Oakley City Council
June 13, 2023

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Application Form and Planning Survey Report
To Comply With and Receive Permit Coverage Under
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan
and Natural Community Conservation Plan
Please complete this application to apply for take authorization under the state and federal East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP incidental take permits. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”) or local jurisdiction (City of Brentwood, City of Clayton, City of Oakley, City of Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County) may request more information in order to deem the application complete.

I. PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: Cosetti Ranch
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Commercial Transportation Utility Other PROJECT DESCRIPTION (BRIEF): Construction of a 76-lot residential subdivision with access from Machado Lane. A detailed project description is included in Attachment A.

PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Machado Lane and south of Cypress Road in the city of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California.

PARCEL/PROJECT SIZE (ACRES): 21.13+/- acres (20.12+/- project site and 1.01+/- off-site component).

PROJECT APN(S): 033-190-003-5, 033-190-004-3, 033-180-001, 033-170-021, 033-170-022, 033-170-020 and 033-170-019.

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: May 2022 FINAL PSR DATE: (City/County/Conservancy use) LEAD PLANNER: Joshua McMurray
JURISDICTION: City of Brentwood City of Clayton City of Oakley City of Pittsburg Contra Costa County Participating Special Entity*

DEVELOPMENT FEE ZONE: Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV
See figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP at www.cocohcp.org for a generalized development fee zone map. Detailed development fee zone maps by jurisdiction are available from the jurisdiction.

PROJECT APPLICANT INFORMATION
APPLICANT’S NAME: MLC Holdings, Inc.

AUTHORIZED AGENT’S NAME AND TITLE: Paul Manyisha, Forward Planning Manager PHONE NO.: (925) 324-6178 APPLICANT’S E-MAIL: [email protected] MAILING ADDRESS: 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 140, San Ramon, CA 94583 BIOLOGIST INFORMATION1
BIOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM: Moore Biological Consultants CONTACT NAME AND TITLE: Diane S. Moore, M.S.

PHONE NO.: (209) 745-1159 CONTACT’S E-MAIL: [email protected] MAILING ADDRESS: Moore Biological Consultants, 10330 Twin Cities Rd., Ste. 30, Galt, California 95632 1 A USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist (project-specific) is required to conduct the surveys. Please submit biologist(s) approval request to the Conservancy. *Participating Special Entities are organizations not subject to the authority of a local jurisdiction. Such organizations may include school districts, irrigation districts, transportation agencies, local park districts, geological hazard abatement districts, or other utilities or special districts that own land or provide public services.
635

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
II. PROJECT DETAILS
Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Project Description
Attach as Attachment A: Project Description. Provide a detailed written description that concisely and completely describes the project and location. Include the following information:
• All activities proposed for the site or project, including roads utilized, construction staging areas, and the installation of underground facilities, to ensure the entire project is covered by the HCP/NCCP permit
• Proposed construction dates, including details on construction phases, if applicable • Reference a City/County application number for the project, if applicable • General Best Management Practices, if applicable
• If the project will have temporary impacts, please provide a restoration plan describing how the site will be restored to pre-project conditions, including revegetation seed mixes or plantings and timing 2) Project Vicinity Map
Provide a project vicinity map. Attach as Figure 1 in Attachment B: Figures. 3) Project Site Plans
Provide any project site plans for the project. Attach as Figure 2 in Attachment B: Figures. 4) CEQA Document
Indicate the status of CEQA documents prepared for the project. Provide additional comments below table if necessary.

Type of Document Status Date Completed
Initial Study underway Anticipated 2022
Notice of Preparation
Draft EIR
Final EIR
Notice of Categorical Exemption
Notice of Statutory Exemption
Other (describe)
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS
Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Field-Verified Land Cover Map2
Attach a field-verified land cover map in Attachment B: Figures and label as Figure 3. The map should contain all land cover types present on-site overlaid on aerial/satellite imagery. Map colors for the land cover types should conform to the HCP/NCCP (see Figure 3-3: Landcover in the Inventory Area for land cover type legend).
2) Photographs of the Project Site
Attach representative photos of the project site in Attachment B: Figures and label as Figure 4. Please provide captions for each photo.
2 For PSEs and city or county public works projects, please also identify permanent and temporary impact areas by overlaying crosshatching (permanent impacts) and hatching (temporary impacts) on the land cover map.
636

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
3) Land Cover Types and Impacts and Supplemental Tables • For all terrestrial land cover types please provide calculations to the nearest hundredth of an acre (0.01).

For aquatic land cover types please provide calculations to the nearest thousandth of an acre (0.001). • Permanent Impacts are broadly defined in the ECCC HCP/NCCP to include all areas removed from an undeveloped or habitat-providing state and includes land in the same parcel or project that is not developed, graded, physically altered, or directly affected in any way but is isolated from natural areas by the covered activity. Unless such undeveloped land is dedicated to the Preserve System or is a deed-restricted creek setback, the development mitigation fee will apply (if proposed, would require Conservancy approval). • Temporary Impacts are broadly defined in the ECCC HCP/NCCP as any impact on vegetation or habitat that does not result in permanent habitat removal (i.e. vegetation can eventually recover). • If wetland (riparian woodland/scrub, wetland, or aquatic) land cover types are present on the parcel but will not be impacted please discuss in the following section 4) Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters. Wetland impact fees will only be charged if wetland features are impacted. However, development fees will apply to the entire parcel. • Stream land cover type is considered a linear feature where impacts are calculated based on length impacted. The acreage within a stream, below Top of Bank (TOB), must be assigned to the adjacent land cover type(s). Insert area of impact to stream below TOB in parentheses after the Land Cover acreage number (e.g., Riparian Woodland/Scrub: 10 (0.036) – where 10 is the total impacted acreage including 0.036 acre, which is the acreage within stream TOB).

Complete following supplemental Stream Feature Detail table to provide information for linear feet. • Total Impacts acreage should be the total parcel acreage (development project) or project footprint acreage (rural infrastructure or utility project).

Table 1: Land Cover Types and Impacts
Land Cover Type Permanent
Impacts
Temporary
Impacts
Stream Setback Preserve System
Dedication
Grassland
Annual Grassland
Alkali Grassland
Ruderal 19.88
Shrubland
Chaparral and Scrub
Woodland
Oak Savannah
Oak Woodland
Riparian
Riparian Woodland/Scrub
Wetland
Permanent Wetland
Seasonal Wetland
Alkali Wetland
Aquatic
Aquatic (Reservoir/Open Water)
Slough/Channel
Pond
Stream (in linear feet)
Irrigated Agriculture
Pasture
Cropland
Orchard
Vineyard
Other
Nonnative woodland
Wind turbines
Developed (not counted toward Fees)
Urban 1.25
Aqueduct
Turf
Landfill
TOTAL IMPACTS 21.13
Proposed for HCP/NCCP
Dedication on the Parcel
(Requires Conservancy Approval)
637

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Identify any uncommon vegetation and uncommon landscape features3:

Supplemental to Table 1: Uncommon Vegetation and Landscape Features Please provide details of impacts to stream features:

Stream Name: None
Watershed:

Supplemental to Table 1: Stream Feature Detail5
3 These acreages are for Conservancy tracking purposes. Impacts to these uncommon vegetation and landscape features should be accounted for within the land cover types in Table 1 (e.g., x acres of purple needlegrass in this supplemental table should be accounted for within annual grassland in Table 1). 4 Insert amount/number, not acreage. Provide additional information on these features in Attachment A: Project Description. 5 Use more than 1 row as necessary to describe impacts to streams on site. 6 See glossary (Appendix A) for definition of stream type and order. 7 Stream length is measured along stream centerline, based on length of impact to any part of the stream channel, TOB to TOB.

Permanent Impacts Temporary
Impacts
Uncommon Grassland Alliances
Purple Needlegrass Grassland
Blue Wildrye Grassland
Creeping Ryegrass Grassland
Wildflower Fields
Squirreltail Grassland
One-sided Bluegrass Grassland
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
Saltgrass Grassland
Alkali Sacaton Bunchgrass Grassland
Other
Uncommon Landscape Features
Rock Outcrops
Caves
Springs and seeps
Scalds
Sand Deposits
Mines4
Buildings (bat roosts)3
Potential nest sites (trees or cliffs)3 32 trees (all will be removed)
Stream Width Stream Type6 Permanent Impacts
(linear feet)7
Temporary Impacts
(linear feet)7
≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

638

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
4) Summary of Land Cover Types
Please provide a written summary of descriptions for land cover types found on site including characteristic vegetation.

Initial field surveys at the site were conducted on November 9 and 11, 2020. This report reflects current site conditions based on a May 13, 2022 field survey.

Ruderal Grassland: The project site primarily consists of ruderal grassland with a majority of the site being recently cut and prepared for a hay harvest (Figures 4a and 4b). Grasslands in the site have been highly disturbed by routine farming of the site, mowing and/or disking, and other human activities. There is a ruderal grassland strip along the south edge of the site that is not subject to disking and/or mowing or farming activities. Dominant grasses in the site include oats (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus). Other grassland species such as radish (Raphanus sativa), Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), common mallow (Malva neglecta), morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) are intermixed with the grasses.

Urban/Developed: Urban/Developed areas within the site include the barn structure in the southeast part of the site (Figure 4d), Cypress Lane along the north edge of the site, and Machado Lane and three driveway entrances off of Machado Lane along the east edge of the site (Figure 3). The north tip of Machado Lane is a well-defined paved road with striping, while the remaining portion of the road is heavily traveled gravel (Figure 4e).

There are 32 trees in the project site, most of which are located near the south fence-line (Figures 5a and 4c). There are a small willow (Salix sp.), a black walnut (Juglans californica), and two ornamental trees in the remains of an irrigation return basin in the northeast corner of the site (Figure 4f). Trees in the south part of the site are mostly stone fruit and nut trees that are generally in very poor health, some of which have very few leaves and appear close to being dead (Figure 4c). There are a few coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees along the west fence of the fenced-off area in the southeast part of the site. The most notable large trees near the site are a coast live oak just south of the south edge of the site and some large trees in the parcels south and southeast of the site. 5) Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
If wetlands and waters are present on the project site, project proponents must conduct a delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters are defined on pages 1-18 and 1-19 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP as the following land cover types: permanent wetland, seasonal wetland, alkali wetland, aquatic, pond, slough/channel, and stream. It should be noted that these features differ for federal and state jurisdictions. If you have identified any of these land cover types in Table 1, complete the section below. a) Attach the wetland delineation report as Attachment E: Wetland Delineation. If a wetland delineation has not been completed, please explain below in section 4c. b) Please check the following permits the project may require. Please submit copies of these permits to the Conservancy prior to the start of construction:

CWA Section 404 Permit8 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Waste Discharge Requirements Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement c) Provide any additional information on impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waters below, including status of the permit(s):

An assessment of potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or wetlands in the site was undertaken on November 9 and 11, 2020, and May 13, 2022. There are no potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or wetlands of any type in the site. The site consists primarily of highly disturbed upland ruderal grassland vegetation and the on-site soils appear well draining.
8 The USACE Sacramento District issued a Regional General Permit 1 (RGP) related to ECCC HCP/NCCP covered activities. The RGP is designed to streamline wetland permitting in the entire ECCC HCP/NCCP Plan Area by coordinating the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the Plan with the Corps’ wetland permitting requirement. Applicants seeking authorization under this RGP shall notify the Corps in accordance with RGP general condition number 18 (Notification). 639

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
There is a small depression that is the remnants of an irrigation return basin in the northeast corner of the site (Figure 4f). The basin no longer is in use, does not have an ordinary high water mark, has soils that appear well draining, and primarily supports upland grassland species. The basin was constructed in uplands for the purpose of recycling irrigation tailwater and does not meet the technical and regulatory criteria of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or wetlands.
6) Species-Specific Planning Survey Requirements
Based on the land cover types found on-site and identified in Table 1, check the applicable boxes in Table 2a.

Table 2a. Species –Specific Planning Survey Requirements Land Cover Type
in Project Area Required Survey Species Habitat Element in Project Area Planning Survey Requirement9 Info in HCP Grasslands,
oak savannah,
agriculture, or
ruderal
San Joaquin kit fox Assumed if within modeled range
of species
If within modeled range of species,
identify and map potential breeding or
denning habitat within the project site
and a 250-ft radius around the project
footprint.
pp. 6-37
to 6-38
Western burrowing
owl
Assumed Identify and map potential breeding
habitat within the project site and a
500-ft radius around the project
footprint. Please note the HCP
requires buffers for occupied burrows.

Surveys may need to encompass an
area larger than the project footprint.
pp. 6-39
to 6-41
Aquatic
(ponds,
wetlands,
streams, sloughs,
channels, and
marshes)
Giant garter snake Aquatic habitat accessible from
the San Joaquin River
Identify and map potential habitat. pp. 6-43
to 6-45
California tiger
salamander
Ponds and wetlands
Vernal pools
Reservoirs
Small lakes
Identify and map potential breeding
habitat. Document habitat quality and
features. Provide the Conservancy
with photo-documentation and report.
pp. 6-45
California
red-legged frog
Slow-moving streams, ponds and
wetlands
Identify and map potential breeding
habitat. Document habitat quality and
features. Provide the Conservancy
with photo-documentation and report.
p. 6-46
Covered shrimp Seasonal wetlands
Vernal pools
Sandstone rock outcrops
Sandstone depressions
Identify and map potential habitat.

Please note the HCP requires a 50 foot
non-disturbance buffer from seasonal
wetlands that may be occupied by
covered shrimp. Surveys may need to
encompass an area larger than the
project footprint.
pp. 6-46
to 6-48
Any Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Rock formations with caves
Mines
Abandoned buildings outside
urban area
Map and document potential breeding
or roosting habitat.
pp. 6-36
to 6-37
Swainson’s hawk Potential nest sites within 1,000
feet of project
Inspect large trees for presence of nest
sites. Document and map.
pp. 6-41
to 6-43
Golden Eagle Potential nest sites with ½ mile of
project
Inspect large trees for presence of nest
sites. Document and map.
pp. 6-38
to 6-39
Surveys for all covered species must be conducted by a qualified biologist (USFWS/CDFW project-specific approved). Please submit biologist approval request to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

Surveys for all covered species must be conducted according to the respective USFWS or CDFW survey protocols, as identified in Chapter

6.4.3 in the HCP/NCCP.
7) Planning Survey Species Habitat Maps
Provide Planning Survey Species Habitat Maps as required in Table 2a, attach as Figure 5 in Attachment B:

Figures.
9 The planning survey requirements in this table are not comprehensive. Please refer to Chapter 6.4.3 in the ECCC HCP/NCCP for more detail. 640

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
8) Results of Species Specific Surveys
Provide a written summary describing the results of the planning surveys. Please discuss the location, quantity, and quality of suitable habitat for specified covered wildlife species on the project site.

General Setting: The 21.13+/- acre project site is in Oakley, in Contra Costa County, California (Figure 1). The site is within Section 30, in Township 2 North, Range 3 East of the USGS 7.5-minute Brentwood topographic quadrangle. The project site is at an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level.

Surrounding land uses in this portion of Oakley are primarily residential intermixed with larger ranchette-style homes and open space. Cypress Road bounds the north edge of the site and Machado Lane bounds the east edge of the site. There is a disked agricultural field to the west of the site, similar to the large field in the site.

The south edge of the site it bordered by a home site and a materials storage yard (Figure 3).

Western Burrowing Owl: The project site contains ruderal grassland and is within the range of western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2022) contains a record of western burrowing owl in the site (Figure 5b); this record is from 1992. The CNDDB (2022) contains several records of burrowing owl within 1 mile of the project site. The site was inspected for burrowing owls and ground squirrel burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (i.e., white wash, pellets, feathers). There are a few ground squirrel burrows along the edges of the return pond in the northeast part of the site, at the base of a few trees within the site, and along the fence line in the south part of the site (Figure 4g). Comprehensive inspection of potential burrowing owl habitat was accomplished by walking meandering transects throughout the property. No western burrowing owls or burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy were observed.

Swainson’s Hawk: The site contains areas of ruderal grassland and is along the western edge of the range of Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni). There are 32 trees in the site that are potentially suitable for nesting Swainson’s hawks, although most of the on-site trees are unlikely to be used by nesting hawks of any species due to their small sizes. There are several potential nest trees near and visible from the site. Trees in the site and visible from the site were inspected for raptor stick nests. No raptor stick nests were observed in any of the trees within the site, but a large raptor stick nest was observed in a large oak tree situated just south of the site. No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the May 2022 field survey, which was conducted in the heart of the Swainson’s hawks nesting season. CDFW’s CNDDB (2022) contains an occurrence of Swainson’s hawk within 1,000 feet of the site. This occurrence is from 2006 and is located in one of the trees associated with a residence along the east side of Machado Lane (Figure 5b). Swainson’s hawks exhibit very high nest site fidelity, returning to the same tree or nesting territory every year. It is possible that Swainson’s hawk will return to this general vicinity to nest in future years.

Golden Eagle: The site contains ruderal grassland and is within the range of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos).

CDFW’s CNDDB (2022) contains no occurrences of golden eagle within 0.5 miles of the site or within the larger geographical area depicted in Figure 5b. There are 32 trees in the site that are potentially suitable for nesting golden eagles, although most of the on-site trees are unlikely to be used by nesting raptors of any species due to their small sizes. There are several potential nest trees near and visible from the site. Trees on the site and visible from the site were inspected for raptor stick nests No raptor stick nests were observed in any of the trees within the site, but a large raptor stick nest was observed in a large oak tree situated just south of the site. No golden eagles were observed and this species nests more often on cliffs in remote natural areas than in trees near urban areas.
9) Covered and No-Take Plants
Please check the applicable boxes in Table 2b based on the land cover types found in the project area. If suitable land cover types are present on site, surveys must be conducted using approved CDFW/USFWS methods during the appropriate season for identification of covered and no-take species (see page 6-9 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP). Reference populations of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant species is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. In order to complete all the necessary covered and no-take plant surveys, spring, summer, and fall surveys may be required.
641

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Table 2b. Covered and No-Take Plant Species
Plant Species
Covered
(C) or NoTake (N)Associated Land
Cover Type
Typical Habitat or Physical Conditions, if
Known
Typical Blooming
Period
Suitable Land
Cover Type
Present
Adobe navarretia
(Navarretia nigelliformis ssp.
radians) a
C Annual Grassland Generally found on clay barrens in Annual Grassland b
Apr–Jun Yes
No
Alkali milkvetch
(Astragalus tener ssp. tener)
N Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Annual grassland
Seasonal wetland
Generally found in vernally moist habitat in soils with a slight to strongly elevated pH
Mar–Jun Yes
No
Big tarplant
(Blepharizonia plumosa)
C Annual grassland Elevation below 1500 feet d most often on Altamont Series or Complex soils
Jul–Oct Yes
No
Brewer’s dwarf flax
(Hesperolinon breweri)
C Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Generally, restricted to grassland areas within a 500+
buffer from oak woodland and/or chaparral/scrub d
May–Jul Yes
No
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Restricted to soils of the Pescadero or Solano soil
series; generally found in southeastern region of plan
area d
May–Oct Yes
No
Caper-fruited tropidocarpum
(Tropidocarpum capparideum)
N Alkali grassland Mar–Apr Yes
No
Contra Costa goldfields
(Lasthenia conjugens)
N Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Annual grassland
Seasonal wetland
Generally found in vernal pools Mar–Jun Yes
No
Diablo Helianthella
(Helianthella castanea)
C Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Elevations generally above 650 feet d Mar–Jun Yes
No
Diamond-petaled poppy
(Eschscholzia rhombipetala)
N Annual grassland Mar–Apr Yes
No
Large-flowered fiddleneck
(Amsinckia grandiflora)
N Annual grassland Generally on clay soil Apr–May Yes
No
Mount Diablo buckwheat
(Eriogonum truncatum)
N Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Ecotone of grassland and chaparral/scrub Apr–Sep Yes
No
Mount Diablo fairy-lantern
(Calochortus pulchellus)
C Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Elevations generally between 650 and 2,600d Apr–Jun Yes No
Mount Diablo Manzanita
(Arctostaphylos auriculata)
C Chaparral and scrub Elevations generally between 700 and 1,860 feet; restricted to the eastern and northern flanks of Mt.

Diablo d and the vicinity of Black Diamond Mines
Jan–Mar Yes
No
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Mar–Jun Yes
No
Round-leaved filaree
(California macrophylla) c
C Annual grassland Mar–May Yes
No
San Joaquin spearscale
(Extriplex joaquiniana) e
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Apr–Oct Yes
No
Showy madia
(Madia radiata)
C Annual grassland
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Primarily occupies open grassland or grassland on
edge of oak woodland
Mar–May Yes
No
a The species Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis is no longer considered to occur within Contra Costa County based on specimen annotations at the UC and Jepson Herbaria at the University of California Berkeley as well as the opinions of experts in the genus. This taxon is now recognized as Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians. Any subspecies of Navarretia nigelliformis encountered as a part of botanical surveys in support of a PSR should be considered as covered under this HCP/NCCP. b Habitat for the Navarretia nigelliformis subspecies that occurs within the inventory are is inaccurately described in the HCP/NCCP as vernal pools. The entity within the Inventory generally occupies clay barrens within Annual Grassland habitat, which is an upland habitat type. c From California Native Plant Society. 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-07d). Sacramento, CA. Species may be identifiable outside of the typical blooming period; a professional botanist shall determine if a covered or no take plant occurs on the project site. Reference population of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. d See Species Profiles in Appendix D of the Final HCP/NCCP. Reference populations of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant species is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. e In the recent update to the Jepson eflora (JFP 2013) Atriplex joaquinana has been circumscribed and segregated into a new genus called Extriplex based on the work of Elizabeth Zacharias and Bruce Baldwin (2010). The etymology of the genus Extriplex means, “beyond or outside Atriplex”. 642

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
10) Results of Covered and No-Take Plant Species
Provide a written summary describing the results of the planning surveys conducted as required in Table 2b.

Describe the methods used to survey the site for all covered and no-take plants, including the dates and times of all surveys conducted (see Tables 3-8 and 6-5 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP for covered and no-take plants), including reference populations visited prior to conducting surveys.

If any covered or no-take plant species were found, include the following information in the results summary:
• Description and number of occurrences and their rough population size. • Description of the “health” of each occurrence, as defined on pages 5-49 and 5-50 of the HCP/NCCP. • A map of all the occurrences.
• Justification of surveying time window, if outside of the plant’s blooming period. • The CNDDB form(s) submitted to CDFW (if this is a new occurrence). • A description of the anticipated impacts that the covered activity will have on the occurrence and how the project will avoid impacts to all covered and no-take plant species. If impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by covered activity, the Conservancy must be notified and has the option to salvage the covered plants. All projects must demonstrate avoidance of all six no-take plants (see table 6-5 of the HCP/NCCP).

Survey Methods
Surveys to assess potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants was undertaken on October 21, 2020 and May 13, 2022. The site was systematically searched by walking throughout the site.

Survey Results and Discussion
The site contains areas of ruderal grassland that is periodically mowed and/or disked and an established nursery. Due to an absence of potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants, focused surveys during the blooming period of each species in Table 2b were not warranted.

IV. SPECIES-SPECIFIC AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION REQUIREMENTS Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Species-Specific Avoidance and Minimization for Selected Covered Wildlife Complete the following table and check the applicable box for covered species determined by the planning surveys.

Table 3. Summary of Applicable Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring Requirements10
Species Preconstruction Survey
Requirements
Avoidance and Minimization
Requirements Construction Monitoring Required Info in HCP San
Joaquin
kit fox
• On project footprint and 250-ft
radius, map all dens (>5 in.
diameter) and determine status
• Provide written survey results
to USFWS within 5 working
days after surveying
• Monitor dens
• Destroy unoccupied dens
• Discourage use of occupied (nonnatal) dens
• Establish exclusion zones ( >50 ft
for potential dens, and >100 ft for
known dens)
• Notify USFWS of occupied natal
dens
pp. 6-37
to 6-38
Western
burrowing
owl
• On project footprint and 500-ft
radius, identify and map all
owls and burrows, and
determine status
• Document use of habitat (e.g.
breeding, foraging)
• Avoid occupied nests during
breeding season (Feb-Sep)
• Avoid occupied burrows during
nonbreeding season (Sep – Feb)
• Install one-way doors in occupied
burrow (if avoidance not possible)
• Monitor burrows with doors
installed
• Establish buffer zones (250 ft
around nests)
• Establish buffer zones (160 ft
around burrows)
pp. 6-39
to 6-41
10 The requirements in this table are not comprehensive; they are detailed in the next section on the following page. 643

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Giant
garter
snake
• Delineate aquatic habitat up to
200 ft from water’s edge on
each side
• Document any occurrences
• Limit construction to Oct-May
• Dewater habitat April 15 – Sep 30
prior to construction
• Minimize clearing for construction
• Delineate 200 ft buffer around
potential habitat near construction
• Provide field report on monitoring
efforts
• Stop construction activities if
snake is encountered; allow snake
to passively relocate
• Remove temporary fill or debris
from construction site
• Mandatory training for
construction personnel
pp. 6-43
to 6-45
California
tiger
salamander
• Provide written notification to
USFWS and CDFW regarding
timing of construction and
likelihood of occurrence on site
• Allow agency staff to translocate
species, if requested
• None p. 6-45
California
red-legged
frog
• Provide written notification to
USFWS and CDFW regarding
timing of construction and
likelihood of occurrence on site
• Allow agency staff to translocate
species, if requested
• None p. 6-46
Covered
shrimp
• Establish presence/absence
• Document and evaluate use of
all habitat features (e.g. vernal
pools, rock outcrops)
• Establish buffer near construction
activities
• Prohibit incompatible activities
• Establish buffer around outer edge
of all hydric vegetation associated
with habitat (50 ft or immediate
watershed, whichever is larger)
• Mandatory training for
construction personnel
pp. 6-46
to 6-48
Townsend’s
big-eared
bat
• Establish presence/absence
• Determine if potential sites
were recently occupied (guano)
• Seal hibernacula before Nov
• Seal nursery sites before April
• Delay construction near occupied
sites until hibernation or nursery
seasons are over
• None pp. 6-36
to 6-37
Swainson’s
hawk
• Determine whether potential
nests are occupied
• No construction within 1,000 ft of
occupied nests within breeding
season (March 15 - Sep 15)
• If necessary, remove active nest
tree after nesting season to
prevent occupancy in second year.
• Establish 1,000 ft buffer around
active nest and monitor
compliance (no activity within
established buffer)
pp. 6-41
to 6-43
Golden
Eagle
• Establish presence/absence of
nesting eagles
• No construction within ½ mile near
active nests (most activity late Jan
– Aug)
• Establish ½ mile buffer around
active nest and monitor
compliance with buffer
pp. 6-38
to 6-39
2) Required Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring All preconstruction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 6.4.3, Species-Level Measures, and Table 6-1 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. Detailed descriptions of preconstruction surveys, avoidance and minimization, and construction monitoring applicable to each of the wildlife species in Table 3 are located below. Please remove the species-specific measures that do not apply to your project (highlight entire section and delete).

WESTERN BURROWING OWL
Preconstruction Surveys
Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW- approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500- foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. Surveys will take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any 644

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted.

Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring
This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below).

During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow.

SWAINSON’S HAWK
Preconstruction Survey
Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15– September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy will be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below).

Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring
During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction will be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the Implementing Entity will coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.

If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project applicant can apply to the Implementing Entity for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

All active nest trees will be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non-native trees, lost to covered activities will be mitigated by the project proponent according to the requirements below.

Mitigation for Loss of Nest Trees
The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by:
645

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
• If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below.

AND either
1) Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2) The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below.

The following requirements will be met for all planting options:
• Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation.
• Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival.
• Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. • Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. • Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). • Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. • Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat.

GOLDEN EAGLE
Preconstruction Survey
Prior to implementation of covered activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied (see Section 6.3.1, Planning Surveys). If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and construction monitoring will be required.

Avoidance and Minimization
Covered activities will be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the Implementing Entity will coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.

Construction Monitoring
Construction monitoring will focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the ULL, covered activities inside and outside of the Preserve System have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. Construction monitoring will ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized. 646

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
3) Construction Monitoring Plan
Before implementing a covered activity, the applicant will develop and submit a construction monitoring plan to the planning department of the local land use jurisdiction and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for review and approval. Elements of a brief construction monitoring plan will include the following:
• Results of planning and preconstruction surveys.11
• Description of avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented, including a description of project-specific refinements to the measures or additional measures not included in the HCP/NCCP. • Description of monitoring activities, including monitoring frequency and duration, and specific activities to be monitored.
• Description of the onsite authority of the construction monitor to modify implementation of the activity.

Check box to acknowledge this requirement.

V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ON COVERED ACTIVITIES
1) Check off the HCP conservation measures that apply to the project.

APPLIES TO ALL PROJECTS
Conservation Measure 1.11. Avoid Direct Impacts on Extremely Rare Plants, Fully Protected Wildlife Species, or Migratory Birds. This conservation measure applies to all projects. All projects will avoid all impacts on extremely rare plants and fully protected species listed in Table 6-5 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. See HCP pp. 6-23 to 6-25, and Table 6-5.

APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT IMPACT COVERED PLANT SPECIES
Conservation Measure 3.10. Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable. This condition applies to projects that cannot avoid impacts on covered plants and help protect covered plants by prescribing salvage whenever avoidance of impacts is not feasible. Project proponents wishing to remove populations of covered plants must notify the Conservancy of their construction schedule to allow the Conservancy the option of salvaging the populations. See HCP pp. 6-48 to 6-50.

APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE ARE ADJACENT TO STREAMS, PONDS, OR WETLANDS Conservation Measure 2.12. Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization. All projects will implement measures described in the HCP to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands, ponds, streams, and riparian woodland/scrub. See HCP pp. 6-33 to 6-35.

APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Conservation Measure 1.10. Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and Minimize Erosion. All new development must avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts on local hydrological conditions and erosion by incorporating the applicable Provision C.3 Amendments of the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program’s (CCCCWP’s) amended NPDES Permit (order no. R2-2003-0022; permit no. CAS002912). The overall goal of this measure is to ensure that new development covered under the HCP has no or minimal adverse effects on downstream fisheries to avoid take of fish listed under ESA or CESA. See HCP pp. 6-21 to 6-22.

APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE OR ARE ADJACENT TO STREAMS, PONDS, OR WETLANDS Conservation Measure 1.7. Establish Stream Setbacks. A stream setback will be applied to all development projects covered by the HCP according to the stream types listed in Table 6-2 of the HCP. See HCP pp. 6-15 to 6-18 and Table 6-2.

APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ADJACENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, HCP PRESERVES, OR LIKELY HCP ACQUISITION SITES
Conservation Measure 1.6. Minimize Development Footprint Adjacent to Open Space. Project applicants are encouraged to minimize their development footprint and set aside portions of their land to contribute to the HCP Preserve System. Land set aside that contributes to the HCP biological goals and objectives may be credited against development fees. See HCP pages 6-14 to 6-15.

Conservation Measure 1.8. Establish Fuel Management Buffer to Protect Preserves and Property. Buffer zones will provide a buffer between development and wildlands that allows adequate fuel management to minimize the risk of wildlife damage to property or to the preserve. The minimum buffer zone for new development is 100 feet. See HCP pages 6-18 to 6-19. 11 If the preconstruction surveys do not trigger construction monitoring, results of preconstruction surveys should still be submitted to the local jurisdiction and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
647

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Conservation Measure 1.9. Incorporate Urban-Wildlife Interface Design Elements. These projects will incorporate design elements at the urban-wildlife interface to minimize the indirect impacts of development on the adjacent preserve. See HCP pp. 6-20 to 6-21.

APPLIES TO ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE UDA
Conservation Measure 1.12. Implement Best Management Practices for Rural Road Maintenance. Road maintenance activities have the potential to affect covered species by introducing sediment and other pollutants into downstream waterways, spreading invasive weeds, and disturbing breeding wildlife. In order to avoid and minimize these impacts, BMPs described in the HCP will be used where appropriate and feasible. See HCP pp. 6-25 to 6-26.

APPLIES TO NEW ROADS OR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE UDA Conservation Measure 1.14. Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). New roads or road improvements outside the UDA have impacts on many covered species far beyond the direct impacts of their project footprints. To minimize the impacts of new, expanded, and improved roads in agricultural and natural areas of the inventory area, road and bridge construction projects will adopt siting, design, and construction requirements described in the HCP and listed in Table 6-6. See HCP pp. 6-27 to 6-33 and Table 6-6.

APPLIES TO FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Conservation Measure 1.13. Implement Best Management Practices for Flood Control Facility Maintenance. Flood control maintenance activities have the potential to affect covered species by introducing sediment and other pollutants into downstream waterways and disturbing breeding wildlife. In order to avoid and minimize these impacts, BMPs described in the HCP will be used where appropriate and feasible. See HCP pp. 6-26 to 6-27.
2) For all checked conservation measures, describe how the project will comply with each measure.

Attach as Attachment C: Project Compliance to HCP Conditions.

VI. MITIGATION MEASURES
1) Mitigation Fee Calculator(s)
Complete and attach the fee calculator (use permanent and/or temporary impact fee calculator as appropriate), and attach as Attachment D: Fee Calculator(s). 2) Briefly describe the amount of fees to be paid and when applicant plans to submit payment.

The 21.13+/- acre site contains 19.88 acres of ruderal grassland and 1.25 acres of urban land.

The site is within Fee Zone 1. Construction is expected to commence in 2022.

Using the current fee schedule, fees would be paid on 19.88+/- acres within Fee Zone 1, at a cost of $18,937.95 per acre ($376,486.48). Fees will be paid pursuant to the fee schedule that is in place at the time construction commences.
648
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
649
Cosetti Ranch
Project Description
May 2022
The 21.13+/- acre project site is west of Machado Road and south of East Cypress Road in Oakley, Contra Costa County, California (Figure 1). The site is within Section 30, in Township 2 North, Range 3 East of the USGS 7.5-minute Brentwood topographic quadrangle.

MLC Holdings, Inc. plans to divide the property in to a 76-lot single family high density residential subdivision (Figures 2a -2c). Access to the subdivision will be from Machado Lane and a network of roads will provide access to all of lots in the subdivision. The subdivision road network is designed in a manner to connect to future development on these adjacent parcels to the south and west of the site. The project will also require road widening and construction of a sidewalk along East Cypress Road, as well as road widening and shoulder improvements along the north part of Machado Lane.

There will be a bioretention basin constructed in the northeast corner of the site where stormwater will be detained prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system. The proposed project will connect to existing City infrastructure to provide sewer and water to the site.

Standard construction best management practices (BMPs) will be employed during construction to minimize the potential for erosion and off-site transport of fines. BMPs will include use of water trucks, appropriate compaction of soil, and installation of straw wattles, silt fences or other technologies along the perimeter of the site during construction, and stabilization of bare soils as appropriate with seeding, straw, and/or hydromulch.

Construction is expected to begin in late-2022 and is expected to continue through 2023. 650
ATTACHMENT B: FIGURES
651
Site Map/USGS
Cosetti Ranch
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
^_
Study Area
. 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Figure 1
Map Date: 11/12/2020
Moore Biological
C:\Users\owner\Documents\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Cosetti_Ranch\MXD\cosetti_ranch_ecccp_figure_1.mxd Consultants
Study Area
USGS Base Map: BRENTWOOD, CA

7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
Section: 30
Township: 02N
Range: 03E
652
E. CYPRESS ROAD
30 29
31 24
32 27 26
28 25
11 12
10 8
6 9
7 5
4 3
2 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
68 67 66 65 64 63 62
70 71 72 73 74 69
75 76
52 54
53 51
50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34
17 15 16
14 13
18 1

PARCEL A

PARCEL B

MACHADO LANE
23 22
21 20
19 33

TYPICAL STREET SECTION (PUBLIC)

MACHADO ROAD SECTION
E. CYPRESS ROAD SECTION

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
0 50 100 150

GENERAL NOTES
N

VICINITY MAP
SITE

CYPRESS ROAD SELLERS AVENUE
C1.0
G:\1340-030\ACAD\TM\C1.0.DWG
DATE: NOVEMBER 2021

MACHADO PROPERTY

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
5 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
Figure 2a: 7FTUJOH
5FOUBUJWF
.BQ 653
E. CYPRESS ROAD
13 1
11 12
6 10
7 5
4 3
2 8
9 27 26
28 25
17 15 16
14 18
30 29
31 24
32 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34
52 54
53 51
59 61
68 67 66 65 64 63 62
55 56 57 58 60
76 70 71 72 73 74 69
75 PARCEL A
D
D
A
A
A A
B
B
C C
F F
E E

MACHADO LANE
19 20
21 23
22 33

DETENTION/BIORETENTION
TSM 5.5
TOP 11.5
G:\1340-030\ACAD\TM\C3.0.DWG
DATE: NOVEMBER 2021

MACHADO PROPERTY

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
5 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
0 50 100 150
LEGEND:

C3.0

SECTION D-D

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION E-E

SECTION F-F
Figure 2C: 1SFMJNJOBSZ
(SBEJOH Plan 654
E. CYPRESS ROAD
1 6
7 5
4 3
2 15
14 13
27 28
30 29
31 12
10 8
9 11
16 18
36 35 34
26 25
24 17
32 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37
52 54
53 51
68 67 66 65 64 63 62
55 56 57 58 59 60 61
70 71 72 73 74 69
75 76

PARCEL A

MACHADO LANE
1 6
7 5
4 3
2 23
22 21
20 19
33 BIORETENTION

PARCEL B

TYPICAL UTILITY SECTION
G:\1340-030\ACAD\TM\C4.0.DWG
DATE: NOVEMBER 2021

MACHADO PROPERTY

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
5 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456

PRELIMINARY UTILTY PLAN
0 50 100 150
LEGEND
C4.0

EX OH TO BE

UNDERGROUNDED

EX OH TO BE

PROTECTED IN PLACE
Figure 2c: 1SFMJNJOBSZ
6UJMJUZ
Plan 655
Machado Ln
E Cypress Rd
C:\Users\owner\Documents\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Cosetti_Ranch\MXD\cosetti_ranch_ecccp_figure_3.mxd On-Site 18.99 1.13
Off-Site 0.89 0.12
Total 19.88 1.25
Ruderal Grassland
(Acres)
Urban/Developed
(Acres)
0 100 200
.

Figure 3
Map Date: 11/12/2020
Aerial Source: Google Earth (02/2020)
Field Verified Landcover Map
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
Cosetti Ranch
Moore Biological
Consultants
On-Site (20.12 ac.)
Urban/Developed
Ruderal Grassland
Off-Site (1.01 ac.)
656

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Area of ruderal grassland in the east part of the site, looking north from just west of Machado Road; 05/13/22. Farm equipment is currently being stored in this area.

Rows of recently cut hay in the body of the site, looking north from the south part of the site; 05/13/22.

FIGURE 4a

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
657

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
West edge of the site, looking south along the west fence line from the northwest corner of the site; 05/13/22.

North edge of the site, looking west along Cypress Road from the northeast corner of the site; 05/13/22.

FIGURE 4b

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
658

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Scattered trees near the south edge of the site, looking west from just west of the fenced-off structure in the southeast part of the site; 05/13/22.

South edge of the site, looking east from the southwest part of the site; 05/13/22.

FIGURE 4c

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
659

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Close-up of the structure in the southeast part of the site, looking southeast; 05/13/22.

Fenced-off area in the southeast corner of the site, looking southwest from the northeast corner of the fenced-off area; 05/13/22. There is a structure along with a few boats within this area.

FIGURE 4d

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
660

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Machado Lane, looking north from the southeast corner of the site; 05/13/22.

Machado Lane, looking south from the northeast corner of the site; 05/13/22. The project will include road improvements to Machado Lane, which is situated along the east edge of the site.

FIGURE 4e

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
661

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Remnant return pond and a few trees in the northeast corner of the site, looking northeast; 05/13/22. This return pond is related to past agricultural activities within the body of the site.

Recently cut hay within the off-site sliver to the east of the project site, looking south from the north end of Machado Lane; 05/13/22. Road improvements related to Machado Lane will extend east in to this area.

FIGURE 4f

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
662

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Ground squirrel burrows at the base of a tree near the fenced-off area in the southeast corner of the site; 05/13/22. Most of the burrows in the site are either at the base of trees or along fencelines.

FIGURE 4g

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
663
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!( !(
Machado Ln
E Cypress Rd
C:\Users\owner\Documents\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Cosetti_Ranch\MXD\cosetti_ranch_ecccp_figure_5a.mxd On-Site 18.99 1.13
Off-Site 0.89 0.12
Total 19.88 1.25
Ruderal Grassland
(Acres)
Urban/Developed
(Acres)
0 100 200
.

Figure 5a
Map Date: 11/12/2020
Aerial Source: Google Earth (02/2020)
Planning Survey Species Habitat Map
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
Cosetti Ranch
Moore Biological
Consultants
On-Site (20.12 ac.)
Off-Site (1.01 ac.)
Ruderal Grassland; assumed
habitat for western burrowing owl.

Urban/Developed
Trees; assumed habitat for
Swainson's hawk, golden eagle,
and white-tailed kite.
!(
664
C:\Users\owner\Documents\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Cosetti_Ranch\MXD\cosetti_ranch_ecccp_figure_5b.mxd Regional Species Habitat Map
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
. 0 500 1,000
Figure 5b
Map Date: 11/12/2020
Aerial Photo: DigitalGlobe (2020)
Cosetti Ranch
Moore Biological
Consultants
Western Burrowing Owl
Potential Habitat within 500 ft.

Study Area
Swainson Hawk
Potential Habitat within 1,000 ft.

Golden Eagle
Potential Habitat within 0.5 miles
Western Burrowing Owl
Swainson's hawk
665
ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT COMPLIANCE TO HCP CONDITIONS
666
Cosetti Ranch
Project Compliance to HCP Conditions
May 2022
HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.11. Avoid Direct Impacts on Extremely Rare Plants, Fully Protected Wildlife Species, or Covered Migratory Birds:

The potential for special-status plants to occur within the site is considered extremely remote, as described in Section III (10).

Species-specific pre-construction surveys, and if needed, monitoring and avoidance requirements for burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle will be conducted as described in Section IV (2). There is no suitable habitat in the site for ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), a “fully protected species,” per California Fish and Game Code Section 4700.

Similarly, there is no suitable nesting habitat in the site for peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), a “fully protected species,” per California Fish and Game Code Section 3511.

White-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), another “fully protected species,” per California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 could potentially nest in trees in and near the site.

Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occur during the nesting season (March 15-August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether white-tailed kite is nesting in trees in or visible from the site. In the event active nests are found, the applicant shall notify the Implementing Entity (i.e., City of Brentwood) and consult with CDFW for further guidance.

On-site tree, shrubs, and grasslands could be used by other species of nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If possible, vegetation removal will occur outside of the general bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Alternately, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 2 weeks prior to vegetation removal. In the event active nests are found, the applicant shall notify the Implementing Entity and consult with CDFW for further guidance.

HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.10. Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and Minimize Erosion:

The project has been designed to maintain hydrologic conditions and minimize erosion. Standard construction best management practices (BMPs) will be employed during construction to minimize the potential for erosion and off-site transport of fines.

BMPs will include use of water trucks, appropriate compaction of soil, and installation of straw wattles, silt fences or other technologies along the perimeter of the site during construction, and stabilization of bare soils as appropriate with seeding, straw, and/or hydromulch.
667
ATTACHMENT D: FEE CALCULATOR
668
ECCC HCP/NCCP 2022 Fee Calculator Worksheet
Clayton, Oakley, Pittsburg, County, PSE1
Permanent Impacts
PROJECT APPLICANT:

PROJECT NAME:

APN(s):

JURISDICTION:

DATE:

DEVELOPMENT FEE

PERMANENT IMPACTS
(ACRES)
2022 FEE/ACRE
subject to change 2
Fee Zone 1 19.88 x $18,937.95 = $376,486.48
Fee Zone 2 x $37,875.90 = $0.00
Fee Zone 3 x $9,468.98 = $0.00
Fee Zone 43 x $28,406.93 = $0.00
Development Fee Total = $376,486.48

WETLAND MITIGATION FEE

PERMANENT IMPACTS
(ACRES)
2022 FEE/ACRE
subject to change 2
x $105,515.99 = $0.00
Perennial Wetland x $159,911.71 = $0.00
Seasonal Wetland x $374,220.31 = $0.00
Alkali Wetland x $378,310.21 = $0.00
Ponds x $205,923.71 = $0.00
Aquatic (open water) x $102,962.44 = $0.00
Slough / Channel x $147,029.10 = $0.00

STREAMS

PERMANENT IMPACTS
(LINEAR FEET)
2022 FEE/LINEAR FT
subject to change 2
x $542.59 = $0.00
x $814.47 = $0.00
Wetland Mitigation Fee Total = $0.00
FEE REDUCTION5 Development Fee reduction for land in lieu of fee = Development Fee reduction (up to 33% ) for permanent assessments = Wetland Mitigation Fee reduction for wetland restoration/creation performed by applicant = Reduction Total = $0.00
FINAL FEE CALCULATION Development Fee Total $376,486.48 Wetland Mitigation Fee Total + $0.00
Mitigation Fee Subtotal = $376,486.48
+
= $376,486.48
5 Fee reductions must be reviewed and approved by the Conservancy.

MLC Holdings, Inc.

Cosetti Ranch
033-190-003-5, 033-190-004-3, 033-180-001, 033-170-021, 033-170-022, 033-170-020 and 033-170-019 May 2022
Oakley
4 Per Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, for every acre of impact on wetlands, streams, ponds, and riparian woodland/scrub, applicants will pay the appropriate development fee (according to fee zone) towards land acquisition and the conservation program as a whole, as well as a wetland mitigation fee to cover the costs of successful restoration or creation.

Impacts to riparian/scrub, wetlands, ponds,
aquatic, and slough/channel are charged both a
wetland mitigation fee and a development fee.

Please also include these impact acres to
development fee above.4
See appropriate ordinance or HCP/NCCP Figure 9-
1 to determine Fee Zone
March 10, 2022
Contribution to Recovery6
Streams greater than 25 feet wide
1 The City of Brentwood is on a separate fee schedule until the 2017 Fee Audit has been adopted by the city. For projects within Brentwood, please use the Brentwood fee calculator worksheets.

TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE PAID
3 Fee Zone 4 is not shown on Figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP but refers to the fee applicable to those few covered acitivities located in northeastern Antioch (p. 9-21). 2 Development fees are adjusted annually (no later than March 15 of each year) according to a formula that includes both a Home Price Index (HPI) and a Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Wetland Mitigation Fees are adjusted according to a CPI.

Streams 25 feet wide or less
6 Participating Special Entities (PSEs) are required to pay fees over and above permanent and temporary impact mitigation fees to cover indirect costs of extending permit coverage, including a portion of the costs of the initial preparation of the Plan, and a portion of the costs of conservation actions designed to contribute to species recovery. This amount will be determined in accordance with the Contribution to Recovery Implementation Policy adopted by the Conservancy Governing Board on December 8, 2014.

Riparian woodland / scrub
669
Appendix C
CNDDB Search Results
670
SciName ComName TaxonGroup ElmCode TotalOccs FedList CalList GRank SRank RPlantRank OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab ReturnOccs Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant Dicots PDAST1C011 53 None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho SantaAna Botanic Garden Valley & foothill
grassland
Valley and foothill
grassland.

Dry hills and plains in annual
grassland. Clay to clay‐loam soils;
usually on slopes and often in
burned areas. 60‐505 m. 6
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant Dicots PDAST4R0P1 98 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 BLM_S‐Sensitive |SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho SantaAna Botanic Garden Valley & foothill
grassland
Valley and foothill
grassland.

Alkaline soils, sometimes described
as heavy white clay. 0‐245 m. 1
Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi Bolander's water‐hemlock Dicots PDAPI0M051 17 None None G5T4T5 S2? 2B.1 Marsh & swamp | Saltmarsh | Wetland Marshes and swamps. In fresh or brackish water. 0‐20 m. 1 Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Dicots PDCHE041F3 127 None None G2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S‐Sensitive |SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
Alkali playa | Chenopodscrub | Meadow & seep
| Valley & foothill
grassland
Chenopod scrub, alkali
meadow, playas, valleyand foothill grassland.

In seasonal alkali wetlands or alkali
sink scrub with Distichlis spicata,
Frankenia, etc. 0‐800 m. 3
Hesperolinon breweri Brewer's western flax Dicots PDLIN01030 29 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Chaparral | Cismontane
woodland | Ultramafic |
Valley & foothill
grassland
Chaparral, cismontanewoodland, valley andfoothill grassland.

Often in rocky serpentine soil in
serpentine chaparral andserpentine grassland. 195‐910 m. 1 Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Antioch Dunes evening‐primrose Dicots PDONA0C0B4 10 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho SantaAna Botanic Garden | Interior dunes Interior dunes.

Remnant river bluffs and sand
dunes east of Antioch. 1‐15 m. 1
Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster Dicots PDASTE8470 175 None None G2 S2 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho SantaAna Botanic Garden | SB_USDA‐US Dept of
Agriculture
Brackish marsh |Freshwater marsh |
Marsh & swamp |Wetland
Marshes and swamps
(brackish and freshwater).

Most often seen along sloughs
with Phragmites, Scirpus,
blackberry, Typha, etc. 0‐15 m. 1
Tropidocarpum capparideum caper‐fruited tropidocarpum Dicots PDBRA2R010 20 None None G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABG‐California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden |
Valley & foothill
grassland
Valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline clay. 0‐360 m. 1
671
SciName ComName TaxonGroup ElmCode TotalOccs FedList CalList GRank SRank RPlantRank OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab ReturnOccs Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird Birds ABPBXB0020 955 None ThreatenedG1G2 S1S2 BLM_S‐Sensitive | CDFW_SSC‐Species of Special
Concern | IUCN_EN‐Endangered | NABCI_RWL‐Red
Watch List | USFWS_BCC‐Birds of Conservation
Concern
Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Swamp |
Wetland
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic
to California.

Requires open water, protected nesting
substrate, and foraging area with insect prey
within a few km of the colony. 1
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard Reptiles ARACC01020 383 None None G3 S3 CDFW_SSC‐Species of Special Concern | USFS_S‐
Sensitive Chaparral | Coastal dunes | Coastal scrub
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation.

Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a
high moisture content. 3
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Birds ABNSB10010 2011 None None G4 S3 BLM_S‐Sensitive | CDFW_SSC‐Species of Special
Concern | IUCN_LC‐Least Concern | USFWS_BCC‐
Birds of Conservation Concern
Coastal prairie | Coastal scrub | Great Basin grassland | Great Basin scrub | Mojavean desert scrub |
Sonoran desert scrub | Valley & foothill grassland
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands characterized bylow‐growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowingmammals, most notably, the California groundsquirrel. 48 Elanus leucurus white‐tailed kite Birds ABNKC06010 184 None None G5 S3S4 BLM_S‐Sensitive | CDFW_FP‐Fully Protected |
IUCN_LC‐Least Concern
Cismontane woodland | Marsh & swamp | Riparian
woodland | Valley & foothill grassland | Wetland
Rolling foothills and valley margins with
scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland.

Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for
foraging close to isolated, dense‐topped trees for
nesting and perching. 4
Emys marmorata western pond turtle Reptiles ARAAD02030 1404 None None G3G4 S3 BLM_S‐Sensitive | CDFW_SSC‐Species of Special
Concern | IUCN_VU‐Vulnerable | USFS_S‐Sensitive
Aquatic | Artificial flowing waters | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters | Klamath/North coast standing
waters | Marsh & swamp | Sacramento/San Joaquinflowing waters | Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters | South coast flowing waters | South coast
standing waters | Wetland
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation.

Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km
from water for egg‐laying. 7
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Birds ABPBR01030 110 None None G4 S4 CDFW_SSC‐Species of Special Concern | IUCN_LC‐
Least Concern
Broadleaved upland forest | Desert wash | Joshua tree
woodland | Mojavean desert scrub | Pinon & juniper
woodlands | Riparian woodland | Sonoran desert
scrub
Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon‐
juniper, Joshua tree, and riparianwoodlands, desert oases, scrub and washes.

Prefers open country for hunting, with perches
for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush
for nesting. 1
672
SciName ComName TaxonGroup ElmCode TotalOccs FedList CalList GRank SRank RPlantRank OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab ReturnOccs Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird Birds ABPBXB0020 955 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 BLM_S‐Sensitive | CDFW_SSC‐
Species of Special Concern |
IUCN_EN‐Endangered |NABCI_RWL‐Red Watch List |
USFWS_BCC‐Birds of Conservation
Concern
Freshwater marsh | Marsh &
swamp | Swamp | Wetland
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic toCalifornia.

Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging areawith insect prey within a few km of the colony. 1
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander ‐ centralCalifornia DPS Amphibians AAAAA01181 1265 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 CDFW_WL‐Watch List | IUCN_VU‐
Vulnerable
Cismontane woodland |Meadow & seep | Riparian
woodland | Valley & foothill
grassland | Vernal pool |
Wetland
Lives in vacant or mammal‐
occupied burrows throughoutmost of the year; in grassland, savanna, or open woodland
habitats.

Need underground refuges, especially
ground squirrel burrows, and vernal
pools or other seasonal water sources
for breeding. 21
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp Crustaceans ICBRA03030 795 Threatened None G3 S3 IUCN_VU‐Vulnerable Valley & foothill grassland |
Vernal pool | Wetland
Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central Coastmountains, and South Coast mountains, in astatic rain‐filled
pools.

Inhabit small, clear‐water sandstone‐
depression pools and grassed swale,
earth slump, or basalt‐flow depression
pools. 3
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk Birds ABNKC19070 2548 None Threatened G5 S3 BLM_S‐Sensitive | IUCN_LC‐Least
Concern
Great Basin grassland |Riparian forest | Riparian
woodland | Valley & foothill
grassland
Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper‐sage flats,riparian areas, savannahs, andagricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable foraging
areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or
grain fields supporting rodent
populations. 11
Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Antioch Dunes evening‐primrose Dicots PDONA0C0B4 10 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABG‐
California/Rancho Santa AnaBotanic Garden | SB_UCBG‐UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley Interior dunes Interior dunes.

Remnant river bluffs and sand dunes
east of Antioch. 1‐15 m. 1
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Mammals AMAJA03041 1020 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2 Chenopod scrub | Valley &
foothill grassland
Annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby
vegetation.

Need loose‐textured sandy soils for
burrowing, and suitable prey base. 3
673
Appendix D
Environmental Noise Assessment
674
Environmental Noise Assessment
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, California
July 8, 2022
Project #220308
Prepared for:

Raney Planning & Management
1501 Sports Drive
Sacramento, California 95834
Prepared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE 675
Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS .....................................................8 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................8 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................................................8 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS.....................................................9 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY........................................................................9 EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE ........................................................10 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................12 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................13 REGULATORY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................13 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................13 STATE....................................................................................................................................................13 LOCAL....................................................................................................................................................13 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................21 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................................................21 NOISE LEVEL INCREASE CRITERIA FOR LONG-TERM PROJECT-RELATED NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................21 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..............................................................................22 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................28 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
676
Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan..........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations.......................................................................5 Figure 3: Future Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn) -without Sound Walls ...............................................................11 Figure 5: Future Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn) -with Sound Walls.....................................................................24 List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels.........................................................................................................................6 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data .........................................................8 Table 3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases...........................10 Table 4: Construction Equipment Noise .....................................................................................................12 Table 5: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment..................................................................13 Table 6: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings................................................................................20 Table 7: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ...................................................................................22 677
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

INTRODUCTION
The Oakley Machado Subdivision project consists of the development of a 76-lot single-family subdivision on a vacant parcel. The project is bordered by single-family residentials to the north, east, and south. The project is located south of East Cypress Lane and west of Machado Lane in the City of Oakley, California.

Figure 1 shows the project site plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers.

To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.
678
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, California
Figure 1
Project Site Plan
Project Location
679
Oakley Machado
Subdivision
City of Oakley, California
Figure 2
Noise Measurement Sites
East Cypress Road Machado Lane
680
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.)Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013. 681
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise–including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles–attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate. 682
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS

EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing single-family residential uses located south of the project site.

EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on East Cypress Road directly north of the project site.

To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at two locations on the project site and short-term noise level measurements at one location. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all of the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL 200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Site Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1 4/12/2022 72 70 52 87 65 41 87
LT-2 4/12/2022 57 53 50 68 51 46 66
ST-1 4/13/2022 – 4:53 pm N/A 60 58 70 N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2022
683
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at sensitive receptors for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions.

Noise levels due to traffic are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site.

The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.

Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (TJKM 2022), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. The predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network for Existing conditions which would result from the project are provided in terms of Ldn. Therefore, this analysis of off-site traffic noise increases is considered conservative.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance.

Tables 3 summarize the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the Project area. Appendix C provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic noise modeling.
684
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx TABLE 3: EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level (dBA Ldn) at Closest
Sensitive Receptors
Existing No
Project Existing + Project Change
Main St South of W Cypress Rd 67.9 68.1 0.2
W. Cypress Rd West of Main Street 70.1 70.1 0.0
E Cypress Rd Main St and Machado Ln 69.3 69.5 0.2
E Cypress Rd Machado Ln and Sellers Ave 63.4 63.4 0.0
E Cypress Rd East of Sellers Ave 60.0 60.0 0.0
Main St North of W Cypress Rd 64.1 64.2 0.1
Machado Lane South of E Cypress Rd 56.6 59.8 3.2
Based upon the data in Table 3, the proposed project is predicted to result in an increase in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 3.2 dBA.

EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE
Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise model to calculate traffic noise levels at the proposed singlefamily uses due to traffic on East Cypress Road. Traffic noise levels include a +1 dBA adjustment for future conditions. The results of this analysis are shown graphically on Figure 3. 685
East Cypress Road 75 dBA
1st Floor: 67 dBA
2nd Floor: 68 dBA
Community Park:
66 dBA
Oakley Machado
Subdivision
City of Oakley, California
Figure 3
Project Noise Contours (dBA Ldn)
73 dBA
71 dBA
69 dBA
67 dBA
65 dBA
68 dBA
67 dBA
Machado Lane
686
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, including roads, water and sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 5, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054.

January 2006.
687
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table 6 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

TABLE 5: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. CEQA standards are discussed more below under the Thresholds of Significance section.

LOCAL
City of Oakley General plan
GOAL 9.1 PROTECT COMMUNITY FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE
Protect residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise 688
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Policies

9.1.1. New development shall use the land use compatibility table shown in Figure 9-1 and the standards contained within Tables 9-7 and 9-8 for determining noise compatibility.

9.1.2. New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level due to nontransportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of Table 9-1 as measured immediately within the property line or within a designated outdoor activity area (location is at the discretion of the Community Development Director) of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards specified in Table 9-1.

9.1.3. Noise created by new proposed non- transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards of Table 9-7 as measured immediately within the property line of lands designated for noise-sensitive uses. Note: For the purposes of the Noise Element, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by Federal and State regulations.

Other noise sources are presumed to be subject to local regulations, such as a noise control ordinance. Non-transportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC) units, loading docks, etc.

9.1.4. Where proposed non-residential land uses are likely to produce noise levels exceeding the performance standards of Table 9-7 at existing or planned noise- sensitive uses, an acoustical analysis shall be required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design. The requirements for the contents of an acoustical analysis are given by Table 9-8.

9.1.5. Noise created by new transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified in Table 9-9 at outdoor activity areas or interior spaces of existing noise- sensitive land uses.

9.1.6. It is anticipated that roadway improvement projects will be needed to accommodate build-out of the general plan. Therefore, existing noise-sensitive uses may be exposed to increased noise levels due to roadway improvement projects as a result of increased roadway capacity, increases in travel speeds, etc. It may not be practical to reduce increased traffic noise levels consistent with those contained Table 9-9. Therefore, as an alternative, the following criteria may be used as a test of significance for roadway improvement projects:
• Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise- sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and • Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant
689
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

9.1.7. Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the standards of Tables 9-7 and 9-9, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design- related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project. Note: Existing dwellings and new single-family dwellings may not be subject to City review with respect to satisfaction of the standards of the Noise Element. As a consequence, such dwellings may be constructed in areas where noise levels exceed the standards of the Noise Element. It is not the responsibility of the City to ensure that such dwellings meet the noise standards of the Noise Element, or the noise standards imposed by lending agencies such as U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the State of California Department of Veteran Affairs (Cal Vet). If homes are located and constructed in accordance with the Noise Element, it is expected that the resulting exterior and interior noise levels will conform to the HUD/FHA/Cal Vet noise standards.

9.1.8. Obtrusive, discretionary noise generated from residences, motor vehicles, commercial establishments, and/or industrial facilities should be minimized or prohibited.

9.1.9. Activities associated with agricultural operations are recognized as noise sources which may be considered annoying to some residents. These activities can occur during the daytime and nighttime hours. Activities include crop dusting, tractor operations, zon guns, etc. The city will require that all new development of residential uses adjacent to agricultural uses provide full disclosure of potential noise sources to future residents consistent with the City’s right to farm ordinance.

Programs

9.1.A. The City has adopted and will update as necessary a Noise Ordinance to govern nuisance noise introduced by residential, commercial, or industrial uses. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate excessive noise produced by sources including, but not limited to, car stereos, parties, commercial and industrial activities (except where approved by the City), and other discretionary noise observed to be a nuisance to adjacent communities or businesses. 9-12 Noise Element

9.1.B. Prior to approval of development, roadway, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects, review projects to identify potential for noise levels to exceed the standards established in Policies

9.1.1 through 9.1.7 and require mitigation measures to ensure that noise is reduced to an acceptable level
GOAL 9.2 ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN NOISE PRODUCING LAND USES AND OTHER USES Protect the economic base of the City by preventing incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise-producing uses..

Policies

9.2.1. New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed the levels specified in Table 9-9, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise and noise levels in interior spaces to the levels specified in Table 9-9. 690
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Programs

9.2.A. Where noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels exceeding the levels specified in Table 9-9 or the performance standards of Table 9-7 (Table 1), an acoustical analysis shall be required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design.

TABLE 9-7:NOISE LEVELS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW PROJECTS AFFECTED BY OR INCLUDING NONTRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7a.m.) Hourly Leq, dB 55 45

1. Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring implusive noises (e.g., humming sounds, outdoor speaker systems). These noise levels standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with indusrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

2. The City can impose noise level standards which are more restrictive than those specified above based upon determination of existing low ambient noise levels.

3. Fixed noise sources which are typically of concern include, but are not limited to the following:

HVAC Systems Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
Pump Systems Lift Stations
Emergency Generators Boilers
Steam Valves Steam Turbines
Generators Fans
Air Compressors Heavy Equipment
Conveyor Systems Transformers
Pile Drivers Grinders
Drill Rigs Gas or Diesel Motors
Welders Cutting Equipment
Outdoor Speakers Blowers

4. The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include but are not limited to: industrial facilities including pumps stations, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops shopping centers, drive-up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works project, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, and gravel operations, and athletic fields. 691
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx TABLE 9-8: REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
An acoustical analysis prepared pursuant to the Noise Element shall:

A. Be the financial responsibility of the applicant.

B. Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.

C. Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and the predominant noise sources.

D. Estimate existing and projected cumulative (20 years) noise levels in terms of Ldn or CNEL and/or the stands of Table 1, and compare those levels to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.

E. Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element, giving preferences to proper site planning and design over mitigation measures which require the construction noise barriers or structural modification to building which contain noise sensitive land uses.

F. Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.

G. Describe a post-project assessment program which could be used to evaluate the effective ness of the proposed mitigation measures.

TABLE 9-9: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Use Outdoor Activity Interior Spaces
Residential 65 45 --
Transient Lodging 653 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 --
Theaters, Auditoriums, Musics Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 -- 40
Office Buildings -- -- 45
School, Libraries, Museums -- -- 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood, Parks 70 -- --

1. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the recieving land use.

2. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activity area.

3. As determined for a typical worst case hour during periods of use.

4. In the case of hotel/motel facilities or other transiet lodging, outdoor activity aream such as pool areas may not be included in the project design. In these cases, only the interior noise level criterion will apply. 692
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx FIGURE 9-1: LAND COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS Criteria for Acceptable Vibration
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
693
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities (p.p.v.) in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 6, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.

Table 6 indicates that the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. A threshold of 0.2 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short-term construction projects. 694
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx TABLE 6: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/second in/second

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered walls
and ceilings. Special types of finish such
as lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Caltrans. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002. 695
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans, or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Significance criteria for noise impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XI [a-f]).

Would the project:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

NOISE LEVEL INCREASE CRITERIA FOR LONG-TERM PROJECT-RELATED NOISE LEVEL INCREASES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines define a significant impact of a project if it “increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas.” Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed. These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in traffic noise from the project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following:
• A 3 dB change is barely perceptible,
• A 5 dB change is clearly perceptible, and
• A 10 dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud.

A limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre-project-noise conditions. Table 7 is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it is widely accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.
696
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx TABLE 7: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)
Based on the Table 7 data, an increase in the traffic noise level of 5 dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, or 3 dB or more where existing noise levels are between 60 to 65 dB Ldn. Extending this concept to higher noise levels, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more may be significant where the pre-project traffic noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. The rationale for the Table 7 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Traffic Noise Increases
As discussed, the substantial increase criteria range between +1.5 dBA to +5 dBA, depending on the existing noise levels. Under the proposed project, the maximum increase in traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 3.2 dBA with existing noise levels to be less than 60 dB Ldn as shown in Table 3. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered less-thansignificant.

Operational Noise Increases
The proposed project would include typical residential noise which would be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses.

Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in Table 5, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The great majority of the building construction would occur at distances of 50 feet or greater from the nearest residences, and at distances where construction noise would not be perceptible. Construction noise associated with streets would be similar to noise that would be associated with public works projects, such as a roadway widening or paving projects.
697
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways.

A project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours.

Construction activities are conditionally exempt from the Noise Ordinance during certain hours.

Construction activities are exempt from the noise standard from 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM to 4 PM on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or City holidays.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant.

Transportation Noise on Project Site (Non-CEQA Issue)
Exterior Transportation Noise
Compliance with City standards on new noise-sensitive receptors is not a CEQA consideration. However, this information is provided here so that a determination can be made regarding the ability of the proposed project to meet the requirements of the City of Oakley for exterior and interior noise levels at new sensitive uses proposed under the project.

As shown on Figure 3, the outdoor activity areas along East Cypress Road on the proposed project would be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding the City’s 65 dBA Ldn exterior noise standard for residential uses.

With construction of the sound wall design show in Figure 4, proposed noise-sensitive residential uses would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn, or less. This would comply with the City’s 65 dBA Ldn standard.
698
East Cypress Road 75 dBA
1st Floor: 64 dBA
2nd Floor: 68 dBA
Community Park:
64 dBA
Oakley Machado
Subdivision
City of Oakley, California
Figure 4
Project Noise Contours (dBA Ldn)
-With Noise Protection
73 dBA
71 dBA
69 dBA
67 dBA
64 dBA
64 dBA
Machado Lane
699
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Interior Transportation Noise
Modern building construction methods typically yield an exterior‐to‐interior noise level reduction of 25 dBA. Therefore, where exterior noise levels are 70 dBA Ldn, or less, no additional interior noise control measures are typically required. For this project, exterior noise levels are predicted to be less than 68 dBA Ldn at first and second floor locations.

This would result in interior noise levels of less than 43 dBA Ldn at first and second floor receivers based on typical building construction. This meets with the City of Oakley General Plan interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-thansignificant level. 1(a) Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:

Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM
Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the applicant/developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer. 1(b) The project contractor shall ensure that the following construction noise BMPs are met on-site during all phases of construction:
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, airinlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specifications.

Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise- control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. 700
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible. • Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.
• Project-related public address or music systems shall not be audible at any adjacent receptor.
• Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• 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 shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Construction noise BMPs shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the developer for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to grading permit issuance.

Recommended Condition of Approval
Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the firstrow lots shall be shielded from East Cypress Road through the use of 6-foot tall masonry sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer. The approximate locations of these barriers are shown on Figure 4. Other types of barriers may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed. Sound wall heights are assumed to be relative to building pad elevations and may achieve the required wall height through use of earthen berm and wall combinations to achieve the total height. 701
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx Impact 2: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception.

Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

With the exception of vibratory compactors, the Table 6 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distance of 20 feet. However, the proposed project includes parking lot and building construction which would occur at distances of approximately 10 feet from the adjacent single-family residential uses. Therefore, use of vibratory compactors within 26 feet of the adjacent residential buildings could cause vibrations in excess of 0.2 in/sec. Therefore, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-thansignificant level.

MM2(a): Any compaction required less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures to the south should be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, preconstruction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures.

Impact 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports within two miles of the project site. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project.
702
Oakley Machado Subdivision
City of Oakley, CA
Job #220308
July 8, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

\\saxdesktopnew\Job Folders\220308 Machado Subdivision\Word\220308 Oakley Machado Subdivision.docx

REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.

ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

City of Brentwood General Plan. July 22, 2014. Updated April 2019. https://www.brentwoodca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52464 Egan, M. D. (1988). Architectural acoustics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP05-054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.

Hanson, Carl E. (Carl Elmer). (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.

International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.

Miller, L. N., Bolt, Beranek, & and Newman, Inc. (1981). Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/ 703
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics   The science of sound.

Ambient Noise  The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC  Apparent  Sound  Transmission  Class.    Similar  to  STC  but  includes  sound  from  flanking  paths  and  correct  for  room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation   The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting   A  frequency‐response  adjustment  of  a  sound  level meter  that  conditions  the  output  signal  to  approximate  human response.

Decibel or dB   Fundamental  unit  of  sound, A Bell is  defined as  the logarithm  of  the  ratio  of  the  sound  pressure  squared  over  the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL   Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as  the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL  See definition of Ldn.

IIC  Impact  Insulation  Class.  An  integer‐number  rating  of  how  well  a  building  floor  attenuates  impact  sounds,  such  as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency   The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn     Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq     Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax     The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n)   The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness   A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC  Noise Isolation Class.  A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces.  Similar to STC but includes sound  from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC  Normalized Noise Isolation Class.  Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise     Unwanted sound.

NRC   Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple  of  0.05. It  is  a  representation  of  the  amount of  sound energy  absorbed  upon  striking  a  particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

RT60     The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin   The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.

SEL   Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

SPC  Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed  to measure the degree of speech  privacy  provided  by  a  closed  room,  indicating  the  degree  to  which  conversations  occurring  within  are  kept private from listeners outside the room.

STC   Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used  to  rate  interior  partitions,  ceilings/floors,  doors,  windows  and  exterior  wall  configurations.    The  STC  rating  is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist.   A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Threshold  The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing   to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold   Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive   Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Simple Tone         Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches. 704
Appendix B: Continuous and Short-Term
Ambient Noise Measurement Results
705
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Tuesday, April 12, 2022 0:00 67 98 40 40 Coordinates: 37.9905825°, Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:00 60 85 34 34
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:00 59 81 35 35
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:00 60 85 35 35
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:00 63 81 41 41
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 5:00 66 83 49 49
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 6:00 69 86 52 52
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 7:00 70 89 53 53
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:00 71 91 52 52
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:00 70 85 52 52
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:00 70 84 53 53
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:00 70 86 50 50
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 12:00 70 87 51 51
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 13:00 70 91 51 51
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 14:00 71 87 54 54
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 15:00 70 84 53 53
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 16:00 71 84 55 55
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 17:00 71 92 54 54
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 18:00 70 84 53 53
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 19:00 70 87 53 53
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 20:00 70 91 51 51
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 21:00 67 84 47 47
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 22:00 66 88 44 44
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 23:00 65 90 39 39
Leq Lmax L50 L90
70 87 52 52
65 86 41 41
67 84 47 47
71 92 55 55
59 81 34 34
69 98 52 52
72 86
73 14
Appendix B1: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Machado Subdivision
Northern Project Boundary
LDL 820-2
Night Average
CAL200
-121.6843567°
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Tuesday, April 12, 2022
Statistics
Day Average
CNEL Night %
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
98 85
81 85
81 83
86 89 91
85 84 86 87
91 87
84 84
92 84
87 91
84 88
90 40
34 35 35
41 49
52 53 52 52 53
50 51 51
54 53
55 54 53 53
51 47
44 39
67 60 59 60
63 66
69 70 71 70 70 70 70 70 71 70 71 71 70 70 70
67 66 65
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
105
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
E Cypress Rd
706
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Tuesday, April 12, 2022 0:00 57 82 49 43 Coordinates: 37.9875858°, Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:00 47 59 46 40
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:00 47 60 46 41
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:00 45 58 43 38
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:00 46 58 44 39
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 5:00 49 69 45 42
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 6:00 47 59 46 43
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 7:00 49 63 48 46
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:00 50 66 49 46
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:00 50 66 48 45
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:00 58 78 49 46
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:00 47 74 45 42
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 12:00 47 67 44 40
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 13:00 49 67 47 43
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 14:00 50 63 48 44
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 15:00 53 68 49 45
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 16:00 53 65 51 47
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 17:00 54 65 52 48
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 18:00 55 68 54 50
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 19:00 55 68 54 49
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 20:00 55 69 54 49
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 21:00 54 67 52 47
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 22:00 55 70 50 43
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 23:00 52 77 43 36
Leq Lmax L50 L90
53 68 50 46
51 66 46 41
47 63 44 40
58 78 54 50
45 58 43 36
57 82 50 43
57 77
CNEL 58 Night % 23
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
-121.6828745°
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Tuesday, April 12, 2022
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B2: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Machado Subdivision
South-East Project Boundary
LDL 820-3
82 59 60 58 58
69 59
63 66 66
78 74
67 67
63 68
65 65
68 68 69
67 70
77 43
40 41
38 39
42 43
46 46 45 46
42 40
43 44 45
47 48 50 49 49 47
43 36
57 47 47
45 46
49 47
49 50 50
58 47 47
49 50
53 53 54
55 55 55 54 55
52 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
95 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
Machado Lane
707
Site: ST-1
Project: Machado Subdivision Meter:

Location: Northern Boundary Calibrator:

Coordinates: 37.9904419°,
Start:

Stop:

SLM: SoundAdvisor™ Model 831C
Serial: 11709
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 60
Lmax: 70
Lmin: 46
L50: 58
L90: 52
LDL 831-1
CAL200
2022-04-13 16:43:30
2022-04-13 16:53:30
Measurement Results, dBA
Primary Noise Makers are the traffic from E Cyress Road.

Notes
-121.6835947°
Appendix B1 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
Noise Measurement Site
29 32
35 39
45 40 40 41 41 42
45 50
52 53 53 51
48 46
43 39
35 32
29 33
39 47 49 47
54 65
53 52
56 55 56 58
62 60 61 63
61 58 59 58
51 47
44 42
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-1 E Cypress Road
708
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results
709
Project #:

Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Main St South of W Cypress Rd 11,380 80 0 20 1.0% 1.0% 45 25 ‐5 181 84 39 67.9 2 W. Cypress Rd West of Main Street 7,260 84 0 16 1.0% 1.0% 45 12 ‐5 122 57 26 70.1 3 E Cypress Rd Between Main St and Machado Ln 14,840 84 0 16 1.0% 3.0% 45 26 ‐5 233 108 50 69.3 4 E Cypress Rd Between Machado Ln and Sellers Ave 8,520 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 30 0 51 24 11 63.4 5 E Cypress Rd East of Sellers Ave 8,390 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 35 ‐5 76 35 16 60.0 6 Main St North of W Cypress Rd 10,700 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 22 ‐5 89 41 19 64.1 7 Machado Lane South of E Cypress Rd 200 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 22 0 6 3 1 51.8 8 E Cypress Rd Between Machado Ln and Sellers Ave 8,520 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 165 0 76 35 16 55.0 9 Machado Lane South of E Cypress Rd 200 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 23 0 6 3 1 51.5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 011 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 012 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 013 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 014 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 015 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 016 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 017 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 018 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 019 0 00 82.97231165 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 #VALUE! 20 0 0 0 91 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 #VALUE!
21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Eve
%
Day
Segment Roadway Segment ADT %
Appendix C‐1
211206
FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Machado Subdivision ‐ Existing Traffic
Contours (ft.) ‐ No
Offset
Offset
Speed Distance (dB)
% Hvy.

Trucks
% Med.

Trucks
Night
%
710
Project #:

Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Main St South of W Cypress Rd 11,940 80 0 20 1.0% 1.0% 45 25 ‐5 187 87 40 68.12 W. Cypress Rd West of Main Street 7,260 84 0 16 1.0% 1.0% 45 12 ‐5 122 57 26 70.1 3 E Cypress Rd Between Main St and Machado Ln 15,530 84 0 16 1.0% 3.0% 45 26 ‐5 240 111 52 69.5 4 E Cypress Rd Between Machado Ln and Sellers Ave 8,540 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 30 0 51 24 11 63.4 5 E Cypress Rd East of Sellers Ave 8,400 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 35 ‐5 76 35 16 60.0 6 Main St North of W Cypress Rd 10,830 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 22 ‐5 90 42 19 64.2 7 Machado Lane South of E Cypress Rd 910 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 22 0 17 8 4 58.4 8 E Cypress Rd Between Machado Ln and Sellers Ave 8,540 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 165 0 77 36 17 55.0 9 Machado Lane South of E Cypress Rd 910 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 35 23 0 17 8 4 58.1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 011 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 012 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 013 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 014 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 015 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 016 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 017 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 018 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 019 0 0 14,160 82.97231165 0 17.02768835 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 20 0 0 15,530 91 0 9 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
Appendix C‐2FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model 211206Machado Subdivision ‐ Existing Plus Project Traffic Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) ‐ No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
711
Appendix E
Traffic Impact Analysis
712
Machado Lane Residential Development
Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
June 17, 2022
Oakley, CA
713
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
Page i
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Study Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Study Intersections ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Study Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Level of Service Analysis Menthodolody ................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 10

3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 17

3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 17

4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions .......................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Project Trip Generation..................................................................................................................................................... 1

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................................. 3

4.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions..................................................... 6

5.0 Background Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Background Traffic Growth ............................................................................................................................................. 8

5.2 Intersections Level of Service Analysis – Background No-Project Conditions ........................................... 9

6.0 Background plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Background plus Project Conditions ......................................... 13

7.0 Additional Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 16

7.1 Site Access, Circulation, and Multimodal Impacts .............................................................................................. 16 714
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
Page ii

7.2 Sight Distance Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 17

7.3 Parking Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

7.4 Queueing Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Control Delay ................................................................... 9 Table 2: Existing Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 17 Table 4: Project Vehicle Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions ..................................................... 6 Table 6: Intersection Level of Service – Background Conditions ....................................................................................... 9 Table 7: Intersection Traffic Level of Service – Background plus Project Conditions ............................................. 13 Table 8: Queueing for Study Intersections, in Feet .............................................................................................................. 18 Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Transit Service Map ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Existing Lane Patterns and Traffic Control ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 6: Traffic Analysis Zones in Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1 Figure 7a: Trip Distribution & Assignment ................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 7b: Trip Distribution & Assignment ................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 8: Existing plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 7 Figure 9a: Trip Distribution with Laurel Road Extension .................................................................................................... 10 Figure 9b: Background Lane Patterns and Traffic Control with Laurel Road Extension ........................................ 11 Figure 10: Background Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 11: Background plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 15 715
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
Page iii
Appendices
Appendix A – Existing Conditions LOS Reports
Appendix B – Existing plus Project Conditions LOS Reports Appendix C – Existing plus Project Conditions Mitigated LOS Reports Appendix D – Background Conditions LOS Reports
Appendix E – Background plus Project Conditions LOS Reports Appendix F – Background plus Project Conditions Mitigated LOS Reports

716
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes results of the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) for a proposed Machado Lane residential development in the City of Oakley in Contra Costa County. The project site is located in east Oakley, on the southwest corner of the intersection at E. Cypress Road and Machado Lane. The proposed residential development includes 76 single-family residential lots. The entire development is within the City of Oakley. Direct access to and from the site is proposed via one driveway on Machado Lane. There are no existing sidewalks on Machado Lane in the vicinity of the project area.

This chapter discusses the TIS Purpose, project study area, and analysis scenarios. Figure 1 shows the study area and project site location. Figure 2 shows the project site plan, dated November 2021.

1.1 STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate potential transportation impacts that could result from the proposed project, identify short-term and long-term multi-modal circulation needs where relevant to site access and/or project impacts, identify potential mitigation measures for any significant transportation impacts, and evaluate the adequacy of the proposed site plan for accommodating multi-modal site access and meeting City of Oakley Guidelines.

1.2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
TJKM evaluated transportation conditions at three existing study intersections, and one proposed new driveway which would provide access to the project site. All intersections were evaluated based on conditions provided from recent traffic counts conducted for the a.m. (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.) peak periods for a typical weekday. The following study intersections were selected in consultation with City staff based on the anticipated trip generation and travel pattern for project trips:

1. Main Street / E. Cypress Road

2. Machado Lane / E. Cypress Road

3. Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress Road

4. Machado Lane / Project Driveway*
* Indicates intersection would be evaluated under “plus Project” scenarios only

1.3 STUDY SCENARIOS
The roadway operations analysis addresses the following six traffic scenarios:
 Existing Conditions – This scenario describes existing transportation conditions in the study area based on the current roadway and sidewalk network characteristics, transit service, and the existing Oakley Citywide Traffic Model.
 Existing plus Project Conditions – This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions but with the additions of net new trips that would be generated by the project. 717
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

 Background Conditions –This scenario describes the projected peak hour traffic operations based on the net change to travel patterns anticipated from approved (but not yet constructed) or fully/partially occupied developments in the City at the time of the Existing Conditions assessment. This includes additional trips that would be generated if the proposed approved developments were to operate at full occupancy. The conditions in this scenario were developed using the Updated Citywide Vistro Model.
 Background plus Project Conditions – This scenario is similar to Background Conditions but with the inclusion of vehicle trips that would be generated by the project. The Background plus Project Conditions analysis provides an assessment of project impacts that takes into account other projects that would be completed within a similar timeframe as the project. 718
Mailcoat Ave
1 2 3
x
Main St
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave Sellers Ave
Knightsen Ave
Broadway St
Emerson Ranch Wy
Franklin L
n
Machado Ln
Picasso Dr
Jersey Island Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
W Bolton Rd
Brownstone Rd
Hill Ave
Study Intersection Project Entrance Project Site
N
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
270-042
LEGEND
719
TJKM
N
Figure 2: Project Site Plan
270-042
720
TJKM
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
The City of Oakley has not yet established standards of significance for vehicle miles traveled which is now a mandatory CEQA component of traffic studies. 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 OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded. This study evaluates project-related VMT as outlined in the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. The methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by CCTA in July 2020.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT. The project does not satisfy the requirements for screening criteria 1-4.

Under the CCTA VMT methodology, a low VMT area is defined as a city or unincorporated portion within one of the CCTA subregions where home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide or where the commute VMT per employee is at least 15 percent below the regional average.

A conservative reading of the methodology would indicate that when the citywide average VMT per resident is above the countywide average, projects cannot be screened out based on location, and a VMT analysis must be completed. In such cases, the appropriate significance thresholds based on countywide or regional average would be applied. The methodology also permits the applicable average VMT for the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion to be utilized instead of the countywide or regional average, if it is less stringent.

Under CCTA guidelines, a residential project would have a significant impact on VMT if it would generate residential VMT per capita higher than 85 percent of the City of Oakley average.

2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS MENTHODOLODY
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free-flow with little or no delay) and F representing the worst conditions (severely congested flow with high delays). Intersections are generally the capacity-controlling locations, with respect to traffic operations, on arterial and collector streets. 721
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

Signalized Intersections
The study intersections under traffic signal control were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) Operations Methodology for Signalized Intersections (Transportation Research Board, 2016), as described in Chapter 19. This methodology determines LOS based on overall average control delay per vehicle for the intersection during peak hour operating conditions. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections was calculated using Vistro analysis software version 7.00-05 and correlated to a LOS designation. Table 1 presents the HCM 6 delay and LOS definitions.

Unsignalized Intersections
Stop-control study intersections were analyzed using HCM 6 Operations Methodology for Unsignalized Intersections, as described in Chapters 20 and 21. LOS ratings for stop-control intersections are based on average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At the side street of one-way stop-controlled intersections or two-way stop sign intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The weighted average delay for the entire intersections is presented for all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, while the worst-movement delay is presented for side-street stop-controlled intersections. The average control delay for unsignalized intersections was calculated using Vistro analysis software version (7.00-04) and correlated to a LOS designation. At an unsignalized intersection, most of the major street traffic is not delayed, and by definition has acceptable conditions. The major street left-turn movements and minor street movements are all susceptible to delay of varying degrees. Generally, higher major street traffic volumes are associated with higher delay for minor movements. HCM 6 definitions for delay and LOS at signalized intersections are presented in Table

1. The analysis methodology described above was used to measure a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations for all study intersections.

Table 1 describes the LOS thresholds from the HCM 6th edition for intersections. The intersection LOS thresholds differ between signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Table 1: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Control Delay Level of
Service Description
Signalized
Intersection
Delay (D)
(sec)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Delay (D)
(sec)
A
Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle.

Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all.

Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.
0 ≤ D ≤ 10 0 ≤ D ≤ 10
B
Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per
vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay. 10 < D ≤ 20 10 < D ≤ 15
722
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

C
Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per
vehicle. Fair progression or longer cycle lengths, or both cause higher delays. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles and overflow occurs. The
number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
20 < D ≤ 35 15 < D ≤ 25
D
Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per
vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the
proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35 < D ≤ 55 25 < D ≤ 35
E
Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per
vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent.
55 < D ≤ 80 35 < D ≤ 50
F
Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle.

Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many
individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay. 80 < D 50 < D
Source: HCM 6th Edition

2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans.

Per the City of Oakley General Plan, LOS D or a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 are the thresholds of acceptability for signalized intersections. Any signalized intersection operating worse than LOS D would be considered inconsistent with this standard. The intersection of Main Street and E. Cypress Road, which is a CMP intersection (Contra Costa County 2019 Congestion Management Program, CCTA, 2019), and the intersections along Main Street at Laurel Road and Delta Road, which are within Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2040, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017), have standards of LOS E or better. For this study, the study intersections were analyzed using HCM 6th Edition Methodology as per the City’s guidance. Average control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-waystop-control intersections and critical delay for minor approaches is reported for two-way-stop-control intersections. Intersections operating worse than LOS D are considered inconsistent with the City’s standard.
723
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes criteria for potential transportation impacts. Although no longer applicable for CEQA, they are still relevant issues for consideration by Oakley. These include whether a project would result in one of the following:
 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and mass transit.
 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency access.
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.  Section 4B of the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines identifies significance criteria based on level of service analysis results. Significant impacts occur if:
 The addition of project traffic results in the degradation of intersection operations from acceptable LOS D or better to unacceptable operations (LOS E or LOS F), except for intersections in Priority Development Areas (“PDA”) where the minimum acceptable operational standard is LOS E;
 The addition of project traffic to an intersection operating unacceptably before the addition of project trips results in an increase in average controlled delay (for signalized and all-way stopcontrolled intersections) or worst movement/approach delay (for side-street stop-controlled intersections) at the intersection by 5.0 seconds or more.

724
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations.

3.1 EXISTING SETTING AND ROADWAY SYSTEM
Relevant roadways in the project vicinity are discussed below and shown in Figure 1.

E. Cypress Road – E. Cypress Road is a two to four lane major arterial roadway. E. Cypress Road extends east-west between Main Street and Sandmound Boulevard. Residential, school, and agricultural uses, along with vacant land, characterize the lands along both sides of E. Cypress Road. Posted speed limits on E. Cypress Road are 35 miles per hour (mph) between Main Street and Frank Hengel Way and east of Summer Lake Drive, 45 mph between Frank Hengel Way and Sellers Avenue and between Bethel Island Road and Summer Lake Drive, and 50 mph between Sellers Avenue and Bethel Island Road.

Sellers Avenue – Sellers Avenue is a two lane, north-south collector roadway north of E. Cypress Road, and minor arterial south of E. Cypress Road. Residential and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of Sellers Avenue. The maximum posted speed limit on Sellers Avenue is 50 mph between E.

Cypress Road and Delta Road.

Machado Lane – Machado Lane is an unpaved, bidirectional roadway that provides access to singlefamily homes south of E. Cypress Road. Residential and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of Machado Lane. There is no posted speed limit on Machado Lane.

Main Street – Main Street is a two to four lane major arterial roadway. Main Street is currently the major north-south transportation corridor in the City of Oakley. Mixed residential, commercial, and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of Main Street between Rose Avenue and Laurel Avenue.

Maximum speeds posted on Main Street are 35 mph west of Rose Avenue, 45 mph between Rose Avenue and Bernard Road, and 40 mph south of Bernard Road.

3.2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses providing residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, minimal conflict points with vehicle traffic, and access to transit facilities and services.

Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities.

There are no existing sidewalks provided along the project frontage. The closest sidewalk network is located on the north side of E. Cypress Road at the intersection of E. Cypress Road and Machado Lane.

Sidewalks are also provided on local collectors and arterials such as Emerson Way, Sellers Avenue, Picasso Drive, and Main Street.
725
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities include the following:

Multi-Use Paths (Class I) – A path physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier, and either within a highway or an independent right-of-way (ROW), used by bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and other non-motorized travelers. Class I paths are the most popular type of facility. Because the availability of uninterrupted ROW is limited, this type of facility may be difficult to locate and expensive to build, relative to other types of bicycle facilities, but inexpensive compared to new roadways. Ideal locations for bike paths are areas such as powerline easements, utility easements, canal banks, river levees, drainage easements, railroad or highway ROW, or regional community parks.

Bike Lanes (Class II) – A portion of a roadway designated by striping and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are intended to promote an orderly flow of bicycle and vehicle traffic. This type of facility is established by using the appropriate striping, pavement legends, and signs.

Bike Routes (Class III) – Bike routes are shared facilities between bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.

They provide for specific bicycle demand and may be used to connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. In addition, bike routes are located on residential streets and rural roads. If the pavement width is sufficient, and traffic volume/speeds warrant, an edge line may be painted to further delineate the bike route. Bike routes are signed with the G-93 Bike Route marker but no striping or legends are required.

The City of Oakley General Plan (September 2002), City of Oakley Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan 2020 (Summer 2007), and the Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (October 2009) propose that several new bicycle facilities be constructed in the future which includes trunk line bikeway network passing through Main Street and Laurel Road and a local multi-use trail on E. Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue in the vicinity of the project area.

The existing bicycle facilities are at the following locations:
 East Cypress Road – Class II bicycle facilities are provided on the north side between Knightsen Avenue and Main Street, and on the south side between Main Street and 790 feet east of Frank Hengel Way.
 Main Street- Class II bicycle facilities are provided between Cypress Road and Simoni Ranch Road on both sides.
 Sellers Avenue – Class II bicycle facilities are provided north of E. Cypress Road.  Laurel Road- Class II bicycle facilities are provided between Harvest Drive and Main Street on both sides.
 Marsh Creek Regional Trail- Class I bicycle facility provided along Marsh Creek which can be accessed through Delta road approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site.  Via Delta de Anza Trail- Class I bicycle facility provided along Contra Costa Canal which can be accessed through Cypress Road and O’ Hara Avenue approximately two miles west of the project site.
726
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
Tri-Delta Transit provides transit services in the City of Oakley, with three lines connecting Brentwood and the Pittsburg/Bay Point Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. Due to Covid 19 conditions, some of the routes and schedules may not currently be in full operation.  Route 300, the Pittsburg BART/Brentwood Park & Ride route, is a weekday express route connecting Brentwood to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station via Oakley and Antioch. This bus travels along Main Street, operating from 4:15 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m. with 15 to 30- minute headways.
 Route 383, the Oakley/Antioch/Freedom High School route, connects Oakley to Antioch and Freedom High School in Oakley. This route, in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions, provides only weekday service. The counterclockwise route runs with approximate one-hour headways, and the clockwise route runs twice during the a.m. peak hour period only.  Route 391, the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route, provides weekday service to most East County Cities. The route operates from 4:00 a.m. to 1:15 a.m. with 30 to 60-minute headways.
 Route 393, the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route, provides weekend service to Route 391. The route operates from 5:20 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with approximately 60-minute headways.

Table 2 summarizes the services and frequency during the weekday and on weekends for transit in the City of Oakley. Figure 3 shows a map of transit routes operated by Tri-Delta Transit. 727
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

Table 2: Existing Transit Facilities
Route From To
Weekdays Saturday Sunday
Hours Headway
(min) Hours Headway (min) Hours Headway (min)
300
Pittsburg/
Bay Point
BART
Station
Brentwood
Park &
Ride
4:15 a.m. –
10:00 p.m. 10-30 …. …. …. ….
383
Antioch
Park &
Ride
Antioch
Park &
Ride 1
6:52 a.m. –
5:26 p.m. 60-120 …. …. …. ….
391
Pittsburg/
Bay Point
BART
Station
Brentwood
Park &
Ride
4:03 a.m. -
1:14 a.m. 30-60 …. …. …. ….
393
Pacifica &
Mariners
Cove
Brentwood
Park &
Ride
…. …. 5:22 a.m. –
1:39 a.m. 60 6:24 a.m. – 1:49 a.m. 60
Source: www.trideltatransit.com

728
Figure 3: Transit Service Map
270-042
N
729
TJKM
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Turning movement volumes for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at all study intersections were conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at all locations. TJKM collected intersection turning movement counts for a.m. (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.) peaks on Wednesday, February 9, 2022. Since the City of Oakley is currently in the process of updating the model, the analysis may be updated with current counts at all intersections. Existing lane patterns and traffic control are illustrated in Figure 4. Existing turning movement volumes at each existing study intersection are illustrated in Figure 5.

3.6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Under Existing Conditions, intersections were analyzed based on lane geometries and traffic controls provided by the Existing Conditions scenario of the Citywide Traffic Model and observed in the field.

Table 3 summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing Conditions.

Detailed LOS worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix A. Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during both peak hours, except the intersection at Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1), which operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour.

Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable intersection operations. * Indicates intersection is located in Priority Development Area and has standard of LOS E (Plan Bay Area 2050). 1 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, reported values are overall for signalized and all-way-stop-control intersections; and critical minor approaches for one- and two-way stop-control intersections. 2 LOS: Level of Service.

ID Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Average
Delay1 LOS2
1 Main Street / E. Cypress Road* Signalized A.M. >80 F
P.M. 31.3 C
2 Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress Road Signalized A.M. 12.8 B P.M. 11.2 B
3 Machado Lane / E. Cypress Road Signalized A.M. 16.0 B P.M. 16.3 B
730
Traffic Signal
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Figure 4: Existing Lane Pattern and Traffic Control
270-042
LEGEND
Stop Sign TJKM
731
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
109 (28)
469 (331)
0 (5)
443 (202)
431 (233)
362 (213)
7 (1)0 (2)0 (6)
99 (128)
196 (233)332 (244)
96 (86)
5 (2)
47 (106)
80 (51)0 (0)84 (20)
8 (10)2 (0)1 (3)
5 (16)194 (268)269 (323)
1 (0)
501 (283)
95 (68)
56 (80)
392 (462)
3 (6)
26 (28)
233 (269)
76 (52)
11 (1)
289 (379)
177 (96)
Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
732
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis

4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

4.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
TJKM conducted Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis for the project in compliance with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) via the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) recommended VMT analysis methodology. The CCTA VMT analysis methodology provides different screening criteria and significance thresholds based on the project land use type. CCTA considers residential projects to have a significant impact on VMT if the project generated home-based VMT per resident is higher than the less stringent of the following:
 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the municipality or  85% of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident.

TJKM performed a VMT analysis for the proposed multifamily housing project located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of E. Cypress Road and Machado Lane in Oakley, CA. The project proposes build 76 single family units in a residential subdivision.

The VMT Analysis was performed with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Model. The Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) for this project in the model is #30269. 76 single family dwelling units were added into the TAZ for the base year to see if the project creates significant VMT impacts.

Two full model runs were performed for this project in accordance to CCTA VMT methodology. The first one is a base year 2020 run to analyze existing VMT per capita numbers for the City of Oakley. The second run is a base year plus project 2020 run with the housing units added in to see if its impact on VMT is significant.

From the 2020 Base Year run, the home based VMT per capita for the City of Oakley is 26.76. For a project to not be significant, the 85% threshold is set at 0.85 x 26.76 which is 22.75. This value is the less stringent home-based VMT per capita number as mentioned in the CCTA VMT methodology guidelines.

The 2020 Base Year plus Project model run added 76 Single Family Dwelling Units into TAZ #30269. The resultant home based VMT per capita for the project TAZ is 23.81. Since this value is higher than the threshold, some mitigation is required for this project to have an insignificant impact on VMT.

A mitigation measure that this project may attempt is described below:
 Improve the pedestrian network – this strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network within the project and connecting to nearby destinations. Sidewalk improvements count as part of this strategy and the maximum VMT reduction allowed is 5.7%.

A 5.7% reduction in VMT for the project reduces the value from 23.81 to 22.45. With the mitigation, the Machado Lane project is found to have a less than significant impact on the City of Oakley VMT for the base year. Figure 6 illustrates the traffic analysis zones surrounding the proposed project. 733
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
1 Figure 6: Traffic Analysis Zones in Project Study Area 30268
30276
30269
30305
734
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
1 4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The project vehicle trip generation rates were obtained from the reference Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on the applicable rates for SingleFamily Detached Housing (ITE Code 210), the Project is forecasted to generate 1,964 daily vehicle trips, including 154 a.m. peak hour and 206 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips, as summarized in Table 4. 735
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
2 Table 4: Project Vehicle Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size1 Daily A.M. Peak2 P.M. Peak2 Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Proposed Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 76 DU 9.43 717 0.70 26:74 14 39 53 0.94 63:37 45 26 71 Net New Trips 717 14 39 53 45 26 71
Notes: Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 1DU – Dwelling Units 2A.M. Peak – morning peak period (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.); P.M. Peak – evening peak period (4:00p.m.-6:00 p.m.) 736
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
3 4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project were manually assigned to each study intersection based on the following origin and destination trip-distribution assumptions:
 45 percent to/from SR 4 west of CA-160
 15 percent to/from SR 4 east of CA-160
 15 percent to/from Main Street south of Cypress Road
 10 percent to/from Main Street west of Cypress Road
 5 percent to/from CA-160
 4 percent to/from Empire Avenue south of Laurel Road
 3 percent to/from O’Hara Avenue south of Laurel Road
 1 percent to/from Sellers Avenue south of Delta Road
 1 percent to/from Knightsen Avenue south of Delta Road  1 percent to/from E. Cypress Road east of Jersey Island Road Figures 7a and 7b illustrate the distribution of project trips to origins/destinations, and the assignment of project trips to study intersections based on the anticipated path(s) of travel. 737
Mailcoat Ave
1 2 3
x
Main St
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave Sellers Ave
Knightsen Ave
Broadway St
Emerson Ranch Wy
Franklin Ln
Machado Ln
Jersey Island Rd
Picasso Dr
Frank Hengel Wy
Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
W Bolton Rd
Brownstone Rd
Hill Ave
Study Intersection Project Entrance Project Site Trip Distribution 19%
63%
1%
15%
1% 1%
XX%
N
Figure 7a: Trip Distribution & Assignment
270-042
LEGEND
738
TJKM
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
3 (8)
7 (5)
30 (21)
14 (43)
1 (0)
1 (0)
0 (1)
0 (1)
11 (35)
0 (2) E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Main St
Machado Ln
Sellers Ave
37 (26)
2 (0)
Figure 7b: Trip Distribution & Assignment
270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Project Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Project Volume
739
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
6 4.4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 8 shows the peak hour volumes at each intersection under Existing plus Project Conditions. Table 5 summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions, based on the addition of project trips to each study intersection. Detailed LOS worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. As shown, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Existing plus Project conditions, except the intersection at Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1), which operates at LOS F during the a.m. peak.

Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable intersection operations. * Indicates intersection is located in Priority Development Area and has standard of LOS E (Plan Bay Area 2050). 1 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, reported values are overall for signalized and all-way-stop-control intersections; and critical minor approaches for two-way- stop-control intersections. 2 LOS: Level of Service.

Traffic Impact Findings
The project impact to the intersection at Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1) is potentially significant because the project adds five or more seconds of delay in the a.m. peak period.

The signalized intersection of Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Study Intersection #1) operates at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak hour under Existing Conditions without and with the proposed project. During the a.m. peak hour, the addition of project traffic increases delay by over five seconds, and thus a potential significant impact, due to lack of acceptable signal service to the westbound left-turn movement, is observed. Converting the outermost westbound left-turn lane into an exclusive through lane and increasing phase splits at the northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches does not improve LOS to acceptable levels, however, reduces delay to levels below Existing Conditions. Detailed LOS worksheets for mitigations under Existing plus Project Conditions are provided in Appendix C.

ID Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing plus Project
Conditions
Average
Delay1 LOS2 Average Delay1 LOS2
Potential
Significant LOS
Impact?
1 Main Street / E. Cypress
Road* Signalized A.M. >80 F >80 F Yes
P.M. 31.3 C 34.1 C No
2 Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress
Road Signalized A.M. 12.8 B 13.2 B No
P.M. 11.2 B 11.8 B No
3 Machado Lane / E. Cypress
Road Signalized A.M. 16.0 B 16.0 B No
P.M. 16.3 B 16.4 B No
4 Machado Lane / Project
Driveway One-Way Stop A.M. - - 8.7 A No
P.M. - - 8.8 A No
740
Mailcoat Ave
1 2 3 Main St
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave Sellers Ave
Knightsen Ave
Broadway St
Emerson Ranch Wy
Franklin Ln
Machado Ln
Picasso Dr
Jersey Island Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
W Bolton Rd
E Bolton Rd
Brownstone Rd
Hill Ave
Trip Distribution
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #4
Project Dwy / Machado Ln
E Cypress Rd
Main St
450 (207)
431 (233)
392 (234)
99 (128)
196 (233)343 (279)
5 (16)194 (268)
272 (331)
26 (28)
233 (269)
76 (52)
E Cypress Rd
Machado Ln
109 (28)
496 (331)
0 (7)
44 (27)
0 (2)2 (6)
80 (51)0 (0)
84 (20)
56 (80)
392 (462)
17 (49)
E Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave
96 (87)
5 (2)
47 (106)
8 (10)2 (0)
1 (3)
1 (0)
501 (284)
95 (68)
11 (1)
290 (379)
178 (96)
Machado Ln
0 (0)7 (9)
14 (45)3 (11)
39 (26)
0 (0)
Project Dwy
19%
63%
1%
15%
1% 1%
XX%
N
Figure 8: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
741
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
8 5.0 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
This scenario evaluates the project’s contribution to potential background traffic impacts. Future impacts were evaluated taking into account key planned improvements in the City of Oakley. The most notable project is the completion of the Laurel Road extension between Main Street and Sellers Avenue. This includes a railroad grade separation and widening/construction of Laurel Road to four lanes in this section. In addition, Sellers Avenue is planned to be widened to four lanes between Laurel Road and E.

Cypress Road. Cypress Road is planned to be fully improved to six lanes east of Sellers Avenue and to four lanes west of Sellers Avenue. Other roads and intersections are scheduled to be improved as well.

Figures 9a and 9b describe the details of the assumed future roadway system with the Laurel Road extension, including the distribution of traffic as depicted in the Updated Oakley Traffic Model and lane patterns and traffic control at each intersection.

5.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
Using the calibrated and validated updated Citywide Traffic Model, additional traffic projected to be generated from approved developments was forecasted for Background Conditions. The Background Conditions scenario includes additional traffic that would be generated by various approved projects completed within the City of Oakley and redistribution of traffic due to the Laurel Road extension. The approved projects include the Acacia Residential, Emerson Ranch Commercial, and Burroughs/WestGate Ventures Residential projects previously completed by TJKM, along with the following projects approved by the City of Oakley:
 Wendy’s Restaurant at Bridgehead Rd/Main Street
 Diablo Water District Corporation Yard Office and Shopping Building  Oakley Village Residential Subdivision
Additionally, he following planned improvements, as per the Capital Improvement Program, are considered at the study intersections with and without the proposed project:
 Main Street/E. Cypress Road is analyzed with the future planned upgrade to striping at the westbound approach. The intersection is analyzed with one exclusive left-turn lane, one share through-left lane, and one right turn lane at the westbound approach.  Machado Lane/E. Cypress Road is analyzed with upgrades to lane geometry due to widening of E.

Cypress Road. The westbound approach has one additional through lane under Background Conditions.
 Sellers Avenue/E. Cypress Road is analyzed with the recent upgrade to lane geometry and signal timing. Additionally, the intersection considers planned widenings of Sellers Avenue and E.

Cypress Road segments. The intersection is analyzed with one shared through-left lane and two right-turn lanes at the southbound approach; one exclusive left-turn lane, one shared throughright lane and two right-turn lanes at the northbound approach; one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one shared through-right lane at the eastbound approach; and two exclusive left-turn lanes, one through lane and one shared through-right lane at the westbound approach. 742
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
9 5.2 INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – BACKGROUND NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 10 shows the forecasted volumes at each intersection under Background Conditions, based on the update of the Oakley Citywide Traffic Model. Table 6 summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Background Conditions without the proposed Project. Detailed LOS worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D. Under Background Conditions, all study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS F during the both peak hours.

Table 6: Intersection Level of Service – Background Conditions Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable intersection operations. * Indicates intersection is located in Priority Development Area and has standard of LOS E (Plan Bay Area 2050). 1 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, reported values are overall for signalized and all-way-stop-control intersections; and critical minor approaches for one- and two-way stop-control intersections. 2 LOS: Level of Service.

ID Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Background
Conditions
Average
Delay1 LOS2
1 Main Street / E. Cypress Road* Signalized A.M. >80 F
P.M. >80 F
2 Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress Road Signalized A.M. >80 F P.M. >80 F
3 Machado Lane / E. Cypress Road Signalized A.M. 74.3 E P.M. 73.3 E
743
Mailcoat Ave
1 2 3
x
Main St
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave Sellers Ave
Knightsen Ave
Broadway St
Emerson Ranch Wy
Franklin L
n
Machado Ln
Jersey Island Rd
Picasso Dr
Frank Hengel Wy
Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
W Bolton Rd
Brownstone Rd
Hill Ave
Study Intersection Project Entrance Project Site Trip Distribution 19%
53%10% 1%
15%
1% 1%
XX%
N
Figure 9a: Background Conditions Trip Distribution & Assignment 270-042
LEGEND
744
TJKM
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
3 (8)
7 (5)
4 (3)
6 (4)
6 (19)
22 (14)
1 (1)
7 (25)
2 (7)
8 (26) E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Main
Sellers Ave
St
Machado Ln
1 (4)
17 (12)22 (14)
Figure 9b: Background Conditions Trip Distribution & Assignment 270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Project Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Project Volume
745
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machado Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
111 (35)
1868 (1293)
1 (7)
938 (572)
935 (287)
734 (583)
38 (22)
0 (2)2 (7)
111 (134)259 (278)400 (708)
196 (172)
16 (23)
85 (174)
112 (72)0 (0)90 (24)
226 (190)14 (18)14 (14)
6 (17)218 (337)463 (911)
14 (13)
1553 (972)
367 (258)
67 (115)
943 (2251)
11 (39)
26 (29)
514 (1101)
80 (65)
95 (244)
752 (1818)
172 (188)
Figure 10: Background Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
746
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
13 6.0 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This scenario is identical to Background No-Project Conditions, but with the addition of projected traffic from the proposed project. Trip generation, distribution, and assignment for the proposed project are identical to that assumed under Existing plus Project Conditions.

6.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Figure 11 shows the forecasted volumes at each intersection under Background plus Project Conditions, based on the updated Oakley Citywide Traffic Model and the proposed project traffic. Table 7 summarizes peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Background plus Project Conditions, with Background Conditions results included for comparison purposes. Detailed LOS worksheets for Background plus Project Conditions are provided in Appendix E. Under Background plus Project Conditions, all study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, except the intersection at Machado Lane/Project Driveway (Intersection #4), which operates at LOS A during both peak hours.

Table 7: Intersection Traffic Level of Service – Background plus Project Conditions Notes: Bold text indicates unacceptable intersection operations. * Indicates intersection is located in Priority Development Area and has standard of LOS E (Plan Bay Area 2050). 1 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle, reported values are overall for signalized and all-way-stop-control intersections; and critical minor approaches for one- and two-way stop-control intersections. 2 LOS: Level of Service.

Traffic Impact Findings
The project impacts to the intersections of Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1), Machado Lane/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #2) are potentially significant because the project adds five or more seconds of delay to intersections operating at LOS F without the project traffic.

The signalized intersection of Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Study Intersection #1) operates at unacceptable LOS F during both peak hours under Background Conditions without and with the proposed project. During the p.m. peak hour, the addition of project traffic increases delay by over five seconds, and thus a potential significant impact, due to lack of capacity at the westbound approach on E. Cypress Road ID Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Background
Conditions
Background plus Project
Conditions
Average
Delay1 LOS2 Average Delay1 LOS2
Potential
Significant LOS
Impact?
1 Main Street / E. Cypress
Road* Signalized A.M. >80 F >80 F Yes
P.M. >80 F >80 F Yes
2 Machado Lane / E. Cypress
Road Signalized A.M. >80 F >80 F Yes
P.M. >80 F >80 F Yes
3 Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress
Road Signalized A.M. 74.3 E 74.3 E No
P.M. 73.3 E 73.4 E No
4 Machado Lane / Project
Driveway
One-Way
Stop
A.M. - - 9.0 A No
P.M. - - 9.1 A No
747
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
14 and the northbound right-turn movement on Main Street, is observed. Increasing phase splits for the eastbound and westbound approaches and the addition of a westbound through-right turn lane does not improve LOS to acceptable levels, however, reduces delay to below those observed under Background (without project) Conditions. Additional right-of-way is required to expand the westbound approach to improve operations to LOS D or better.

The signalized intersection of Machado Lane/E. Cypress Road (Study Intersection #2) operates at unacceptable LOS F during both peak hours under Background Conditions without and with the proposed project. During the p.m. peak hour, the addition of project traffic increases delay by over five seconds, and thus a potential significant impact, due to lack of capacity at the eastbound and westbound through movements, is observed. Increasing phase splits for the eastbound and westbound through movement does not improve LOS to acceptable levels, however, reduces delay less than those observed under Background (without project) Conditions. The addition of one through lane in the eastbound and westbound directions is required to improve operations to LOS D or better, however, requires additional right-of-way.

748
Mailcoat Ave
1 2 3
x
Main St
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave Sellers Ave
Knightsen Ave
Broadway St
Emerson Ranch Wy
Franklin Ln
Machado Ln
Jersey Island Rd
Picasso Dr
Frank Hengel Wy
Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
W Bolton Rd
Brownstone Rd
Hill Ave
Trip Distribution
Study Intersection Project Entrance Project Site
Intersection #1
Main St / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #2
Machdo Ln / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #3
Sellers Ave / E Cypress Rd
Intersection #4
Project Dwy / Machado Ln 0 (0) 40 (22) 14 (45) 12 (46)
39 (26)
0 (0)
Machado Ln
Project Dwy E Cypress Rd
Main St
945 (577)
935 (587)
764 (604)
111 (134)
259 (278)411 (743)
6 (17)218 (337)466 (919)
26 (29)
514 (1101)
80 (65)
E Cypress Rd
Machado Ln
111 (35)
1868 (1293)
1 (9)
75 (48)
0 (2)4 (7)
112 (72)0 (0)90 (24)
67 (115)
943 (2251)
25 (82)
E Cypress Rd
Sellers Ave
196 (173)
16 (23)
85 (174)
226 (190)14 (18)14 (14)
14 (13)
1553 (972)
367 (259)
95 (244)
753 (1818)
173 (188)
XX%
19%
53%
10%
1%
15%
1% 1%
N
Figure 11: Background Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 270-042
TJKM
XX AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND
(XX) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
749
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
16 7.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including:
 Site access, circulation, and multimodal impacts\
 Sight Distance Analysis
 Parking Analysis
 Queueing Analysis
The analyses in these sections are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment.

7.1 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND MULTIMODAL IMPACTS
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The proposed project is located in the southwest quadrant of the Machado Lane and E. Cypress Road intersection, and would generate left and right turning traffic onto Machado Lane to and from the project site. The project proposes a local roadway, accessible from Machado Lane, which provides access to the single family homes. The roadway will lead into the development and separate into minor roadways, as shown in Figure 2. The roadway will maintain a width of 36 feet and accommodates two-way travel.

Additionally, the project proposes to provide sidewalks on both sides of the proposed roadway, with curb ramps at all proposed intersections. The intersection of the proposed roadway and Machado Lane is will be one-way stop controlled with vehicles entering and exiting the site anticipated to be travelling at 25 to 30 miles per hour (mph). Emergency vehicle access is provided via an access point off of E. Cypress Road, on the north side of the project site.

The site circulation works well for vehicular traffic with multiple routes providing access to the singlefamily homes. The internal roadway, which will provide access to the single-family residences, accommodates two-way travel. The proposed roadway also accommodates on-street parking on both sides, and emergency and garbage truck circulation.

Pedestrian Facilities Impacts
Pedestrian access would be provided via proposed sidewalks along the project frontage on the south side of E. Cypress Road and the west side of Machado Lane, and within the project site. The sidewalks facilitate pedestrian traffic to the schools located north of the project site. All internal streets would have sidewalks and adequate curb ramps at corners to provide accessible paths of travel to each home. The sidewalks are proposed to be 5-feet in width along E. Cypress Road, Machado Lane and the proposed access roadway.

TJKM recommends one foot be added to the sidewalk widths to provide adequate pedestrian facilities.

A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to pedestrians facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of pedestrian 750
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
17 facilities. The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the nearby and future proposed pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities Impacts
Bicycle access to the project site would be provided by the existing Class II bike lane facilities along the north side of E. Cypress Road. The project does not propose to provide new bicycle facilities. The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan proposes Class II bike lanes on Machado Lane, south of E. Cypress Road, which is along the project frontage.

An impact to bicyclists occurs if the proposed project disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of bicycle facilities. The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the nearby and future proposed bicycle facilities.

Transit Facilities Impacts
A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, or is expected to generate additional transit trips and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops.

The project is located about 1.5 miles from the closest bus stops east of the E. Cypress Road/Main Street intersection. The bus stops are accessible via sidewalks and Class II bike lanes provided on E. Cypress Road. The proposed project will likely not add a significant amount of volume to existing bus service capacity. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network.

7.2 SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
Machado Lane is currently unpaved and has a posted speed limit of 5 mph near the project site. The proposed project will pave Machado Road south of E. Cypress Road, extending slightly south of the project access. For the purposes of this study, Machado Lane is assumed to have a posted speed limit of 25 mph with the addition of the project. As per the proposed site plan (Figure 2), oncoming traffic travelling northbound and southbound on Machado Lane has a clear line of sight to vehicles exiting the project site for at least 150 feet. No obstructions to sight distance are expected, however, TJKM recommends that on-street parking is prohibited for at least 150 feet on Machado Lane, north and south of the project entrance, and on the proposed roadway, west of the project entrance.

7.3 PARKING ANALYSIS
Under the City of Oakley zoning regulations, the proposed project is classified as a single family residential use. For single family dwelling units, the City of Oakley Municipal Parking Code (Chapter

9.1.1402) requires two covered off-street parking spaces per unit. In order to satisfy City of Oakley Code requirements, TJKM recommends the project provide two covered parking spaces at each dwelling unit 751
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
18 lot (152 total parking spaces). Assuming each residential unit provides a two-car garage, the proposed project meets the parking supply requirements for the City of Oakley.

7.4 QUEUEING ANALYSIS
TJKM conducted a vehicle queuing and storage analysis for all exclusive left-turn or right-turn pockets at the study intersections where project traffic is added under Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios.

The 95th percentile (maximum) queues were analyzed using the HCM 6th Edition Queue methodology contained in Vistro software. Detailed calculations are included in the LOS appendices corresponding to each analysis scenario.

Table 8 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at the study intersections under Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios. Under Existing plus Project scenarios, the proposed project increases queue length by a maximum of three vehicles (one vehicle length=25 feet) at the intersection of Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1). The addition of project traffic causes queue lengths to increase by approximately three vehicles at the northbound right-turn and westbound left-turn approaches at the intersection of Main Street and E. Cypress Road.

The intersection of Main Street and E. Cypress Road is significantly overloaded by projected development in the E. Cypress corridor. Alternate access to the south is needed so traffic can reach an upgraded Laurel Road and Main Street intersection without having to use Main Street. This is included in the general plan.

Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the northbound right-turning traffic exceeds queueing capacity by a maximum of 570 feet, or 23 car lengths during the a.m. peak. The westbound left-turning traffic exceeds queueing capacity by a maximum of 50 feet, or two vehicles, during the a.m. peak. TJKM recommends signal timing improvements, and westbound left-turn and northbound right-turn pockets are extended, in order to mitigate queue lengths at Main Street/E. Cypress Road (Intersection #1).

It is noted that the queuing issues described above may be resolved by Oakley’s planned improvements highlighted in the CIP.

Table 8: Queueing for Study Intersections, in Feet
# Study Intersections Lane
Group
Storage
Length
Existing Existing plus
Project Change

AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Main Street / E. Cypress Road
NBL 230 160 125 160 135 0 10
NBR 210 725 225 780 285 55 60
EBL 145 45 25 45 30 0 5
WBL 325 300 115 375 135 75 20
SBL 500 220 145 225 165 5 20
SBTR 435 135 105 135 115 0 10
2 Machado Lane / E. Cypress Road
EBL 150 25 20 25 25 0 5
WBL 100 0 0 0 5 0 5
SBL 100 40 5 40 5 0 0
3 Sellers Avenue / E. Cypress Road EBL 185 15 5 15 5 0 0 WBL 250 65 35 65 35 0 0
Notes: Storage length and 95th percentile queue is expressed in feet per lane, Bold indicates overflow. 752
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
19 753
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
20 Appendix A
Existing Conditions LOS Reports

754
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
21 Appendix B
Existing plus Project Conditions LOS Reports

755
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
22 Appendix C
Existing plus Project Conditions Mitigated LOS Reports

756
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
23 Appendix D
Background Conditions LOS Reports

757
Machado Lane TIS - Traffic Impact Analysis
24 Appendix E
Background plus Project Conditions LOS Reports
758
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Errata Sheet January 2023 Machado Lane Subdivision Page 1
Machado Lane Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata Sheet
February 10, 2023
This errata sheet presents, in strike-through and double-underline format, the revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Machado Lane Subdivision (proposed project). The revisions to the IS/MND reflected in this errata sheet do not affect the adequacy of the previous environmental analysis contained in the IS/MND. Because the changes presented below would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the IS/MND, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.

6. Existing General Plan Designation: Residential Low/Medium (RLM) […]

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The 17.73 project site, identified by APNs 033-190-003 and -004, is located southwest of the intersection of E. Cypress Road and Machado Lane in the City of Oakley, California. The project site is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of one farmhouse structure in the southeast corner. Surrounding existing uses include single-family residences to the north across E. Cypress Road; undeveloped land and scattered residences to the east across Machado Lane; scattered residences to the south, and additional scattered residences, undeveloped land, and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to the south across Machado Lane; and undeveloped land to the west with single-family residences further west. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as Residential Low/Medium (RLM) and the site is zoned Planned Development (P-1).

The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as RLM and the site is zoned P-1. The purpose of the P-1 District is to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open spaces. The proposed project would comply with the adopted Final Development Plan of the P-1 District for the project site, which would include development standards. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed residential development is consistent with the development type allowed in the surrounding residential zoning districts.

Surrounding existing land uses include single-family residences to the north, across E.

Cypress Road; scattered residences to the east, across Machado Lane; scattered residences to the south, and additional scattered residences, undeveloped land, and 759
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Errata Sheet January 2023 Machado Lane Subdivision Page 2
UPRR tracks to the south across Machado Lane; and undeveloped land to the west.

Therefore, the proposed residences would be compatible with the existing development in the project area, such as the single-family residences to the north and west. Furthermore, the project site is designated RLM and zoned P-1. Thus, development of the site with the proposed uses was generally evaluated as part of the City’s General Plan EIR. […]
The proposed project is consistent with the site’s RLM land use designation; therefore, single-family residential development has been anticipated at the project site. As demonstrated throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For example, in compliance with the ECCCHCP/NCCP, the proposed project would be subject to pay all applicable fees according to the Fee Zone Map of the ECCCHCP/NCP prior to construction, and would be required to complete pre-construction surveys for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and migratory birds.

The above staff-initiated revision is due to an inadvertent error. The revision is for clarification purposes and does not alter the analysis or the conclusions presented in the IS/MND.

In response to a comment received on the IS/MND during the public review period, the discussion on page 53 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows:

However, based on the age of the structure, the Phase I ESA determined that the existing shed may contain asbestos, lead, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing materials. Additionally, the existing building may include items that contain mercury, such as gas pressure regulators or thermostats. Finally, while not identified during the site reconnaissance, the potential exists that buried items, such as a septic system or well, may exist on-site.

In addition, Mitigation Measure IX-1 has been amplified as follows:

IX-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall provide a site assessment that determines whether any structures to be demolished contain asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), mercury, or PCBs.

Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. If structures do not contain any of the foregoing materials, further mitigation is not required; however, if ACMs, LBP, mercury, or PCBs are found, the materials shall be removed and disposed of by a licensed and certified contractor in accordance with California Air Resources Board recommendations and OSHA requirements. Work practice standards generally include appropriate precautions to protect construction workers and the surrounding community, and appropriate disposal methods for construction waste in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations subject to approval by the City Engineer.

The foregoing revisions do not alter the analysis or conclusions presented in the IS/MND. 760
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Errata Sheet January 2023 Machado Lane Subdivision Page 3
In response to public comments regarding the proposed project at the February 7, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing, Mitigation Measure IX-1, presented on page 51 of the IS/MND, has been revised as follows:

VIII-1 Consistent with the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall demonstrate via project design and/or notation included on project design that natural gas infrastructure shall be prohibited. Natural gas infrastructure may be allowed if the applicant implements alternative methods that reduce the project’s greenhouse gas emissions in an equally effective or superior manner as would exist without natural gas emission infrastructure.

Conformance with the foregoing requirement shall be confirmed through review and approval of building permit plans by the City of Oakley Community Development Department.

The foregoing revision does not alter the analysis or the conclusions presented in the IS/MND.
761
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
This Responses to Comments document contains comments received during the public review period of the Machado Lane Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15074, the lead agency must consider the comments received during consultation and review periods together with the IS/MND. However, unlike with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), comments received on an IS/MND are not required to be attached to the negative declaration, nor must the lead agency make specific written responses to public agencies. Nonetheless, the lead agency has chosen to provide responses to those specific public comments that are related to the environmental analysis contained in the IS/MND. Non-environmental comments have been considered by the City as part of staff’s report to the Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND
The City of Oakley used the following methods to solicit public input on the IS/MND: a Notice of Completion of the IS/MND was posted with the State Clearinghouse on November 3, 2022. The IS/MND was distributed to applicable public agencies, responsible agencies, and interested individuals. The document was made available electrically on the City’s website at, https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/ceqa-documents/.The public review period ended December 5, 2022.

LIST OF COMMENTERS
The City of Oakley received two comment letters during the open comment period on the IS/MND for the proposed project. The comment letters were received from the following representatives and are included in the Responses to Comments section below:

Letter 1 .......................................Gavin McCreary, Department of Toxic Substances Control Letter 2 ......................................... Peter Minkel, Central Valley Water Quality Control Board

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Responses to Comments below includes each comment letter, as well as responses to each comment. Each bracketed comment letter is followed by numbered responses to each bracketed comment. Where revisions to the IS/MND text were made, new text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through.

All such revisions to the IS/MND are relatively minor and do not affect the adequacy of the conclusions presented therein. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states the following regarding recirculation requirements for negative declarations:
(c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
762
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
2 (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.

Based on the above criteria and the responses to comments included herein, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted. 763
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
3 Letter 1
1-1
1-2
764
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
4 Letter 1
Cont’d
1-3
1-5
1-4
1-6
1-2
Cont’d
765
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
5 Letter 1
Cont’d
1-7
1-8
1-9
766
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
6 LETTER 1: GAVIN MCCREARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

CONTROL
Response to Comment 1-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 1-2
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require an evaluation of whether the project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). As noted in the comment, page 54 of the IS/MND indicates that the project site is not located on any such list.

The Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the project and reviewed during preparation of the IS/MND included a review of regulatory agency records and a mapped database records search, which included databases that are not otherwise compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
1 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
confirms that the project site is not located on or near any hazardous materials sites that would result in an environmental hazard at the project site. Thus, the conclusion presented in the IS/MND remains accurate.

Response to Comment 1-3
The Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project was prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with American Society of Testing Materials 1527-13 and 40 Code of Federal Regulation Part 312. As noted on page 2 of the IS/MND, all technical reports prepared for the proposed analysis were made available on the City’s website. Evidence has not been provided to suggest that the conclusion of the Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is invalid. Therefore, review and concurrence by a regulatory agency is not warranted. Finally, the comment does not directly address the adequacy of the IS/MND, and the suggestion has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response to Comment 1-4
The discussion on pages 52 through 54 of the IS/MND evaluates the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous materials on the project site.

As noted therein, operations of the proposed residential uses are not expected to result in the release of any hazardous materials. Due to the regulations governing the use of potentially hazardous household products (i.e., cleaning products, fertilizers, etc.) and the amount that could reasonably be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment.

The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and, as a result, an agrichemical assessment was preformed as part of the Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project. The results of the soil sampling indicated that concentrations of organochlorine pesticide, arsenic, and lead were either below background levels for the State or below the respective residential screening levels. In addition, the existing on-site building has 1 ENGEO Incorporated. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [pg. 6]. November 12, 2020. 767
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
7 the potential to contain asbestos, lead, or PCBs, and, as a result, Mitigation Measure IX-1 is required. Finally, given the potential presence of an on-site septic system and/or well, Mitigation Measure IX-2 is required to ensure proper removal. Implementation of all required mitigation measures would ensure that historic activities on the project site do not result in the release of any hazardous materials.

Response to Comment 1-5
In general, it is anticipated that lead levels would be present in soil throughout the urbanized area of the City of Oakley due to the use of lead in gasoline for many years, as well as in paint and other materials generally found in an urbanized area. In the case of any project site on which the City identifies specific uses that may lead to site-specific lead contamination, such as prior auto repair or garage facilities, the City would implement a site-specific response. The project site has not been subject to past uses that would lead to site-specific lead contamination in soils.

Nevertheless, as part of the Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared or the proposed project, soil sampling and analysis for contaminants, including lead, was conducted.

The soil analysis determined that on-site concentrations of lead were below the residential screening levels.

Response to Comment 1-6
The discussion on page 53 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows to address the potential presence of mercury in the existing on-site structure:

However, based on the age of the structure, the Phase I ESA determined that the existing shed may contain asbestos, lead, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing materials. Additionally, the existing building may include items that contain mercury, such as gas pressure regulators or thermostats. Finally, while not identified during the site reconnaissance, the potential exists that buried items, such as a septic system or well, may exist on-site.

As already required by Mitigation Measure IX-1, testing for the presence of asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and PCBs is required prior to any demolition activities. In response to the comment, Mitigation Measure IX-1 has been amplified as follows:

IX-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall provide a site assessment that determines whether any structures to be demolished contain asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), mercury, or PCBs.

Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. If structures do not contain any of the foregoing materials, further mitigation is not required; however, if ACMs, LBP, mercury, or PCBs are found, the materials shall be removed and disposed of by a licensed and certified contractor in accordance with California Air Resources Board recommendations and OSHA requirements. Work practice standards generally include appropriate precautions to protect construction workers and the surrounding community, and appropriate disposal methods for construction waste in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations subject to approval by the City Engineer.
768
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
8 The foregoing revisions do not alter the analysis or conclusions presented in the IS/MND.

Response to Comment 1-7
Based on preliminary grading plans, the import of fill is not anticipated for construction of the proposed project. Nevertheless, should imported fill be required, the location selling fill utilized for the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable State regulations, thus ensuring that the imported soil is free of contamination. The comment does not directly address the adequacy of the IS/MND, and the suggestion has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response to Comment 1-8
As noted in the comment, the project site has already been evaluated for soil contamination associated with previous agricultural uses. The analysis was performed in accordance with U.S.

EPA Method 8081 for organochloride pesticides and U.S. EPA Method 6010 for arsenic and lead concentrations.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1-3 regarding the adequacy of the Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The suggestion has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response to Comment 1-9
The comment is a concluding statement and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. 769
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
9 2-1
Letter 2
770
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
10 2-1
Cont’d
Letter 2
Cont’d
771
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
11 2-1
Cont’d
Letter 2
Cont’d
772
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
12 2-1
Cont’d
Letter 2
Cont’d
773
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
13 Letter 2
Cont’d
2-1
Cont’d
774
Responses to Comments
Machado Lane Subdivision
January 2023
14 LETTER 2: PETER MINKEL, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Response to Comment 2-1
The comment generally presents permits and regulations related to protecting the quality of groundwater and waters of the State. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable permits and regulations. The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and has been noted for the record.
775

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the Planning Commission

DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan, and Design Review (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) – Request for approval of a Rezone to P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 20.11 acres into 76 single family residential lots, a Final Development Plan in conjunction with the P-1 District, and Design Review. APNs 033-190-003 and 033-190-004.

Summary
This is an application by MLC Holdings (“Applicant”) requesting approval of: 1) a Rezone (RZ 06-21) to decrease the acreage of and amend an existing P-1 District; 2) a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 03-21) subdividing approximately 20.11 acres into 76 single family residential lots, street right of ways, pocket park with playground, stormwater detention treatment area, and emergency vehicle access; 3) a Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District; and 4) Design Review (DR 10- 21) for floor plans and architecture, and conceptual landscape plans (“Project”).

Proposed homes consist of two single-story and four two-story house plans each with three elevations ranging from 1,743 to 3,247 square feet of livable area. The project site is located west of Machado Lane and south of East Cypress Road and is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District. (APNs: 033-190-003 and 033-190-004).

Background
General Plan
Residential Low (RL) – Per Oakley General Plan Table 2-2: Land Use Designations, the “Residential Low (RL) designation provides for moderate density, single-family residential development [between the densities of 2.3 to 3.8 dwelling units per acre].

These neighborhoods will more closely resemble a typical suburban development with spacious yards and little resemblance to a rural neighborhood. Primary permitted land uses include detached single-family homes and accessory structures. Public and semipublic uses and similar and compatible uses are also allowed.” The RL designation lies between the Residential Very Low (RV) (maximum 2.3 dwelling units per acre) designation, which provides for traditional, large lot single family residential 776
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

development and the Residential Low/Medium (RLM) (maximum 5.5 dwelling units per acre), which provides for moderately dense single family residential development that is consistent with suburban uses. There is often overlap between the type of development envisioned within land use designations adjacent or near each other along the density scale.

Zoning
P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District – P-1 Districts are normally tied to a specific development project and often contain different development regulations, such as minimum lot sizes and/or required yard setbacks from those found in the conventional zoning districts. They are typically found as part of a large-scale development, an infill development, or a General Plan special area of concern. An existing P-1 District covers the current project site. It was originally adopted with a former single-family development project that included the existing two parcels and another parcel to the south. The tentative map for that project has since expired and since the currently proposed project envisions a new plan, a new P-1 District is required to be adopted.

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The project is located west of Machado
Lane and south of East Cypress Road
and consists of two parcels (033-190-
003 and 033-190-004). Both parcels
are rectangular in shape and make up
approximately 10 acres each. The
northern parcel includes a 50-foot
dedication for East Cypress Road and
both parcels include a 30-foot
dedication for Machado Lane. Neither
road dedications have been recorded to
date. A dilapidated, metal agricultural
building is located on the southern area
of the southern parcel near Machado
Lane.

Preliminary General Plan Amendment
After expiration of the previously
approved tentative map, the current applicant was able to work with one of the property owners of the previous map’s parcels. A Preliminary General Plan Amendment application (PA 02-21) was filed with the Oakley Planning Division and heard by the City Council on May 11, 2021. The conceptual plan involved amending the General Plan Land Use designation of the site from Single-Family Residential, Medium Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH) (now titled Residential Low (RL) and Residential Low/Medium (RLM), respectively) in order to accommodate a higher density Figure 1. Project site and surrounding properties
(Google Earth, June 29, 2021)
777
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

of 106 lots on the approximately 20-acre site. The general consensus feedback from the City Council was not favorable to such an amendment, and as a result, the current application was submitted with a density within the existing RL density range.

Project Description
Rezone (RZ 06-21)
The project application includes a request for approval of a rezone consisting of an amendment from an existing P-1 District approved for a now expired tentative map and development plan to a new P-1 District tied to the proposed tentative map and development plan. The proposed P-1 District would allow for flexibility in the development standards related to minimum lot sizes and required yard setbacks. A P-1 District has no impact on the allowable density of the underlying General Plan Land Use Designation. Table 1 provides a comparison of the project’s P-1 District and the conventional R-10 District relative development standards.

Table 1. Comparison of Project’s P-1 District and R-10 District Development Standards Min. Lot Size
(sf.)
Front Yard
Setback (ft.)
Side Yard
Setback (ft.)
Corner Side
Yard Setback
(ft.)
Rear Yard
Setback (ft.)
Project’s P-1
District
Per the VTM
(5,938
smallest lot)
18 (garage)
12 (living) 5 (no
aggregate)
Not specified
(VTM shows
10)
24 R-10 District 10,000 20 (all) 5 (20
aggregate) 15 15
Vesting Tentative Map (TM 03-21)
The proposed project would result in the subdivision of approximately 20.11 acres made up of two parcels into a new single-family residential subdivision of 76 lots, including a pocket park with playground, frontage dedication and improvement to East Cypress Road and Machado Lane, internal street right of way, landscaping, and a stormwater detention/bioretention area. As proposed, the gross density (includes all area before right of way dedication, parks, landscaping, etc.) would be approximately 3.78 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ga) with residential lot sizes ranging between 5,939 (Lot 52) and 13,089 (Lot 13) square feet (sf), and an average residential lot size of 6,632 sf.

Access to the neighborhood streets would be connected to Machado Lane with an emergency vehicle access (“EVA”) onto East Cypress Road between Lot 54 and Parcel A. Internal roads would terminate at the western and southern edges of the subdivision with each termination planned for future connection to adjacent properties should they develop in the future. The applicant has proposed a Homeowners Association to maintain the detention basin, park area, and EVA.

The Vesting Tentative Map shows dedication of land along East Cypress Road and Machado Lane for the purposes of providing right of way and improvements. East 778
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

Cypress Road will be improved with full frontage improvements from the existing right of way line to the private property lines with the new lot. The road median, two vehicle travel lanes and one bike lane, and landscaping and a sidewalk will all be included. For Machado Lane, the applicant will be dedicating half width and making improvements that will include enough space for a travel lane each way as well as landscaping and a sidewalk. Future development on the east side of Machado Lane would fulfill the ultimate right of way width and improvements. In addition to the project frontage, the applicant has agreed to complete travel lane improvements between the project site and improvements further to the west. There is adequate right of way at the frontage of the vacant property immediately west of the site, and these travel lane improvements will close the gap so East Cypress Road will not need to bottle neck to one lane heading east only to open back up. Since the applicant is unable to acquire additional right of way along that property, the other frontage improvements in that area, such as landscaping and a sidewalk, will need to be done at a future date.

Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21)
A Final Development Plan (“FDP”) is a component of a P-1 District. The applicant is choosing to combine the FDP application with the Rezone application, which is allowed per the “Planned Unit Development (P-1)” section of the Oakley Municipal Code (Section

9.1.1002). The FDP includes the information provided on the Vesting Tentative Map and its related plans, as well as other information such as details on housing or elevations and heights of non-residential buildings. When FDPs are processed after a P-1 District is formed, the P-1 District will usually include a Preliminary Development Plan; however, an applicant may submit a FDP with a P-1 District rezone application so that it may be considered in conjunction with the rest of the project entitlements, such as what has occurred with this application. The proposed FDP will approve the general layout design, number of lots, types of residential structures, etc. Any requested change to the approved FDP would be reviewed by the Planning Commission/City Council where that body would determine whether the change is substantial enough to warrant a public hearing in order to further review the request.

Design Review (DR 10-21)
As part of the Design Review application, the applicant is proposing house floor plans, architecture, and color schemes, landscaping plans (including conceptual street tree layout and park equipment), enhanced entry paving, and wall and fence plans. For the homes, there are four different floor plans ranging from 1,743 sf. to 3,247 sf. of livable area consisting of two one-story and three two-story plans. All plans include a front-facing 2-car garage doors, with two plans including tandem 3-car interior garage space. Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed floor plans.
779
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Floor Plans
Livable sf. Livable sf. by
Floor (1st/2nd) Rooms Bathrooms Garage (sf./cars)
Plan 1 (4512) 1,743 1,743 / N/A 3 bedrooms 2.5 420 / 2
Plan 2 (4514) 2,054 2,054 / N/A 4 bedrooms 2.5 419 / 2
Plan 3 (4522) 2,493 1,135 / 1,358 4 bedrooms
1 loft 3 420 / 3
Plan 4 (5023) 2,838 1,419 / 1,419 4 bedrooms
1 loft 3 430 / 2
Plan 5 (5025) 2,992 1,389 / 1,603
4 bedrooms
1 flex
1 loft
3 624 / 3
Plan 6 (5028) 3,247 1,477 / 1,770
5 bedrooms
1 flex
1 loft

3.5 636 / 3
In addition to the three floor plans are three architectural styles, referred to as Spanish (Elevation “A”), Santa Barbara (Elevation “B”), and Farmhouse (Elevation “C”). Prairie, Modern Farmhouse, and Orinda Ranch elevations. Each of the three architectural styles has three color and material themes tied specifically to that style. Figure 2 shows the conceptual streetscape per the Applicant’s Plans.

Figure 2. Conceptual Streetscape per Applicant’s Plans
Conceptual Landscape Plan
A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted with the application packet and it includes an Overall Landscape Plan, a Typical Landscape Plan, and a Landscape Imagery and Details Plan. The Overall Landscape Plan shows a total of 278 trees to be installed by the project. This includes trees that will eventually be within the public right of way along East Cypress Road, Machado Lane, and the internal streets, and trees to be installed in private front and corner side yards. The Typicals Landscape Plan illustrates the typical planting plan for front and corner side yards and includes a street and shrub palette as well as imagery matrix. The Landscape Imagery and Details plan shows the walls, fences, playground equipment, cluster mailboxes, and enhanced paving. The sound walls along East Cypress Road and Machado Lane will be located on the private properties and will be maintained by the respective property owner. 780
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

Environmental Review
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
An Initial Study (“IS”) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) have been prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Raney Planning and Management conducted the CEQA analysis survey on behalf of the City of Oakley. The Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt an MND and IS was circulated for public review and comment from November 3, 2022 to December 5, 2022. It was filed with the County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), distributed to over 60 public agencies and parties requesting such notice, and posted in the same manner as a Notice of Public hearing, which is at locations throughout the City and at the project site. The NOI provided a summary of the project as well as methods to access the IS/MND for review and comment.

Two comment letters were received in response to the NOI posting; one from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and one from the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board. The City’s CEQA consultants prepared a Response to Comments, which has been included as Exhibit “B” to the IS/MND attached to this Staff Report. As stated in the document, based on the responses to comment, the IS/MND did not need to be recirculated. An Errata to the NOI and IS/MND is included at Exhibit “A” to the IS/MND. The purpose of the errata is to clarify the land use designation included in the NOI and IS/MND was erroneously referenced as Residential Low/Medium (“RLM”) rather than the correct Residential Low (“RL”). The error did not lead to any inaccuracies when analyzing the potential impacts.

Analysis in the IS found seven (7) of the 21 impact categories require mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. All other 14 impact categories were found to have either no impacts or a less than significant impacts. A summary of the mitigation measures can be found in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, included as Exhibit “A” to the Proposed Resolution attached to this Staff Report.

Since the Planning Commission is making recommendations to the City Council on the entitlements associated with this application, they will also make a recommendation for adoption of the MND to the City Council. Recommendation for adoption of the MND is included in the proposed resolution for recommendation for approval of the other entitlements associated with the project. The NOI and IS/MND are included as attachments to this Staff Report.

Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan This project is subject to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “HCP Plan”). Projects that are subject to the HCP Plan are required to submit a Planning Survey Report (“PSR”) as part of the project application. The contents of the PSR help guide the project through compliance with both the California and Federal Endangered Species 781
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

Act by assuming presence of certain plant and animal species and requiring additional surveys to be done prior to any ground disturbance. In addition, whether species are found or not, the project must pay development impact fees for each acre, or fraction thereof, of disturbed land not already considered “urban” under the HCP Plan. Those development impact fees are used to help create, install, and maintain habitat outside of the Urban Limit Line, as well as administer the HCP Plan. The project would contribute $376,486.48 to the HCP/NCCP program under the impact fees current as of the date of this staff report.

Analysis
Rezone
When approving an application for a rezone to P-1 District, the City Council shall be satisfied that the following are true (summarized from OMC section 9.1.1002):
• The applicant intends to start construction within two years from the effective date of the zoning change;
• The development is consistent with the General Plan;
• If residential, it has sustained desirability and stability, and is in harmony with the character of surrounding neighborhoods; and
• The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the OMC.

The Applicant has stated they plan to pursue development of the site if market conditions support it. The density and type of development is consistent with the General Plan, and the project integrates connectivity to other new developments, such as Emerson Ranch and Delaney Park north of East Cypress Road. The internal road network plans for future continued growth to the west and south of the site. The type of development is expected to be desirable in that it includes a variety of homes sizes with larger than conventional rear yard setbacks, and development includes a small pocket park with tot lot. It falls somewhere in the middle of the density ranges of nearby residential neighborhoods. Due to the significant requirement for dedication along East Cypress Road, the half width dedication along Machado Lane, and the approximately 75,000 square feet occupied by Parcel A for the stormwater detention/bioretention and pocket park, the P-1 District is justified to allow for project-specific development regulations in order to design a feasible project within the allowable range of the General Plan land use designation of RL.

For the proposed project, the Applicant’s Plans contain the information that would be required for a Final Development Plan, including the information on the Vesting Tentative Map, the preliminary site plan, landscaping plans, and house floor plans and 782
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

architectural designs. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed Rezone application.

Vesting Tentative Map
The Vesting Tentative Map (“VTM”) has been reviewed against all applicable codes including the Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The VTM’s gross density (apx. 3.78 du/ga) falls within the gross density range of the Residential Low (RL) General Plan Land Use Designation of 2.3-3.8 du/ga. The VTM is tied to a P-1 District, which has proposed project-specific development regulations, such as required yard setbacks and minimum lot sizes.

The site is physically suitable for the project in that it is accessible, not physically constrained other than the reduction in net developable acres due to frontage right of way dedication and onsite stormwater detention and treatment, is similar to surrounding residentially developed projects, and it is also able to accommodate the proposed density of development in a manner consistent with the underlying land use designation.

The subdivision is not expected to result in any serious public health problems. Public improvements are proposed and conditioned to occur as a result of the subdivision, which is a benefit to the public and surrounding residents and property owners of the vicinity. One such improvement will be the dedication and improvement of Machado Lane, which is currently an unpaved, private lane serving several rural residential uses to the east and south of the project site. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map application.

Final Development Plan
Two modifications have been made to Final Development Plan (“FDP”) since the application was originally submitted. The first was to match revisions to the floor plans, and the second was to provide a more balanced plotting of each of the six floor plans. The product mix favors the three larger homes. Plans 1, 2, and 3 are all plotted eight times (11% each), Plans 4 and 5 are plotted 17 times (22% each), and Plan 6 is plotted 18 times (23%). Plans 1 and 2 are the single-story homes and make up a total of 22% of the lots. They are plotted on nine of the 15 corner lots (60%); however, seven of those nine are the Plan 1 and only two are Plan 2. Staff has added a condition for the developer to seek a better balance of Plans 1 and 2 on corner lots prior to finalizing the FDP for City Council Consideration.

As currently proposed, the FDP proposes minimum setbacks (I.e. “required yards”) of 12 feet for the front (living area), 18 feet for the garage, five (5) feet for the side, and 24 feet for the rear. Depending on the floor plan, the front porches may extend further into the front setback than the minimum setback applied to the living areas, which would be allowed through approval of the FDP. The street right of way is designed with a parkway (landscape) strip between the curb and the sidewalk. This means that the 18 foot front setback to the garage only leaves 18 feet between the garage and the 783
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

sidewalk which can create conflicts with large vehicles parked in driveways and the public using the adjacent sidewalk. Staff has recommended and the applicant has agreed to increase the garage setback to a minimum 20-feet.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed Final Development Plan application.

Design Review
Analysis for Design Review refers to the Standards for Review as laid out in OMC section 9.1.1604(f), which focuses on site planning, architecture, landscaping and site elements, and streetscapes. With these standards in mind, the proposed plans were analyzed for consistency with the adopted City of Oakley Residential Guidelines (“Guidelines”).

Neighborhood Layout and Design
The project has been designed so that all streets will act as residential streets and not include any backbone type collectors. This should aid in traffic control by having onstreet parking and houses facing the streets throughout the internal road network. None of the houses will front onto East Cypress Road or Machado Lane, and a sound wall is proposed along both of those street frontages. The interior streets have been planned to extend to the west and south should either of those adjacent parcels develop. They are designated as RLM and RL, respectively. There are no cul-de-sacs proposed within the development. While cul-de-sacs are popular amongst those that may ultimately live within them, they are less ideal for overall connectivity and emergency ingress, and especially egress.

Residential Siting and Lot Design
The applicant has designed the homes so that every lot has an 18-foot setback between the garage and the right of way line (conditioned to be increased to 20 feet), which for this street section is the back of sidewalk. The variations in the front facade of the four floor plans means that given a consistent garage setback the living areas and porches of the plans will have varying setbacks to the front property line, which will hold true even after the garage setback increases to 20 feet, as conditioned. For example, Plan 1’s porch is about even with the garage, and the living area projects two additional feet; Plan 2’s porch extends six feet from the garage and the living area an additional four feet beyond that; Plan 3’s garage, porch, and living area are all fairly even; Plan 4’s porch projects about four feet from the garage and living are; Plan 5’s porch and living area extend about two feet beyond the garage; and Plan 6’s porch and living area extend about six feet beyond the garage.

A majority of the lots show a five-foot side yard setback with some lots having larger setbacks on one side or the other. This can be seen on both rectangular interior lots and on the pie shaped lots with concave front lot lines. Oakley’s design guidelines 784
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

encourage lots be designed to accommodate side yard access, but since lots of this zoning and size are only allowed one contiguous driveway it is important that any large side yard access be adjacent to the garage to allow a driveway widening and access compliant with the Oakley Municipal Code. Therefore, the project has been conditioned to look for plotting opportunities to match wider side yards with the garage side of the home. This would not apply to corner lots since the driveways are always oriented on the interior lot line for sight visibility safety.

Building mass is an element of lot siting and design and can greatly affect the aesthetics of the overall neighborhood. For the proposed project, changes in roof materials and design among the same floor plan assist in giving the overall neighborhood more visual variety. Some changes are to the main roof line, while others focus on the projecting elements such as porches or a bedroom. For example, the Spanish style uses a concrete S-tile material designed and is designed with hip roofs at the porches and projecting bedrooms and other elements, while the Santa Barbara style includes the same material in a different color, and rather than hip roofs at the porch and other projecting elements, it shows an open gable. The Farmhouse uses a concrete flat tile material and includes gables filled in with decorative board and batten.

Two common Oakley Design Guidelines look for new single family residential to achieve a minimum of 20% single-story homes and that at least 50% of all corner lots be singlestory homes, and another is to maintain at least a 15-foot setback between adjacent second story elements. Often with P-1 District developments the lot sizes are reduced in both size and width which leads to architects needing to design a two-story home in order to achieve the desirable square footage of the market in a manner that meets the developer’s criteria as well. However, in the case of the proposed project, two of the six plans are single-story and they are plotted on a total of 22% of the lots and 60% of the corner lots. The minimum 15-foot setback between adjacent two story elements is not as feasible since the aggregate side yard setback is not 15-feet.

Architectural Character
The architectural character and design of the proposed homes meets several of the design guidelines. There is variation in materials between architectural styles, such as roofing, veneer, and siding, and often more than one secondary exterior material is proposed; however, the use of 360-degree architecture is somewhat inconsistent. It is shown for things such as window trim and dividers, but not used on all the homes when it comes to the elements such as window shutters and gable treatments. The three color schemes for each architectural style complement each other while allowing for uniqueness to any given home with the eyesight of another. There are two garage door designs for all of the homes with the Spanish and Santa Barbara having the same 16- panel design and the Farmhouse with a 32-panel design. There are no options for garage door windows.
785
Subject: Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21) Date: February 7, 2023

Areas for small improvements and better implementation of the design guidelines are summarized below and have been included as conditions of approval that will be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director:
• Exterior lighting specific to each architectural type; • Increased use of false shutters where feasible on more of the side and rear elevations of those homes to meet the City’s 360-degree architectural design guidelines;
• Second-story gables to receive same treatment as front-facing gables on applicable plans; and
• Including a third garage door to be used on either the Spanish or Santa Barbara style and including garage door window options for each style.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission Recommend City Council approval of the proposed Design Review application.

Findings
Draft findings can be found in the proposed resolution.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of these entitlements will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the developer account funded by the developer.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending the City Council approve the project titled, “Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, TM 03-21, FDP 01-21, DR 10-21),” as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Applicant’s Plans

4. Machado Lane Subdivision - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

5. Machado Lane Subdivision - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Errata to Machado Lane Subdivision CEQA Documents
b. Machado Lane Subdivision – Responses to Comments on IS/MND

6. Proposed Resolution with Exhibit “A” Mitigation Monitoring Progra 786
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Oakley Planning Commission held February 7, 2023
1) OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley Planning Commission Chair Oleksii Chuiko called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Chair Diego Verduzco and Commissioner Leonard Price were also present. Two Commissioner seats are currently vacant.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Vice Chair Verduzco led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
~ CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approve Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting held January 17, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk}
It was moved by Commissioner Price and seconded by Vice Chair Verduzco to approve the minutes. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (3-0) 1} PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 Machado Lane Subdivision 9615 (RZ 06-21, FDP 01-21, TM 03-21, DR 10-21) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager}
Planning Manager Ken Strelo provided the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned Rod Stinson, Vice President of Raney Planning & Management, is present for any questions regarding CEQA compliance.

Mr. Strelo mentioned there is a proposed modification to MM Vlll-1. He also mentioned Condition of Approval (COA) # 63 is not recommended for the Council to approve, rather staff requests direction to work with the applicant to revise.

Commissioner Price inquired about the timing of construction if approved by the City Council.

Mr. Strelo deferred to the applicant to provide the information. 787
Chair Chuiko inquired if the park will be maintained by HOA fees.

Mr. Strelo confirmed that the park will be maintained by HOA fees.

Chair Chuiko inquired how the subdivision will impact schools.

Mr. Strelo responded that CEQA covers impacts to certain public services; impacts to schools are mitigated with school impact fees for new housing.

Chair Chuiko inquired which schools would be impacted.

Mr. Strelo indicated he is not certain but can get that information.

Chair Chuiko requested staff bring the information back.

Chair Chuiko inquired if recycled water was part of the CEQA analysis.

Mr. Strelo mentioned he is uncertain if recycled water is out there.

Chair Chuiko clarified he is referring to purple pipes used for irrigation in parks.

Mr. Strelo mentioned that under the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance there ~re calculations that dictate how much water can be used on specific square footage of landscape. He added there is currently no detailed irrigation plan.

Chair Chuiko inquired if there are any plans to eventually repave and widen Sellers since it is one of the main arteries.

Mr. Strelo explained that this project is not responsible for any work on Sellers. He mentioned there are other projects that have frontage on Sellers. He shared that one of the challenges with Sellers is it is part City and part County, and improvements are not in the City's Capital Improvement Project Plan at this time, so it is development dependent.

Chair Chuiko opened the public hearing.

Applicant Kevin Freyer with Meritage Homes mentioned it was May 2021 when they asked the Council for a General Plan amendment to increase density and the Council directed them to bring back something consistent with the General Plan. He shared they are excited to bring housing to this property. He indicated if all goes well here and at the Council meeting, they could be grading by this summer, and could see vertical construction during the spring of 2024, and if the market is well , begin sales in 2026. He mentioned they have another project on Sellers and they plan to bring forth with plans for development. Regarding COA # 63, he mentioned they were requested by staff to install additional improvements extending beyond the project and it is a voluntarily condition for the project to provide benefit, but the exact timing and cost is late in the 788
process, so they want to continue to work together to figure out the details. He mentioned they previously proposed 106 homes and revised the concept to provide larger setbacks.

No public comments were submitted.

Chair Chuiko closed the public hearing.

Chair Chuiko inquired if the CEQA item was the applicant's request or if it was proposed by staff.

Mr. Strelo mentioned the City is waiting for direction from the State; staff didn't want to do something in the CEQA document that is above and beyond what they are doing for their own building permits. He mentioned it may be a non-issue by the time they get \
around to pulling permits if the State has provided direction by then or the developer may choose not to have it as they have other developments without it now, but the condition would provide options and it would result in no greater emissions than would be there without the infrastructure.

Commissioner Price moved to approve the item.

Chair Chuiko summarized Commissioner Price's motion is to approve the resolution including the CEQA mitigation and excluding COA # 63.

It was seconded by Vice Chair Verduzco. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (3-0) fil REGULAR CALENDAR
None.
fil REPORTS

6.1 Reports from Staff Members
Community Development Director Brent Smith reported staff received 9 applications for the two vacant Planning Commission seats and the City Council will review the applications and conduct interviews during its regular meeting to be held February 14.

6.2 OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
(a) Reports from Commissioners
None.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
None.
789

TI ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,
c?---
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
Ordinance No. XX-23 Page 1 of
4 ORDINANCE NO. XX-23

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING A REZONE TO DECREASE THE ACREAGE AND AMEND AN EXISTING P-1 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MACHADO LANE SUBDIVISION 9615 (RZ 06-21)
APNS 033-190-003 AND 033-190-004

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021 Paul Manyisha of MLC Holdings (“Applicant”) filed an application, which has since been amended, requesting approval of the following four entitlements (“Project”):
 Rezone (RZ 06-21) to decrease the acreage of and amend an existing P-1 District;
 Vesting Tentative Map (TM 03-21) subdividing approximately 20.11 acres into 76 single family residential lots, street right of ways, pocket park with playground, stormwater detention treatment area, and emergency vehicle access;
 Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District; and
 Design Review (DR 10-21) for floor plans and architecture, and conceptual landscape plans.

Proposed homes consist of one single-story and three two-story house plans each with three elevations ranging from 2,350 to 3,247 square feet of livable area. The project site is located west of Machado Lane and south of East Cypress Road and is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District. (APNs: 033-190-003 and 033-190-004); and WHEREAS, the proposal complies with the requirements of the rezoning application requirements of Section 2.4.012 (a) of the Oakley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has initiated a project to decrease the acres and amend an existing P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District that was originally approved in conjunction with Tentative Map 9015, which expired on October 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). The Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt an MND and IS was circulated for public review and comment from November 3, 2022 to December 5, 2022. It was filed with the County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), emailed or mailed out to over 60 public agencies and parties requesting such notice, and posted in the same 820
Ordinance No. XX-23 Page 2 of
4 manner as a Notice of Public hearing, which is at locations throughout the City and at the project site; and
WHEREAS, on or before June 2, 2023, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Project was duly noticed in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general distribution, was posted at the Project site, at Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School located at 4901 Frank Hengel Way, and outside the library at Freedom High School located at 1050 Neroly Road, and was mailed out to all owners of property within a 500-foot radius of the project’s boundaries, to parties requesting such notice, and to outside agencies; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the City Council adopted the Project’s CEQA IS/MND in conjunction with approval of the proposed Tentative Map (TM 03-21, Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21), and Design Review (DR 10-21); and
The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 2.4.012 of the Oakley Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby finds and determines as follows:

1. The change proposed will comply with the General Plan in that the proposed rezone to decrease the acres and amend the existing P-1 District will not result in a use or density that is not in line with the underlying General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low (RL); and

2. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts in that the proposed Rezone does not necessarily change the existing zoning, only amends it due to the nature of the P-1 District being tied to a specific project, in this case an expire Tentative Map and Final Development Plan; and

3. Community need, but not necessarily future financial success, has been demonstrated for the use proposed in that the Project will result in the construction of additional housing units, which is necessary to meet demand in the community since the City of Oakley falls under the jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and ABAG uses a predominately demographic formula to allocate the regional housing needs among the incorporated cities and unincorporated county. This process results in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the number reflected in that assessment becomes part the City of Oakley’s estimated housing needs. The development of this project will help the City meet its regional fair share housing goal.
821
Ordinance No. XX-23 Page 3 of
4 B. Pursuant to Section 9.1.1002 Planned Unit Development (P-1) of the Oakley Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby finds and determines as follows:

1. The Applicant has stated they plan to pursue development of the site within wo years of the rezone becoming effective if market conditions support it; and

2. The density and type of development is consistent with the General Plan, and the project integrates connectivity to other new developments, such as Emerson Ranch and Delaney Park north of East Cypress Road. The internal road network plans for future continued growth to the west and south of the site; and

3. The type of development is expected to be desirable in that it includes a variety of homes sizes with larger than conventional rear yard setbacks, and development includes a small tot lot pocket park. It falls somewhere in the middle of the density ranges of nearby residential neighborhoods; and

4. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the OMC due to the significant requirement for dedication along East Cypress Road, the half width dedication along Machado Lane, and the approximately 75,000 square feet occupied by Parcel A for the stormwater detention/bioretention and pocket park, the P-1 District is justified to allow for project-specific development regulations in order to design a feasible project within the allowable range of the General Plan land use designation of RL.

SECTION 2. Property Defined and Rezoned
A. 20.11 acres of real property located at the southwest corner of East Cypress Road and Machado Lane, Oakley, CA 94561 (APNs 033-190-003 and 033- 190-004).

SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding Pursuant to California State Law, an Initial Study was conducted by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. The Initial Study analysis found there were no potentially significant impacts, and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study it has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact upon the environment.

SECTION 4. Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or 822
Ordinance No. XX-23 Page 4 of
4 provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date and Posting
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed office in the City Clerk’s Office at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________ ____________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
823
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 22
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS

AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION AND THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MACHADO LANE SUBDIVISION 9615 INCLUDING THE
ENTITLEMENTS FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TM 03-21), FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FDP 01-21), AND DESIGN REVIEW (DR 10-21) APNS 033-190-003 AND 033-190-004
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021 Paul Manyisha of MLC Holdings (“Applicant”) filed an application, which has since been amended, to request approval of: 1) a Rezone (RZ 06-21) to decrease the acreage of and amend an existing P-1 District; 2) a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 03-21) subdividing approximately 20.11 acres into 76 single family residential lots, street right of ways, pocket park with playground, stormwater detention treatment area, and emergency vehicle access; 3) a Final Development Plan (FDP 01- 21) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District; and 4) Design Review (DR 10-21) for floor plans and architecture, and conceptual landscape plans (“Project”). Proposed homes consist of one single-story and three two-story house plans each with three elevations ranging from 2,350 to 3,247 square feet of livable area. The project site is located west of Machado Lane and south of East Cypress Road and is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District. (APNs: 033-190-003 and 033-190-004); and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the City of Oakley Planning Division received a SB 330 Preliminary Application Form for the project; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2022, the project application was deemed complete per Government Code section 65920 et. seq; and
WHEREAS, the project is designated as Residential Low (RL) in the Oakley General Plan, and zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”). The Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt an MND and IS was circulated for public review and comment from November 3, 2022 to December 5, 2022. It was filed with the County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), emailed or mailed out to over 60 public agencies and parties requesting such notice, and posted in the same manner as a Notice of Public hearing, which is at locations throughout the City and at the project site; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project at which it received a report from City Staff, oral and written testimony from the public, and deliberated on the project. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Planning Commission took a vote and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-23 recommending the City Council approve the project, as revised by the Planning Commission during its deliberations; and
824
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 2 of 22
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2023, the Applicant submitted revised plans as a result on the Planning Commission public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before June 2, 2023, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Project was duly noticed in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general distribution, was posted at the Project site, at Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School located at 4901 Frank Hengel Way, and outside the library at Freedom High School located at 1050 Neroly Road, and was mailed out to all owners of property within a 500-foot radius of the project’s boundaries, to parties requesting such notice, and to outside agencies; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the City Council opened the public hearing at which it received a report from City Staff, oral and written testimony from the public, and deliberated on the project. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the City Council took a vote and adopted this resolution to approve the project, as revised by the City Council during its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, these Findings are based on the City’s General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and the information submitted to the City Council at its June 13, 2023 meeting, both written and oral, as reflected in the minutes of such meetings, together with the documents contained in the file for the Project (hereafter the “Record”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, on the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire Record, the City Council makes the following additional findings in support of the approvals:

A. The Project’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and is recommended to be adopted by the City Council in conjunction with the Project’s Vesting Tentative Map (TM 03- 21), Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21), and Design Review (DR 10-21) approvals. Development of the project is subject to all adopted mitigation measures as included in the IS/MND unless modified pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines and adopted by the City Council.

B. In regard to the application requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Map 9615 (TM 03-21) to subdivide approximately 20.11 acres into 76 single residential lots, street right of ways, pocket park, landscaping, stormwater detention treatment areas, and emergency vehicle access, the Planning Commission finds that:

1. The Project’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and

2. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map (“VTM”), together with the provisions of its design and improvements, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and applicable portions of the Residential Low (RL) General Plan Land Use Designation, in that the VTM’s gross density (approximately 3.78 du/ga) 825
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 3 of 22
falls within the gross density range of the RL General Plan Land Use Designation of 2.3-3.8 du/ga, and the VTM is tied to a P-1 District, which sets its own development regulations, such as required yard setbacks and minimum lot sizes; and

3. The site is physically suitable for the project in that it is accessible, not physically constrained other than the reduction in net developable acres due to frontage right of way dedication and onsite stormwater detention and treatment, is similar to surrounding residentially developed projects, and it is also able to accommodate the proposed density of development in a manner consistent with the underlying land use designation; and

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and number of dwelling units in that the proposed VTM falls within the allowable density while creating lots compliant with the project’s P-1 District, and public roads to access the homes; and

5. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the proposed subdivision consists of 76 single family residential lots. Construction and grading of the project are subject to building or grading permits, and violations of any such permits are subject to appropriate enforcement; and

6. Public improvements are proposed and conditioned to occur as a result of the subdivision, which is a benefit to the public and surrounding residents and property owners of the vicinity. Such improvements include off-site widening of East Cypress Road and dedication and improvement of Machado Lane; and

7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

C. In regards to the application requesting approval of a Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District, the Planning Commission finds that the Final Development Plan together with the other components of the proposed project’s submitted materials includes all of the applicable required information as required by the Oakley Municipal Code, including, but not limited to the information included on the sheet titled “Final Development Plan”, the Vesting Tentative Map and its associated sheets, and the Design Review plans such as the home elevations and landscape plans.

D. In regard to the application requesting approval of Design Review (DR 10-21), the Planning Commission finds that:
826
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 4 of 22

1. The proposed Design Review plans are consistent with the applicable General Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and the project’s Vesting Tentative Map and P-1 District zoning; and

2. The proposed Residential Siting and Lot Design is consistent with the City of Oakley Residential Design Guidelines in that, the homes will be plotted to provide substantial variation in the garage setbacks from front property line (as conditioned), and changes in roof plans among the same floor plan assist in giving the overall neighborhood more visual variety in overall vertical massing along the streetscape; and

3. The Architectural Character of the proposed single-family homes is consistent with the applicable City of Oakley Residential Design Guidelines in that a variety of materials and architectural styles are used allowing for several different color schemes, and as conditioned, the homes will have unique exterior lighting designs for each architectural type, and increased use of 360 degree architecture, additional gable treatments on side and rear elevations, and the addition of a third garage door so each architectural style may have its own design, as well as options for windows in any of the garage doors.

E. The project complies with Measure J Growth Management requirements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, on the basis of the above Findings and the Record, the City Council approves of the Applicant’s request for approval of a Tentative Map (TM 03-21), Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21), and Design Review (DR 10-21), subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Conditions of Approval
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Oakley Municipal Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the application received by the Planning Division dated November 23, 2021, as well as additional information acquired since that time and made part of the project file.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING’S ON EITHER PARCEL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED:

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General:

1. The Tentative Map (TM 03-21), Final Development Plan (FDP 01-21), and (DR 10-21) are approved, as shown on the revised plans, date stamped by the Planning 827
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 5 of 22
Division on May 26, 2023, and as modified by the following conditions of approval, subject to final review and approval by the Community Development Director.

2. These approvals shall be effectuated within a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the related Rezone approval by recording a final map and if not effectuated shall expire on that same date three years later. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant may apply for a Tentative Map Extension pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Map Act, which would include extension of the related Design Review approval.

3. All construction drawings submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the plans presented to and approved by the City Council on June 13, 2023.

4. All conditions of approval shall be satisfied by the owner/developer. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.

5. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on City, State and Federal Holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days and times may be modified on prior written approval by the Community Development Director.

6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on- site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. If the remains are determined to be that of Native American origin, procedures will be guided by California PRC 5097 through California’s Native American Heritage Commission.

7. All mitigation measures addressed in the environmental document shall be complied with and addressed as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project (incorporated as Exhibit A), per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

8. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained within the HCP Planning Survey Report for the Project, per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

9. The applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Oakley, the City Approving Authorities, and the officers, agents, and employees of the City from any and all claims, damages and liability (including, but not limited to, damages, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, costs of court). 828
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 6 of 22

10.The applicant shall post a copy of the City of Oakley General Plan Land Use Diagram, in a conspicuous place, within the model homes or sales office.

Final Development Plan/Development Standards:

11.Prior to Planning approval of any master plans or building permits, the applicant shall revise the Final Develop Plan by further increasing the setbacks to garages by three to five feet on at least half of the homes in the subdivision. The Revised Final Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval of consistency with this condition.

12.Prior to Planning approval of any master plans or building permits, the applicant shall revise the Final Develop Plan by orienting the homes on non-corner lots so that in the event one side yard is significantly wider than the other, the wider side yard is adjacent to the garage. The Revised Final Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval of consistency with this condition.

13.The project’s development standards are included in the project’s Rezone ordinance.

Design Review:

14.The applicant shall include details of home exterior lighting for each architectural type as part of the master plan submittals. Each architectural type shall have unique exterior lighting that complements that respective style. Spec sheets shall also be included in the master plans. The home exterior lighting is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

15.The applicant shall revise the architectural plans submitted with the master plans so that shutters shall also be included on all rear elevations, as appropriate, and on any side elevations that face the park or a roadway. All false shutters shall match the width of the window. Final approval is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

16.The applicant shall revise the architectural plans submitted with the master plans so that the second story gables include the same exterior materials or embellishments as the front-facing gables on applicable plans. Final approval is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

17.The applicant shall revise the architectural plans submitted with the master plans to include a third garage door to be used on either the Spanish or Santa Barbara style and include a garage door window option for each style. Final approval is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 829
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 7 of 22
Parks and Landscaping:

18.This project is proposing to construct a publicly accessible playground with tot lot on Parcel C of the Vesting Tentative Map. Since the park will be available to the general public, the applicant will be credited the appropriate amount on their per lot park impact fees depending on the final size of the park and usable area as depicted on the final map.

19.The final landscape plan shall include all trees as shown on the conceptual landscape plans approved with the project. Modifications to the species, size, or location of the trees is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. It is the responsibility of the applicant to plan utilities, joint trenches, and other improvements that could interfere with placement of trees in a manner to allow the trees to be planted without conflict to those other improvements.

20.A landscaping and irrigation plan for all front yard, right-of-way, parks, open space, and trail landscaping shall conform to the Oakley Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the Guidelines for Implementation of the City of Oakley Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall be installed prior to final occupancy. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified in compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance.

21.California native drought tolerant plants shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a mix of fifteen-gallon and 24” box; all shrubs shall be a minimum five-gallon size, except as otherwise noted.

22.All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs or groundcover shall be covered with bark or acceptable alternative as reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. On slopes greater than 3 to 1, the applicant shall use an alternative to bark per the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Areas covered with bark shall use a weed barrier.

23.The applicant shall maintain all private landscaping until occupancy.

Fences and Walls:

24.The sound walls to be constructed along East Cypress Road and Machado Lane shall be constructed entirely outside of the public right of way and on the adjacent private property and shall match or be of a similar design and quality as those constructed along the existing residential subdivision on the north side of East Cypress Road in this vicinity. All costs associated with maintenance of those sound walls will be the responsibility of the property owner on which that portion of the wall is located.
830
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 8 of 22

25.Within the subdivision good neighbor fences shall be constructed as shown on the proposed landscape plans and be constructed of wood that is resistant to rotting and warping, and erected with galvanized metal posts surrounded and completely hidden by wood fascia that matches the main fencing. Posts and fascia shall be capped by either a decorative upper fence rail or post cap. Good neighbor fences facing a street shall be constructed of a durable material such as, but not limited to, masonry, vinyl, enhanced wood, composite or other durable material, or stained or painted on both sides to prevent water damage, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

26.Any CMU walls, such as landscape retaining walls, shall use colored (i.e., nongrey) split-face CMU for all publicly and privately visible portions of the wall.

27.Anti-graffiti techniques shall be used on any masonry walls or fences.

Subdivision Design:

28.The neighborhood entries shall be identified by accent paving as shown on the approved plans. The type of paving is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.

29.Driveway openings may be a maximum 18’ in width or up to 25% of the lot’s frontage, whichever is larger.

30.The street names shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

Subdivision Disclosures:

31.Where a lot/parcel is located within 300’ of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following notice:
“The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such a hypothesis is established. At this time, no risk assessment has been made.” When a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above note in the report.
831
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 9 of 22

32.The following statements shall be recorded at the County Recorder’s Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area:
“This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust or blowing sand; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment such as zon guns and aerial crop dusting and certain animals, including equestrian trails as well as flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in the open space areas of the City of Oakley and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase.” Energy Efficiency:

33.Water heaters shall provide an energy efficiency factor of 0.62 or better.

34.Dual zone air conditioning shall be provided on all two-story residential units.

35.Air conditioning condenser units shall be located to take advantage of natural shade. Condensers should not be placed on the west or south elevation of a home unless shade is provided. The location of the condenser shall be added to all plot plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director.

36.Design and site units so as to take advantage of natural heating and cooling, sin and wind exposure, and solar energy opportunities.

Waste Management Plan:

37.The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan that complies with the City of Oakley Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance.

BUILDING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

38.Plans shall meet the currently adopted Uniform Codes as well as the newest T-24 Energy Requirements per the State of California Energy Commission. To confirm the most recently adopted codes please contact the Building Division at (925) 625 – 7005.

39.An Automatic Life Safety Sprinkler System shall be required in all new construction pursuant to Ordinance 22-06. The Automatic Life Safety Sprinkler Systems in commercial and industrial buildings shall be designed and installed to the standards and requirements found in the most recent version of the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). Automatic Life Safety Sprinkler Systems in 832
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 10 of 22

hotels and apartments shall be installed to the stands and requirements found in the most recent version of the NFPA, Standard 13R.

40.Prior to requesting a Certificate of Occupancy or final approval from the Building Division, all Conditions of Approval required for occupancy must be completed.

When the Community Development Department/Planning Division and Public Works and Engineering Department place Conditions of Approval on the project, those respective departments/divisions will sign off on the project prior to the request for a Building division final inspection. Similarly, if the Health Department and/or Fire Department reviewed and approved the original plans, those departments must sign off on the project prior to the request for a final inspection by the Building Division.

PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT AND/OR GRADING PERMIT:

41.GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted City Standard Drawings and Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable City ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued.

The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the City performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.

42.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way, including any blockage or partial closure of sidewalks will require an Encroachment Permit.

Special provisions such as limitations on working hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.

43.GRADING PERMIT. All earthwork must comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance.

A Grading Permit must be issued by the public works department prior to site disturbance.

44.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least forty-eight (48) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all improvements in approved plans. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that was completed without inspection.

45.PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:
833
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 11 of 22

a) Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters;
b) Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.

46.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the City Engineer.

47.EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the State SMARTS system for projects disturbing more than one acre and obtain a WDID number. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, City standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall comply with applicable measures contained in the City of Oakley’s NPDES Permit.

48.DUST CONTROL. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites to ensure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, or at least once a day.

Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept daily during the workweek to the satisfaction of the City. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when 834
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 12 of 22

wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.

49.SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up daily. Mud, silt, concrete, and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the City’s storm drains. Construction entrances must be in place per the Erosion Control Plan.

50.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. The project sponsor will be required to work with the Public Works Department to develop a traffic control plan per the current California MUTCD. This plan will include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a) Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, and special events. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b) Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow, if required. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.
c) Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation and lane closures on main arterial and collector streets, and will be permitted only between the hours of 8:30AM to 2:30PM on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday, and 8:30AM to 12:00PM on Wednesday.
d) The traffic control plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the project’s Haul Route, approved by the City of Oakley.
e) A full road closure will require a detour plan and a road closure permit issued by the Public Works Department.

51.CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. The public street shall not be used for any construction related activities, including parking for workers and storage of vehicles.

52.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised 835
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 13 of 22

pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Public Works & Engineering Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.

53.SIDEWALK REPAIR. The developer shall repair and replace to existing City standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project.

Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture, and design, and shall be constructed per City Standard Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Public Works Inspector during the construction phase of the project.

54.CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing City standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project.

New curb and gutter shall be constructed per City Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Public Works Inspector during the construction phase of the project.

55.CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration, or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Pickup and delivery of materials and equipment is restricted to the hours listed above unless prior written approval is obtained by the Public Works Department.

56.GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the City performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GRADING PLAN:
836
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 14 of 22

57.EXISTING WELLS. Provide documentation that any gas wells located onsite have been abandoned per regulations.

58.GEOLOGY AND SOIL MITIGATION MEASURES. A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections.

The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. One copy of the geologic report shall be submitted with the grading permit and public improvement application. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations. The applicant’s soils engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either by letter or by signing the plans.

59.GRADING.
a) Grade any slopes with a vertical height of four (4) feet or more at a slope of 3H to 1V. Retaining walls that may be installed to reduce the slope must be masonry and comply with the City’s building code.
b) Retaining wall or other suitable option acceptable by the City Engineer is required where the grade differential between property or adjacent lots are greater than 6”. Retaining walls are required to be identified on the grading plans and shall have a note stating a separate building permit is required for retaining wall greater than four (4) feet in height, measured from the bottom of footing to top of wall.
c) At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with their name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall always be kept current and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the City Engineer. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed.
837
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 15 of 22

d) Submit a Haul Route Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to importing or exporting any material from the site. The plan shall include the location of the borrow or fill area, the proposed haul routes, the estimated number and frequency of trips, and the proposed schedule of hauling. Based on this plan, the City Engineering shall determine whether pavement condition surveys must be conducted along the proposed haul routes to determine what impacts the trucking activities may have. The project proponents shall be responsible for repairing to their pre-construction condition any roads along the utilized routes.
e) Prior to commencement of any site work that will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that the requirements for obtaining a State General Construction Permit have been met. Such evidence may be a copy of the Notice of Intent Letter sent by the State Water Resources Control Board. The WDID Number shall be shown on the grading plan prior to approval by the City Engineer. f) The burying of any construction debris is prohibited on construction sites.

60.NPDES – NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM.

Comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the NPDES for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley – Region IV), including the Stormwater C.3 requirements as detailed in the Guidebook available at www.cccleanwater.org
Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP’s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP’s 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.  Delineate all storm drains with “No Dumping, Drains to the Delta” permanent metal markers per City Standards.
 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.
 Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers.
 Other alternatives as approved by the City Engineer.
 Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the project’s storm water control measures.
838
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 16 of 22

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN:

61.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Construct the project streets within public right of way to City public road standards and as shown on the Tentative Map with the following exceptions:
a) The minimum street grade may be lowered from the standard 1% to 0.75% provided that the project proponent demonstrates that the City’s drainage standards can be achieved.
b) Submit a turning radius exhibit to the City Engineer for review and approval to illustrate that the ninety-degree turns of project streets can accommodate the largest expected vehicle to use the streets without the inclusion of City standard elbows. If the exhibit illustrates that elbows are necessary to accommodate the expected traffic, then they shall be included in the improvement plans.

62.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the developer as shown on the Tentative Map, the Cypress Road Improvements and Machado Lane Improvements exhibits submitted to the City of Oakley and date stamped May 26, 2023 and on record in the project file. Plans for these roadway improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed, and approved by the City, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. a) Design and construct the ultimate roadway improvements for Cypress Road for a four-lane divided arterial roadway between approximately 800 feet east of Rubens Way to Machado Lane as shown on the ultimate street improvements for the Cypress Road Improvements exhibit date stamped May 26, 2023. The meandering sidewalk shall be constructed along the project frontage as shown on the exhibit. The adjacent sidewalk connection to the west may be constructed if additional right of way is obtained. The developer may request to enter into a Frontage Improvement Agreement with the City for the cost of construction beyond the project frontage for improvements that are eligible under the Traffic Impact Fee Program. The Frontage Improvement Agreement shall include a requirement for the City to condition future development of APN 033-190-001 with payment to the City of its required fair share of its frontage improvements to fund the remaining ultimate improvements to Machado Lane. b) Design and construct the interim roadway improvements for Machado Lane as shown in the Machado Lane Improvement Exhibit dated October 2022. c) Design and construct the traffic signal modification at East Cypress Road and Machado Lane.

63.DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
839
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 17 of 22

a) Collect and convey all stormwater entering and /or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse.
b) Submit a final hydrology and hydraulic report including 10-year and 100-year frequency event calculations for the proposed drainage system and stormwater pond to the city Engineer for review and approval. The report shall include study of the downstream storm drain facilities to confirm its adequacy and mitigate on-site so that the peak flows of post-project conditions do not exceed the pre-project peak flows.
c) Design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Municipal Code and City design standards.
d) Prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
e) Dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets.
f) On-site parking areas and driveways shall not surface drain across public sidewalk or driveway aprons.

64.SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT. For the project driveways’ ingress and egress, provide an exhibit that will analyze the sight distance required for the appropriate speed limit identified with this project as required by the City Engineer.

65.DESIGN CHANGES. The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the City Engineer, in writing, at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the design indicated on the plans. Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval of the City before altered work is started. A plan revision must be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.

66.JOINT TRENCH PLANS. The applicant shall submit Joint Trench Composite Plans to the City for review prior to approval of improvement plans or recordation of the final map. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public streetlight billing will be per Rule LS2A, and that private 840
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 18 of 22

lights shall be metered with billing to the owner. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans.

67.UTILITIES & UNDERGROUNDING.
a) Underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities per City of Oakley code section Title 6 Chapter 8 Underground Utility Districts. b) All utility boxes shall be installed underground, and all wires and cables must be installed in conduits. Compliance with this condition shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer.
c) Above ground utility boxes shall be camouflaged per the review and approval of the City Engineer.
d) A written approval from Diablo Water District and Iron House Sanitary District must be provided that all underground utility improvements have passed all testing requirements prior to commencement of paving a street.

68.STREETLIGHTS. Install streetlights along all public streets as required by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall determine the final number and location of the lights, and the lights shall be on an LS2-A rate service. Streetlights shall be spun aluminum “cobra head” style or decorative residential street lights as required by the City of Oakley Standard Plans.

69.LANDSCAPING IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
a) Prepare landscape plans for landscape improvements within the public right of way. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. b) Install public right-of-way landscaping along the project’s frontages as required by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. c) Maintain all landscaping within the public right-of-way until such time that the adjacent roadway improvements have been accepted for maintenance.

d) Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, an inspection will be performed to verify the health and location of the street trees. Trees in poor health or those without adequate clearance from utilities will require replacement or relocation.

70.FENCING. Any proposed fencing and walls shall be located on private property and maintained by the property owner or owner.

71.SOUNDWALL. Soundwalls shall be installed within private property and not within public right of way.
841
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 19 of 22

72.MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT. Submit a maintenance exhibit showing the responsible maintenance entity of proposed subdivision improvements. The exhibit must clearly show which areas are to be maintained by the City of Oakley. a) Parcel A (Bioretention Area) and Parcel B (Emergency Vehicle Access) are to be retained and maintained by the Owner/Developer/HOA.

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP:

73.BONDS. The applicant shall supply suitable securities for all improvements that are a part of the development in a form acceptable to the City in the amount of 100% (performance), 50% (labor and material) prior to issuance of any permit.

74.FINAL MAP. Submit a Final Map prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor. The final map shall be recorded, and the Subdivision Agreement must be executed before any building permits are issued. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the Subdivision Agreement.

75.DEDICATIONS. The following shall be dedicated on the final map. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued and under specific timelines listed below:
a) Dedicate the required right-of-way along the project frontage as shown in the typical sections of the Tentative Map.
b) Public Utility Easement (PUE): 5’ PUE beyond public right of way as required. c) Ingress-egress, storm drainage easements, emergency access easements as required.

Any necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road, utility and drainage improvements shall be furnished to the City. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant must provide the necessary documentation that any existing easements no longer necessary have been quitclaimed.

76.PRIVATE EASEMENTS. Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the final map.

77.UTILITY SETBACKS. Building foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation. The City Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on 842
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 20 of 22

the depth of the utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation.

78.DRAINAGE FEES. This project is within the Emerson Lake drainage watershed.

Payment to comply with the “Reimbursement Agreement for the Storm Drainage Improvements related to Conditions of Approval for the Emerson Ranch Project” must be paid prior to the recordation of the Final Map. (Agreement recorded document reference DOC-2021-0014471 January 15, 2021).

79.ANNEXATIONS
a) The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on fire protection services provided in the City. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval. b) The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on police services provided in the City. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval. c) The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on maintenance and operation services associated with public landscaping, parks, streetlighting, and stormwater facilities. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT:

80.PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed land surveyor stating that the building pad was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided prior to the issuance of the building permit.

81.SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary.

The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the applicants’ soils engineer and submitted to the City before any building permit is granted.
843
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 21 of 22

82.AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits.

83.AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked.

The "as-built" plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the City before acceptance of improvements.

84.IMPACT FEES. Comply with the requirements of the development impact fees listed below, in addition to those noticed by the City Council in Resolution 85-00 and 08-03. The applicant shall pay the fees in the amounts in effect at the time each building permit is issued.
a) Traffic Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 14-00, adopted by Resolution 49-03);
b) Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation Fee or any future alternative regional fee adopted by the City (authorized by Ordinance No. 14- 00, adopted by Resolution No. 73-05);
c) Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee (adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03); d) Park Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 19-03);
e) Public Facilities Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 18-03);
f) Fire Facilities Impact Fee (adopted by Resolution No. 24-21); g) General Plan Fee (adopted by Resolution No. 53-03);
h) East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (adopted by Ordinance 8-21).

The applicant should contact the City Engineer prior to constructing any public improvements to determine if any of the required improvements are eligible for credits or reimbursements against the applicable traffic benefit fees or from future developments.

ADVISORY NOTES
The following Advisory Notes are provided to the applicant as a courtesy but are not a part of the conditions of approval. Advisory Notes are provided for the 844
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 22 of 22

purpose of informing the applicant of additional ordinance requirements that must be met in order to proceed with development.

A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits.

B. The project will require a grading permit pursuant to the Ordinance Code.

C. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Iron House Sanitary District.

D. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Diablo Water District.

E. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District.

F. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Division. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.

G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant’s responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.

H. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the County Recorder’s Fee for the Notice of Determination as well as the State Department of Fish and Game’s Filing Fee.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 13th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
___
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
____
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
845
Machado Lane Subdivision 1
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023
Machado Lane Subdivision
Mitigation Monitoring Program
– January 2023
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development process.

The mitigation measures identified in the Machado Lane Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are listed below along with the party responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure, the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign off that the mitigation measure has been implemented.
846
Machado Lane Subdivision 2
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Machado Lane Subdivision
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Signoff
Cultural Resources
V (b,c). Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5, or disturb
any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemetaries?
V-1. If buried archaeological, paleontological, and/or
cultural resources are encountered during site
grading or other site work, all such work shall be
halted immediately within 100 feet of the
discovery and the developer shall immediately
notify the City of Oakley Planning Division of the
discovery. In such case, the developer shall be
required, at their own expense, to retain the
services of a qualified archaeologist for the
purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the
discovery, as appropriate. The archaeologist shall
be required to submit to the City of Oakley
Planning Division for review and approval a report
of the findings and method of curation or
protection of the resources. Further grading or
site work within the area of discovery would not
be allowed until the preceding work has occurred.

The foregoing requirements shall be noted on the
project improvement plans, subject to review and
approval by the City of Oakley Planning Division.

V-2. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 (c) State Public Resources Code
§5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown
origin is found during construction, all work shall
stop within 100 feet of the find and the Contra
Costa County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately. If the remains are determined to be
Native American, the Coroner shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission, who shall
notify the person believed to be the most likely
descendant. The most likely descendant shall
work with the contractor to develop a program for
re-internment of the human remains and any
associated artifacts. Additional work is not to take
City of Oakley
Planning
Division
Qualified
Archaeologist
City of Oakley
Planning
Division
Contra Costa
County
Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
If buried
archaeological,
paleontological,
and/or cultural
resources are
encounterd during
site grading or other
site work.

If human bone or
bone of unknown
origin is found
during construction.
847
Machado Lane Subdivision 3
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Machado Lane Subdivision
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Signoff
place within 100 feet of the find until the identified
appropriate actions have been implemented.

The foregoing requirements shall be noted on the
project improvement plans, subject to review and
approval of compliance by the City of Oakley
Planning Division.

Geology and Soils
VII (f). Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
VII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V-1
and V-2.

See Mitigation
Measures V-1 and
V-2.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
VIII (a,b). Would the project generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment, or conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gasses?
VIII-1. Consistent with the BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance, prior to issuance of building permits
for the proposed project, the project applicant
shall demonstrate via project design and/or
notation included on project design that natural
gas infrastructure shall be prohibited.

Conformance with the foregoing requirement
shall be confirmed through review and approval
of building permit plans by the City of Oakley
Community Development Department.

City of Oakley
Planning
Division
Prior to the issuance
of building permits.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IX (b). Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
IX-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, the project applicant
shall provide a site assessment that determines
whether any structures to be demolished contain
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), leadbased paint (LBP), mercury, or PCBs. Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the
California Department of Toxic Substances
Control’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of
School Sites with Potential Contamination from
Lead based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical
City of Oakley
Planning
Division
City Engineer
Prior to the
issuance of a
demolition permit.
848
Machado Lane Subdivision 4
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Machado Lane Subdivision
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Signoff
Transformers. If structures do not contain any of
the foregoing materials, further mitigation is not
required; however, if ACMs, LBP, mercury, or
PCBs are found, the materials shall be removed
and disposed of by a licensed and certified
contractor in accordance with California Air
Resources Board recommendations and OSHA
requirements. Work practice standards generally
include appropriate precautions to protect
construction workers and the surrounding
community, and appropriate disposal methods for
construction waste in accordance with federal,
State, and local regulations subject to approval by
the City Engineer.

IX-2. During ground-disturbing activities, if one or more wells and/or septic systems are identified on-site,
the project applicant shall hire a licensed
contractor to obtain the applicable abandonment
permit from Contra Costa County Environmental
Health Division (CCCEHD), and properly
abandon the on-site wells and/or septic systems
for review and approval by the CCCEHD.

City of Oakley
Planning
Division
CCCEHD
During grounddisturbing activities,
if one or more wells
and/or septic
systems are
identified on-site.

Noise
XIII (a). Would the project result in generation of
a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinacnce, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
XIII-1. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the
following criteria shall be established and noted
on graded plans, subject to review and approval
by the City of Oakley Planning Division:
• Construction activities shall be limited to
between the daytime hours of 7:30 AM to
7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00
AM to 7:00 PM on Saturdays, Sundays,
and holidays.

City of Oakley
Planning
Division
Prior to the approval
of grading permits.
849
Machado Lane Subdivision 5
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Machado Lane Subdivision
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Signoff
• Construction equipment shall be properly
maintained and equipped with noisereduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with
manufacturers’ recommendations.

Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed
during equipment operation.
• When not in use, motorized construction
equipment shall not be left idling for more
than five minutes.
• Stationary equipment (power generators,
compressors, etc.) shall be located at the
furthest practical distance from nearby
noise-sensitive land uses or sufficiently
shielded to reduce noise-related impacts.

XIII (b). Would the project result in the
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
XIII-2. Throughout the duration of construction, any
compaction required within 26 feet from the
adjacent residential structures to the south shall
be accomplished by using static drum rollers,
which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve
soil compaction. As an alternative to this
requirement, preconstruction crack
documentation and construction vibration
monitoring could be conducted to ensure that
construction vibrations do not cause damage to
any adjacent structures. Proof of compliance with
this measure shall be submitted to the City of
Oakley Planning Division for review and approval.

City of Oakley
Planning
Division
Throughout the
duration of
construction.

Tribal Cultural Resources
XVIII (a,b). 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 places, or object with
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V-1
and V-2.

See Mitigation
Measures V-1 and
V-2.
850
Machado Lane Subdivision 6
Mitigation Monitoring Program Janaury 2023

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Machado Lane Subdivision
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Signoff
cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe, and that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020. 1(k); or a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its
descretion 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 Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
rsource to a California Native American
tribe.
851

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: June 13, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan
Summary
The proposed ordinance updates mitigation fees imposed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”) based on the 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“2022 Fee Study”). The fees are used for the conservation of habitat for covered species in mitigation of the impacts of development in eastern Contra Costa County.

Background
The City Council originally approved the HCP/NCCP on January 22, 2007 through adoption of Resolution No. 12-07. Under the HCP/NCCP, the City and the other participating local agencies were issued state and federal permits for impacts to endangered species and their habitats, also referred to as take permits. This enables the City and the other participating local agencies to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects in the region that they perform or approve. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”), a joint powers authority composed of Contra Costa County and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, was formed in February 2007 for the purpose of implementing the HCP/NCCP. Among other responsibilities, the Conservancy conducts periodic fee audits and refers the results to the participating cities and the County.

On October 22, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 112-07 to establish the mitigation fees and procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP within the areas of the City of Oakley covered by the Plan. Two types of mitigation fees were established: 1) the Development Fee (calculated by multiplying the acreage of the site permanently disturbed by development projects subject to the fee by the fee rate applicable in the zone in which the projects are located); and 2) the Wetland Mitigation Fee (applicable to the wetland, aquatic, or riparian portions of a development project). The County and 852
Subject: Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the HCP/NCCP Date: June 13, 2023