultant Planner
SUBJECT: 215 Skelly Residential Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Vesting Subdivision Map, Planning Development Plan, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to Resolution), and adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
2. Conduct the first reading of an Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this item.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing the development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 singlefamily residential lots on the approximately 7.44-acre project site in the Residential Single-Family Low Density (RS-L) land use designation and zone. The applicant has also referred to the project as “Owl Ranch.” The site is located off the end of Skelly near the intersection of Skelly and Pearce. 10 Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map
11 Figure 2 – General Plan and Land Use Map
The requested entitlements consist of:
a) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
b) Zoning Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Hercules Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation. c) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 40 residential lots, and seven parcels for various open space and infrastructure purposes (#22-01)
d) Planned Development Plan to deviate from selected zoning district standards to accommodate housing units within the property’s allowed General Plan density e) Design Review Permit (#22-01)
f) Lot Line Adjustment to expand the rear yard of the adjacent property owner to the west and to secure area for emergency access (#22-01)
Lot Layout. Residential lots range in size from 3,983 square feet to 6,880 square feet. The project includes two Below Market Rate units – one low-income unit and one moderate-income unit.
In addition to the 40 single-family lots, the project includes parcels for a stormwater treatment area (Parcel B), emergency vehicle access (Lot C), an open space buffer (Parcel D) and an existing cell tower (Parcel E). It also includes a public trail along the southern portion of Parcel A (the project roadway).
Project Site
12 Figure 3 – Site Plan
Access. Access is provided via Skelly to the east. An emergency vehicle access is provided on the northwest corner connecting to Rosti. The project streets will be private and are 43 to 45 feet in width. All project private streets, common areas, and other common on‐site project features will be maintained by the project HOA. In addition, the project includes the following traffic calming features to help reduce speeds:
• On-site “bump-outs” along the southern street.
• “Bump-out” at the project entry on Skelly.
• Off-site “bump-out” on Skelly between Pearce and Hercules Avenue.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access: A publicly accessible pedestrian/bicycle pathway is provided along the main project street, connecting pedestrian access to Pinole Creek and the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Pursuant to a request from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) received on September 6, 2022, two conditions of approval have been added, one requiring the applicant to obtain an Encroachment Permit (FCP) from the FC District for any work within or impacting the FC District’s right-of-way; and one requiring the applicant to apply to the City of Pinole, which holds a license agreement with the FC District, for permission to connect to the City of Pinole’s trail on the FC District’s property. 13 Proposed homes. The project provides three product types. Each product will have three options for front elevations: Farmhouse, Craftsman, and Traditional. The homes will be all-electric.
Figure 4 – Proposed Homes
Number of
lots
Home size Bedrooms
Plan # 1583 15 1,583 sq. ft. 3 bdrm, 2.5
baths
Plan #1859 15 1,859 sq. ft. 4 bdrm, 3 bath
Plan #2311 10 2, 311 sq. ft. 5 bdrm, 3 bath
The proposed residences would be two stories in height, with two-car garages. A Design Review Permit is requested to ensure the proposed homes meet the City’s architectural standards.
Planned Development Plan and Text Amendment. A Planned Development Plan is proposed to accommodate the proposed number of lots within the allowed General Plan density. A Zoning text amendment is requested to modify Section 13.48 of the Hercules Municipal Code to allow deviations from Zoning Code standards to exceed the maximum amount of deviation currently allowed through a minor exception. See Figure 6 for requested deviations.
Lot Line Adjustment. The lot line adjustment is requested in order to swap land with a property owner to the west to accommodate the proposed emergency vehicle access to Rosti.
Landscaping and Fencing. Development of the proposed project would involve the removal of 57 on-site mature trees and existing vegetation. Proposed landscaping includes replacement of removed trees with 96 36-inch box trees, along with new landscaping on each lot and in the open space areas.
Fencing consists of a combination of privacy and open fencing. Open fencing is provided adjacent to the stormwater detention area and on the south side adjacent to the EBMUD easement. The easement area will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. In the rear yards of Lots 1-11, a V-ditch is proposed with the Homeowners Association responsible for maintenance. Privacy fences for the lots will be located outside of the V-ditch area.
Infrastructure. EBMUD would provide potable water service to the project site via an existing 8- inch water line. Wastewater is collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules via an existing 8-inch sewer line in Rosti. Electricity services would be provided by PG&E. Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site.
PROCESS
The final hearing authority for this project is the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
14 BACKGROUND
D.R. Horton entered into a contract for purchase of the property in 2020. Prior to submitting its application, DR Horton conducted three community engagement events with the project neighbors.
DR Horton has also coordinated site visits with multiple neighbors to receive project input and collaborate on neighborhood issues. The three formal community engagement events thus far were:
1. A neighborhood outreach walk to all adjacent residences (10/15/2022)
2. A project overview and listening session with the Hercules by the Bay HOA (11/16/2022)
3. A follow‐up meeting with the HOA to go over project changes inspired by the community (3/15/2022)
The Hercules City Council held a study session on the proposed project on February 22, 2022.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 6, 2022, and recommended approval of the requests on a 4-0 vote. A summary of the Planning Commission discussion is provided below.
The Planning Commission staff report is attached for reference. This staff report focuses on items discussed at the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and Zoning Text Amendment on September 6, 2022. Following is a summary of discussion items and responses.
Public Comments:
• Comment: Questions about the lot line adjustment and whether the land for the emergency vehicle access would be deeded to the developer.
Response: Land will be deeded to the property owner at 189 Rosti that results in a larger more useable yard. Land for the emergency vehicle access will be an easement granted to the developer from the property owner.
• Comment: Traffic concerns, including concern about concurrent construction of the San Pablo Bridge and this project. City to consider speed bumps or more stop signs.
Response: Based on the traffic study, the intersections near the project (Hercules Avenue/Skelly and Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue) would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and that a stop sign is not warranted at this time. The project includes a traffic calming bump-out measure approximately 500 east of the project designed to slow traffic, as well as traffic calming measures within the project, and the City has not identified a need for speed bumps. The timing of the bridge project has not yet been determined so it is difficult to assess any impacts from concurrent construction, which staff believes is unlikely as the bridge project is not yet funded.
15 • Comment: Concern about silt going into the creek.
Response: The project is required to install stormwater control facilities to ensure the stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Conditions, #13, #45, and #59 provide those assurances.
• Comment: Bob Antaki of the Hercules By the Bay Homeowners Association supports the project, as this project will reduce fire danger in the area.
Planning Commission Comments
• Comment: How will safety during construction and temporary fencing be addressed? Response: The applicant indicated that temporary security fencing will be provided, and security personnel during construction will be available. • Comment: How will the EVA fencing be designed to ensure safety? Response: The EVA will be fenced and secured to only allow emergency vehicle access and resident evacuation. No other access will be permitted. A condition of approval has been added for Community Development Director and Rodeo-Hercules Fire District review of final design.
• Comment: What is the design of the entrance sign?
Response: The applicant provided a rendering of the proposed entrance sign. A condition of approval has been added for final design to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.
• Comment: What happens to the pedestrian access to the San Pablo trail? Response: The San Pablo Trail extends from San Pablo Avenue in City-owned property, and pedestrians can access Skelly along a partially paved driveway that also serves as maintenance 16 access to the cell tower. There is a strip of property owned by the Hercules By The Bay Homeowners Association in between the project site and the home to the east that contains a drainage ditch and a portion of the paved driveway. The applicant has no authority to improve this access. The applicant will provide sidewalk and paving in front of the access to connect the existing sidewalk to the project. The project would not impede access to the San Pablo Trail.
Looking south from the project entry. Yellow line shows the approximate location of the project site and the Skelly right-of-way.
Aerial photo showing HOA property and San Pablo Trail
HBTBHOA land
San Pablo Trail on City property
17 • Comment: Could there be more screening on the south side of the project to help buffer from the railroad tracks? Consider more plantings as part of the Tree Replacement Plan.
Response: There are existing large trees located in the EBMUD easement on the south end of Lots 16-29 and in the railroad right-of-way that will not be removed. Due to the easement constraint, adding more trees on the south end of these properties is not practical and staff believes that the existing vegetation provides sufficient buffer.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Staff believes all findings for the requested entitlements can be made as outlined in the Planning Commission staff report and in the attached Resolution. In summary:
1. The project was evaluated based on the requirements of CEQA, and an IS/MND was prepared with a conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels.
2. The proposed use and densities are consistent with the General Plan in that the project will be built at 5.4 dwelling units per acre (40 units), well within the 2-7 dwelling units per acre allowed in the Residential Single- Family General Plan Designation. The project will advance the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan by expanding residential opportunities within the City.
3. The Zoning Text Amendment would provide greater flexibility for Planned Development projects in exchange for increased quality design and amenities.
4. The project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance once the Zoning Text Amendment is approved by and made effective by the City Council. Requested exceptions regarding lot size, lot width, lot depth, and corner side yards requirements are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the approved plans.
5. The applicant has offered the inclusion of one low-income unit and one moderate-income deed-restricted unit as a project amenity, constituting five percent of the requested units.
6. The inclusion of a public pathway will connect the project to the Bay Trail along Pinole Cree and the traffic calming measures will help slow down traffic in the neighborhood.
7. The streets proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the planned development.
8. Site layout, landscaping, and architecture have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development and to be compatible with the surrounding area.
9. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate and will comply with the City’s improvement standards.
18 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by First Carbon Solutions under the direction of the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released for public review on July 5, 2022, with a 30-day public review period ending on August 3, 2022.
The IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures are included in the IS/MND to reduce all potential impacts to less than significant.
The City received seven comments on the IS/MND during the review letter, from both public agencies and individuals. The Response to Comments and Final IS/MND are attached.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution approving the Vesting Subdivision Map, Planning Development Plan, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to Resolution) and adopting the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
2. Ordinance approving Zoning Code text amendments to the Planned Development Plan Section 13.84.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report
4. Staff presentation
5. Applicant presentation
IS/MND:
Exhibit B-1: IS/MND with Final IS/MND including Response to Comments Exhibit B-2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Plans dated May 27, 2022:
Exhibit C-1: Vesting Tentative Map 5.27.2022 Plan Set
Exhibit C-2: Project Renderings
Exhibit C-3: Articulation – 4 side Architecture Exhibit Exhibit C-4: Color and Materials Board
19 City Council Resolution ____ for 215 Skelly Project
RESOLUTION# _____
215 SKELLY
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES APPROVING FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FPDP) #22-01, DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRP) #22-01, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (VTM) #22-01, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT #22-01 AND INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 7.44-ACRE PROJECT SITE KNOWN AS 215 SKELLY LOCATED ALONG SKELLY WEST OF PEARCE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER APN 404-020-012) WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission have received and considered applications from ERC SC, LLC (“Applicant”) for the Project known as 215 Skelly located along Skelly west of Pearce (APN 404-020-012; and
WHEREAS, the following applications related to the 215 Skelly Sycamore Project have been filed concurrently and collectively define the Project:
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program – (collectively, IS/MND) #22-01 dated July 2022; • Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) #22-01 to subdivide approximately 7.44 acres into 40 residential lots and seven (7) parcels with conditions of approval; and • Planned Development Plan (FPDP) #22-01 for a 40-unit single family residential subdivision, with a wetlands area, cell tower and buffer, emergency vehicle access, a trail connection, and on- and off-site traffic calming measures; • Design Review Permit (DRP) #22-01in accordance with Section 13-42.200 of the Hercules Municipal Code, for the above listed project;
• Zoning Amendment to change text in Chapter 13-48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Hercules Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation; and
• Lot Line Adjustment to expand the adjacent rear yard and provide for emergency access (#22-01)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (#IS22-01) dated July 2022 was prepared for the proposed Project. The IS/MND was released for public review on July 5, 2022, with a 30-day public review period ending on August 5, 2022. The IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the IS/MND to reduce all potential Project impacts to less than significant; and
20 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 2
WHEREAS, Chapter 48 of the Zoning Ordinance states that an initial planned development plan and final planned development plan may be reviewed concurrently at the request of the applicant, and that planned development plans and subdivision maps may be processed concurrently; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission at their September 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, where a Staff Report, described and analyzed all of the above listed applications, including the IS/MND. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution #___ recommending that the City Council approve the requested entitlements on a 4-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council at their September 27, 2022 City Council meeting, where a Staff Report, described and analyzed all of the above listed applications, including the IS/MND.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received oral and written comments from the general public, property owners, and interested parties, and has thoroughly considered all above referenced information, reports, Project plans, staff recommendations, and testimony during the public hearing of September 27, 2022, before using its independent judgment and taking any action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council after due study, deliberation, and public hearing for the proposed Final Planned Development Plan (FPDP) #22- 01, Design Review Permit (DRP) #22-01, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) $22-01, Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) #22-01, and IS/MND, and finds and determines that:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution by this reference.
2. The Proposed Project was evaluated based on the requirements of the CEQA, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15074, the City Council has considered the IS/MND (attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein) together with any comments received during the public review process and finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels. The IS/MND reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis, and the City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings for the Project.
3. The proposal would not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, and public interest of the City.
4. The proposal is internally consistent and does not conflict with the purposes, regulations, and required findings of the Zoning Ordinance once the Zoning Text Amendment is approved by and made effective by the City Council. 21 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 3
5. The City Council finds that all elements, requirements, and conditions are a reasonable and appropriate manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work or visit this development in particular.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the following regarding the proposed Final Planned Development Plan #FPDP 22-01 in accordance with Section 13- 48 of the Hercules Municipal Code Zoning Section as it relates to approval of a Planned Development Plan:
1. The proposed use and densities are consistent with the General Plan.
2. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the proposed project exceeding those anticipated in the Initial Study and updated Traffic Analysis contained therein.
3. That any exceptions from standard ordinance requirements are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the approved FPDP #22-01 drawings and approved exceptions regarding lot size, lot width, lot depth, and corner side yards.
4. The area surrounding the Project Site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development so long as the conditions of approval are met.
5. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for development densities proposed and will comply with the improvement standards required by VTM #22-
01. 6. The City Council approves FPDP #22-01 for the Project Site known as 215 Skelly subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A so long as any redlined changes to the drawings shown in Exhibit C as discussed by staff and the City Council are incorporated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the following regarding the proposed Design Review Permit #DRP 22-01 in accordance with Chapter 13- 42 of the Hercules Municipal Code Zoning Section that:
1. The approval of the design review plan is in compliance with all provisions of this Chapter, pertinent provisions of Zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning and land use regulations, including but not limited to the Hercules General Plan as amended and any specific plan.
2. The approval of the Design Review is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
22 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 4
3. General site considerations, including site layout, open space and topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, heights, walls, fences, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.
4. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings.
5. General preliminary landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials at the time of planting and after a five (5) year growth period, provision for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures, and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public.
6. The City Council approves DRP #22-01 for the Project Site known as 215 Skelly subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A so long as any redlined changes to the drawings shown in Exhibit C as discussed by staff and the City Council are incorporated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the following regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Map VTM #22-01 in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 2 (Subdivisions) of the Hercules Municipal Code:
1. VTM #22-01 is consistent with the General Plan, as amended;
2. VTM #22-01 is consistent with the RS-L zoning of the property which allows the proposed uses;
3. VTM #22-01 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances in Title 10, Chapter 2 (Subdivisions) of the Hercules Municipal Code;
4. The design and improvements of VTM #22-01 are consistent as they relate to the Project Site;
5. VTM #22-01 is consistent with the FPDP #22-01 for the 215 Skelly project and therefore consistent with the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Project design, architecture, and concept are suitable for the Project Site created by VTM #22-01 and therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed;
23 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 5
7. All Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with IS/MND are appropriate for addressing any potential environmental impacts identified;
8. The design of VTM #22-01, will not conflict with easements or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and
9. The City Council approves VTM # 22-01 for the Project Site known as 215 Skelly subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A so long as any redlined changes to the drawings shown in Exhibit C as discussed by staff and the City Council are incorporated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the following regarding the proposed Lot Line Adjustment LLA #22-01 in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 2 (Subdivisions) of the Hercules Municipal Code:
1. The parcels resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment conform to the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
2. The parcels resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment conform to the building ordinance and zoning ordinance, including but not limited to those provisions which address minimum lot size, required lot frontage, lot width at the front yard setback, building setbacks, building lot coverage, and floor area ratio.
3. The City Council approves LLA # 22-01 for the Project Site known as 215 Skelly subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A so long as any redlined changes to the drawings shown in Exhibit C as discussed by staff and the City Council are incorporated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds and the Applicant agrees (as stated in the public hearing) with the necessity of and accepts all elements, requirements and conditions of the FPDP #22-01, DRP #22-01 , VTM #22-01, and LLA #22-01, and the above referenced for the 215 Skelly project as being a reasonable manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who live in this development in particular.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if there is any conflict between the attached Approved 215 Skelly Development Plans contained in Exhibits C and/or the conditions of approval in Exhibit A, the Planning Director shall reasonably resolve the issues based on the general intent discussed in the staff reports, environmental documents, and City policy. 24 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 6
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 27th day of September 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dion Bailey, Mayor
__________________________________________
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - 215 Skelly Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit C - 215 Skelly Development Plans
25 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 7
EXHIBIT A
215 SKELLY PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
26 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 8
EXHIBIT B
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
27 City Council Resolution for 215 Skelly Project 9
EXHIBIT C:
215 SKELLY DEVELOPMENT PLANS
28 City Council Conditions of Approval from 7-8-2014 approval 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR 215 SKELLY (APN 404-020-012) FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #FPDP 22-01 is contingent upon City Council approval of the Zoning Text Amendment #22-01 amending Section 13.28 of the Planned Development Plan provisions to allow deviations exceeding the limitations of a minor exception. Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #FPDP 22-01 is effective upon the effective date of Zoning Text Amendment #22-01.
2. Approval of Vesting Tentative Map #22-01 is contingent upon City Council approval of the Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01.
3. Approval of Design Review Permit #DRP 12-01 is contingent upon approval of Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01 and Vesting Tentative Map #22-01.
4. Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01, Vesting Tentative Map #22-01, and Design Review Permit #22-01.
5. Applicant will comply with all applicable mitigation measures set forth in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
6. The project shall be built substantially in compliance with the approved Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01 and Design Review Permit #22-01 unless formally amended by action of the City Council. Approved plans include project plans dated May 27, 2022:
Exhibit C-1: Vesting Tentative Map 5.27.2022 Plan Set
Exhibit C-2: Project Renderings
Exhibit C-3: Articulation – 4 side Architecture Exhibit Exhibit C-4: Color and Materials Board
7. Prior to the Final Map being recorded, Applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the proposed residential units for review and approval by the City Attorney, Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Chief of Police. The CC&Rs must confirm Applicant’s or Applicant’s successor’s obligation to finance the operation, maintenance, servicing and capital 29 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 2
replacement costs associated common areas, private streets, and open space areas and their related utilities. All CC&Rs applicable to the subject property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit and the Hercules City Code and the Final Planned Development Plan. Where a conflict exists between the CC&Rs and the City regulations, the City regulations shall prevail.
8. A final Tree Replacement Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director or their designee prior to the issuance of grading permits. All replacement trees shall be a minimum 36-inch box.
9. All other trees planted at the site shall be at least 15 gallon; all shrubs shall be 5 gallon, except that ornamental shrubs along pathways may be 1 gallon.
10. Applicant shall provide on-site easements to provide public access along the six-foot path as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the pathway and public access shall be maintained in perpetuity.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for the following off-site improvements. Improvement Plans for the project include plans for these items. Off-site improvements shall be installed concurrent with on-site improvements.
a. Sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks east of project site on Skelly b. Pavement to connect to Skelly
c. Extension of traffic calming bulb-out at project entry d. Traffic calming measures on Skelly, such as a curb extension approximately 500 feet east of the project site, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District
12. The Lot Line adjustment shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final Vesting Subdivision Map.
13. Prior to final design, applicant shall complete a storm drain study demonstrating the existing storm drain system has capacity to convey additional flow from the project or secure the necessary permits to outlet directly into Pinole Creek. Stormwater shall be treated in accordance with C3 requirements.
14. Developer shall repair damages to the roadway caused by construction activity that causes further deterioration to the roadway of Skelly from the entrance of the development to Hercules Avenue and Rosti from Pavon to end. Developer shall video roadway condition prior to start of construction and submit to the Public Works Director. (PW)
15. Developer shall coordinate with EBMUD regarding access and maintenance of 0.18-acre parcel (404-020-004) along the northwest edge of the development. 30 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 3
16. Developer shall coordinate with property owner regarding access and maintenance of
0.21-acre parcel (APN: 404-092-008) along the northeast edge of the development.
17. For Lots 16-29 and Parcel D, Homeowners Association shall maintain the area between the rear fence and the property line with BNSF Railroad.
18. Homeowners Association shall maintain concrete V-ditch within Lots 1-11. Privacy fences on individual lots shall not encroach within V-ditch area.
19. All necessary easements shall be shown on final subdivision map.
20. Applicant shall submit a map showing maintenance responsibilities for all improvements between City, HOA, cell company, utility companies, and private residents. (#4-8)
21. Final design of entry monumentation shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director.
22. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit (FCP) from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) for any work within the FC District’s right-of-way, including but not limited to fence alterations, installation of trails, landscaping, demolition, and construction. Furthermore, an FCP is required for any work outside of the FC District’s easement that still impacts the easement area, such as excavation or grading which could impact the stability of the existing open channel on the FC District’s property. FCP information and an application can be found at the following link: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5783/Permits.
23. The applicant shall apply to the City of Pinole for permission to connect to the City of Pinole’s trail on the FC District’s property. The City of Pinole has a license agreement with the FC District for joint use areas along Pinole Creek, and any modifications or additions to the improvements within the FC District’s property would require an FCP and amendment to the existing license agreement.
STANDARD PROJECT CONDITIONS
24. Applicant may elect to file a Final Map for all or part of the approved Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01, in which case each final map which constitutes a part, or unit, of the approved Vesting Tentative Map shall provide for the construction of such improvements as may be required to constitute a logical and orderly development of the whole subdivision by units. (Section 10-2.404, “Filing Final Maps” from Hercules Municipal Code)
25. The Final Map(s) shall be in accordance with Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 as approved, and the form and content shall be in conformity with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and City of Hercules Municipal Code, Article 4. “Final Map” including the requirements described and listed in the following:
A. Section 10-2.401, “Form and Content of Final Map”,
31 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 4
B. Section 10-2.402, “Documents to Accompany Final Map”, C. Section 10-2.403, “Review of Final Map and Accompanying Documents,” and D. Section 10-2.404, “Filing Final Map”. (PL, PW)
26. Development Rights Created. The approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with City’s ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the date the City determines the vesting tentative map is complete. The approval or conditional approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards described in Section 66474.2 of the Government Code. However, if Section 66474.2 of the Government Code is repealed, the approval or conditional approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved. (Section 10-2.3.106 of the Hercules Municipal Code) (PL) The provisions of these conditions of approval shall not:
A. Limit the City from imposing reasonable conditions on subsequently required approvals or permits necessary for the development and authorized by the City’s ordinances, policies, and standards.
B. Diminish or alter the type of conditions, which may be imposed by the City on a development of the City’s power to protect against a condition dangerous to the public health or safety. (PL)
27. At any time prior to the expiration of Vesting Tentative Map No 22-01, the subdivider, his or her successor, or his or her assignee, may apply for a modification to such map. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission on any application involving a modification to Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 or by the development related thereto following procedures set forth for the modification of tentative maps in Article 3.1, “Vesting Tentative Maps” of the Hercules Municipal Code. Approval of a modification to Vesting Tentative Map No. 22-01 or development related thereto shall be evaluated for compliance with the City regulations, standards, and policies in effect at the time the request for the modification is deemed complete. (PL)
28. The rights referred to herein shall be subject to the requirements of Section 10-2.3.106 of the Hercules Municipal Code.
29. The development or use by Applicant of any activity or structures authorized by these permits shall constitute acceptance of all of the conditions and obligations imposed by the City in these permits. Applicant by said acceptance waives any challenge as to the validity of these conditions (CA)
30. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director in accordance with the Minor Modifications section of the Zoning Ordinance (Ch. 13-46).
However, any modification that is not allowed by Chapter 13-46 will require the filing 32 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 5
and approval of a major modification by an amended permit by the Planning Commission. The determination of whether or not a requested change or modification is “minor” within the meaning of this condition and Chapter 13-46 shall be made by the Community Development Director, at their discretion (PL)
31. All conditions of these approvals and construction of project improvements shall be carried forward to any approval of Final Planned Development Plans except as stated herein or as may be permitted by the Community Development Director in consultation with other affected departments in compliance with the requirements for Final Planned Development Plans in the Zoning Code. Completion of project improvements includes construction approved through building permits, construction of off-site improvements approved through public works permits, and construction or installation of site improvements (including paving, hardscape, and landscaping) as shown on the approved plans. In the event early occupancy is requested prior to full project completion, developer shall provide to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director proof of substantial completion, safe occupancy, and security or agreement to assure full completion of the entire project. (PL)
32. Applicant agrees as a condition of approval of the listed permits and approvals to hold harmless and to defend, at the sole expense of Applicant, any action brought against the City
33. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the subject property shall be consistent with the terms of the approvals and the Hercules City Code. (CA)
34. A building permit shall be secured for any new construction or modifications to structures, including interior modifications, authorized by this permit.
35. During construction, burning of combustible refuse or other flammable materials on the property is prohibited. (FD)
36. The location and elevations of all buildings and structures shall be in substantial conformance with the adopted Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01, Vesting Tentative Map #22-01, and the Design Review Permit #DRP 22-01. (PL)
37. The final building plans and corresponding building permit applications shall clearly indicate all building elevations, materials and colors to be used in construction. (PL/B)
38. The association or financing district shall be responsible for maintaining the site free of any graffiti. Graffiti applied to any surface of the subject property shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours of being notified by the City. The City may remove the graffiti if it is not removed within 24 hours. Homeowners Association shall reimburse the City for the graffiti-removal work. (PD)
STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
39. Prior to recording a Final Map on the project, Applicant and City shall enter into a financing and construction agreement to establish the party or parties responsible for the 33 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 6
construction of and financial responsibility for the public improvements within the project site and to establish the phasing of development by executing a Subdivision Agreement with appropriate bonds.
40. Applicant shall pay plan check and processing fees, development fees, encroachment permit fees, and other miscellaneous fees applicable.
41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained for equipment driving over City property and over public easements. A cash deposit determined by the City Engineer shall be required to secure the repair of any damages and said deposit may be increased at the discretion of the City Engineer, as necessary.
42. Applicant shall provide for dust control at all times during site preparation and construction activities at the direction of the Public Works Inspector or Building Inspector without causing tracking on the streets. (B, PW)
43. Applicant shall submit a grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer who incorporates all recommendations from soil engineering and engineering geology reports.
The grading plan will be reviewed and approved by City Engineer and Public Works Director prior to issuance of the building permit. Building pad elevation and landscaping mounds shall be shown on the grading plan.
44. The developer shall submit adequate drainage calculations and hydraulic design to ensure that upstream areas and site will drain to a safe point of discharge.
45. An Erosion Control Plan will be required should work occur during the rainy season.
Erosion control plans would be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for any grading permit or activity that may take place at the site.
46. Applicant shall coordinate with Public Works and arrange a pre-construction conference at least 48 hours prior to the proposed construction to discuss the scope and extent of removal and replacement of any existing broken curb, gutter, sidewalk or asphalt paving (patch, repair and/or overlay), and construction of access ramps for the physically handicapped adjacent to the project site.
47. Construction debris boxes shall be provided during all phases of construction.
48. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided and maintained during construction.
49. Applicant shall remove and replace all improvements damaged during construction adjacent to the project site as directed by the Public Works Inspector.
50. Applicant shall make arrangements with the Public Works Inspector to inspect and test any existing sewer and water service laterals to be used, prior to connection, and shall make necessary repairs as determined by the Inspector.
51. Applicant shall submit an on-site sewer plan (profile not required except when conflicting with other utility lines) where existing lateral is larger than four inches in diameter. 34 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 7
52. Applicant shall submit on-site water plans where a separate loop or terminal line is required for fire hydrants and/or sprinkler systems. All improvements plans, construction cost estimates, soil reports, geology reports, and all pertinent engineering design calculations shall be submitted simultaneously.
53. Applicant shall construct all streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, parkway and associated improvements per the City of Hercules Standard Drawings Book unless modified and approved by Vesting Tentative Map #22-01.
54. On-site and off-site utility service shall be installed underground in accordance with the City Code. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest suitable riser pole as determined by the appropriate utility company with anti-theft lids.
55. All construction material/equipment shall be placed outside the City's rights-of-way.
56. Final Grading and Drainage Plans shall be designed to eliminate drainage from flowing across property lines unless needed to tie into regional system.
57. Applicant is advised that City Ordinance requires payment of sewer connection fee prior to issuance of a construction permit for any residential building. Notwithstanding the above, it is hereby acknowledged Applicant and owners of the subject property are located within the Hercules Sewer Assessment District.
58. Developer shall provide to the Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits, a 100-foot scale site plan in both paper and digital form (to NAD 83 standards preferable/MicroStation SE) of the project as approved by the Planning Commission for the purposes of updating the City base maps.
59. Applicant or successors of the project shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
a. Applicant or project successors shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction, and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-Region 11).
b. Improvement plans shall be reviewed to verify compliance with Provision C.3 of Contra Costa County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 1014).
c. A final Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department for consistency with Provision C.3 prior to recordation of any Final Map.
d. For on-site stormwater retention and/or treatment, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Hercules, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for construction, operation, and maintenance of the stormwater 35 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 8
facilities and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. Such an agreement shall be fully executed and recorded prior to recordation of a Final Map.
e. Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District.
f. Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site’s storm water drainage:
Offer pavers for household driveways and/or walkways as an option to buyers. Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Label all storm drains (“No Dumping, Drains to Creek”) using approved markers. Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by Public Works.
60. Prior to the scheduling of final maps before the City Council, the subdivider shall complete a Consent to Formation of Landscape Maintenance District form or stay within the existing Zone 1 of Lighting and Landscaping District 83-2 for the “Developed Property” rate and submit it to the Public Works Director.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS
61. Applicant shall pay Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees as required by Section 10-
18.201 of the Hercules Municipal Code.
62. Preliminary Landscaping plans were reviewed by Design Review and are contained in the Final Planned Development Plans. Final construction Landscaping Plans shall be consistent with final grading plans and generally conform to the preliminary plans as approved by the Community Development Director.
63. Developer shall paint all exterior surfaces of walls and fences with graffiti resistant paint wherever possible.
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
64. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain City and Fire District approval of a plan for addressing and identifying project buildings. Such a plan shall include directional signs and markings, as may be required by the City or the Fire District. 36 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 9
Residential address numbers shall be clearly visible and readable to responding Police and Fire personnel and include address and street names in illuminated form on the front and rear of all units. (PW, PD)
65. Applicant shall provide an emergency vehicle access (EVA) as shown on project plans. Gates shall be installed to allow only for emergency access and shall prohibit other vehicular and pedestrian access. Final design and configuration of EVA access gates shall be subject to review and approval of Rodeo-Hercules Fire District and the Community Development Director.
66. To the extent permissible by the US Postal Service, applicant shall provide locking mail receptacles as shown in the approval Initial/Final Planned Development Plan #22-01.
Planning and Police Department staff shall work with the developer and post office to locate in more visible locations to reduce theft. (PD)
67. All buildings are required to be fully sprinkled in accordance with CFC 903.2.8, CRC 313. and NFPA Standard 13D.
68. Fire access roadways shall support the imposed loads of RHFPD fire apparatus with a total weight of 75,000 pounds. Apparatus weight is distributed as 50,000 pounds on tandem rear axles and 25,000 pounds on the front axle. The surface shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide all-weather driving capabilities. A letter or statement, wet- stamped and signed by a registered engineer, shall be provided on the plans certifying that any new roadway meets this 75,000-pound test. A road base without an appropriate topping or binding material does not satisfy the all-weather requirement. CFC 503.2.3.
69. The minimum inside turning radii for fire vehicles is 17 feet with an outside radius of 38 feet for both the exterior and the anterior approach to the gate. To accommodate the RHFPD’s largest fire apparatus, 20 feet, and 42 feet or larger for inside and outside turning radii, respectively, is recommended and requested where possible.
70. Temporary access roads (construction roads that do not match the final location and configuration of permanent roads as approved on a Fire Master Plan) and temporary hydrants may be permitted for single-family residential model construction or a single detached custom home less than 5500 square feet in area with the conditions listed below. They may be allowed on a case-by-case basis for other structures with additional requirements, as determined by an RHFPD fire code official.
a. Plans for temporary access shall be submitted to the RHFPD Department. Plans shall be drawn to scale and show permanent (existing) roadways, proposed temporary roadway locations, location of models, space dedicated to the storage of construction materials, and parking for work crews and temporary access and hydrants. b. Plans shall be stamped and signed by a licensed civil engineer stating that the temporary access road can support 75,000 pounds of vehicle weight in all-weather conditions. The road base material shall be over soil compacted to at least 90% and be mixed or topped with a suitable bonding material to provide all-weather characteristics; road base alone does not satisfy this requirement. Provide manufacturer’s documentation that demonstrates the suitability of the material specifically as a road stabilizer as opposed to 37 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 10 a dust palliative or for hillside erosion control, and, if applicable, indicating the mixture ratio for this purpose.
71. To facilitate the review process and avoid untimely delays in project approval, applicants are strongly encouraged to arrange a hydrant flow test with the local water department prior to submitting plans to the RHFPD if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor area of an existing structure. The water availability information may not be required to be submitted for every project, and plans may be submitted with a hydrant flow test pending, but the applicant should understand that project approval may be delayed if it is determined during the review that this information is required. If the project requires an evaluation of the available fire flow, it will not be approved without a completed Water Availability form or equivalent datasheets from a water district. Water availability information must be no older than twelve months.
a. Determine the required fire flow from CFC Table B105.1 and B105.2, as applicable, provided in Attachment 32. A 50% reduction in fire flow (but not duration) may be taken when the fire-flow calculation area consists only of buildings equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. If you are unsure of how to calculate the fire flow requirement for your project, you may electronically send the form to the RHFPD Community Risk Reduction Department, and we will determine the fire flow for you. b. Contact East Bay Municipal Water Direct at 1 (510) 287-1008 (EBMUD) to request a hydrant flow test or fire flow modeling calculation, and have a representative of the water company complete and sign the last section on the form. In some cases, the water company may allow or require a qualified third party to perform the flow test for you. c. In newly developed areas without water infrastructure, the water department may issue a "will-serve" letter indicating the expected amount of water that will be delivered once the water system is installed and operational.
i. If multiple hydrants are located within the maximum distance allowed by CFC Table C102.1, the amount of water available from each hydrant may be combined, provided that the hydrants have flowed simultaneously.
ii. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the following information is provided on EBMUD’s test data sheet.
iii. Static pressure and residual pressure in psi and observed flow in gallons per minute gpm.; or
iv. Calculated flow in gpm. at 20 psi.
72. Fire hydrant location maximum distance from any point on street or road frontage to a hydrant is 2500 feet.
73. Access and water supply during construction shall comply with CFC Chapter 33 and the provisions listed in this section and, where applicable, elsewhere in this guideline.
Construction activities at job sites not complying with these requirements may be suspended at the discretion of the RHFPD inspector until a reasonable level of compliance is achieved. 38 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 11
74. At no time shall construction projects impair or obstruct existing fire access roadways or access to and operation of existing fire hydrants serving other structures. Should existing roadways or hydrants need to be moved or otherwise altered during the course of construction, the developer shall provide alternative access routes and other mitigation features to ensure adequate fire and life-safety protection. Such alternatives and features shall be submitted to the RHFPD Prevention Department for review and approval prior to the alteration of existing conditions.
75. Lumber drop inspection – an inspection shall be scheduled with an RHFPD inspector to verify that access roadways and operable hydrants have been provided for buildings under construction.
a. For buildings of Type IV and V construction (and non-combustible structures that may have a portion of the exterior walls, facade, or other building elements comprised of wood or other combustible material), a lumber drop inspection shall occur prior to bringing combustible building materials on site.
76. Access roadways of less than 28’ of unobstructed width shall have signs posted or curbs painted red with the words NO PARKING-FIRE LANE clearly marked. (22500.1 CVC, (503.3) CFC. (FD)
77. Access roadway of 28’ of greater, but less than 36’ of unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING-FIRE LANE signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only or curbs painted red with the words NO PARKING-FIRE LANE clearly marked. Parking is permitted only on one side of the street. (22500.1) CVC, (503.3) CFC. (FD)
78. During construction, Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District for the handling, storage, and use of all materials classified as flammable, combustible, radioactive, carcinogenic, or otherwise potentially hazardous to human health. (FD/FD)
BUILDING PERMITS/CONSTRUCTION
79. Applicant shall provide a list of subcontractors with State Contractor License numbers and contact information prior to commencing construction and all contractors shall obtain a City of Hercules business license before starting work.
80. City Fees. Applicant shall pay all applicable City Development Impact Fees, all other applicable fees imposed by the City in the Master User Fee list, and other applicable public and regulatory agency fees, and all applicable processing charges, prior to the issuance of building permits (or when otherwise due) that are in effect at the time of permit submittal. Required City fees shall include, but are not limited to, Planning fees, Building permit fees, General Public Facilities, Police Facilities, Transportation Facilities Fee, Sewer Facilities, Community Development Tax, Park and Recreation Facilities, General Plan update fee, and Building Training Fund.
81. Applicant must secure all City and other required regulatory permits prior to the start of construction. This shall include but not be limited to Fire District, EBMUD, PG&E, and 39 Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 9-6-22 12 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and includes compliance with all provisions included in the permits.
82. Applicant shall comply with all resource agency requirements for permits issued on all or any part of the project area.
83. The new residences are required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with California Building Code Section R313 which provide protection within the home as well as the garage. (CCC)
84. Exterior residence walls that are located closer than 3’-0” to an interior property line shall be of one-hour fire resistive construction (CRC R302.1). (CCC)
85. Projections from exterior walls at interior property lines shall not come closer than 2’-0” to the property line if of one-hour fire resistive construction, or 3’-0” if of unprotected construction (CRC R302.1) which would also be applicable to building projections. (CCC)
86. No openings in exterior walls adjacent to interior property lines shall be closer than 3’-0” to the property line (CRC R302.1). This would exclude dryer vents and small tool shed which would be allowed so long as the roof does not go over the property line. (CCC) SC - Standard Condition
PL - Planning Department
PD - Police Department Comment
PW - Public Works Department Comment
FD - Fire Department Comment
CCC - Contra Costa County Building Dept. Comment
BKF - BKF Engineer Robert Stevens
FA - Francisco & Associates
CA - California
CFC - California Fire Code
40 1
ORDINANCE NO. 22-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES TO AMEND SECTION 13-48 OF THE HERCULES MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE
EXCEPTIONS PERMITTED WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY
ELIMINATING THE AMOUNT OF A DEVIATION
WHEREAS, Sections 13-48.200 and 13-48.600 of the Hercules Municipal Code currently permits exceptions to Zoning Code standards as part of a Planned Development Plan if such exceptions are approved through the minor exception process with findings that any exceptions are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the final planned development plan; and WHEREAS, a minor exception limits the amount of a deviation to ten percent of the Zoning Code standard; and
WHEREAS, ERC SC, LLC filed an application to amend this text concurrent with their request for a Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Plan, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for a project known as the 215 Skelly Project; and WHEREAS, ERC SC, LLC seeks approval of a Planned Development Plan with exceptions to deviate from Zoning Code standards exceeding ten percent based on project design and amenities; and
WHEREAS, a text amendment would apply to any proposed project for a Planned Development Plan if required findings are made; and
WHEREAS, the text amendment would provide greater flexibility for development projects in exchange for increased quality design and amenities; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider these amendments and did hear and use its independent judgment to consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and recommended approval on a 4-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 215 Skelly project (collectively IS/MND) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15074, the City Council has considered the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process and finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the zoning text amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels. The IS/MND reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis, and the City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings for the 215 Skelly Project, which includes the zoning text amendment. 41 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES DOES HEARBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby incorporates the above recitals into this Ordinance by this reference.
SECTION 2. Amendment. That the City Council of the City of Hercules does hereby amend Hercules Municipal Code Section 13-48, to read as found in Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be deleted.
SECTION 4. Effective Date and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish or post the Ordinance as required by law. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from date of final adoption.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the 27th day of September, 2022, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the _____ day of _____________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dion Bailey, Mayor
__________________________________________
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
42 3
Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance amending Hercules Municipal Code Sec. 13‐48.200 Application and Applicability.
A planned development plan shall be prepared for developments and subdivisions within zoning districts specified in Division II of the Zoning Ordinance. Development design may deviate from the standards of a zoning district to the extent that the planned development plan is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A planned development plan shall include only uses and densities permitted in the zoning district in which the planned development plan is located.
All proposals for subdivision or development within zoning districts requiring planned development plans shall be required to submit a planned development plan application concurrently with other applications. There are 3 potential stages in the review process which are outlined below and include the following: (1) conceptual; (2) initial; and (3) final. The final stage includes design review as established in Chapter 13-42.
The final planned development plan encompasses the detailed building, landscaping, signage, and exterior lighting design of the project. Final planned development plans shall consist of both use permit and design review approval along with sufficient plans and exhibits to document all project features and conditions. The final planned development plan and design review must be approved prior to building permit issuance. [Ord. 515 § 2, 2018; ZO § 48.200.] Sec. 13‐48.600 Required Findings.
The City Council may grant a planned development plan permit, or modify an approved planned development plan with or without conditions only if all the following findings are made:
43 4
1. That the proposed use and densities are consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the planned development.
3. That any exceptions from standard ordinance requirements are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the final planned development plan.
4. That the area surrounding the project site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development;
5. That existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the development densities proposed. [Ord. 515 § 2, 2018; ZO § 48.600.]
44 City of Hercules
Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
TO: Chair Rubio and Members of the Planning Commission
SUMBITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director Tricia Stevens, AICP, MIG Consultant Planner
SUBJECT: 215 Skelly Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request that staff present the staff report.
2. Open the public hearing and invite the applicant to make a presentation or statement.
3. Receive public comments.
4. Close the public hearing.
5. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the IS/MND, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment subject to Conditions of Approval, and the full drawings contained therein.
6. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Zone Text Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation.
APPLICANT/OWNER:
ERC SC, LLC
c/o Adam Foster
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
LOCATION: 215 Skelly west of the intersection of Skelly and Pearce APN 404-020-012.
45 BACKGROUND
The project site has been partially developed with structures since as early as 1902. Up until recently, the site contained a single-family residence, 58 horse paddocks, a permitted 2,400- square-foot storage building, miscellaneous outbuildings, and a large metal-clad shed that appears to be an abandoned relic of the site’s previous use as a farm. The structures were demolished in July 2022 by the property owner, with appropriate permits.
A Conditional Use Permit was issued in 2009 for an 87-foot faux pine tree-pole cell tower, which is located on proposed Parcel E. No other Planning applications have been considered for the site.
D.R. Horton entered into a contract for purchase of the property in 2020. Prior to submitting its application, DR Horton conducted three community engagement events with the project neighbors.
DR Horton has also coordinated site visits with multiple neighbors to receive project input and collaborate on neighborhood issues. The three formal community engagement events thus far were:
1. A neighborhood outreach walk to all adjacent residences (10/15/2022)
2. A project overview and listening session with the Hercules by the Bay HOA (11/16/2022)
3. A follow‐up meeting with the HOA to go over project changes inspired by the community (3/15/2022)
The Hercules City Council held a study session on the proposed project on February 22, 2022.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing the development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 singlefamily residential lots on the approximately 7.44-acre project site in the Residential Single-Family Low Density (RS-L) land use designation and zone. The applicant has also referred to the project as “Owl Ranch.” The site is located off the end of Skelly near the intersection of Skelly and Pearce.
Surrounding land uses include:
North: Single-family homes. Lot sizes are typically 5,000 square feet.
South: Burlington Northern Sant Fe (BNSF) rail line and EBMUD easement.
East: Single- family homes. Lot sizes are typically 8,000 square feet.
West: Pinole Creek and two single-family homes.
46 Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map
47 Figure 2 – General Plan and Land Use Map
The requested entitlements consist of:
a) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
b) Zoning Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Hercules Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation. c) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 40 residential lots, and seven parcels for various open space and infrastructure purposes (#22-01)
d) Planned Development Plan to deviate from selected zoning district standards to accommodate housing units within the property’s allowed General Plan density e) Design Review Permit (#22-01)
f) Lot Line Adjustment to expand the rear yard of the adjacent property owner to the west and to secure area for emergency access (#22-01)
Lot Layout. Residential lots range in size from 3,983 square feet to 6,880 square feet. The project includes two Below Market Rate units – one low-income unit and one moderate-income unit.
In addition to the 40 single-family lots, the project includes parcels for a stormwater treatment area (Parcel B), emergency vehicle access (Lot C), an open space buffer (Parcel D) and an existing cell tower (Parcel E). It also includes a public trail along the southern portion of Parcel A (the project roadway).
Project Site
48 Figure 3 – Site Plan
Access. Access is provided via Skelly to the east. An emergency vehicle access is provided on the northwest corner connecting to Rosti. The project streets will be private and are 43-45 in width.
All project private streets, common areas, and other common on‐site project features will be maintained by the project HOA. In addition, the project includes the following traffic calming features to help reduce speeds:
• On-site “bump-outs” along the southern street.
• “Bump-out” at the project entry on Skelly.
• Off-site “bump-out” on Skelly between Pearce and Hercules Avenue.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access: A publicly accessible pedestrian/bicycle pathway is provided along the main project street, connecting pedestrian access to Pinole Creek and the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Proposed homes. The project provides three product types. Each product will have three options for front elevations: Farmhouse, Craftsman, and Traditional. 49 Figure 4 – Proposed Homes
Number of
lots
Home size Bedrooms
Plan # 1583 15 1,583 sq. ft. 3 bdrm, 2.5
baths
Plan #1859 15 1,859 sq. ft. 4 bdrm, 3 bath
Plan #2311 15 2, 311 sq. ft. 5 bdrm, 3 bath
The proposed residences would be two stories in height, with two-car garages. A Design Review Permit is requested to ensure the proposed homes meet the City’s architectural standards.
Planned Development Plan and Text Amendment. A Planned Development Plan is proposed to accommodate the proposed number of lots within the allowed General Plan density. A Zoning text amendment is requested to modify Section 13.48 of the Hercules Municipal Code to allow deviations from Zoning Code standards to exceed the maximum amount of deviation currently allowed through a minor exception. See Figure 6 for requested deviations.
Lot Line Adjustment. The lot line adjustment is requested in order to swap land with a property owner to the west to accommodate the proposed emergency vehicle access to Rosti.
Landscaping and Fencing. Development of the proposed project would involve the removal of 57 on-site mature trees and existing vegetation. Proposed landscaping includes replacement of removed trees with 96 36-inch box trees, along with new landscaping on each lot and in the open space areas.
Fencing consists of a combination of privacy and open fencing. Open fencing is provided adjacent to the wetland area and on the south side adjacent to the EBMUD easement. The easement area will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. In the rear yards of Lots 1-11, a V-ditch is proposed with the Homeowners Association responsible for maintenance. Privacy fences for the lots will be located outside of the V-ditch area.
Infrastructure. EBMUD would provide potable water service to the project site via an existing 8- inch water line. Wastewater is collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules via an existing 8-inch sewer line in Rosti. Electricity and natural gas services would be provided by PG&E. Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site.
PROCESS
The final hearing authority for this project is the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
PROJECT ANALYSIS/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Findings
50 No land shall be subdivided and developed pursuant to a vesting tentative map for any purpose which is inconsistent with the Hercules General Plan and any applicable specific plan or not permitted by the zoning ordinance or other applicable provisions of this Code.
See findings under B.1 for General Plan Findings
B. Planned Development Plan Findings
1. That the proposed use and densities are consistent with the General Plan.
The following chart outlines the project’s consistency with the General Plan:
Figure 5 – General Plan Consistency
Land Use Compliance
Objective 5: Develop and maintain a pattern of
residential land uses which provide for a
variety and balance of densities and
opportunities for a mix of dwelling and
residential type.
Policy 5A: Residential development shall be
consistent with gross density ranges in the Land
Use Categories and with the Land Use
Diagram.
Policy 5B: State law requires the City to allow
development of new residential areas and units
as part of meeting the regional need for
housing.
The project will be built at 5.4
dwelling units per acre (40 units),
well within the 2-7 dwelling units per
acre allowed in the Residential
Single- Family General Plan
Designation.
Yes
Policy 5C: Provide additional affordable
and/or senior citizen housing.
The project will provide two deedrestricted Below Market Rate for-sale single-family residences (one for
low-income and one for moderate
income households).
Yes
Objective 9: Promote attractively designed and
economically feasible development.
Policy 9A: New development shall be planned
and developed in a manner that funds or
mitigates costs for providing municipal
services. New residential development shall not
create new unfunded costs for providing
municipal services.
The project will be attractively
designed as outlined under the
findings for the Design Review
Permit. No unfunded costs for
provided municipal services have
been identified.
Yes
Objective 14: Protect and enhance significant
and desirable environmental attributes and
features.
The existing wetlands on-site will be
preserved. The project includes a sixfoot public trail along the main street Yes
51 Policy 14A: Develop trail systems, open space,
and other amenities that benefit the quality of
life in the community.
connecting pedestrian access to
Pinole Creek and the San Francisco
Bay Trail.
Circulation
Policy 1.A TRANSPORTAION
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: It is the
City’s policy that all roads within the City
limits are required to meet specific
performance standards as identified in the
policy, hereafter referred to as “Multimodal
Transportation Service Objectives” (MTSOs).
The MTSOs shall also be utilized by the City as
significance criteria for the purpose of
conducting environmental analysis under
CEQA.
The MTSO applicable to all intersections
located along Basic Routes is LOS D,
representing an average delay of greater than
55 seconds per vehicle for signalized
intersections or an average delay of greater
than 35 seconds per vehicle for unsignalized
intersections.
Implementation Action 1.A.1 Transportation
Studies Required:
Based on criteria established by the City and/or
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA), a transportation study will be required
to evaluate a development project’s
transportation impacts if:
• The project generates 100 or more new
peak hour vehicle trips; or
• The project has sufficient local or
community interest as determined by
the Planning Director
The transportation study will assess the
project’s impacts on the City’s circulation
system and will evaluate the project’s
compliance with the required MTSOs for both
Regional Routes of Significance and Basic
Routes. The scope of the traffic analysis and the
methodology and assumptions used in
performing the traffic analysis will be
determined by the City’s Public Works and
A Traffic Impact Analysis was
prepared for the project. The
proposed project is expected to
generate 377 total daily trips,
including 28 net new a.m. peak hour
trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new
p.m. peak hour trips (24 in, 14 out).
Under Existing Plus Project and
Cumulative Plus Projects scenarios,
both of the study intersections
(Hercules Avenue/Skelly, and
Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue)
would continue to operate within
applicable jurisdictional standards
during the a.m. peak hour, and both
study intersections operate
acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The
project would be consistent with
level of service standards set
forth under the Hercules General
Plan and CCTA Congestion
Management Program.
The Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) Technical
Advisory (December 2018) provides
guidance to analysts and local
jurisdictions for implementing VMT
as a metric for determining the
transportation impact for land use
projects.
The proposed project would meet the
exemption requirements for a
low VMT area.
Yes
52 Planning Directors.
POLICY 1.C: COMPREHENSIVE
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEM: The
City will continue to actively support and
promote the establishment of a comprehensive
system of interconnected pedestrian and bicycle
trails throughout the City that link residential
areas to destinations such as transit, schools,
parks and recreation areas, civic buildings,
retail centers, as well as to job-generating uses
such as office and light industrial development.
Connections to regional trails and bicycle
facilities shown in the Countywide Bicycle Plan
will be included as a priority.
A multiuse trail is present along
Pinole Creek to the west of the
project site.
The project includes a six-foot public
trail along the main street connecting
pedestrian and bicycle access to
Pinole Creek and the San Francisco
Bay Trail.
Yes
Implementation Action 1.C.2: New
Development to Incorporate Bicycle/Pedestrian
Facilities. New development shall include
sidewalks, paths, and other pedestrian/bicycle
facilities to provide safe and convenient
pedestrian/bicycle access within that
development, as well as pedestrian/bicycle
connections to the surrounding community.
Such improvements shall also include
pedestrian/bicycle access to any nearby transit
facilities, as well as on- and off-site connections
to the local and regional bicycle and pedestrian
networks.
The project includes a six-foot public
trail along the main street connecting
pedestrian access to Pinole Creek and
the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Yes
POLICY 1.E: ACCOMMODATE
EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS:
Emergency Fire District vehicles have specific
design requirements in terms of street width,
the bearing capacity of the street, curve radii at
corners, and access requirements. Projects and
related circulation improvements shall be
designed to provide appropriate access for all
emergency response vehicles.
The project provides an emergency
vehicle access connecting to Rosti.
Project street designs were
coordinated with the Rodeo-Hercules
Fire Protection District.
Yes
POLICY 3.A: Roads will be designed and located to
the extent feasible to help strengthen and define
neighborhoods.
Implementing Action 3.A.2 Multimodal Connections:
Pedestrian and bicycle travel between adjacent
neighborhoods will be facilitated with sidewalks and
multi-use paths wherever possible.
The project includes a six-foot public
trail along the main street connecting
pedestrian access to Pinole Creek and
the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Yes
Implementing Action 3.A.3. Traffic Calming.
The City will consider traffic calming
The project provides multiple traffic
calming measures:
Yes
53 measures, such as adding landscaped medians,
parkway strips, intersection bulb outs, or
striping and similar devices, as a tool to utilize
in both existing and new neighborhoods, with
the primary goal of reducing traffic speeds on
local residential streets within funding
constraints.
• On-site “bump-outs” along
the southern street.
• “Bump-out” at the project
entry on Skelly.
• Off-site “bump-out” on
Skelly between Pierce and
Hercules Road.
Housing
Policy 1.1 Facilitate homeownership
opportunities for low and moderate income
households.
The project will provide two deed
restricted Below Market Rate
residences for low and moderate
income households.
Yes
Policy 3.1 Implement land use policies that
allow for a range of residential densities and
products, including low-density single-family
uses, moderate-density town homes and higher
density apartments, condominiums and units in
mixed use developments.
The project provides small-lot singlefamily homes that are more affordable than larger-lot
developments.
Yes
Policy 6.1 Promote the use of Green Building
techniques in residential development.
The project will be all-electric. The
project will comply with required
green building techniques, including
solar, low water use landscaping, and
low water use fixtures.
Yes
2. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the planned development.
TJKM, the City’s transportation consultant, prepared a traffic impact analysis report for the project that found the project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Congestion Management Program. Therefore, the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the planned development.
3. That any exceptions from standard ordinance requirements are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the final planned development plan.
The project includes exceptions from the following lot size, lot width, lot depth, and corner side yard requirements of the RS-L zone:
54 Figure 6 – Requested Exceptions
Requirement Proposed Percentage
deviation
Lot size 6,000 sq ft 3,983 – 6,880 sq ft
33 lots are less than
6,000 sf.
Up to 33%
Lot width 60-feet 40-feet Up to 33%
Lot depth 100 feet 95-96 feet 5%
Corner lot
side yard
15 feet 10-13 feet Up to 33%
Section 13.48 of the Hercules Municipal Code allows applicants to request minor exceptions to zoning code requirements as part of a Planned Development Plan. Currently, minor exceptions are defined as deviations up to ten percent of zone requirements. Since the proposed exceptions exceed ten percent, the applicant is requesting a text amendment to eliminate the limitation on the amount of a deviation with a finding that the deviation is warranted by the design and amenities of the plan. See separate discussion on the merits of the text amendment under E.1.
If the text amendment is ultimately approved, the following design and amenity factors warrant the proposed exception:
a. The exceptions are needed in order for the project to achieve the density allowed by the General Plan, in that the site has a series of constraints that limit the ability to provide conforming lots. These constraints are primarily riparian and wetland areas, EBMUD easements, the need for a public trail, and the existing cell site and need for a buffer. The applicant has provided the following constraints map:
55 Figure 7 – Constraints Map
b. The project would preserve the character of the neighborhood, respect neighbor privacy, and be consistent and compatible with lot sizes, widths, depths, and setbacks on immediately adjacent existing single-family properties. 56 c. The project will result in enhanced safety for the neighborhood by transforming a site that has become an attractive nuisance into a well-maintained community that will enhance safety by adding eyes to the street and installing street safety lighting. d. The project will provide an emergency vehicle access along the northwest corner of the property, include a public trail through the site connecting the community to a regional trail network, and create on and off-site traffic calming improvements. e. The project will provide two deed-restricted inclusionary single-family residences (one for low-income households and another for moderate-income households). f. The project preserves the on-site wetlands, which in turn provides a visual open space as an amenity to the project.
4. That the area surrounding the project site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development.
The area surrounding the project site is fully developed in the RS-L zone. Lot sizes in the area range from 5,000 to 8,000 and are mostly two-story in height, similar to the proposed project. The circulation system will be an extension of existing streets.
5. That existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the development densities proposed.
The project will adhere to local water, sewer, stormwater and electrical utility infrastructure requirements. Therefore, existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the development densities proposed. More information about utility systems can be found in the IS/MND Chapter 2.18.
C. Design Permit
1. The approval of the design review plan is in compliance with all provisions of Chapter 13-42 of the Hercules Municipal Code, pertinent provisions of Zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning and land use regulations, including but not limited to the Hercules General Plan as amended and any specific plan.
Compliance with the Hercules General Plan is found under Section B.1 above. The site is not located in a specific plan area.
Compliance with Zoning Code development standards can be found below:
Figure 8 – Zoning Code Compliance
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed Project Compliance
57 Density 2-7 dwelling units per
gross acre
5.4 dwelling units per gross acres Yes
Lot Size 6,000 sq ft 3,983 – 6,880 sq ft With
exception
Lot Frontage 30 ft All 40 ft or greater Yes
Lot Depth 100 ft 95-132 ft With
exception
Lot Width 60 ft 40 – 63 With
exception
Setbacks
Front 20 ft 20 ft Yes
Rear 15 ft 17 – 96 ft Yes
Side 5 ft 5 ft Yes
Corner Side 15 ft 10 ft With
exception
Maximum Site
Coverage
50% 17 – 33 % Yes
Building Height 35 ft 25-28 ft Yes
Parking 2 spaces per unit in
garage; one additional
space for 5 bedrooms
or more
All units have two garage parking
spaces. The 5-bedroom units have
one additional space located in the
driveway as tandem parking.
Yes
2. The approval of the design review plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The project will provide an emergency vehicle access along the northwest corner of the property, include a public trail through the site connecting to a regional trail network, and create on- and off-site traffic calming improvements. Additionally, the project will provide two deed-restricted inclusionary single-family residences (one for low-income households and another for moderate-income households). Sidewalks and drainage improvements will also be provided. Project architecture will be compatible with adjacent residences and will be a visual improvement over existing conditions. The project will also adhere to fire and building code requirements. Therefore, the project and its enhancements would benefit the public health, safety, and general welfare.
3. General site considerations, including site layout, open space and topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.
General site considerations are designed to provide a desirable environment, as follows:
• Site layout. The project provides a site layout that optimizes lot and circulation efficiency while providing a density within the allowed density of the General Plan. • Open space and topography. The project includes two open space areas. Existing wetland and riparian areas will be avoided on Parcel B (0.4 acres) and this area will 58 provide a visual open area, though not accessible for use by residents. Parcel D (0.48 acres) provides an open space buffer adjacent to the existing cell tower. • Orientation and location of buildings. Buildings would be oriented toward the street with staggered layouts that deemphasize the project garage doors. • Vehicular access and circulation. Vehicular access will incorporate the minimum roadway widths required by the City and fire district and will provide bulb-outs to calm traffic and create a visually enhanced right-of-way. The project would also provide a public trail that connects both Skelly and San Pablo Avenue to existing trails that are integrated into regional pedestrian facilities.
• Parking. The project will comply with required parking (see chart above). Guest parking is available in the driveway aprons and along the private streets on all lots. • Setbacks and height. The project meets setback and height requirement (see chart above) if the exception for corner lot side setbacks is approved. • Fencing. A combination of open and privacy fencing will be provided. Views to the wetland area (Parcel B) will be enhanced with a three-foot open tubular steel fence adjacent to the street and a six-foot open tubular steel fence on the north and west sides (next to the emergency vehicle access). On the south side, a six-foot open tubular steel fence will be provided to enhance views of the open space/EBMUD easement. Lots will typically have six-foot wood fencing around the perimeter. Privacy fences in the rear of Lots 1-11 will avoid the drainage area.
• Public safety. Public safety will be prioritized with lighting (designed with appropriate illumination levels for the area), sidewalks, and an inviting pedestrian environment being intentionally carried throughout the project, and residences will be oriented toward the roadway. An emergency vehicle access is provided.
4. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements have been incorporated in order to insure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings. • Architectural styles. The project includes three two-story product types with three options each for architectural styles: Craftsman, Traditional, and Farmhouse. This mix provides a diversity of architectural styles resulting in nine different styles. 59 Figure 9 – Proposed Building Elevations
• Color and building materials. The homes include a variety of colors and building materials. Each home will have at least two colors and two types of building materials.
Colors range from beige, gray, and muted greens and blue. Building materials include stucco and board-and-batten siding.
• Articulation. The homes will be articulated with front porches, staggered front façades (typically five feet) to deemphasize garages, varied roof lines, and garage shadow boxes. The homes will have four-sided architecture to ensure all views of the homes are articulated.
• Screening. All above-ground utility meters, mechanical equipment, and water meters will be screened with shrubs and/or an architectural screen from all perspectives. • Architectural relationship with adjacent properties. The site sits below the adjacent residences and is buffered from nearby residences by railroad tracks and Pinole Creek.
Existing off-site vegetation including mature, native trees will be preserved and would serve as a visual buffer from the project and views from both adjacent residences and the greater public, including from San Pablo Avenue. The proposed two-story homes would be similar to existing homes in the vicinity.
60 Figure 10 – Rendering of the Project Entrance from Skelly
5. General landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials at the time of planting and after a 5-year growth period, provision for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures, and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public. • Tree preservation. There are 95 mature trees on or near the project site, with 64 trees on-site. Seven of the on-site trees will be preserved, consisting of black walnut, coast redwood, and honey locust trees along the southern boundary next to the rail line. Other on-site trees to be removed are in poor health or cannot be preserved due to grading.
The applicant has provided a draft Tree Replacement Plan (Sheet L3.1) showing the planting of 98 36-inch box trees throughout the site, meeting the City’s Tree Replacement requirements.
• Streetscape. The project introduces approximately 50 street trees and an earth-toned landscape entry feature. Street trees will be Frontier Elm with a maximum height of 35 feet.
• Landscaping on individual lots. A native, drought-tolerant front yard landscape palette includes groundcover, low shrubs, and accent trees.
• Open space landscaping. The buffer/entry open space lot (Parcel D) will be landscaped with oak trees, low-growing grasses and groundcover, and flowering perennials that will accent the low entry feature/signage.
The bioretention basin (Parcel B) will include native plant materials such as Berkeley sedge, cape rush, and monkey flower. Street and accent trees along the street frontage are provided. Irrigation will be installed throughout the bioretention area to provide 61 supplemental irrigation in the dry months with reduced irrigation during seasonal rainfall or wet months.
In whole, the landscaping scheme ensures visual relief to complement buildings and structures, providing an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public, and to meet city drought tolerant and water conservation requirements.
D. Lot Line Adjustment
1. Title 10, Chapter 2 Subdivisions does not include specific findings for lot line adjustments. The Planning Commission should find that the parcels resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment conform to the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and that they conform to the zoning ordinance relating to minimum lot size, required lot frontage, lot width at the front yard setback, building setbacks, building lot coverage, and floor area ratio.
The lot line adjustment simply adjusts the property boundary between the subject property and the property owner to the west in order to accommodate the emergency vehicle access.
The property owner will have a more usable rear yard as a result. Please see the General Plan consistency analysis in Table 5 above. The project is not within a specific plan area.
The resulting boundaries of the existing single family residential parcel at 189 Rosti will not create any new zoning inconsistencies; rather, the lot line adjustment will improve zoning conformity for the property at 189 Rosti by increasing its lot size, lot depth, and setbacks. Therefore, the parcels resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment will conform to the building ordinance and zoning ordinance, including but not limited to those provisions which address minimum lot size, required lot frontage, lot width at the front yard setback, building setbacks, building lot coverage, and floor area ratio.
E. Other Considerations:
1. Text Amendment. A Zoning text amendment is proposed to modify Section 13.48 of the Hercules Municipal Code to allow deviations from Zoning Code standards to exceed the amount of deviations allowed by minor exceptions. Minor exceptions are defined as deviations up to ten percent of Zoning Code requirements. If approved, this text amendment would potentially apply to any project proposed under a Planned Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that this amendment benefits future development by allowing more flexibility to deviate from standards in exchange for quality projects and superior designs. Each project would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there would be no precedent for deviations set by this project or any other project.
2. Below Market Rate Units. The City does not currently have a requirement that residential projects provide inclusionary units (Below Market Rate units) affordable to very-low-, low- and moderate-income households. In 2012, given economic conditions and the elimination of redevelopment agencies, the City Council suspended the City’s 62 inclusionary ordinance indefinitely; the City continues to work with project applicants to achieve affordable housing through negotiations/development agreements on a case-bycase basis. The applicant has offered the inclusion of one low-income unit and one moderate income deed-restricted unit as a project amenity, constituting five percent of the requested units. Staff supports the inclusion of these units as one effort to meet the City’s affordable housing goals.
3. Cell Tower. An existing cell tower is located on Parcel E. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2009 for an 87-foot faux pine treepole cell tower, along with 12 panel antennas and associated ground equipment. Approval of this request will result in the cell tower being located on a parcel with a different Assessor’s Parcel Number, which can be updated administratively. The cell tower is subject to the existing conditions of approval and this project does not affect that approval.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by First Carbon Solutions under the direction of the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released for public review on July 5, 2022, with a 30-day public review period ending on August 3, 2022.
The IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures are included in the IS/MND to reduce all potential impacts to less than significant.
The City received seven comments on the IS/MND during the review letter, from both public agencies and individuals. The Response to Comments and Final IS/MND are attached.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Several public comments were received in response to the IS/MND that commented on non-CEQA concerns that are not necessarily addressed in the IS/MND. These comments in full are located in the Response to Comments (RTC), and are summarized below:
Avila: The commenter states that there is currently a high level of traffic on Skelly and most cars exceed the speed limit. The commenter requests that a speed bump be installed on Skelly, that a stop sign be installed on the corner of Pearce and Skelly, and that pavement repair be provided upon completion of the project. The commenter also was concerned that construction would coincide with the upcoming San Pablo Bridge Project.
Response: Based on the traffic study, the intersection near the project (Hercules Avenue/Skelly and Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue) would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and that a stop sign is not warranted at this time. The need for a stop sign can be evaluated at a later time. The project includes a traffic calming bump-out measure approximately 500 east of the project designed to slow traffic. The proposed conditions of approval include a requirement that the developer repair damages to the roadway caused by construction activities that cause 63 further deterioration to the roadway of Skelly from the entrance of the development to Hercules Avenue and Rosti from Pavon to end. The City is aware of the existing deficient pavement condition on Skelly, which is independent of the project, and will work to address it in future paving cycles as funding permits. The timing of the bridge project has not yet been determined.
The Skelly Residential Project is not anticipated to cause impacts to existing traffic on Skelly.
Gilbert: The commenter asks if the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road (Parcel C) would be blocked from pedestrians and non-emergency vehicles, and if so, how would it be enforced. The commenter also asks about the definition of wetlands and bioretention.
Response: The Emergency Vehicle Access would be used in the event of an emergency by the Fire District and for resident evacuation. It would not provide regular resident access as an EVA gate will be provided. It is not intended for pedestrian access. The RTC provides information about the wetlands.
Khuu: The commenter requests that the applicant preserve more of the existing trees on-site in that the trees provide protection from wind, pollution, and noise from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line south of the project site.
Response: Existing black walnut, yellow willow, and honey locust trees in the EBMUD easement on the south side of the project will be preserved and continue to provide some screening. The trees to be removed throughout the site are difficult to preserve due to the amount of grading required, and many of the trees are in poor health. The applicant has provided a robust Tree Replacement Plan and 96 new 36-inch trees will be planted throughout the site in the front yards of the homes as well as in the entry area near the cell tower.
Rettig: The commenter asks how the noise restriction hours as noted in the Draft IS/MND would be enforced and that no large construction machinery should operate on Saturdays.
Response: Noise mitigation measures are enforced by the City and the contractor will provide a noise disturbance coordinator. Construction activities are allowed during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) and best management noise reduction techniques and practices will be employed. It is typical for construction activities to occur on Saturday (but not Sunday) and no extraordinary justification has been identified to limit construction on Saturdays in this case.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The 215 Skelly project will advance the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the Hercules General Plan by expanding residential opportunities within the City. With approval of the text amendment to broaden the allowance for deviations to the Zoning Code, and approval of the Planned Development Plan with associated deviations, the project will conform with the Zoning Code. The project will result in a quality residential environment compatible with its surrounding, and provide needed housing, including two Below Market Rate units. The inclusion of a public pathway will connect the project to existing trails and the traffic calming measures will help slow down traffic in the neighborhood.
64 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Vesting Subdivision Map, Planning Development Plan, Design Review Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to Resolution) and adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
2. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Zoning Code text amendments to the Planned Development Plan Section 13.84.
3. IS/MND:
Exhibit B-1: Final IS/MND; Response to Comments included Exhibit B-2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. Project Plans dated May 27, 2022:
Exhibit C-1: Vesting Tentative Map 5.27.2022 Plan Set
Exhibit C-2: Project Renderings
Exhibit C-3: Articulation – 4 side Architecture Exhibit Exhibit C-4: Color and Materials Board
5. Staff presentation
6. Applicant presentation
65 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Skelly Residential Project
City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California
Prepared for:
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
510.799.8248
Contact: Tim Rood, Community Development Director
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Date: August 29, 2022
66 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
67 City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 - Responses to Comments................................................................................................3-1 Section 3: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 - Changes to the Draft IS/MND.........................................................................................3-1 Appendix A–Exhibit
68 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
69 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hercules has prepared the following responses to comments received on the Skelly Residential Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND). The Draft IS/MND and the Responses to Comments, which are included in this document, comprise the Final IS/MND for use by the City of Hercules in its review and consideration of the proposed Skelly Residential Project (proposed project). All public comments regarding the Draft IS/MND are included for consideration by the City of Hercules.
This document is organized into two sections:
• Section 1—Introduction.
• Section 2—Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft IS/MND. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 3—Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft IS/MND, which have been incorporated.
The Final IS/MND includes the following contents:
• Draft IS/MND (provided under separate cover)
• Draft IS/MND appendices (provided under separate cover) • Responses to Written Comments and Errata (Section 2 and 3 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (provided under separate cover) 70 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
71 SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
3.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.
Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................... CDFW California Department of Toxic Substances Control .........................................................................DTSC Local Agencies
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ..................................FC DISTRICT Individuals
Avila, Aurora ....................................................................................................................................AVILA Gilbert, Wil and Scheran..............................................................................................................GILBERT Khuu, Ciera ..................................................................................................................................... KHUU Rettig, Tom.....................................................................................................................................RETTIG
3.2 - Responses to Comments
3.2.1 - Introduction
Although a lead agency is not required to provide written responses to comments on proposed Negative Declarations (NDs) or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hercules has evaluated the comments received on the proposed Skelly Residential Project (proposed project) Draft IS/MND and has elected to provide responses to the following comments. None of the comments received results in the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND or to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.
72 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
73 From: Chambers, Andrew@Wildlife <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Cc: Battaglia, Michelle@Wildlife <[email protected]> Subject: Skelly Residential Project - SCH# 2022070045
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Todd,
CDFW has reviewed this project and has the following statement to provide to the City and project proponent:
Notably on the Site Plan (Exhibit 4) on .pdf page #23 of the IS/MND, and found elsewhere, the project as designed would involve alteration and potential impacts to an ephemeral tributary to Pinole Creek, including to the bank and vegetation hydrologically dependent thereof. This alteration of the ephemeral tributary would require notification of the project to CDFW under Fish and Game Code section 1602.
CDFW is requesting that the City, as lead agency, require an application for a Standard Agreement be submitted for the project (which can be done online and found at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA/Agreement-Types#55230748- standard-agreement) by the project proponent as a basis of approval of the IS/MND.
CDFW’s Habitat Conservation Unit found it best to address this statement as an email instead of a formal comment letter. If any questions arise or further discussions are needed, feel free to contact me regarding this project.
Thank you,
-Andy
Andrew O. Chambers
Environmental Scientist
Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Unit
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
CDFW
1 74
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 266-2878
CDFW
75 State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Response to CDFW-1
The commenter discusses the on-site ephemeral tributary to Pinole Creek and the relevant CDFW notification requirements if the drainage feature would be impacted because of project construction. As stated in the Project Description (pages 1 and 2 of the Draft IS/MND), the drainage would not be graded or developed; it would be avoided in its entirety as part of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project is required to follow Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2 to avoid the on-site aquatic features and their associated habitats, which would include notification to the CDFW under Fish and Game Code Section 1602.
76 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
77 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 29, 2022
Mr. Tim Rood
Community Development Director
City of Hercules
111 Civic Dr
Hercules, CA 94547
[email protected]
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – DATED JULY 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022070045)
Dear Mr. Rood:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Skelly Residential Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.
DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:
1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC
1 2
78 2. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition ,and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.
3. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.
4. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3582 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Brian McAloon
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC
3 4
5 79
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
DTSC
80 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
81 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Response to DTSC-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.
Response to DTSC-2
This comment requests a discussion of the potential for the proposed project to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances during construction and operation.
Accidental release of hazardous materials and/or substances is discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the proposed project, which evaluated the site’s potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
1 to occur on-site based on review of environmental regulatory and historic records and site reconnaissance. It was determined in the Phase I ESA that there are no RECs on-site and the report did not recommend any further assessment of the property.
The potential for release of hazards materials during construction and operation of the proposed project is discussed in the Draft IS/MND. Construction activities and use of hazardous materials (such as gasoline, oils, or fluids from construction equipment) would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances set forth by California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), DTSC, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Contra Costa Environmental Health Department, and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District. In addition, the applicant is required to retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to remove and dispose of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paints (LBPs) that could be present in the existing structures in accordance with federal and State regulations.
Substances that may be used during project operation include cleaning agents, building maintenance chemicals, and pesticides and herbicides used for landscaping and maintenance. The amount of materials required for these activities would not be large enough to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Although the proposed project would operate as single-family residences with no significant use of heavy chemicals or pollutants, the transport, use, and disposal of these operational substances is controlled and regulated by RCRA; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Response to DTSC-3
This comment is related to demolition of on-site structures and the potential for release of hazards chemicals such as ACMs and LBP.
As discussed above, demolition of on-site structures would be conducted in accordance with federal and State regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 19827.5 (Visual Inspection and Sampling). All materials containing LBP shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in 1 A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property. 82 Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. All materials containing asbestos shall be handled and removed by qualified professionals in accordance with applicable regulations, including Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2; Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66261.24; Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1; and Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 745.
Response to DTSC-4
The comment states that any imported soils should be evaluated prior to their use as backfill material.
As documented in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, of the Draft IS/MND and as required by MM GEO1, the proposed project must comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix D of the Draft IS/MND). The Geotechnical Investigation Report requires that all imported soil shall be approved by the Project Soil Engineer. The proposed project would comply with appropriate California environmental regulations and policies regulating hazardous materials, including the import and export of soil associated with the proposed project.
Any imported fill would meet applicable governmental requirements related to chemical composition.
Response to DTSC-5
The commenter recommends evaluation of agricultural or other soils that may contain pesticides per DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance.
A review of available historic aerial imagery does not show any evidence that the project area has been used for agricultural or other activities over the past 80 years. No evidence has been presented to indicate that organochlorinated pesticides have been used in the project area. 83 From: Joe Smithonic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022, 10:42 AM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Cc: Gus Amirzehni <[email protected]>
Subject: Sub 9606, Skelly Residential Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mr. Rood,
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated July 5, 2022, for Subdivision 9606 located at 215 Skelly (APN 404-020-012) in the City of Hercules (City). We submit the following comments:
1. Section 1.4 of the IS/MND identifies the development’s northwest bioretention facility as a detention basin and Section 2.10(c)(iii) states that the installation of a bioretention facility will “ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions,” implying that the basin facility is intended for dual purposes – clean water and flood control. The FC District does not recommend the use of bioretention areas (C.3 facilities) sized to meet Contra Costa Clean Water Program C.3 requirements for mitigating peak flows. These C.3 facilities have not been proven to perform as peak flow mitigation measures under design storm flow conditions for the 10-year storm and above. They do not account for the saturated condition of soils that could precede a 10- year design storm. They have not been in use long enough to provide operational experience that they will continue to perform as designed and be maintained properly.
C.3 facilities that are proposed to be used to mitigate peak flows should be analyzed in a way that ignores the above surface storage volume required by the C.3 facilities sizing criteria. Further, we recommend that C.3 facilities be analyzed using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. We recommend that Section 2.10(c)(iii) of the IS/MND be revised to reflect this comment.
2. The FC District recommends that environmental concern number 2.10(c)(iii) be revised to “less than significant with mitigation incorporated.” The City should require the developer to submit detailed hydrology and hydraulic calculations to the City that demonstrate the proposed facilities’ ability to mitigate post-project peak flows to preproject levels and that demonstrate the adequacy of the downstream system and FC District
2 3
4 1
84 Refugio Creek, which was noted in Section 2.10 of the IS/MND as an existing system that experiences flooding. If the calculations cannot demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed and existing storm drain systems, the City should require the developer to construct improvements that increase capacity at any deficient sections of the storm drain systems, as a mitigation measure for Section 2.10(c)(iii). We defer review of the local drainage to the City. However, the FC District is available to provide technical review under our Fee-for-Service program.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for Subdivision 9606 and welcome continued coordination with the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Joe Smithonic | Civil Engineer
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
p: 925.313.2348 | f: 925.313.2333
e: [email protected] | cccpublicworks.org
FC District
4 CONT
85 Local Agencies
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC DISTRICT) Response to FC DISTRICT-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and does not raise any environmental issues. No response is required.
Response to FC DISTRICT-2
The commentor raises questions regarding the analysis of C.3 facilities. The proposed bioretention area would not be used for flood control purposes. Based on preliminary analysis of the downstream storm drain outfall capacity, the proposed project’s additional flows would not adversely impact the downstream storm drain system. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event on-site detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. Per Section 5-8.050 of the Municipal Code, a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria of the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook must be submitted as part of every application for a development project prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
In addition to C.3 facilities, and consistent with the Municipal Code policies and code requirements, the proposed project would also be required to install stormwater control facilities to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Response to FC DISTRICT-3
For clarification purposes, Impact 2.10(c)(iii) has been revised to reflect the responses above. See Section 3, Errata.
Response to FC DISTRICT-4
As discussed, above, detailed hydrology and hydraulic calculations would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permit. Per General Plan Program 10a, the City would ensure that adequate drainage facilities and pollution prevention and control infrastructure and built to accommodate the increase in runoff from newly developed areas. If necessary, the City would require the applicant to construct improvements that increase capacity at any deficient sections of the City’s storm drain system. This is a requirement for consistency with the General Plan and will be included as a project condition of approval. Compliance with existing policies and regulations is mandatory and is not considered a mitigation measure. No additional mitigation is necessary.
86 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
87 From: AURORA AVILA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>; Erin LaFlamme <[email protected]> Subject: Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Rood,
Per the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Skelly Residential Project here are my concerns :
1) Hopefully this construction will not coincide with the upcoming San Pablo Bridge Project. Traffic would be impacted even more.
2) There already is a serious amount of traffic that uses Skelly and most cars exceed the speed limit.
There should be speed bumps installed on Skelly.
3) On the corner of Pearce & Skelly a Stop sign should be installed by the end of construction due to the extra traffic coming out of the new project.
4) With all the heavy machinery and large trucks and equipment, Skelly will be "beat-up". The builder or the City needs to anticipate this and make provisions for road repair and/or re-asphalt Skelly upon completion of the project.
Please advise how these concerns will be handled.
--
Aurora Avila
112 Skelly
AVILA
1 2
3 4
88 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
89 Individuals
Aurora Avila (AVILA)
Response to AVILA-1
The commenter is concerned about traffic generated by the proposed project and the upcoming San Pablo Bridge Project, should they occur concurrently. This comment will be part of the record for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Response to AVILA-2
The commenter states that there is currently a high level of traffic on Skelly and most cars exceed the speed limit. The commenter requests that a speed bump be installed on Skelly.
Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based Level of Service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. Automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, an LOS analysis was prepared as part of the project Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND) to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan.
The findings of the Traffic Impact Study are discussed in detail in Section 2.17, Transportation, of the Draft IS/MND. The proposed project is expected to generate 377 total daily trips, including 28 net new AM peak-hour trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new PM peak-hour trips (24 in, 14 out). Under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Projects scenarios, both of the study intersections (Hercules Avenue/Skelly, and Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue) would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the AM peak-hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the PM peak-hour. The proposed project would be consistent with LOS standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP).
The proposed project also includes various traffic calming measures along Skelly, including an on-site bump-out, a bump-out at project entry, and an 8-foot bump-out approximately 500 feet east of the project site. Bump-outs reduce driving speed by narrowing the crossing distance for pedestrians and decreasing the curb radii, therefore causing drivers to make slower turns. An exhibit showing these measures is attached as Attachment A. The request for additional traffic calming measures has been noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Response to AVILA-3
The commenter requests that a stop sign be installed on the corner of Pearce and Skelly by the end of project construction. This comment is noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Response to AVILA-4
The commenter states that construction equipment and trucks would contribute to pavement deterioration on Skelly, and requests that the City and/or applicant provide pavement repair upon completion of the proposed project. This comment is noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
90 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
91 1
2 3
GILBERT
92 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
93 Wil and Scheran Gilbert (GILBERT)
Response to GILBERT-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.
Response to GILBERT-2
The commenter asks if the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road (Parcel C) would be blocked from pedestrians and non-emergency vehicles, and if so, how would it be enforced.
According to the applicant, the EVA road would be usable in the event of an emergency by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District. It could also be used for resident emergency evacuation. There would be at least one gate erected across the EVA road in accordance with Fire District requirements. There may be gates both along the other end of the EVA road (on Rosti) and the proposed neighborhood.
The proposed project would comply with the Fire District’s requirements for the exact design and location of the gates. The EVA is not intended to be used for pedestrian access.
Response to GILBERT-3
The commenter asks the definition of wetlands and bioretention.
Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year. Wetlands in California are protected by federal and State laws, regulations, and policies that prevent further degradation and destruction. The wetlands on Parcel B would not be graded or developed; they would be preserved in their entirety as part of the proposed project and would support the comprehensive stormwater management strategy for the proposed development. As part of the stormwater management strategy, Parcel B would also contain a 16,957-square-foot bioretention area. A bioretention basin is a landscaping feature, a depression that collects stormwater runoff into a designated area where it is subsequently filtered through the area until it is purified. Mulch, special soils, and sand beds all filter and percolate stormwater to rid it of harmful substances and excessive nutrients, while an underdrain system removes the water once it has been treated so that it can be usefully applied to nearby planted areas.
94 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
95 From: Ciera Khuu <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Subject: 215 Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Rood,
I'm writing to submit my comments during this public review period for the proposed residential build project at 215 Skelly.
I've attended the informational meeting by the developer to learn more about this project and have had a chance to skim through the findings from the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. While I'm uncertain of some of the findings due to the low number of data points regarding traffic impact and such. I'm writing to express my concern and hope to impress upon you the importance of keeping some of the eucalyptus trees that reside on this project site. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration states "approximately 76 existing trees" will be remove to clear the site for construction. These eucalyptus trees have dated back even before 1960 and are probably close to 100 or more years old. These trees have existed and spans multigenerations and will last beyond our time. They provide shelter and protection from wind, pollution, and especially from noise. Specifically, as shown in the picture below, these trees shield the neighborhood from the loud train noise coming from the railroad track. I can see the beautiful and majestic canopies from my bedroom, I can see them and the blue sky through my bathroom window as I am coming out of the shower, I can see them first thing as I emerge from my front door to go to work each morning, and I can see them again at the end of the day as I turn onto the street to my home.
I know that I'm not the only one with these sentiments and that these trees represent and symbolize much more than just vegetation. It is understandable that any site should be prep for construction, but it doesn't necessitate the removal of all the trees. I'm asking the developer to keep some trees that are critical in protecting the area and neighborhood from noise and pollution arising from the railroad track. Sustainable development is definitely doable, they can always design with slight modifications to incorporate salvaging these trees into their residential projects.
KHUU
1 2
3 4
96 Respectfully,
Ciera K.
I'm asking for your's and the city councils' considerations with this topic as you have the power to make a difference to our community. Developers come and go, they only look at the finances, but we are the people in the community that are impacted by these decisions and we have to live and see it every day.
Thank you so much for your time and considerations.
KHUU
5 97
Ciera Khuu (KHUU)
Response to KHUU-1
The commenter requests that the applicant preserve more of the existing trees on-site. The commenter notes the proposed number of trees to be removed (76) and states that the eucalyptus trees have existed since before 1960 and could possibly be 100 years old.
The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City of Hercules through Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 15, Removal of Mature Trees. As detailed in MM BIO-3, the applicant would adhere to the requirements of the tree ordinance which includes a submittal of a Tree Replacement Plan to the City prior to the removal of trees and/or prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit. The Tree Replacement Plan shall include a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for City-protected trees impacted by project construction.
It is also worth noting that of the 95 mature trees studied in the Arborist Report (Appendix B), 28 are identified to be in poor condition and are likely to fail, are in decline, or are in poor health. In addition, the applicant is actively working with neighbors and the Project Arborist to preserve more existing trees.
This comment is noted for consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Response to KHUU-2
The commenter states that the trees on-site provide protection from wind, pollution, and noise from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line south of the project site. See Response to KHUU-1.
This comment is noted.
Response to KHUU-3
The commenter describes the view of the on-site trees available from her home.
Although private views are outside the purview of CEQA, the applicant is actively working with neighbors and the Project Arborist to identify additional trees that can be preserved. As discussed in Response to KHUU-1, the applicant must also prepare a Tree Replacement Plan. This comment is noted.
Response to KHUU-4
This comment summarizes the points discussed above. See Response to KHUU-1. This comment is noted.
Response to KHUU-5
The commenter asks the City decision-makers to consider the impacts to existing on-site trees. See Response to KHUU-1. This comment is noted.
98 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
99 From: Tom Rettig <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 2:05 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Subject: Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a resident at 151 Skelly and have concerns about the noise levels of the project. • What will the penalties be for operating outside the hours of 7am-7pm? There does not seem to be any incentive for the developer to operate within these hours other than this document saying they will. Without repercussions, this does not seem enforceable. • With regards to enforcement, what agency will be responsible for shutting down operations that begin before 7am or continue beyond 7pm? Again, if this is not enforceable, there is no incentive for the developer to operate within the stated times. • Why is acceptable for the project to even operate on Saturday? For most of the residents, that is our day off and it is unreasonable to ask that we give up the peace we enjoy in this neighborhood during our time to relax. At a minimum, there should be no large machinery operating on Saturday or traveling the streets.
I am not suggesting there should not be any development, but I purchased my home just over a year ago because it was on a short quiet street. I am not fond of the idea that the neighborhood is being extended off Skelly. At a minimum, I don’t think it should intrude on the calm that we enjoy in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tom Rettig
151 Skelly
Hercules, CA 94547
[email protected]
1 2
3 4
RETTIG
100
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
101
Tom Rettig (RETTIG)
Response to RETTIG-1
The commenter asks how the noise restriction hours as noted in the Draft IS/MND would be enforced.
The City’s existing noise ordinance Section 13-31.300 gives the Community Development Director the authority to impose limitations on construction hours and is enforced by the Police Department.
Limitations on construction hours for the proposed project would be included as part of the development agreement for the proposed project.
In addition, as discussed in Section 2.13, Noise, of the Draft IS/MND, MM NOI-1 includes a restriction on construction activities to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) as well as best management noise reduction techniques and practices to ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. As part of MM NOI-1, the construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establish reasonable measures necessary to correct the problem. The construction contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City staff shall follow up with the contractor or the disturbance coordinator if staff becomes aware that mitigation measures were not being met.
The City Council could also choose to negotiate additional restrictions on construction activity with the developer as part of the development agreement.
Response to RETTIG-2
The commenter asks who would be responsible for enforcing MM NOI-1. See Response to RETTIG-1 Response to RETTIG-3
The commenter states that large construction machinery should not operate on Saturdays. This comment is noted for consideration of Planning Commission and City Council.
Response to RETTIG-4
The comment provides closing remarks. No response is required. 102
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
103
Appendix A:
Exhibit
104
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
105
PEARCE ROAD
ROSTI
PAVON
SKELLY
215 SKELLY
PROJECT SITE 8' OFFSITE BUMP-OUT
BUMP-OUT AT PROJECT ENTRY ON SKELL
ONSITE BUMP-OUT ALONG TRAIL EXTENSION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FCD & WCD
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONNECTION
BAY TRAIL
CONNECTION
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
C6.0
F:\3204\ACAD\TM\C6.0-TRAFFIC CALMIN PLAN.DWG
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
215 SKELLY - SUBDIVISION 9606
CITY OF HERCULES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 40' DATE: APRIL 2022
0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
SHEET NO.
LEGEND
Y
106
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
107
SECTION 3: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft IS/MND for the Skelly Residential Project.
These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).
3.1 - Changes to the Draft IS/MND
Section 1.4: Project Description
Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site.
Section 2.3: Air Quality
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet of
landscaping on Parcel D (about one-eighth of the
Parcel), which would serve to reduce treat
stormwater runoff and would include the planting of
shade trees; hence, it would also reduce the urban
heat island effect.
Section 2.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, including the installation of landscaping and a bioretention area and stormwater control facilities, to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event onsite detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 108
The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, including the installation of landscaping and a bioretention area and stormwater control facilities, to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions, and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Section 2.18: Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project would obtain water from the EBMUD. The proposed project’s wastewater would be collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by the JPA. Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site. Solid Waste services would be provided by Republic Services.
Electric power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E.
Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site. This is required given the proposed project would involve the creation of more than 10,000 square feet of net new impervious surface. Runoff from proposed impervious surfaces would be directed to the bioretention areas, where a water quality treatment process would begin. Bioretention areas would remove pollutants by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event onsite detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. In addition, all cities within Contra Costa County are required to implement surface water control standards for projects in compliance with Provision C.3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES Permit No. R2- 201500049. The Contra Costa County Clean Water Program created a C.3 Guidebook for the implementation of C.3 requirements. As a result of planned drainage treatment features, impacts would be less than significant.
109
DRAFT
Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California
Prepared for:
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
510.799.8248
Contact: Robert Reber, Community Development Director
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Report Date: July 5, 2022
110
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
111
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................ v Section 1: Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 - Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 - Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3.1 - Land Use and Zoning .............................................................................................. 2
1.4 - Project Description............................................................................................................ 2
1.4.1 - Project Phasing....................................................................................................... 4
1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals..................................................................................... 5
1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document....................................................................................... 5 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation...............................................19
2.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 27
2.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................... 30
2.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 55
2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................... 67
2.6 Energy......................................................................................................................... 74
2.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 80
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 87
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................. 96
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................... 101
2.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 107
2.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................... 111
2.13 Noise......................................................................................................................... 113
2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 124
2.15 Public Services.......................................................................................................... 126
2.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 130
2.17 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 132
2.18 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 138
2.19 Wildfire..................................................................................................................... 143
2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 146 Section 3: List of Preparers.......................................................................................................149 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Supporting Information Biological Resources Supporting Information
B.1 - Database Search Results
B.2 - Biological Resources Analysis Report
B.3 - Arborist Report
Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Geology and Soils Supporting Information
D.1 - Geotechnical Investigation
D.2 - Paleontological Records Search
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information
112
Noise Supporting Information
Public Services Supporting Information
Transportation Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures...................................32 Table 2: Construction Emissions............................................................................................................38 Table 3: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)......................................................................................39 Table 4: Project DPM Construction Emissions ......................................................................................43 Table 5: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk Calculations...............................................................44 Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction—Unmitigated ..................48 Table 7: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction........................50 Table 8: Odor Screening Distances........................................................................................................52 Table 9: Annual Project Energy Consumption.......................................................................................75 Table 10: Construction GHG Emissions................................................................................................. 89 Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions...................................................................................................90 Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update...............................................................93 Table 13: Existing Traffic Noise Model Results Summary....................................................................109 Table 14: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments in the City of Hercules...........................................................................................................................115 Table 15: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary.................................................................................120 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................................ 7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3a: Site Photographs.................................................................................................................11 Exhibit 3b: Site Photographs.................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 4: Site Plan................................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 5: Typical Planting Plan..............................................................................................................17 Exhibit 6: Rendering of Entry Street Scene from Skelly ........................................................................23 Exhibit 7: Visual Simulation of View from San Pablo Avenue ...............................................................25 Exhibit 8: Habitat Map ..........................................................................................................................65 113
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACTM Airborne Toxics Control Measure
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQP Air Quality Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BRA Biological Resources Analysis
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCTA Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHL California Historic Landmarks List
CHPS California Native Plant Society
114
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CRA Cultural Resource Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBR Daily Breathing Rate
DNL day/night average sound level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emissions Factors model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd gallons per day
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HI hazard index
HOA Homeowner’s Association
115
HPD Hercules Police Department
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in/sec inch per second
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JPA Joint Powers Authority
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt-hours
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night noise level
Leq equivalent sound level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MIR Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MM Mitigation Measure
MMBtu British Thermal Units
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MW megawatts
MWh megawatt-hours
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Air Pollution
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
116
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PFC perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PUC Public Utilities Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
REL Reference Exposure Level
ROG reactive organic gases
RS-L Residential Single-Family Low Density
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WCCUSD West Contra Costa Unified School District
WEF Wildlife Exclusion Fencing
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
117
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Skelly Residential Project in the City of Hercules, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Hercules has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the lead agency in the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. The intended use of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public, and identify mitigation measures that can feasibly reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.
The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response, and Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.
1.2 - Project Location
The project site is in the City of Hercules, in Contra Costa County, California (Exhibit 1). The 7.44-acre project site is located at 215 Skelly and is bound by single-family homes to the north and east; Pinole Creek and two single-family homes located on separate lots to the west; and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line to the south (Exhibit 2). The project site is associated with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 404-020-012. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mare Island, California 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, Land Grant: Pinole (Martinez).
1.3 - Environmental Setting
The project site has been partially developed with structures as early as 1902. The site currently contains a single-family residence, 58 horse paddocks, a permitted 2,400-square-foot storage building, miscellaneous outbuildings, and a large metal clad shed that appear to be an abandoned relic of the site’s previous use as a farm. Various pieces of mechanical equipment, a large tank, miscellaneous furniture, and piles of mulch, wood debris, and construction debris are strewn throughout the site (Exhibit 3a and 3b). The ground cover on-site consists of grass to waist-high vegetation, various mature and small trees and shrubs, and degraded asphaltic concrete and gravel driveways.
Two seasonal wetlands, comprising approximately 0.034 acres, are located along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to an old horse stall and paddock. Furthermore, the project site has a 0.10-acre perennial drainage feature along the southern boundary. These three features 118
would not be graded or developed; they would be preserved in their entirety as part of the proposed project and would support the comprehensive stormwater management strategy for the proposed development.
1 There are currently several utilities and easements on-site:
• an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) easement along the northeast portion of the site;
• a cell tower and a 10-foot access easement on the southeast portion of the site; and • a 40-foot Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) gas easement on the southeast corner of the site.
Surrounding land uses include single-family homes (north and east); the BNSF rail line, the Pinole Senior Center Building, and undeveloped land (south); and Pinole Creek and two single-family homes (west).
1.3.1 - Land Use and Zoning
The City of Hercules General Plan2 and the Hercules Zoning Map3 designate the project site as Residential Single-Family Low Density (RS-L). The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban single-family subdivisions. The RS-L designation allows for two to seven units per acre and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The minimum parcel size under the RS-L designation is 6,000 square feet, unless a smaller lot size is allowed with an approved development plan. With the approval of a Zoning Amendment and Planned Development Plan, the proposed project would be permitted to deviate from its zoning district standards in order to accommodate housing units within the site’s allowed General Plan density.
1.4 - Project Description
The applicant is proposing the development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 single-family residential lots on the approximately 7.44-acre project site (Exhibit 4). Development of the proposed project would involve the removal of approximately 76 existing trees, existing vegetation, and existing structures currently on the project site.
The proposed project would divide the project site into seven separate parcels (Parcels A-G) and 40 single-family residential lots. The residential lots would range from approximately 3,983 square feet to 6,880 square feet.
The proposed square footage and uses for the seven parcels are described as follows:
1 Olberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Skelly Property, City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California. March. 2 City of Hercules. 1998. City of Hercules General Plan – Land Use Element (Part 2). Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/155/636582802056930000. Accessed December 8, 2021. 3 City of Hercules. 2019. Hercules Land Use and Zoning Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/193/637109735029770000. Accessed December 8, 2021. 119
Parcel A This parcel would be 58,557 square feet and would be a private street and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road that connects to Skelly and circles the project site. The EVA road would vary in width in different places, ranging from 34 feet wide to 45 feet wide.
Parcel B This parcel would be a 16,957-square-foot bioretention area located at the northwest corner of the project site. This area contains the two seasonal wetlands described above in Section 1.3.
Parcel C Adjacent to Parcel B, this parcel would be 3,763 square feet and would serve as a second EVA road at the northwest corner of the project site, connecting the proposed private road to the adjacent residential area to the north of the project site. This road would be 25 feet wide.
Parcel D This parcel would be 20,858 square feet and would remain open space toward the southeast corner of the project site.
Parcel E Connected to Parcel D, this parcel would be 7,907 square feet with an existing cell tower at the southeast corner of the project site.
Parcel F This parcel would be 672 square feet located at the southwest corner of the project site and would provide a pedestrian connection to Pinole Creek Trail.
Parcel G This parcel would be 3,430 square feet and would be an EBMUD utility easement located along the northeast portion of the project site.
Additionally, three separate utility easements would exist along Parcel B, along Parcel G, and along the southern border of the project site.
The proposed project design was, in part, based on community feedback from the nearby neighborhoods. The proposed units would be comparably sized to the surrounding residential lots, with residences located to preserve neighbor privacy. Residences, which would all be two stories, would be similar in square footage to the adjacent homes along Pearce and Pavon. The maximum height of each single-family home would be 26 feet and 9 inches and would vary from 1,583 square feet to 2,311 square feet. Lot sizes would vary from 3,983 to 6,880 square feet. The proposed residential units would have front setbacks of at least 20 feet, rear setbacks of at least 27 feet, and minimum side setbacks of 5 feet. Project housing would be composed of three different architectural styles. Several fences, ranging in size from 3 to 6 feet tall, are planned between lots, and along the rear property lines throughout the project site.
Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by an extension of Skelly, which would also serve as an EVA road. A second EVA road would connect the proposed private road to the adjacent residential area to the north of the project site. Sidewalks would be provided on all new streets. 120
Parking
Each residence would have a two-car garage and a driveway with room to park two additional vehicles. On-street parking would also be provided within the project site to accommodate all resident and guest parking on-site.
Landscaping and Lighting
Each proposed residential unit would have a landscaped front yard including street trees, accent trees, groundcover, and shrubs (Exhibit 5). All plants would be selected for increased water conservation and low maintenance characteristics.
Lighting would be installed and would be subject to review and approval by the City of Hercules. The residential development would include 10 streetlights along Skelly and the Parcel A private road.
Utilities
Water
The EBMUD would provide potable water service to the project site. Under the existing conditions, an 8-inch water line is located along Skelly. The proposed 8-inch water lines would connect to the existing water line.
Wastewater
Wastewater is collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is operated by the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Under the existing conditions, an 8-inch sewer line is located along Rosti. The proposed 8-inch sewer lines would connect to the existing sewer line.
Energy and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas services would be provided by PG&E.
Stormwater
Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site.
1.4.1 - Project Phasing
Construction of the proposed project is expected to start in October 2023 and to conclude in October 2024. For the purposes of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was assumed to correspond to these dates. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. 121
1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Hercules has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA lead agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the City would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Lot Line Adjustment to expand the rear yard for emergency access • Design Review Permit
• Planned Development Plan to deviate from selected zoning district standards to accommodate housing units within the property’s allowed General Plan density • Zoning Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Hercules Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation
1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:
Tim Rood, Community Development Director
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Phone: 510.799.8251
Email: [email protected]
122
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
123
12 29
121
121
37 4
Napa County
Solano County
80 680
80 24
680
116
780
Benicia
Fairfield
Suisun City
Martinez
Bay Point
Pleasant Hill
Concord
Walnut Creek
Lafayette
Moraga
Orinda
Alamo
Danville
San Ramo
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
Castro Valley San Leandro
Vallejo
Contra Costa County
Hercules
Pinole
San Pablo
Richmond
El Cerrito
Albany
Berkeley
San Anselmo San Rafael
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
San Francisco
American
Canyon
Napa
Marin County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
21180006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional.mxd
Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). 5 2.5 0 5
Miles
Text
Project Site
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Site
Legend
City of Hercules
124
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
125
21180006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: bing Aerial Imagery. County of Contra Costa Parcel Data.
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City Limits
City of Hercules
City of Pinole
126
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
127
Photograph 1: Existing residence onsite.
Photograph 2: Existing vegetation.
21180006 12/2021 | 3a_site_photos.cdr • CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3a
Site Photographs
128
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
129
Photograph 3: Horse paddocks.
Photograph 4: Miscellaneous outbuildings.
21180006 12/2021 | 3b_site_photos.cdr • CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3b
Site Photographs
130
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
131
I
21180006 • 04/2022 | 4_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 4
Site Plan
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: R3 Studios, March 2022.
132
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
133
21180006 • 04/2022 | 5_Typical Planting Plan.cdr
Exhibit 5
Typical Planting Plan
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: R3 Studios, February 2022.
134
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
135
SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date:
6/29/2022
Signed:
136
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City’s Open Space and Conservation Plan designates several public parks, open space, waterfronts, and trails, which are valuable as a visual resource. The City has a scenic setting in which the higher areas east of Interstate 80 (I-80) overlook the San Pablo Bay, with distant views of the coastal range in Marin County. Areas west of I-80, closer to the Bayfront, also have scenic views. In addition, the Highway 4 corridor through Franklin Canyon has scenic views of the valley and adjacent hillside grasslands and oak woodlands. The General Plan Circulation Element designates San Pablo Avenue and Highway 4 as scenic routes and provides implementation measures for development along them. The nearest City-designated scenic route to the project site is San Pablo Avenue, which is approximately 250 feet southeast of the project site.
Because of distance, intervening development, and topography, scenic resources like the San Pablo Bay (approximately 2,800 feet west of the project site) and Franklin Canyon (approximately 2 miles east of the project site) are not visible from the project site. Exhibit 6 shows the existing view of the project site from Skelly, which consists of trees, a paved path, and fencing, and provides a rendering of the proposed project from Skelly. The rendering shows that some on-site trees would be removed, Skelly would be extended, and proposed residences would be sited on both sides of Skelly. Exhibit 7 shows a simulation from San Pablo Avenue overlooking the project site.
Would the project:
137
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. As discussed above, scenic resources, which include San Pablo Bay and Franklin Canyon, are not visible from the project site. Just south of the project site is San Pablo Avenue, which is designated as a scenic route between Pinole Valley Road and Willow Avenue. According to General Plan Policy 3.B.3, Scenic Views, key ‘public’ views visible from scenic routes, as determined by the City, shall be preserved to the extent practical.4 Under existing conditions, views available to travelers on San Pablo Avenue include railroad tracks, the City of Pinole monument, green space, trees, and the sky. The simulation in Exhibit 7 illustrates the views from San Pablo Avenue after the construction of the proposed project and the removal of eucalyptus trees on-site. Although the proposed project would remove up to 21 eucalyptus trees on-site, including eucalyptus trees that are currently visible from San Pablo Avenue, considering the typical speed of travel (25 miles per hour) along this roadway, the views for those traveling on San Pablo Avenue would be similar to the existing available views and therefore would not be significantly impacted. Therefore, because there are no scenic vistas visible from the project site, and because views from San Pablo Avenue would be similar to the existing views, there would be no impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
No impact. There are no designated State Scenic Highways near the project site. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route (SR) 24, located approximately 11 miles south of the project site.5 SR-37, located approximately 7 miles north of the project site, is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. The proposed project is not visible from either SR24 or SR-37. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings visible from these roadways. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than significant impact. Degradation of visual character or quality requires substantial changes to the existing appearance of a site by constructing elements that are poorly designed or that conflict with the existing surroundings. The 7.44-acre project site is located at 215 Skelly and is bound by single-family homes to the north and east; Pinole Creek and two single-family homes located on separate lots to the west; and the BNSF rail line to the south (Exhibit 2). Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be located in an area that has been built out and is in an urbanized condition.
4 City of Hercules. 2018. Circulation Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/173/636700226852830000. Accessed June 9, 2022. 5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highway System Lists. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed March 7, 2022.
138
As described in Section 1.3.1, Land Use and Zoning, the RS-L designation allows for 2 to 7 units per acre. The proposed project would construct 40 units on 7.44 acres, which is approximately 5.4 units per acre, compliant with the land use designation. The project applicant is requesting the City to enter into a Development Agreement which would establish site-specific zoning for the project site.
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely affect nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be derived from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). Light-sensitive land uses in the area may include the residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site.
The project site currently contains a single-family residence, horse paddocks, a storage building, a large shed, and miscellaneous outbuildings. All of these buildings have been vacated and do not create sources of light. Existing sources of light and glare around the project site include car headlights from cars driving along Skelly as well as internal lighting from adjacent residences.
The proposed project would create new sources of light and glare from the project site. Police 13e of the General Plan requires new development to minimize light and glare impacts through measures such as screening of parking areas, the use of hooded lights to direct light towards the ground, and the use of less reflective building materials and windows. According to the Open Space Element of the General Plan, the City of Hercules evaluates the light and glare potential of new development on a parcel-specific basis.
6 Lighting would be installed to minimize light pollution and would be subject to review and approval by the City of Hercules to ensure that the new sources of light and glare comply with the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the performance standards and design review as outlined in the City’s zoning requirements that would further reduce light and glare impacts. The residential development would include 10 streetlights along Skelly and the Parcel A private road. The streetlights would be subject to the Street Lighting Standards in Section 10-2.621 of the Municipal Code.7 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
6 City of Hercules. General Plan Open Space Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12571/636777935669470000. Accessed: June 14, 2022. 7 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules10/Hercules102.html. Accessed March 8, 2022. 139
Existing View
Simulated View
21180006 03/2022 | 6_rendering_of_entry_street.cdr •
Source: D.R. Horton, 2022. Applicant-provided Rendering/Visual Simulation.
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 6
Rendering of Entry Street Scene from Skelly Road
140
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
141
Existing View
Simulated View
21180006 03/2022 | 7_vis_sim_view_from_san_pablo_ave.cdr • Source: D.R. Horton, 2022. Applicant-provided Rendering/Visual Simulation.
CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 7
Visual Simulation of View from San Pablo Avenue
142
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
143
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) 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))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Evaluation
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
144
Setting
The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps that display farmland within the State. The California Department of Conservation Inventory Map confirms that the project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land.8 There are no designated agricultural lands or forested areas within the immediate project area.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No impact. As previously stated, the California Department of Conservation FMMP mapping for the City designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land.9 The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and, therefore, would not result in the conversion of such land to nonagricultural use. There would be no impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The Hercules General Plan and the Hercules Zoning Map designate the project site as RSL. The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban single-family subdivisions.10 Thus, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or with a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. c) 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))? No impact. As previously mentioned, the project site is zoned as RS-L, which is intended for suburban single-family subdivisions. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. According to the California Public Resources Code, “forest land” is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.11 The project site is zoned as RS-L and is not zoned for forest use. This condition precludes the possibility of a conflict with a 8 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 16, 2022. 9 Ibid. 10 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules Title 13 – Zoning Ordinance. October 13. 11 Thomson Reuters Westlaw. 2019. California Code, Public Resources Code 12220. 145
forest zoning designation. The project site does not contain nor is adjacent to any forested land.
Furthermore, there is no designated forest land within the City. Therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. As discussed throughout this section, the proposed project would not result in impacts to mapped farmland or forest land. The proposed project would not result in any other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agriculture uses or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses because neither agricultural nor forest land exist on the project site or in its vicinity.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
146
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable Air Quality Plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Evaluation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Hercules, Contra Costa County. It is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying non-attainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated non-attainment for State standards for 1- hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5).12
The BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies and plans to address regional air quality standards, the most recent of which is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was adopted in April of 2017 and serves as the regional Air Quality Plan (AQP) for the Air Basin for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan acknowledges that the BAAQMD’s two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 Clean Air Plan 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. May.
Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022.
147
identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EPA has established NAAQS for six of some of the most common air pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—known as “criteria” air pollutants. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous compounds in the atmosphere that are capable of absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, GHGs are responsible for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to global warming. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also accounts for projections of population growth provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process. This section will discuss the air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The BAAQMD does not provide a numerical threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis with AQPs. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the AQP.13 • Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder the implementation of any AQP control measures?
Criterion 1
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the current AQP to date, are to:
• Attain air quality standards.
• Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protect public health in the Bay Area. • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
A measure for determining whether the proposed project supports the primary goals of the AQP is if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. This measure is determined by evaluating whether the proposed project was reasonably accounted for in the AQP.
The City’s General Plan’s Housing Element was updated in 2015,14 which was prior to the BAAQMD’s 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022. 14 City of Hercules. 2015. Housing Element, 2015–2023. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/7801/636582802056930000. Accessed March 8, 2022. 148
adoption of the latest 2017 AQP. The project site is designated RS-L by the General Plan.
The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban singlefamily subdivisions. The RS-L designation allows for 2 to 7 units per acre and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The minimum parcel size under the RS-L designation is 6,000 square feet unless a smaller lot size is allowed with an approved development plan. With the approval of a Zoning Amendment and a Planned Development Plan per the Hercules Municipal Code Chapter 13-48,15 the proposed project would develop 40 single-family houses on a 7.44-acre land, which translates to an average density of approximately 5.4 units per acre and would be consistent with its land use and zoning designation. As the BAAQMD’s latest AQP utilizes growth projections from Plan Bay Area 2040, which relies on growth projections and land use patterns from local general plans and was adopted after the adoption of the City’s General Plan, development of the project site has been reasonably accounted for in the BAAQMD’s latest AQP.
Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 2.3(b), implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD operational or construction thresholds for criteria pollutants on an average daily or annual basis. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Criterion 2
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains control measures to reduce air pollutants and GHGs at the local, regional, and global levels. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 Clean Air Plan contains many control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary mobile sources. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes an account of the implementation status of control measures identified in the prior 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Table 1 lists the Clean Air Plan policies relevant to the proposed project and evaluates the consistency with the policies. As shown below, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable measures.
Table 1: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Hercules Municipal Code Title 9 Chapter 2 Building Code incorporates all measures contained in the 2019 California Building Code and Chapter 16 Green Building Standards Code includes all measures
from Title 24. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest energy efficiency standards
contained in these codes and incorporate applicable energy efficiency features designed to reduce project energy
consumption. For example, the proposed project would
15 City of Hercules. Municipal Code 13-48. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/html/Hercules13/Hercules1348.html. Accessed March 8, 2022. 149
Control Measure Project Consistency
include low water-demand landscaping, which would
reduce the amount of energy needed to provide outdoor
water. The City would enforce these measures prior to
issuance of demolition, grading, construction, or building permits, as applicable.
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet of
landscaping on Parcel D (about one-eighth of the
Parcel), which would serve to reduce stormwater
runoff and would include the planting of shade trees;
hence, it would also reduce the urban heat island
effect.
Energy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Generation Consistent. The project applicant would, at a minimum, be required to conform to the energy
efficiency requirements of the California Building
Standards Code (CBC), also known as Title 24. The
2019 Title 24 Standards are the current State building
regulations which went into effect on January 1,
2020. Proposed buildings that would receive building
permits after January 1, 2020, would be subject to
the 2019 Title 24 Standards, including the proposed
project. For example, the proposed project would
install solar photovoltaic systems capable of
generating 78,200 kWh of electricity per year as well
as low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads
compliant with Title 24 Standards.
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet (about
one-eighth of area) of landscaping on Parcel D.
Plantings would include trees, shrubs, and
groundcover.
WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent. The waste service provider for the proposed project would be required to meet the
Assembly Bill (AB) 341, Senate Bill (SB) 939, and SB
1374 requirements that require waste service
providers to divert green waste. In addition, AB 1383
went into effect on January 1, 2022, which aims to
reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025
and to secure 20 percent of surplus edible food for
the food insecure by 2025.16 RecycleMore provides
green waste service for the City of Hercules and
would provide all new residents with green waste
16 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (RecycleMore). 2022. New Recycling Law Starts January 1, 2022.
November 8. Website: https://recyclemore.com/new-recycling-law-starts-january-1-2022/. Accessed April 12, 2022. 150
Control Measure Project Consistency
bins. All vegetation refuse generated during
operations of the proposed project would be
disposed of off-site.
WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent: The waste service provider for the proposed project would be required to meet the AB
341, SB 939, and SB 1374 requirements that require
recyclable waste to be recycled and to remove 75
percent from the landfill waste stream by 2020.
Stationary Control Measures
SS36: Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent with mitigation. BAAQMD’s recommended mitigation measures for construction
fugitive dust control would be implemented to
reduce fugitive dust and trackout during project
construction. In addition, mud and dirt that may be
tracked out onto the nearby public roads during
construction activities shall be removed promptly by
the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent
with this measure after implementation of Mitigation
Measure (MM) AIR-1.
SS37: Particulate Matter from Asphalt Operations Consistent. Asphalt used during the construction of the proposed project would be subject to BAAQMD
Regulation 8, Rule 15-Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts.
Although this rule does not directly apply to the
proposed project, it does limit the reactive organic
gas (ROG) content of asphalt available for use during
construction through regulating the sale and use of
asphalt. By using asphalt from facilities that meet
BAAQMD regulations, the proposed project would be
consistent with this Clean Air Plan measure.
Transportation Control Measures
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Consistent. There are existing sidewalks along the proposed project’s frontage on Skelly that connects
to the nearest arterial road. Several bus stops are
located within a walking distance of the site,
including the San Pablo Avenue and John Street Stop
(500-foot walking distance to the project site) and
San Pablo and Hercules Stop (2,600-foot walking
distance to the project site) operated by Western
Contra Costa Transit Authority. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the
BAAQMD’s efforts to encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposedfinal-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed March 8, 2022. 151
As mentioned above in the discussion for Control Measure SS36, the proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-1 to ensure that impacts from construction fugitive dust emissions are less than significant. As discussed under Impact b, in their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the BAAQMD identifies recommended significance thresholds for project construction. While the BAAQMD recommends a numeric threshold for emissions of ozone precursors, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust, the BAAQMD recommends the inclusion of construction dust control BMPs to reduce fugitive dust emissions to less than significant levels. Projects that do not implement construction BMPs may result in potentially significant impacts related to construction fugitive dust. In accordance with this guidance, the proposed project would implement BAAQMD-recommended BMPs for fugitive dust control via the incorporation of MM AIR-1. The BMPs identified in MM AIR-1 include measures such as watering exposed non-paved surfaces at least two times per day, removing trackout from adjacent public roads at least once per day, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour.
In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable measures under the 2017 Clean Air Plan after the implementation of MM AIR-1; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Criterion 2 after incorporation of mitigation.
Criterion 3
The proposed project would constitute the development and operation of 40 single-family houses and would not include any feature or design which could create conditions which prevent the extension of adjacent transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not preclude the extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation of any AQP control measures. As shown in Table 1 above, the proposed project would incorporate several AQP control measures as project design features, such as complying with energy efficiency standards contained in the 2019 California Building Code and maintaining landscaping across the project site.
Considering this information, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures. The proposed project is therefore consistent with Criterion 3.
Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would be consistent with all three criteria after the incorporation of MM AIR-1. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a proposed project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the Air Basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. Therefore, new development projects (such as the 152
proposed project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in non-attainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.
Potential localized and regional impacts would result in exceedances of State or federal standards for nitrous oxide (NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or carbon monoxide (CO). NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of particular concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of particular concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion.
Reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.
The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable.
Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level.
The thresholds of significance represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can produce without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts.
Therefore, a proposed project that would not exceed the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance on the project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below.
Construction Fugitive Dust
As previously mentioned, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be generated during earthmoving activities but would largely remain localized near the project site.
The BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on considering the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. As the proposed project would involve the disturbance of greater than one acre, the development and implementation of a Stormwater 153
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction activities is reasonably expected to comply with existing regulations. The SWPPP would ensure the implementation of various dust control measures which are most appropriate for the project site. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, watering or seeding disturbed areas, covering stockpiles of dirt or aggregate, or other soil stabilization practices.
In addition, the BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects implement a series of mitigation measures which also include various dust control measures, such as watering disturbed areas daily and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads. As such, the construction mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD are included herein as Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1 to ensure that adequate dust control measures are implemented at the project site, in combination with any additional dust control measures identified and implemented by the SWPPP for the proposed project. With the incorporation of MM AIR-1, short-term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant for fugitive dust.
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate the proposed project’s construction emissions. CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and is the model recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating project emissions. Estimated construction emissions are compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance for this criterion.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in 2023 and would last approximately 13 months. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. For a more detailed description of the construction parameters used in estimating air pollutant emissions modeling, please refer to Appendix A.
The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower, and load factors of the equipment, along with the duration of use. As the proposed project would introduce the new on-site sensitive receptors, for the purposes of the air dispersion modeling and health risk assessment contained under Impact 2.3(c), project construction was split into two modeling scenarios: one for construction activity occurring before the introduction of new sensitive receptors and one for construction activity occurring after the introduction of new sensitive receptors. Therefore, the “Building Construction (Pre-Receptors)” and “Architectural Coating (Pre-Receptors)” construction activities shown in Table 2 represent development of Phases 1 through 5 up until the anticipated introduction of the first on-site receptors, while the “Building Construction (Post-Receptors)” and “Architectural Coating (Post-Receptors)” construction activities represent development of Phases 2 through 5 after the anticipated introduction of the first on-site 154
receptors. Refer to Appendix A for more details on project construction modeling. Average daily construction emissions are compared with the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in Table 2.
Table 2: Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1
(tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Demolition 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.01
Site Preparation (Site-Wide) 0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (Site-Wide) 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.01
Building Construction
(Model Homes) <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Paving
(Interior Roadways and
Foundations)
0.01 0.11 0.01 0.01
Architectural Coating
(Pavement and Model Homes) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction
(Pre-Receptors) 0.04 0.39 0.02 0.01
Architectural Coating
(Pre-Receptors) 0.28 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction
(Post-Receptors) 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating
(Post-Receptors) 0.27 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions (tons) 0.72 1.59 0.07 0.07
Daily Average
Total Emissions (lbs) 1,433 3,185 139 132
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 5.19 11.54 0.51 0.48 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG = reactive organic gases
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number of nonoverlapping working days of construction (276 workdays).
155
Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1
(tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A).
As shown in Table 2, the construction emissions from all construction activities are well below the recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction would have less than significant impact related to emissions of ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5. As previously discussed, the proposed project would implement MM AIR-1 for dust control to reduce potential impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during project construction. Therefore, proposed project construction would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Operational Emissions
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Operational emissions would include area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape equipment, while energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water and space heating. Mobile sources include exhaust and road dust emissions from the vehicles that would travel to and from the project site. Pollutants of concern include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.
Project operations were analyzed starting in 2024, the first calendar year of potential operation. The major sources for proposed operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 include motor vehicle traffic, use of natural gas, and the occasional repainting of buildings.
The average daily and annual emissions are presented in Table 3. Operational emissions of the respective pollutants were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. For detailed assumptions used to estimate emissions, see Appendix A.
Table 3: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Criteria Pollutants
ROG NOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Annual Emissions Summary (tons/year)
Area 0.37 0.01 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.09
Total Project Emissions 0.79 0.60 0.46 0.11
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Average Daily Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
156
Emissions Source
Criteria Pollutants
ROG NOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Project Emissions 1,586 1,203 917 222
Average Daily Project Emissions (lbs/day)1 4.34 3.30 2.51 0.61 Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = nitrous oxides.
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
1 For average daily emissions, the proposed project is assumed to operate 365 days per year. Therefore, the annual tonnage of emissions is multiplied by 2,000 pounds per ton to identify total pounds of emissions and divided by 365 days per year to identify average daily emissions.
Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A).
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance during operation, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The CO emissions from traffic generated by the proposed project are a concern at the local level.
Congested intersections can result in the potential for high, localized concentrations of CO, known as a CO hotspot.
The BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if all the following screening criteria are met:
1. The project is consistent with an applicable Congestion Management Program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; and
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
157
As indicated in the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared for the proposed project,17 no intersections impacted by the proposed project would experience traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour. The TIA analyzed two intersections, Hercules Avenue at Skelly and Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue, for both the AM and PM peak-hour scenarios. According to the TIA, during existing conditions both intersections would experience the highest traffic volumes during the PM peak-hour, the volumes during which are provided below:
• Hercules Avenue at Skelly–392 vehicles per hour
• Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue–2,664 vehicles per hour As discussed in the TIA, the proposed project would generate 337 daily trips with 28 AM peak-hour and 38 PM peak-hour trips. As a result, the addition of the proposed project’s 38 PM peak-hour trips at these intersections would equal an estimated 430 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at Skelly and 2,702 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue intersection. Therefore, during existing conditions the addition of proposed project traffic volumes would not result in nearby intersections experiencing traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour.
According to the TIA, during cumulative conditions both intersections would experience the highest traffic volumes during the PM peak-hour:
• Hercules Avenue/Skelly–454 vehicles per hour
• Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue–3,087 vehicles per hour As a result, the addition of the proposed project’s 38 PM peak-hour trips at these intersections would equal an estimated 492 vehicle at the Hercules Avenue at Skelly and 3,125 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue intersection. Therefore, during cumulative conditions, the addition of proposed project traffic volumes would not result in nearby intersections experiencing traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour.
Nonetheless, CO hotspots can still occur when a transportation facility’s design or orientation prevents the adequate dispersion of CO emissions from vehicles, resulting in the accumulation of local CO concentrations. The design or orientation of a transportation facility that may prevent the dispersion of CO emissions include tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban canyons, below-grade roadways, or other features where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. However, adjacent roadways that would receive new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project do not include transportation facilities where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Hercules Avenue, Skelly, and San Pablo Avenue, which are the nearby roadways that would receive vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, are all exposed surface roadways with none of the design features discussed above that could prevent atmospheric mixing.
17 TKJM Transportation Consultants. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for 215 Skelly Residential Project. 158
Finally, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to transportation. As discussed in further detail in Section 2.17 Transportation, all studied roadway segments and intersections would operate at acceptable levels with traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with existing traffic levels. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the local Congestion Management Program. Therefore, based on the above criteria, the proposed project would not exceed the CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to CO.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and residential areas.” As specified by the BAAQMD, health risk and hazard impacts should be analyzed for sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site.18 The closest existing sensitive receptors in each direction include the following:
• Pinole Senior Center Building, as close as 280 feet south of the project site. • La Casita Bilingual Montessori School, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
• Pinole Community Players, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
• Saint Joseph Church (potential daycare), as close as 1,000 feet south of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the west. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. • Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east.
The following four criteria were applied to determine the significance of project emissions to sensitive receptors. The proposed project is considered to have a potentially significant impact if:
• Criterion 1: Construction of the project would result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 2: The cumulative health impact would result in an exceedance of the cumulative health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 3: Operation of the project would result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022.
159
• Criterion 4: A CO hotspot assessment demonstrates that the project would result in the development of a CO hotspot that could cause an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.
Criterion 1: Project Construction Toxic Air Pollutants
An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions during construction. A summary of the assessment is provided below, while the detailed assessment is provided Appendix A.
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. Major sources of DPM include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck and worker activities. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5.
Estimation of Construction DPM Emissions
Construction DPM emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, as described under the discussion for Impact 2.3(b). As presented in Error! Reference source not found., the proposed project's construction is anticipated to occur from October 2023 through October 2024.
Construction emissions were calculated for each construction activity, as displayed in Table 2. On-site and off-site emissions generated during project construction were modeled with a working schedule of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.
Based on the analysis presented in this section, emissions were estimated for unmitigated project construction. Table 4 summarizes the emission rates of unmitigated DPM during construction of the proposed project, as analyzed for construction of the entire project.
Table 4: Project DPM Construction Emissions
Scenario
On-site DPM—Area
(tons/year)
Off-site DPM—Road
Segments
(tons/year)1
Total Local DPM
Emissions
(tons/year)
Project Construction DPM (Pre-Receptors) 0.04488 0.00046 0.04534 Project Construction DPM (Post-Receptors) 0.02050 0.00006 0.02056 Notes:
DPM = diesel particulate matter
1 The off-site emissions are adjusted to represent construction vehicle travel routes from within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site. Off-site emissions shown here do not reflect the 1,000-foot adjustment. 2 Emissions herein do not reflect the application of any construction or operational mitigation measures.
Source: CalEEMod Output and Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations; see Appendix A.
Estimation of Cancer Risks and Hazards
The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks that provide adjustment factors that emphasize the increased sensitivities and susceptibility of young children to exposures 160
to TAC.19,20 These adjustment factors include age-sensitivity weighting factors, age-specific daily breathing rates, and age-specific time-at-home factors. As shown in the AERMOD output files, the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) would be at a single-family residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. The following equations are drawn from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Health Risk Assessment (HRA) guidelines and were adjusted with values identified for adjustment in the BAAQMD guidelines.
Cancer Risk = CPF x DOSEAIR x ASP x ED/AT x FAH (EQ-1)
Where:
Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.
CPF = Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor (1.1)
ASP = Age Sensitivity Factor (see Table 5)
ED = Exposure Duration (duration of construction activity) AT = Averaging Time for lifetime cancer risk (70 years expressed in days) FAH = Fraction of time At Home (see Table 5)
DOSEAIR = CAIR x DBR x A x EF (EQ-2)
Where:
CAIR = TAC concentration from air dispersion model (µg/m3 )
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (see Table 5)
A = Inhalation Absorption factor (1)
EF = Exposure Frequency (see Table 5)
The BAAQMD- and OEHHB-recommended values for the various cancer risk parameters, shown in EQ-1 and EQ-2, are provided in Table 5.
Table 5: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk Calculations Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Residences1
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 350 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 350 10 1,090
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.
December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December.
Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-riskreduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol_august_2020-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022. 161
Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 350 3 631
9 to 16 years 1 1 350 3 572
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 0.73 350 1 261
30 to 70 years 1 0.73 350 1 233
Schools2
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 250 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 250 10 1,090
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 250 3 861
9 to 16 years 1 1 250 3 745
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 1 250 1 335
30 to 70 years 1 1 250 1 290
Daycares and Community Centers2
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 350 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 350 10 1,090
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 350 3 861
9 to 16 years 1 1 350 3 745
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 1 350 1 335
30 to 70 years 1 1 350 1 290
162
Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Notes:
L/kg-day = liters per kilogram body weight per day. 1 The daily breathing rates recommended by the BAAQMD for residential receptors assume the 95th percentile breathing rates for all individuals less than 2 years of age and 80th percentile breathing rates for all older individuals.
BAAQMD assumes residential receptors exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. BAAQMD further recommends applying the above FAH values to reflect the expected time the receptor spends at the residence. 2 All school, daycare, and community center receptors utilize the 95th percentile daily breathing rates for their respective age groups.
Sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2022.
Estimation of Non-Cancer Chronic Hazards
TACs can also cause chronic (long-term) effects related to non-cancer illnesses, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Non-cancer health risks are conveyed in terms of the hazard index (HI), a ratio of the predicted concentration of the facility’s reported TAC emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals. A significant risk is defined as an HI of 1 or greater. An HI of less than 1 indicates that no significant health risks are expected from the facility’s TAC emissions. The relationship for the non-cancer hazards of TACs is given by the following equation:
HI = Cann/REL
Where:
HI = Hazard Index: an expression of the potential for chronic non-cancer health risks Cann = Annual average TAC concentration (µg/m3
)
REL = Reference Exposure Level: the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated
Annual concentrations of DPM as predicted by the air dispersion model are used to estimate chronic non-cancer hazards. The OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m3 .
Estimation of Health Risks and Hazards from Project Construction To assess impacts to off-site sensitive receptors, receptor locations within the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) were placed at locations of existing residences and schools located in the vicinity of the project boundary. As previously discussed, project construction is anticipated to start in October 2023 and conclude in October 2024. The following AERMOD modeling parameters were utilized to identify the DPM concentration at identified receptors.
163
1. Sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, care facilities, residences) in the immediate project vicinity are represented in the model with discrete Cartesian receptors at a flagpole height of 1.5 meters. For schools, daycares, and community centers, including any associated outdoor areas, a boundary of discrete receptors was placed around the perimeter of that land use to identify potential impacts at the closest point to the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site represented in the air dispersion modeling include the following:
• Pinole Senior Center Building, as close as 280 feet south of the project site. • La Casita Bilingual Montessori School, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
• Pinole Community Players, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
• Saint Joseph Church (potential daycare), as close as 1,000 feet south of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the west. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. • Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east.
2. A nested Cartesian grid was placed in AERMOD with the following spacing parameters:
• 20 meters spacing within the project site and up to 200 meters from the project site. • 50 meters spacing between 200 meters and 500 meters from the project site. • 100 meters spacing between 500 meters and 1,000 meters from the project site. • 200 meters spacing between 1,000 and 2,000 meters from the project site.
3. AERMOD’s non-default regulatory dispersion option was selected. Among the dispersion control options available, the Fast All Sources option was selected.
4. The urban dispersion coefficient was used as greater than 50 percent of the surrounding three kilometers is developed.
5. Emissions were characterized in the model using various area and volume sources to represent different activities. The following describes the emission sources utilized in the model for each model scenario.
• On-site construction activities are represented with one polygon area source across the entire project site.
• Off-site construction hauling and vendor truck operation for project construction is represented with line volume sources on Skelly.
Off-site emissions were adjusted to account for off-site emissions that would occur within 1,000 feet of the project site (see Off-Site PM2.5 Exhaust Adjustment Sheet in Appendix A).
6. Meteorological data from the Napa County Airport Air Monitoring Station was used for lower atmospheric meteorological data. This station was selected as it is the closest monitoring station to the project site and it resembles physical site characteristics and elevation generally representative of the project site. The Oakland Airport Air Monitoring Station provides preprocessed meteorological data for upper atmospheric conditions in the region. 164
Both monitoring stations cover the years 2009-2014. The model used all years of available meteorological data.
The MIR during project construction were found at a residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. Table 6 presents a summary of the proposed project’s construction cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard, and annual PM2.5 concentration impacts at each MIR. For informational purposes, Table 6 also present risks and hazards associated with the maximum impacted school, daycare, and community center.
Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction—Unmitigated Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index5
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(mg/m3)
Residential MIR (Off-Site)1 6.21 0.01 0.05
Residential MIR (On-Site)1 3.46 0.01 0.06
School MIR2 0.12 <0.01 <0.01
Daycare MIR3 0.39 <0.01 <0.01
Community Center MIR4 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 The Off-site Residential MIR represents a residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. The On-site Residential MIR represents on-site receptors which were introduced following the completion of Phase 1 of construction.
2 The School MIR represents the La Casitas Bilingual Montessori School and associated outdoor areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
3 The Daycare MIR represents the Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. 4 The Community Center MIR represents the Pinole Community Players and associated outdoor areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust)by the Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 5 µg/m3.
Source: Appendix A.
As shown in Table 6, the residential MIR represents the MIR across all potentially impacted receptors, including school and daycare receptors, during project construction. As illustrated therein, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index, and annual PM2.5 thresholds of significance at either MIR.
Therefore, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
165
Criterion 2: Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For a project-level analysis, the BAAQMD provides several tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. The BAAQMD-provided tools used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from TACs are described below:
• Health Risks for Local Roadways. The BAAQMD pre-calculated concentrations and the associated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction for roadways that carry at least 30,000 average daily trips. For Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program areas, the BAAQMD also includes local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. The latest available screening tool is in the form of a Geographic Information System (GIS) raster file. As the proposed project is not located in a CARE area,21 the BAAQMD-screening tool does not include local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria for the project area. Therefore, traffic volumes were retrieved for roadways within 1,000 feet of the project site experiencing between 10,000 and 30,000 daily vehicle trips and calculated for their associated health risks. Those results are added to and shown in Table 7.
• Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool that contains preestimated cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area.
The nearest freeways to the proposed project include SR-80, approximately 3,400 feet east of the project site.
• Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool with the location of permitted sources and provides a health risk calculator that estimates and refines screen-level cancer risk, a non-cancer health hazard index, and PM2.5 concentrations using emissions data from BAAQMD's permitting database. 22 For each emissions source, the BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Based on information from the GIS tool, one BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources exist within the vicinity of 1,000 feet of the project site. • Rail Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared GIS tools that contain estimated cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from railroad operations at any point within the Air Basin. One existing railway is immediately adjacent to the south side of the project boundary. No other railways are within 1,000 feet of the project site. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2014. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-care-program.
Accessed March 8, 2022. 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Website:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65. Accessed March 8, 2022.
166
Cumulative Health Risk Assessment at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor A cumulative HRA was performed that examined the cumulative impacts of the proposed project’s construction emissions and sources of TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site.
The cumulative health risk results, including health risks from the existing stationary source, are summarized during project construction in Table 7. Cumulative health risk results shown therein are representative of the health risks to the MIR that would experience the highest concentration of pollutants, which represents the off-site residential MIR, as it would experience a greater potential impact on human health than any other previously identified MIR.
Table 7: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction Source/Impact Scenario Source Type
Distance
from MIR1
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Project MIR
Project Construction Diesel Construction
Equipment – 6.21 0.01 0.05
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
The Pump House
(ID 110796)
Gas Dispensing
Facility 1,835 0.24 ND 0.00
Roadways
Existing Local Roadway Network – 0.11 ND <0.01
San Pablo Avenue 270 2.84 ND 0.05
Rail
Existing Rail Lines (Burlington Northern Santa) – 11.71 ND 0.02 Freeways
Existing Freeways (SR-80) 3,400 9.18 ND 0.18
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Maximum with Project DPM Emissions 30.29 0.01 0.31 BAAQMD’s Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10 0.8 Threshold Exceedance? No No No
Notes:
HI = Hazard Index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
ND = no data available
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 The MIR above represents the greatest impacted MIR, which is the residence immediately adjacent to the east of the project site. 2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time.
Source: Appendix A.
167
As noted in Table 7, the cumulative impacts from the project construction and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project construction would be less than significant.
Criterion 3: Operational Emissions
The proposed project would result in the development and operation of 40 single-family houses. As previously discussed under Impact 3.2(b), the proposed project would not result in a potential CO hotspot. As described in the TIA prepared for the proposed project, an estimated 377 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the proposed project.23 As a residential development, it is anticipated that the proposed project would not generate noticeable heavy-duty vehicle trips.
Because the proposed project would generate 377 daily passenger vehicle trips and nearly all passenger vehicles are gasoline-fueled, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM emissions during operation; however, gasoline-fueled vehicles would still emit relatively small amounts of gasoline TACs such as benzene, isopentane, and toluene during project operation. Nonetheless, the potential cancer risks associated with non-diesel TACs emitted from gasoline vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are substantially less than the potential cancer risks associated with DPM emissions24 and are therefore not included in this analysis. Furthermore, these emissions would be dispersed throughout the local roadway network and would not solely be generated at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation.
Criterion 4: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Assessment
As discussed in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicle traffic volumes during project operation to substantiate creating a CO hotspot. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO emissions. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Summary
As described above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors at nearby residences, schools, daycares, or community centers to substantial pollutant concentrations during either construction or operations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and is subjective. The BAAQMD does not have a recommended 23 TKJM Transportation Consultants. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for 215 Skelly Residential Project. Accessed March 7, 2022. 24 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf?_ga=2.229617876.913681903.1594937953- 503090677.1594937953. Accessed March 8, 2022.
168
odor threshold for construction activities. However, the BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria that are based on the distance between receptors and types of sources known to generate odors. For projects within the screening distances, the BAAQMD has the following threshold for project operations:
An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance shown in Table 3-3 [of the BAAQMD’s guidance].
Two circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts:
1. A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, or
2. A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor.
Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 8 below, would not likely result in a significant odor impact.
Table 8: Odor Screening Distances
Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.
April 19. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed March 8, 2022. 169
Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and would be short-term and intermittent in duration and frequency. Therefore, project construction would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operation
While potential impacts from the environment on the project is not a specific CEQA issue, the BAAQMD recommends an evaluation of potential impacts from existing odor sources on land use projects that introduce new odor receptors. Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, agricultural operations, or other operations listed in Table 8. Using Google Maps, three automobile body shops, one wastewater treatment facility, and three coffee shops were identified within the associated screening distances. Public records retrieved from the BAAQMD show that one odor complaint was filed for the Wastewater Treatment Facility during 2018 to 2021. The complaint was investigated by BAAQMD staff and no further complaint was filed. The number of complaints for this facility is below the BAAQMD’s threshold as mentioned above. Therefore, the proposed project as a receptor during operation would not experience peculiar odor impacts from nearby sources.
The proposed project would construct 40 new single-family houses, whose operations could lead to odors from associated residential laundry cleaning, vehicle exhaust, outdoor cooking, and waste disposal. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to future and existing receptors.
To summarize, the proposed project as a source or receptor would not generate any peculiar emissions nor odors that adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices During Construction The following dust control measures, as recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), shall be included in the design of the proposed project and implemented during construction:
• All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least two times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • All visible mud or dirt tracked 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.
170
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • 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.
• 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 (ACTM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations. Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• 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. • The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The City and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
171
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from project implementation. The analysis is based on the following references materials provided in Appendix B:
• Results from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California database searches.
172
• Biological Resources Analysis (BRA) prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc. • Arborist Report prepared by Trees, Bugs, Dirt Landscape Consulting and Training Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. For the purpose of this analysis, special-status species refers to all species formally listed as threatened and/or endangered under the following:
• Federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). • California Species of Special Concern, designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW and given a CNPS rank25 or designated as special-status by city, county, or other reginal planning documents:
- Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere - Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere - Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere - Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed - Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
Federal and State-listed threatened and/or endangered species are legally protected under Endangered Species Act/CESA. The designated special-status species listed by the CNPS have no direct legal protection but require an analysis of significance of potential impacts under CEQA Guidelines. Special-status plant and wildlife species typically occur in undeveloped areas. Although it is less likely, it is also possible for them to occur within developed areas.
A site visit was conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Biologist, Robert Carroll, on January 27, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The site visit was conducted to confirm existing conditions on the project site as identified by Olberding Environmental, Inc. The project site is a former residence which contained barns and paddocks for horses and other livestock. The project site is bounded by dense residential developments to the north, west, and east; Pinole Creek to the southwest; and an active railroad line to the south.
There are six habitat types present on-site (Exhibit 8): developed (1.94 acre), ruderal grassland (4.40 acre), perennial drainage (0.10 acre), riparian woodland (0.17), eucalyptus woodland (0.86), and seasonal wetland (0.034 acre). The majority of project site is composed of ruderal grassland habitat; dominant vegetation observed within this area at the time of FCS’s survey included wild oat (Avena fatua), barbed wild oat (Avena barbata), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), ripgut brome (Bromus 25 All plants appearing on the CNPS List 1 or 2 are considered to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15830 criteria. While only some of the plants ranked 3 and 4 meet the definitions of threatened or endangered species, the CNPS recommends that all Rank 3 and Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration under CEQA. 173
diandrus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and a mix of other non-native species.
Special-status Plant Species
A plant’s potential to occur on the project site was based on presence of suitable habitats, soil types, and occurrences recorded by the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB within the Mare Island quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles.26 Based on a database search of the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, a total of 50 special-status plant species have been recorded with potential to occur within the region.
Because of previous development and current disturbances at the project site, and/or lack of specific suitable habitat types and conditions (including edaphic conditions such as serpentine soils), it was determined that none are expected to occur within the project site and are therefore excluded from further analysis, see Table 2 of the BRA (Appendix B) for a species-specific discussion of all 50 special-status plant species.
Special-status Wildlife Species
The potential for wildlife to occur on the project site was based on the presence of suitable habitats and occurrences recorded by the CNDDB within the Mare Island quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles.27 Sixty-three special-status wildlife species have been recorded with the potential to occur within greater vicinity of the project site, based on the CNDDB database search. Fifty-three of the 63 special-status wildlife species were determined either not likely to occur or to have no potential to occur due to absence of suitable habitat and/or site-specific habitat conditions and are therefore excluded from further analysis, see Table 2 of the BRA (Appendix B), which includes a speciesspecific discussion of all 63 special-status wildlife species.
Ten special-status wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur on-site or within disturbance distance: monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus); nesting birds, including Redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); roosting bats, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), silverhaired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). These 10 species are addressed in more detail below.
Roosting bats: pallid bat, hoary bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver-haired bat, and Yuma myotis
The project site contains vacant structures and trees that could provide suitable bat-roosting habitat.
Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats due to removal of potential roosting habitat during project construction. These activities could potentially subject bats to risk of death or injury, and they are likely to avoid using the area until such construction activities have dissipated or ceased. Relocation, in turn, could cause hunger or stress among individual bats by displacing them into adjacent territories belonging to other individuals; impacts to these species would be significant. MM 26 Oberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis. Skelly Property City of Hercules, California. 27 Ibid. 174
BIO-1A would require a roosting bat survey to be conducted prior to the start of project construction to reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels. If bats are identified on the project site, MM BIO-1A details modifications to construction activity that would be taken by a qualified Biologist to exclude bats from the site.
Nesting birds: Red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and white-tailed kite The trees and shrubs present throughout the project site and riparian vegetation adjacent to the perennial drainage provide nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code. These species include white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, and common songbirds (passerine birds). Construction activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs within and around the project site. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging. If MBTA and/or Fish and Game Code protected species’ nests are present, impacts to these species would be significant. MM BIO-1B would require pre-construction surveys and modification of construction activities to avoid disturbance of any active nests, including active nests of special-status bird species, if present, which would reduce impacts to migratory and nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and Fish and Game Code (including specialstatus species such as Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite) to less than significant levels.
Monarch butterfly
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) ranges from southern Canada throughout the United States and Central and South America. Each autumn (August through October) monarch butterflies migrate south to overwinter in massive aggregations in coastal California and in central Mexico. Monarchs typically reach their overwintering grounds by September or October. Monarchs select overwintering sites based on protection from high wind and storms, absence of freezing temperatures, presence of spatially variable light, such as full sun, shade, and dappled sunlight, the presence of high humidity, and availability of water. These aggregations of sometimes millions of individuals can be found in sheltered groves of trees such as eucalyptus, Monterey, and cypress.28 There is one recorded occurrence of a monarch butterfly overwintering site within 5 miles of the project site. A population of overwintering monarchs was observed within blue gum eucalyptus trees at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline from 1980 to 2011, approximately 3.5 miles west of the project site. The project site contains blue gum eucalyptus trees that could provide suitable habitat for overwintering monarch butterflies. For these reasons, the monarch butterfly has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. MM BIO-1C would require an overwintering survey and identifies actions to avoid disturbance of any active overwintering monarch butterflies on the project site to less than significant levels. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? 28 Oberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis. Skelly Property, City of Hercules, California. 175
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The CDFW maintains a list of natural communities that classifies vegetation types found within the State of California and ranks them based on rarity. Communities ranked S1-S3 are considered sensitive natural communities. 29 Wetlands and riparian habitats are also typically considered sensitive natural communities and are addressed in the environmental review process. The project site contains two sensitive natural communities: Seasonal Wetlands and Riparian (Riparian Woodland/Perennial Drainage). Each of these natural communities are discussed below.
Riparian Habitat (Riparian Woodland and Perennial Drainage [0.27 acre]) The southern boundary of the project site contains a perennial drainage with associated riparian vegetation that covers 0.27 acres of the project site. Riparian vegetation communities are considered sensitive. The perennial drainage (0.10 acre/454 linear feet) contained standing water through most of its length. Dominate species observed included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English ivy (Hedera helix). This feature is surrounded by riparian woodland habitat. Riparian woodland habitat (0.17 acre) is dominated by a mix of both native and non-native trees such as blue gum eucalyptus, coast redwood, California buckeye, arroyo willow, and red willow.
Seasonal Wetlands (0.034 acre)
Two seasonal wetlands are located along the northern boundary of the project site. Dominant vegetation observed within this feature includes but is not limited to bristly ox-tongue, rabbitsfoot grass, salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and common plantain (Plantago major). Naturally occurring seasonal wetland plant communities can generally be considered sensitive natural communities.
Proposed project construction would avoid direct impacts to on-site sensitive natural communities.
While the proposed project would avoid direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, project construction has the potential for indirect (temporary) adverse impacts to on-site aquatic features.
Potential temporary indirect impacts include pollutant loading, increased erosion and sedimentation, and debris dispersal. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to on-site sensitive natural communities to less than significant levels by avoiding work in riparian habitat and creek areas, implementing erosion control measures, and the prevention of substances toxic to fish and wildlife from leaching into riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site contains two seasonal wetlands along the northern boundary of the project site. As noted above, project design would avoid direct impacts to State or federally protected wetlands. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to State or federally protected wetlands to less than significant 29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed April 12, 2022.
176
levels by avoiding work in wetland areas, implementing erosion control measures, and preventing substances toxic to fish and wildlife from leaching into wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact. The main wildlife corridor within the vicinity of the project site is Pinole Creek. Pinole Creek is located to the southwest and is separated from the project site by residential development and a public walking trail. The perennial drainage located on the southern boundary of the project site empties into Pinole Creek. Project construction would avoid directly or indirectly impacting either the perennial drainage or Pinole Creek by implementing MM BIO-2; which calls for avoiding work near aquatic features, preventing erosion (sedimentation or toxic substance runoff or leaching), and constructing wildlife exclusion fencing. Due to these avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impacts on wildlife corridors or to impede the use of nursery sites, therefore project-related impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City of Hercules through Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 15. Mature trees are defined by the City as any living tree with a trunk diameter measuring 12 inches or greater when measured at roughly 4.5 feet above the ground. According to the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), there are 95 trees on or near the project site that qualify as mature trees. Based on the proposed project’s grading plan and the Municipal Code, the Arborist Report recommended the preservation of 18 trees and the removal of 76 trees.
30 Implementation of MM BIO-3, which requires
a tree replacement plan prior to receiving a City tree removal permit, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and any impacts to mature trees would be reduced to less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1A Roosting Bats
30 Trees, Bugs, Dirt Landscape Consulting and Training. 2022. Arborist Report, 215 Skelly – Hercules, CA. March. 177
• A qualified Biologist with relevant roosting bat experience shall conduct a survey for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat or bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.). • Visual surveys shall include trees and structures within 500 feet of project construction activities (where accessible). Not more than 2 weeks prior to building demolition and/or tree removal, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey the trees and structures proposed for removal for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, removal may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one-way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the space, the Biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Structure and tree removal shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. Bat exclusion shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, to avoid impacts on non-volant (i.e., nonflying) individuals.
MM BIO-1B Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
• If the project requires trees to be removed during the nesting season (usually February through August), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance (including tree removal) to determine whether or not active nests are present. • If an active nest is located during pre-construction survey, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on the species and anticipated disturbance level. (The California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors.) A qualified Biologist shall delineate the avoidance buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the avoidance buffer(s).
The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest during construction activities to prevent any potential impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged.
178
MM BIO-1C Overwintering Monarch Butterfly
Project activities such as vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted between November 1 and July 31 (outside of the overwintering season) to the extent feasible. If such activities must be initiated during the overwintering season (August 1 through October 31), a pre-construction overwintering survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than 7 days prior to vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground disturbance. The survey shall include the disturbance area and surrounding 250 feet to identify the location and status of any colonies that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by project activities. If no colonies are present, then project activities can commence as scheduled. If a colony is present, project construction shall cease immediately to avoid all direct and indirect impacts and report the presence of the colony to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and follow all recommendations provided by USFWS and CDFW.
MM BIO-2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for On-Site Aquatic Features • No work within the Riparian Corridor and Creek Banks or Bed. No work (including vegetation removal) shall take place within this area unless specifically permitted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). • Erosion Control: At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter on-site aquatic features and their associated habitats. Erosion control measures shall be utilized throughout all phases of operation where sediment runoff from the project may enter these aquatic features. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid erosion, uncontrolled stormwater runoff and bank deterioration shall be implemented, following the requirements of the proposed project’s Stormwater Control Plan, and typically include silt fencing, coir rolls, and/or straw bale dikes. • Prevention of Toxic Substances/Pollution. No substances toxic to fish and wildlife shall be discharged or allowed to leach into the aquatic features present on-site.
Reasonable precautions to protect aquatic habitats from pollution with harmful materials (e.g., fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents) shall be implemented.
Specifically, all potentially hazardous materials shall be controlled, cleaned up, and properly disposed of in accordance with the project’s water quality control permits and plans. Materials deleterious or toxic to fish and wildlife, including, but not limited to, asphalt, tires, concrete, construction materials, treated wood, and creosote containing materials, shall not be stockpiled within 150 feet any aquatic feature present on-site.
• Wildlife Exclusion Fencing and Monitoring. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (WEF) shall be constructed around the entire perimeter of the project site and the northern riparian dripline associated with the perennial drainage, to prevent wildlife from entering the work area. A qualified Biologist shall be on-site to monitor the installation of WEF. WEF shall be in place and regularly maintained during project 179
implementation. Fencing shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of work, and temporarily impacted areas shall be restored to pre-project conditions.
MM BIO-3 Protection of Mature Trees (Tree Inventory and Replacement Plan) • The project applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the City’s tree ordinance (Title 4, Chapter 15), which includes a submittal of a Tree Replacement Plan to the City prior to the removal of trees and/or prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit. Prior to the submission of the Tree Replacement Plan, a certified arborist shall conduct a Tree Inventory to determine the number and type of trees scheduled to be removed.
• Following the completion of the Tree Inventory, a certified arborist shall complete the Tree Replacement Plan and shall designate the approximate locations, number, and sizes of trees to be planted. The Tree Replacement Plan shall include a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for City-protected trees impacted by project construction.
180
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
181
21180006 • 04/2022 | 8_habitat_map.cdr CITY OF HERCULES
SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 8
Habitat Map
Source: Olberding Environmental, 12/3/2020. I
182
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
183
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project 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:
d) 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
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural and tribal cultural resources (TCRs) setting and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. This section is based on a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared by FCS on April 7, 2022, and a Historical Built Environment Assessment prepared by South Environmental on March 10, 2022. Descriptions and analysis in this section are also based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks (CHL) list, California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). Non-confidential records search results and other correspondence are included in Appendix C. 184
Northwest Information Center Records Search
On January 12, 2022, a records search for the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius was conducted at the NWIC located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historical aerial photographs, and historical maps to evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site.
The results of the records search indicated that there are no recorded cultural resources located within the project site. However, 12 resources (four prehistoric and eight historic) have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site. In addition, four area-specific survey reports are on file with the NWIC for the 0.5-mile search radius; two reports (S-001128 and S-036815) address the project site, indicating that the project site has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. A records search map identifying the proposed project boundaries and 0.5-mile search radius and the relevant non-confidential records search results are included in Appendix C.
Pedestrian Survey
On January 20, 2022, FCS conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. The survey began in the northeast corner of the project site and moved east, using north–south transects spaced at 15-meter intervals whenever possible. All areas of proposed development were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. All areas of the exposed ground surface were examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal, and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). In addition, the project site was inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. This includes raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools such as obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.
Because of vegetation, visibility of native soils was less than 5 percent. Native soils were most clearly visible in artificial cuts and in areas where bioturbation had exposed subsurface soils. Other sections of poor visibility were intermittently inspected using a hand trowel. Visible observed soils were composed of dark brown loam interspersed with small (2-3 cm) pebbles consisting of quartz, schist, and basalt. No prehistoric artifacts, cultural resources, or raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.) were found within the project site.
Close inspection of structures at the site, however, revealed the presence of structures over 45 years in age. Approximately two weeks before the pedestrian survey, two of the structures in the central portion of the project site were extensively damaged by a man-made fire. Pedestrian survey photos can be found in Appendix C.
185
Native American Heritage Commission
On December 20, 2021, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on March 11, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to identify and recorded Native American cultural resources within the project site. The NAHC included a list of seven tribal representatives that may offer additional information regarding the proposed project. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by implementation of the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing proposed project information and requesting additional information was sent to each tribal representative on March 11, 2022. On March 23, 2022, a response was received from the Confederate Villages of Lisjan Tribe requesting results from the NWIC. This information was provided to the tribe on April 6, 2022. The Tribe replied on April 20, 2022, indicating that the Tribe has no further information to supply about the proposed site for this plan. No other responses have been received to date. Correspondence related to the NAHC record searches and tribal representatives can be found in Appendix C.
Historic Built -Assessment
The term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §5020.1(j)). One potentially significant historic built-environment resource over 50 years old was identified within the project site: the previously identified Ellerhorst Home (P-07-001005), which consists of the main residence built, c. 1873, along with several other outbuildings and structures. The entire property was evaluated for historical significance on the appropriate set of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms in consideration of CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. Although the property has important historical associations with early settlement patterns and significant individuals in Hercules, a recent fire destroyed much of the main residence such that the property can no longer convey these important associations. Therefore, as a result of compromised integrity, the property was found ineligible for the CRHR or NRHP, and should not be considered a significant historic resource under CEQA. The built environment assessment report can be found in Appendix C.
Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “historical resources” as resources listed in the CRHR or a local register, determined significant by the lead agency, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR. The criteria for eligibility are generally set by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the NRHP, and which recognizes properties that are significant at the federal, State, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association relative to American 186
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture.31 In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible.
The records search conducted at the NWIC determined that there are eight historic-era resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which are located within the project boundaries.
The BERD and pedestrian survey identified a potentially significant historic built-environment resource (the Ellerhorst Home: P-07-001005), however a Historic Built Environment Assessment conducted by South Environmental determined the resource was not eligible for the CRHR or NRHP, and therefore, should not be considered a significant historic resource under CEQA.
The project site does not contain any buildings, structures, or objects that could potentially qualify as historical resources under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under either of these categories.
Although the results from the NWIC indicate that there are no recorded archaeological resources within the project site, four prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within a 0.5 mile radius of the site. Additionally, poor soil visibility during the pedestrian field survey and the presence of a historic-era homestead dating to 1873 on the property increase the possibility that undiscovered archaeological resources may be encountered and impacted by construction activities.
Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would constitute a potentially significant impact.
Therefore, MM CUL-1, requires that a qualified Archaeologist be present during the demolition of buildings at the site, grubbing and ground clearance, and during initial grading and project-related ground disturbance. Furthermore, MM CUL-1 sets forth the steps to be taken should any significant cultural resources be discovered during construction activities. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project site. While it is unlikely that human remains exist within or near the project site, there is always a possibility that subsurface construction activities associated 31 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2021. Publications of the National Register of Historic Places. Website:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm. Accessed May 1, 2021. 187
with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-2 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. Along with compliance with required guidelines and statutes, implementation of MM CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project 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:
d) 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 Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A review of the CRHR, local registers of historical resources, the NWIC records search results, and NAHC Sacred Lands File search results failed to identify any previously listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. However, should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-2, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. FCS conducted tribal outreach with the seven tribal representatives identified by the NAHC. In compliance with AB 52, the City of Hercules distributed letters to Native American tribes that have previously requested notification for AB 52 consultation, notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City of Hercules regarding the proposed project. At the time of this publication, no requests for consultation have been received. Consultation letters were mailed on April 12, 2022. While the City of Hercules has not identified any additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-2, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present during the demolition of buildings at the 188
site, grubbing and ground clearance, and during initial grading and project-related ground disturbance. Should exposed soils indicate archaeological resources may be present, archaeological monitoring of all project related ground disturbance will continue as determined necessary by the Archaeologist. In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the lead agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historical dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site should be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA Guidelines.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the lead agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the lead agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the lead agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
MM CUL-2 Should previously unknown buried human remains be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed.
In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once projectrelated earthmoving begins, and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of 189
the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or
2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the Commission;
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
190
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Energy is generally transmitted either in the form of electricity, measured in kilowatts (kW) 32 or
megawatts (MW),33 or natural gas measured in US Therms. 34 Electricity is used primarily for lighting,
appliances, and other uses associated with the proposed project. Natural gas is used primarily for space and water heating, when applicable. This section discusses how the proposed project is consistent with the significance thresholds contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant impact.
The anticipated construction schedule for the proposed project was assumed to begin in 2023 and last approximately 13 months. Should the construction schedule be delayed to later years, construction energy demand would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks. 32 1 kW = 1,000 watts; A watt is a derived unit of power that measure rate of energy conversion. 1 watt is equivalent to work being done at a rate of 1 joule of energy per second. In electrical terms, 1 watt is the power dissipated by a current of 1 ampere flowing across a resistance of 1 volt. 33 1 MW = 1 million watts 34 A unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units. A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of 1 atmosphere. 191
The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 24,300 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).
Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors model (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate 182,808 VMT and a combined 8,254 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.
Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 6,555 kilowatthours (kWh) during the 13-month construction (Appendix A).
The proposed project’s construction is not anticipated to result in unusually high energy use.
Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with State regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, the overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption, and energy impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Energy consumption of the proposed project is summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Electricity Consumption 256,033 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 1,540,000 kBTU/year
Total Fuel Consumption 29,686 gallons/year
192
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
Source: Appendix A
Unmitigated operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 256,033 kWh of electricity and an estimated 1,540,000 kilo-British Thermal Unit (kBTU) of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168, the proposed project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
The TIA determined that the countywide35 residential VMT per capita generated by the Contra Costa Transportation Analysis travel demand model is 19.78, while the proposed project would generate
14.45 VMT. As discussed in Section 2.17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in an approximately 27 percent reduction in per capita VMT from regional average estimates. As such, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in per capita transportation energy consumption with respect to employee transportation energy resources.
In 2020, the County consumed a total 8,622,380 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and 1,062 million US Therms, or approximately 106,174,600 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) as well as a population of 1,149,853 residents.36,37 As such, the County currently has an estimated per capita energy consumption of 7,499 kWh and 92.3 MMBtu per year. As shown in Table 9, the proposed project would result in up to 256,033 kWh per year and up to 1,540,000 kBTU/year per year.
Considering the City’s average persons per household of 3.05,38 the proposed project, consisting of 40 dwelling units, would result in the introduction of an estimated 122 new residents. However, using a more conservative estimate based on Contra Costa County’s average persons per household of 2.86, the proposed project, consisting of 40 dwelling units, would result in the introduction of an estimated 115 new residents. Therefore, based on the more conservative estimate, the proposed project would result in a per capita energy consumption of 2,226 kWh per year and 13.39 MMBtu per year, both of which would be below the County’s average electricity and natural gas 35 County estimates are utilized for purposes of this discussion rather than City estimates because relevant energy consumption data is not available at the City level. 36 California Energy Commission. 2022. Energy Consumption Database. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed April 13, 2022. 37 California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/. Accessed April 13, 2022. 38 Ibid. 193
consumption rates. As such, the proposed project would contribute to the overall energy conservation goal of reducing per capita energy consumption.
Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code energy efficiency standards. For example, the proposed project would install solar photovoltaic systems capable of generating 78,200 kWh of electricity per year, and low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads that are compliant with the California Building Standards Code (CBC). California Building Code energy efficiency standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Compliance with the CBC would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. As a result, the increase in energy conservation and efficiency would reduce the amount of potentially fossil fuel-sourced electricity consumption, and thereby reducing project reliance on fossil fuels.
Project-related vehicle trips would consume fuel throughout the life of the proposed project due to residents’ vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the project site. This analysis evaluated operational fuel consumption based on the proposed project’s operational assumptions.
Regional access to the project site is provided by SR-80, which is 3,400 feet east of the project site.
As a result, the proposed project is located near regional and local roadways that would provide convenient access for future residents and would not result in excessively long vehicle miles traveled. Thus, the location of the proposed project would help minimize fossil fuel reliance with respect to transportation fuel consumption.
Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to increase the reliance on renewable energy sources. As the proposed project constitutes a low-rise residential development, it would be required by the California Building Code to incorporate rooftop solar, provided no code exemptions apply to the proposed project such as limited roof space or an alternative contribution to a community solar or battery storage facility. If the proposed project were to seek a code exemption for rooftop solar under the premise that there is not sufficient rooftop space to support the installation of a rooftop solar system, then the proposed project would not include on-site renewable energy generation due to technical limitations. Similarly, if the proposed project were to seek another code exemption for rooftop solar, the exemption would require that the developer solely or by contribution construct and maintain a community solar facility or a community battery storage facility, which would likely provide the proposed project with and/or facilitate the proposed project’s use of renewable energy. Should a future community solar facility or community battery storage facility be proposed as a result of the proposed project seeking a code exemption for rooftop solar that does not directly benefit the proposed project’s consumption of renewable energy sources, that future facility would benefit the community’s cumulative renewable energy consumption.
As such, the proposed project would incorporate renewable energy technologies consistent with the CBC, thereby actively increasing future residents’ reliance on renewable energy sources. Moreover, 194
the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure standards for the development type, such as pre-wiring to facilitate future installation of EV charging stations. As a result, the proposed project would be incrementally increasing overall reliance on renewable energy sources by including on-site renewable energy generation technologies and incorporating EV charging infrastructure to facilitate the future use of EVs.
Considering the above analysis, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficiency, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact.
Construction
The proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels.
Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations. There are no renewable energy standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project. As a result, construction would not conflict with or obstruct any regulations adopted for the purposes of increasing the use of renewable energy. Furthermore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to construction energy efficiency and use of fossil fuels or decreased use of renewable resources.
Operation
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. In 2019, PG&E obtained 29 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (44 percent),and large hydroelectric (27 percent). 39 PG&E also offers a Solar Choice 50
percent option that sources 64 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources and a Solar Choice 100 percent option that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity provider meets the State’s current objective of 33 percent. The proposed project’s electricity provider would also be required to meet the State’s future objective of 60 percent of in-State electricity sales being generated from renewable energy sources by 2030. The buildings would be designed in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. For example, the proposed project would install 39 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2019 Power Content Label. Website:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2020/1220- PowerContent-ADA.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2021.
195
solar photovoltaic systems capable of generating an estimated 78,200 kWh of electricity per year and low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads that are compliant with Title 24 Standards.
The City has not adopted a Climate Action Plan, therefore the City’s General Plan would be referenced herein as the applicable local plan adopted for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
The City adopted its General Plan in 1998 and recently updated its Housing Element in 2015.40 The Housing Element mentions that the City works with the utility provider PG&E to offer a range of incentives to encourage energy conservation, including rebates for energy-efficient appliances and home improvements. The Housing Element also states its Goal 6.0: “Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Hercules” with the following policies:
Policy 6.1 Promote the use of Green Building techniques in residential development.
Policy 6.2 Ensure all new residential development complies with energy efficiency performance standards of the California Building Standards Code.
Policy 6.3 Utilize site planning techniques to allow passive energy efficiencies through solar access, landscaping and building orientation.
Policy 6.4 Seek opportunities to educate the public about energy conservation.
Policy 6.5 Encourage energy conservation measures and solar systems in existing homes where feasible and cost-effective.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (for example, EV charging infrastructure and solar requirements) in effect at the time building permit applications are received. In doing so, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy conservation policies stated in the City’s General Plan because it would comply with the relevant solar power building code, utilize passive energy efficiency through low water demand landscaping, and comply with other relevant California Building Code standards. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
40 City of Hercules. Housing Element of General Plan. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/general-plan.
Accessed March 8, 2022.
196
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. on November 11, 2021 (Appendix D).
197
Setting
Based on the City of Hercules’ geographic location being within the San Francisco Bay Area, the City is within a seismically active region. The proposed project is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Coast Range Geomorphic Province is characterized by a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys that align subparallel with the San Andreas Fault System.41 The Northern California region contains a number of active, potentially active, and inactive faults, and it is considered a region of high seismic activity.
Five major faults are located near the City of Hercules, including the San Andreas (approximately 21 miles to the southwest of the City), Hayward (approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the City), Concord-Green Valley (approximately 11 miles southwest of the City), Calaveras (approximately 40 miles to the southeast), and Rodgers Creek (approximately 10 miles to the west) faults. Two additional, inactive faults, the Pinole and Franklin, are located in the City’s vicinity; however, both are inactive as future movement along the two faults are unlikely. According to the Hercules General Plan Safety Element, the USGS has estimated that there is a 67 percent probability that there could be one or more earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater in the Bay Area in the next 30 years.42 The nearest major fault is the Pinole Fault located approximately 0.3 mile from the project site.43 The nearest known active fault (defined by movement occurring less than 11,700 years ago) is the Hayward Fault, located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site.
The exploratory borings drilled as part of the geotechnical field investigation encountered groundwater at depths between 11 and 13 feet on the western portion of the site. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings on the eastern portion of the site. Groundwater elevation may fluctuate based on seasonality, nearby development activities, and urbanization, among other factors. The ABAG has published an interactive map of liquefaction susceptibility within the Bay Area. This mapping indicates that the site has a low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction.44 Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than significant impact. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, however, the project site is located in a seismically active region. The nearest known active fault is the Hayward Fault, located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site. Construction and 41 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at 215 Skelly, Hercules, California. November 11. 42 City of Hercules. 1998. City of Hercules General Plan – Safety Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 16, 2022. 43 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at 215 Skelly, Hercules, California. November 11. 44 Ibid.
198
design would use standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC, which would reduce impacts in case of rupture of the Hayward Fault. In addition, the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies outlined in the Safety Element relating to geologic hazards. Therefore, the possibility of the proposed project directly or indirectly experiencing significant fault rupture is low and project impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project is located within a seismically active region, and strong shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project, which could damage future improvements on the site and expose people to injury. To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the proposed project shall be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC. The 2019 CBC requires use-modified spectral accelerations and velocities for most structural designs. In addition, a Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project. MM GEO-1 must be implemented to ensure the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations regarding site grading, demolition, foundation design, and construction are incorporated into the project plans and the City reviews and approves these elements. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure project design and construction plans take into consideration the unique site-specific conditions to ensure the structures provide a solid foundation and withstand seismic activities. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO-1 and compliance with CBC requirements would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loosely water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. Variables that contribute to liquefaction include age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and groundwater level. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. Although the site is not located within a known liquefaction hazard zone evaluated by the California Geological Survey (CGS), according to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site has low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction as it is assumed to have a design groundwater table of 15 feet for depth. Furthermore, based on the Geotechnical Investigation, ground borings indicated that the potential for liquefaction on the project site is considered nil.
Furthermore, any potential liquefaction hazards would be minimized by using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site has not been evaluated for seismic landslide hazards. The Geotechnical Investigation’s description of the project site notes there is a near vertical slope along the majority of the eastern border of the site. According to the General Plan Safety Element, 199
landslides have occurred in the City of Hercules, particularly in the southeastern part of the City. An earthquake could trigger landslides, particularly upon steeper slopes where slide activity has already occurred. The amount of sliding would be intensified if an earthquake were to occur during wet winter months when the slopes were in a saturated, weakened condition. According to Figure 10, Landslide Susceptibility, of the Safety Element, the project site has mostly low to moderate susceptibility of landslides, with an area of high susceptibility to landslides on the southeastern portion of the site.
45 As such, MM GEO-1 would require the project applicant to incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans to reduce potential geological hazards such as landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC.
In addition, the proposed project would incorporate recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation into project design and construction to reduce impacts related to landslides with implementation of MM GEO-1. As such, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. During construction, the proposed project would include grading and excavation that would expose a substantial amount of soils. In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation noted that grading activities during the rainy season on cohesive soils would be hampered by excessive moisture; therefore, it was recommended that measures to control potential erosion be included in project design and construction plans. Because the proposed project would disturb more than one acre of land, it would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and to comply with its conditions and requirements, which are designed to minimize potential erosion issues. The proposed project would comply with the terms of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City Municipal Code Section 5.8, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes BMPs to ensure reduction of pollutants from construction activities potentially entering surface waters. Additionally, implementation of the SWPPP would also prevent pollutants from entering surrounding water courses in the project vicinity by preventing pollutants from moving off-site.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with Section 7.2, Grading, Excavations, and Fills of the Municipal Code. Section 7.2 of the Municipal Code provides regulations to ensure that soil would not be stripped and removed from lands, creating hazards of subsidence and faulty drainage. It also ensures grading is regulated to control erosion and sedimentation to protect water quality of water courses and water bodies. For example, Section 7.2.305 of the Municipal Code would require an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which would minimize soil erosion and sedimentation from the project site and also provide control for runoff.46 Therefore, with adherence to these existing requirements, impacts from construction would not result in substantial soil erosion 45 City of Hercules. 2015. Hercules Safety Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/13723/637548003700130000. Accessed June 9, 2022. 46 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code – Title 7 Public Works, Chapter 2 Grading, Excavations and Fills. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules07/Hercules072.html#7-2. Accessed February 18, 2022. 200
or loss of topsoil. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described above, the California Department of Conservation has not evaluated the project site for landslide hazards. The Geotechnical Investigation notes there is a near vertical slope along the majority of the eastern border of the site. In order to minimize potential damage from landslides, the proposed project shall be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC.
Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is generally related to the substantial overdraft of groundwater or petroleum reserves from underground reservoirs. The project site does not lie above an oil field or water production well based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA’s) review of the hydrogeologic data provided in the Environmental Data Resources Regulatory Database Report.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant effect related to subsidence.
As previously mentioned, the project site has a low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. In order to reduce or avoid impacts related to unstable soils, the Geotechnical Investigation includes earthwork recommendations. These recommendations included criteria for grading, excavation, and fill replacement that would prevent significant settlement of soils. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation are incorporated into the project construction and design plans. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soil would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded, based on field reconnaissance by a soil engineer, exploratory soil borings, and laboratory testing of soil samples, that the on-site soils are moderately and highly expansive. The moderately and highly expansive soil are prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content and must be carefully considered in the design and construction of foundations, drainage, hardscape, and pavements. The Geotechnical Investigation for the project site determined that a post-tensioned slab foundation is the most appropriate foundation system to reduce impacts related to expansive soil. Slab must be designed to tolerate the expansive clay criteria presented in the Geotechnical Investigation. These include but are not limited to maximum allowable bearing pressure recommendations, reduced lateral support and a deepened footing near foundations and biofiltration areas, proper backfill and compaction, and verification and approval by a Soil Engineer.
MM GEO-1 would require the project applicant to incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans, including the slab recommendations, which 201
would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The proposed project would connect to the existing sewer system operated by the City of Hercules and Pinole-Hercules JPA. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be used. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area. According to the site-specific Paleontological Records Search (Appendix D), the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database search revealed four vertebrate localities in the Monterey Formation in Contra Costa County. The nearest vertebrate locality to the project site is about 3 miles to the northeast. Because the surface of the project site is disturbed and because of the distance from the nearest vertebrate locality, paleontological monitoring of construction was not recommended. However, to ensure that there are no direct or indirect impacts to any resources, MM GEO-2 requires a qualified paleontologist to provide the construction crew with an orientation prior to earth-disturbing activities, including a detailed plan of action in the event of an unanticipated discovery. With the implementation of MM GEO-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of preliminary grading permits, the project applicant shall incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans. The Geotechnical recommendations outlined on Page 9 through