AGENDA
REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY
COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 11, 2023
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561.
Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.
VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.
Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road.
Agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us.
A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council, Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or Oakley Public Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000.
The City of Oakley provides social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door and Instagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Engage In Oakley, Oakley OnDemand on the City's website, and by emailing [email protected].
If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925) 625-7000.
1 Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.
Information Regarding Public Comment
Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. In compliance with State law, the council may not take actionor have discussion on any item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Public comments on items listed on the agenda will be heard as the Mayor calls the items. In compliance with State law, the Council may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a public speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk seated in the Council Chamber prior to the agenda item being called. The Mayor will call you by name to the podium to hear your comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. Online public comments are accepted until 5 p.m. the day of the meeting and can be submitted at
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/online-public-comment-card/.
1.OPENING MATTERS
Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
1.3 Outstanding Youth Award (Lindsey Bruno, Recreation Director)
1.4 Update from Nonprofits Awarded American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Grant Funds
(a) Caitlin Sly, Executive Director, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region (b) Pat Walsh, President, St. Vincent de Paul-St. Anthony's Conference
2.PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority on non-agendized items.
3.CONSENT CALENDAR
2 Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. The public may request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Mayor.
3.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Held June 13, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
Minutes 06-13-23
3.2 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek P. Cole, City Attorney) Memo
3.3 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 5-23 Reducing the Acreage of Land and Amending 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 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Ordinance
3.4 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 6-23 Updating Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Ordinance
3.5 Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment Number 1 to the Consulting Services Agreement with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for the Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 281 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Proposal
3.6 Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Fourth Quarter Report on the Capital Improvement Program (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report
3.7 Agreement with Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for Engineering Design Services associated with East Cypress Road Lane Alignment Analysis (Railroad Tracks 3 to Main Street) Capital Improvement Project Number 301 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Proposal
3.8 Award of Construction Contract to Specified Play Equipment Company for the Koda Dog Park Shade Structure Project - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Number 287 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Proposal
3.9 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Side Letter to the Oakley Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Side Letter
3.10 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with the Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. to Provide Training and Support Related to Critical Incidents as well as Counseling Services on an as Needed Basis for Members of the Oakley Police Department (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Contract
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Sellers Avenue Subdivision 9614 Rezone (RZ 01-22), Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01-22), Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22), Design Review (DR 01-22) and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that this project, with mitigations, would not require the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation, 9) Waive First Reading and Introduce the Ordinance, 10) Adopt the Resolution
Staff Report
1. Vicinity Map
4 2. Notice of Public Hearing
3. Applicant's Plans
4. Sellers Avenue Subdivision - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Sellers Avenue Subdivision - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5a. Exhibit “A”: Sellers Avenue Subdivision – Responses to Comments on IS/MND
6. Planning Commission Staff Report from April 4, 2023
7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 4, 2023
8. Planning Commission Resolution 7-23
9. Proposed Ordinance
10. Draft Resolution with Exhibit "A" Mitigation Monitoring Program 10a. Sellers Avenue Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Program
4.2 Proposed Resolution Revising Fees in the City's Master Fee Schedule for Rental of Fields, Group Picnic Areas, and the Oakley Recreation Center by Oakley Based Businesses (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director) Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Public Testimony, 5) Close the Public Hearing, 6) Deliberate, 7) Summarize the Deliberation 8) Adopt the Resolution
Staff Report
1. Resolution
2. Master Fee Schedule
5.REGULAR CALENDAR
5.1 Annual Report of Military Equipment Usage-2022 (Paul Beard, Chief of Police) Staff Report
1. Police Department 2022 Annual Military Equipment Report
2. Oakley Police Department Policies Regarding Military Equipment
5.2 Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Urban Field Studio for the Library and O’Hara Residential Projects Design and Economic Feasibility Analysis and appropriating American Rescue Plan Act funds for the project (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
Staff Report
1. Draft Resolution
2. RFP dated April 7, 2023
3. DAHLIN Proposal
4. Urban Field Studio Proposal
5. Urban Field Studio Agreement
5.3 Authorization to Execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement with R&R Pacific Construction, Inc. for 0.90 Acres of APN 037-160-018 (Joshua McMurray, City 5 Manager)
Staff Report
1. Bid Proposal Cover Letter
2. Preliminary Plot and Project Plans
3. Draft Purchase and Sales Agreement
4. Draft Resolution
6.REPORTS
6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
(b) Results of the Marsh Creek Pedestrian Bridge Survey (c) KOA/Tyler Presentation
(d) Fireworks Update
6.1c - Tyler Enterprise ERP Implementation Powerpoint
6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
7.WORK SESSIONS
7.1 Work Session to Discuss AB 1657 and Recent General Assembly of the Association of Bay Area Governments (Derek Cole, City Attorney) Staff Report
1. AB-1657
8.CLOSED SESSION
8.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 3080 Main Street, Oakley, CA, APN 037-200-011 Agency Negotiator: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Kent Ipsen
Under Negotiation: Price and term of payment
6 9.ADJOURN
7 Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held June 13, 2023
1) OPENING MATTERS
1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Aaron Meadows called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Anissa Williams and Councilmembers Dr. George Fuller, Hugh Henderson and Shannon Shaw were also present.
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Proclamation Recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month (Jimmy Ramirez, Oakley Planning Commissioner; David Carrillo, Executive Director and Kevin Martin, Empowerment Program Coordinator and Training Manager, Center for Human Development's Empowerment Program)
Mayor Meadows presented the proclamation to Commissioner Ramirez and Mr. Martin on behalf of the City Council. Commissioner Ramirez and Mr. Martin provided comments.
1.4 Update from Contra Costa County Water District Director Connstance Holdaway and Oliver Symonds, Senior Public Information Specialist District Director Holdaway provided a PowerPoint presentation.
1.5 Update from Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District (Michael Krieg, Board Trustee)
Board Trustee Krieg provided an update addressing invasive mosquitoes, use of drones to map and treat areas, and funding should an outbreak occur.
1.6 Youth Council Report and Recognition from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) (Lindsey Bruno, Recreation Director)
Sergio Hernandez, Manuel Gutierrez and Yuliana Luna, members of the Oakley Youth Advisory Council (OYAC), provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Recreation Director Lindsey Bruno mentioned Outstanding Youth Award winners will be presented in July.
Gigi Crowder, Executive Director of NAMI Contra Costa, thanked OYAC for their work and video. She provided certificates to Ms. Bruno and OYAC participants. 8 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Richie Cruz, Field Representative with Carpenters Union Local 180 in Vallejo, commented on labor standards, including medical and retirement benefits, local hires and apprenticeships.
Sean Reese, Field Representative with NorCal Carpenters Union, requested area standard labor agreements to be used.
David Larsen commented on Main Street traffic congestion in the Downtown area and inquired if a bypass would be possible.
Mayor Meadows commented that at one time yes but not at this time; most of the traffic goes down Laurel to HWY 4.
3) CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Special Public Financing Authority Meeting Held May 23, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
3.2 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek P. Cole, City Attorney)
3.3 Acceptance of work associated with the Holly Creek Park Restroom Construction Project-Capital Improvement Project Number 248 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.4 Award of Contract to Terracare Associates, LLC for City Parks and Landscape Maintenance Services (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.5 Award of Construction Contract to R & R Pacific Construction, Inc. for the Construction of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Street Repair and Resurfacing ProjectCapital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 279 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.6 Acceptance of Subdivision Improvements Associated with the Oakley Logistics Center (Phase 1) Subdivision 9513 located at Bridgehead Road and Wilbur Avenue (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.7 Acceptance of Subdivision Improvements Associated with the Oakley Logistics Center (Phase 2) Subdivision 9549 located at Wilbur Avenue and Industrial Way (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.8 Annexation Number 34 (Brownstone Subdivision 8803) to the City of Oakley Community Facilities District Number 2015-2 (Parks, Streetlight, Landscape, and Stormwater Services) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.9 Accepting the Subdivision Improvements Associated with Stonewood Unit 1A Subdivision 7662 located at southwest corner of Rose Avenue and Longhorn Way (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) 9 3.10 Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a 2023 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD for $55,858.54 from California Automotive Retailing Group, Inc.
DBA Dublin Chevrolet (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.11 Adopt a Resolution Approving a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer)
3.12 Creating Zone 188 within the Oakley Special Police Tax Area consisting of the Honey Creekside project (Subdivision 9579) located at 463 and 560 Honey Lane (APNs 033-030-028 and 033-030-032) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
No public comments were submitted.
Dr. Fuller pulled items 3.1 and 3.5.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 3.1
Dr. Fuller requested a correction to the minutes for item 1.3 to reflect that Ms. Smith promised the projected ridership numbers on the train and the cross-county bus system.
It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 3.5
Dr. Fuller expressed concern that he is uncomfortable approving anything with R&R until there is a presentation since there has been “smoke” regarding R&R not meeting proper requirements, pay, etc. He mentioned staff has provided assurance; however, he would like a presentation to provide information on how R&R consistently comes in so much lower than other bids and that they are following the proper wage requirements.
Mr. Rohani responded that all contracts go through an extensive vetting process, special interest groups made allegations all of which were unfounded with R& R on the Cypress Road project last year, all contracts require certified payroll and prevailing wages before invoices are paid, a peer review occurs to verify numbers, and this is a legitimate company. He shared that there were only 3 bids on this property and R&R submitted a very competitive bid.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that she reviewed information on prevailing wage, apprenticeships, etc. for R&R so the City does have record they are doing everything that the City has asked of them and that is required by labor laws; this information reassures her that this is the right bid to go with.
Mr. Rohani commented that there is a lot of work that goes on before the report comes to Council and he wants to make sure there is confidence in the process. 10 Dr. Fuller commented it is no reflection on staff’s work; he has reviewed background documents and agrees staff has done a thorough job and that there are special interest groups looking at wage consideration, and he understands R&R has its equipment, materials and labor close by, but for some reason they are targeted and he would feel more comfortable if there is a presentation that would also allow some of the people writing letters to provide testimony.
Mr. Rohani explained that he and the City Attorney have responded to letters and have not heard back any further from those they have responded to; they just try to create “smoke”, it is part of the process.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to award the contract as presented. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. ABSTENTION: Fuller. (4-0-1)
4) PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Public Hearing to Consider Confirming the Diagrams and Assessments and Ordering the Levy and Collection of the Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 for the City of Oakley Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani presented the staff report.
There were no questions from the City Council.
Mayor Meadows opened the public hearing and called for public comments.
No public comments were provided, therefore Mayor Meadows asked if any property owners would like to turn in a written protest regarding the levy of Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 assessments for FY 2023-2024.
No written protests were submitted; therefore, Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing and asked the City Clerk to report if there is a majority protest regarding the levy of Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 assessments for FY 2023-24 and the City Clerk reported there were none.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
4.2 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 and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings, this Project, with Mitigations, Would not Require the Adoption of an Environmental Impact Report Under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) 11 Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Meadows called for questions from the City Council.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if E. Cypress improvements will be completed before any homes are built.
Mr. Strelo confirmed that they will be completed.
Mayor Meadows inquired who required no natural gas.
Rod Stinson, Vice President/Air Quality Specialist with Raney Planning and Management, Inc. responded that it was an Air District requirement as a threshold of significance in the GHG analysis as a mitigation measure in the CEQA process.
Mayor Meadows commented that he is aware Bay Area Quality Control District wants to do away with natural gas and that it passed a resolution, but he thought it applied in the future.
Mr. Stinson explained through the threshold of significance in the CEQA process, they have best management practices-based thresholds rather than numeric and there must be a showing of no natural gas to meet the threshold.
Mayor Meadows opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant had any comments.
Applicant Kevin Freyer with MLC Holdings explained the work they have done to get to this point, and he addressed traffic and road improvements.
Mayor Meadows called for public comments.
Leopoldo Becerra provided public comment that was made part of the meeting record.
Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing and called for Council deliberation.
Dr. Fuller commented that he is pleased the applicant addressed the prior Council’s concerns and it is one of the better plans he has seen. He mentioned the land by Sellers is too valuable and developers will continue to purchase it and build and to stop it would be very difficult.
Councilmember Shaw expressed gratitude for the applicant having heard the prior Council and changing the plans, and for working with staff to improve E. Cypress.
Ordinance: It was moved by Councilmember Shaw and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to waive the first reading and introduce the proposed ordinance for Rezone. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Resolution: It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the proposed resolution, including modification of CEQA Mitigation Measure VIII-1 and adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that also applies to Rezone entitlement. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
12 Mayor Meadows called for a 5-minute break at 7:59 p.m. and thereafter the Council reconvened.
4.3 Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report.
Mayor Meadows called for questions from the City Council; there being none, he opened the public hearing and called for public comments.
No public comments were submitted, and Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing.
There was no deliberation by the Council.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance updating the mitigation fees imposed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.
Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
5.1 Consideration of Resolutions Adopting the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies, Appropriations Limit, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 and Making Findings Related Thereto, and Approving Additional Sworn Police Positions on a Temporary Basis (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director)
Finance Director Tim Przybyla presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Dr. Fuller inquired what debts the City is servicing for $2.2 million and if it includes Carol Lane.
Mr. Przybyla mentioned he believes the only debt service is the Recreation Center, but he will get back to him.
Dr. Fuller referred to the bonds issued for Carol Lane.
City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned the City loaned funds for the Carol Lane project and over time as they generate income, they will pay the City residual payments, but they have not yet started.
Mr. Przybyla added that the City has loaned funds for senior projects and has received some residual payments, but he is not certain if that has come from Carol Lane; he will get back to him.
Dr. Fuller indicated he is satisfied with Mr. McMurray’s response and no further research is needed from Mr. Przybyla.
13 Vice Mayor Williams inquired what the benefit is to have the policy change for community facilities districts (CFDs) to be added to the asset life cycle replacement program.
Mr. Przybyla mentioned the benefit is the method of budgeting which they have been doing for landscape and lighting districts and CFDs, this just makes it an official policy.
No public comments were submitted.
Resolution 1: It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies and Appropriations Limit. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Resolution 2: It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Budget and CIP for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 and confirm the CIP is consistent with the adopted Oakley General Plan and meets the requirements of Section 65401 of the Government Code.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he has the same objections he has had with projects 205, 215 and 270 regarding the train platform and gateway park therefore he will be voting no unless the Council bifurcates them out. He expressed that he is pleased with project 287 to have shade at the dog park. He mentioned project 298 involves traffic calming and while he understands it, he hopes it does not result in shutting down the Downtown. He mentioned the ADA goes back to 304 and he is still concerned about $50k against $100 million in costs.
AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Resolution 3: It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt a resolution to approve temporary over-hiring for two Police Officer positions.
Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5.2 Selection of Non-Profit Organizations to Operate Beer and Wine Concessions at select City Special Events (Lindsey Bruno, Recreation Director) Recreation Director Lindsey Bruno presented the staff report.
No public comments were submitted.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to approve the assignments of beer and wine concessions to the Rotary Club of Oakley for Summer Fest and to East County All Star Fundraising for the Heart of Oakley Festival. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5.3 Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Thomas Properties Inc. for the sale of property located at 1033 Main Street and 5400 Neroly Road (APN 037-050-013 and APN 037-050-014) (Harumi Murata, Economic Development Analyst)
Economic Development Analyst Harumi Murata presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
14 No public comments were submitted.
Sam Thomas with Thomas Properties shared East County projects they have been worked on and are currently working on and mentioned there is a priority retailer they are working with and a secondary option.
Mayor Meadows commented he prefers the primary retailer.
Vice Mayor Williams shared that the City Council receives a lot of criticism for allowing fast food, gas stations and car washes and because this is a City-owned property, if the priority retailer or similar use does not occur, she does not feel comfortable with the secondary option.
City Manager Joshua McMurray explained it is the purview of the Council to make that decision and if this were the consensus of the Council, staff would have to discuss it with Thomas Properties and there is a possibility there may be no agreement as it needs to be economically viable for them. He mentioned staff has expressed to Thomas Properties the Council’s concerns and that the priority retailer or like use is strongly desired. He mentioned this a highway accessible area unlike other areas near housing and schools in the city where some of the other uses have been proposed.
Mr. Thomas shared that the priority retailer has been in the market a while and they have already completed their tour. He added Thomas Properties has a long working relationship with the City and they provide transparency and trust.
Dr. Fuller mentioned to the east of the site there is a trailer park with temporary and permanent structures. He inquired if it is zoned residential.
Mr. McMurray explained it is zoned commercial and he does not believe they have any intention to sell at this time.
Dr. Fuller inquired if the secondary uses would require a conditional use permit (CUP).
Mr. McMurray confirmed that any fast-food establishment, gas station or car wash would require a CUP, as well as an agricultural store because of the outdoor storage, so anything in the schemes shown would require a CUP and design review.
Dr. Fuller inquired what type of car wash would be proposed and if it would include a full-service car wash.
Mr. Thomas explained it depends on the field operator; the field operator is established and then the site plan is developed. He mentioned if a full-service car wash operator is available and provides a proposal, it could be considered.
Mayor Meadows mentioned he prefers the first scheme and would like Thomas to push hard for it, but he is not opposed to the second scheme because the site is located near the highway and is appropriate for those uses.
Dr. Fuller expressed that his preference is a sit-down restaurant, but he has agreed with Mayor Meadows in the past that a drive-through that fits in with the community and area can be advantageous. He mentioned he has heard from the community that it is not necessarily 15 opposed to drive-throughs but not in areas such as Laurel Plaza where the developer made a capitalistic move to maximize profit without regard to safety or the surrounding community which was resented by the community. He mentioned Thomas Properties has proposed uses that fit in with the community although he has concern regarding Quick Quack because even though the trailer park to the east is zoned commercial, it is still home to those who live there. He shared his opinion; a full-service car wash is more contained and has limited hours causing less disturbance. He mentioned it is a valuable piece of land and there is no reason for him to say there should not be a gas station on it. He expressed appreciation for an ag business but is uncertain how well it would do in this area. He mentioned his preference would be for a sit-down restaurant, i.e., Denny’s, but he understands restaurants are moving toward take-out and drivethroughs to survive. He indicated he is comfortable with Thomas Properties’ approach.
Councilmember Shaw mentioned option 1 is the best option and while she understands there are other uses of gas stations, fast-food and car washes in the area, she agrees with Vice Mayor Williams that if it is possible to limit it to option 1, she would like to see what that would look like.
Councilmember Henderson agreed that the ag business is preferred but they shouldn’t delay the sale of this property even if it means having to go through CUPs with gas stations, car washes or fast food.
Vice Mayor Williams shared she has been receiving a lot of comments regarding Wendy’s that is not yet built and there has been no interest in the empty drive-through across the street.
Mayor Meadows commented that it is not feasible.
Vice Mayor Williams continued to say that there are things sitting there already and she would like to take into consideration what they heard from their economic consultants who determined Oakley has enough drive-through, car washes and fast-food type businesses and recommended more living wage jobs. She added that an ag store would provide higher wages than fast-food and because of its proximity to the Logistics Center, she believes they can put more restrictions on it to make it those types of businesses. She mentioned the area is saturated with fast-food, gas stations and car washes and she doesn’t feel it is the responsible thing to do when the City owns the property if they can’t guide it better and it sets the developer up for failure if they have many conditions on them for CUPs.
Dr. Fuller commented it is his understanding that there is discussion when drawing the plans about conditions so when it comes to the Council, the Council is not adding those conditions at that time.
Mr. McMurray mentioned it would be a completely collaborative process.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement as presented. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows. NOES: Shaw, Williams. (3-2)
16 5.4 Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement Providing for an Increase in Salary from $250,000 to $277,500 Annually (Derek Cole, City Attorney) City Attorney Derek Cole presented the staff report.
No public comments were submitted.
Dr. Fuller thanked Mayor Meadows and Vice Mayor Williams for their work on negotiations on this matter. He mentioned it is his understanding that Mr. McMurray has not had any salary increase in 2 years, so they are catching up on the cost-of-living adjustment and he has done an exemplary job to warrant additional increase beyond that.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement.
Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5.5 Adopt a Resolution approving the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 and authorizing the addition and removal of specific job classifications (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
Human Resources Director Jeri Tejeda presented the staff report.
No public comments were submitted.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to adopt the resolution approving the Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 and authorizing the addition and removal of specific job classifications. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 6) REPORTS
6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray reported that a public survey is available for the next few weeks on the City’s website regarding the bridge connection for the Marsh Creek Restoration Project, there will be only one City Council meeting held in each June, July and August, the City’s inaugural Juneteenth celebration will be held June 17, 10am-1pm at Civic Center Plaza, and the City’ 2nd Annual Summer Fest will be held July 1, 11am-5pm at Civic Center Plaza. (b) Fireworks Update
Chief of Police Paul Beard provided an update on fireworks including data regarding past calls for service and cases during 2020, 2021 and 2022 which showed a 40% decrease in calls for service between 2020 and 2021, and a 35% decrease for calls for service between 2021 and 2022. He emphasized the focus is on education, but fines will be used. He shared that Police is co-branding with Fire to bring awareness and education and that educational flyers/forms were issued last week to areas of the city where there has been a persistent concentration of fireworks. He mentioned they will also use safety signs and social media for education. He discussed staffing during the period of June 30-July 4, including a drone pilot available on duty. 17 He expressed hope that through education there is a decrease in activity and less necessity for citations.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if Police is open to suggestions regarding where to distribute educational flyers which Chief Beard confirmed they are.
Vice Mayor Williams requested the number of calls for service for 2022 which Chief Beard responded was 83.
6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Dr. Fuller reported he attended the Memorial Day celebration and met with Wendy Fabian, Constituent Case Manager for Assemblymember Lori Wilson, and that Assemblymember Wilson has breast cancer, and he has concern she may not be able to perform many of her duties. In relation to the handouts he provided, he mentioned last year during an Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting, Berkeley’s mayor was very upset that their city would have to meet 8,900 RHNA affordable housing units and has proposed a 2024 ballot measure for the state to offer millions of dollars for building affordable housing units but the catch is that places like Berkeley and Oakland that have large numbers of RHNA affordable housing unit numbers to meet could transfer it out to “open areas” to reduce their numbers. He referenced his handouts including The New York Times article regarding sentiment of “not in my backyard” in Berkeley, AB 1657 (Wicks) proposing $10 million in bonds which includes a clause that the legislature can change housing requirements which includes RHNA and would allow Berkeley to be excused from housing requirements if it builds in open areas such as ours, and SB 555 (Wahab) in which a blue commission would decide how the funding is distributed. He mentioned it will be an uphill battle if passed and it is discriminatory. He mentioned ABAG will discuss it June 16th.
Councilmember Henderson reported he attended the Diablo Water District meeting on May 24th, the Memorial Day ceremony, Friday Night Bites on June 2nd, and the 40th officer swearing-in yesterday and the City is now fully staffed.
Councilmember Shaw shared she attended the Tri-Delta Transit meeting, the Memorial Day event on May 27th, the Mayors Conference on June 1st, the Clayton Pride parade on June 4th, and on June 7th she met with Supervisor Burgis to discuss the library, park, E. Cypress and all things Oakley and how she wants to continue to support Oakley. She also reported she spent the afternoon with Assemblymember Lori Wilson and Wilson is undergoing treatment but is doing well and hopes her treatment will end in the fall; they were both at the Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council luncheon. She reported she attended the Meals on Wheels gala on June 10th and a celebration for the City being fully staffed and the swearing-in ceremony for Oakley’s 40th officer on June 12th. She shared she joined Empowered Aging’s Hear Me, See Me campaign.
Mayor Meadows reported last week he attended the TRANSPLAN/ECCRFA/HWY-4 Bypass Authority meeting, the Mayors Conference on June 1st, the swearing-in ceremony for Oakley’s 18 40th officer and celebration for the City being fully-staff, and the Memorial Day celebration. He announced he will attend the MCE meeting this Thursday. (b) Requests for Future Agendas
Dr. Fuller requested a work session in July to discuss AB 1657 and related bills and for the City Attorney prepare a legislative analysis to determine how it may impact Oakley and go from there. Councilmember Shaw and Mayor Meadows supported it.
Mayor Meadows called for a break at 9:30 p.m. and thereafter the Council reconvened. 7) WORK SESSIONS
7.1 55-Acre Park Discussion (Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report.
Mayor Meadows inquired if Mr. McMurray has had any conversations with bass fishermen regarding access from the site to where they go because it looks like a lot of slow water to get to fast water.
Mr. McMurray confirmed staff has spoken with people the City is partnering with and others in the community who believe this is a viable place to access the Delta. He mentioned he has heard that Big Break is viable but not a favorite launch for fishermen and boaters; a facility further east is desired.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if it is all conceptual at this time and there is nothing to look at.
Mr. McMurray explained they have community feedback from one meeting and a survey but it would be unfair to present a plan at the second community meeting without having Council direction because there is time and cost associated with it.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if it would eliminate the ballfields.
Mr. McMurray confirmed it would not eliminate the ballfields but would reduce the number of ballfields.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that there would not be sufficient ballfields to host tournaments.
Mr. McMurray confirmed that is correct and noted that the City is working with developers who are developing or will be developing in coming years massive sports fields in the Summerlake North area and they are poised to construct it faster than the City would be able to with the 55- acre park project.
Vice Mayor Williams expressed Oakley families probably will not want to camp here which is fine because outside visitors support economic development. She inquired what is being added for family entertainment.
19 Mr. McMurray explained staff would like to keep the kayak and beach access as currently there is nowhere in Oakley to access the Delta. He mentioned a second dog park could be explored or other day uses.
Vice Mayor Williams requested if the ballfields are to be reduced for there to be more familyoriented amenities included as options, i.e., batting cages, mini golf, other activities that could be run by concessionaires. She inquired if motorized boats are launching from the site where non-motorized devices would launch from.
Mr. McMurray indicated they would be in the same location as the space is limited. He mentioned there could be defined spaces for kayak and paddleboards as well as motorized boats and roped area beach/swim access, but they would share the water which is no different than other marinas such as Big Break.
Mayor Meadows commented there are 37 proposed uses on the plan and probably 30 too many. He mentioned he wanted to see athletic fields to bring tournaments in, but this new plan makes sense as unlike athletic fields that can be placed anywhere in Oakley, aquatic uses can only be by the water, so the site makes sense for the uses Mr. McMurray mentioned. Regarding camping, he mentioned he believes locals would use it, i.e., Boy Scouts, and it would be a different demographic for the uses mentioned than it would be for sports fields; there are people in Oakley other than athletes to also consider. He expressed that he would like the focus to be more on aquatic and camping use without overloading the site with too many amenities.
Dr. Fuller agreed with Mayor Meadows, expressing there is too much in the plan. He mentioned there are other agricultural opportunities around the area and what would be to gain by having more at this park, as well as the Burroughs tract house on the property. He suggested the Emerson house could be preserved as a historical sight with views of the Delta. He agreed water access is important for those with and without a boat and there should be open access to the Delta as it is a great local amenity. He mentioned local trails connect to this area and would be great for backpacking and camping along the water. He mentioned the fields are too remote which may hurt their opportunity for grants; he would like to see the fields come out of that area and be closer to the city for access. He mentioned there is play equipment throughout the city to access but the picnic area is fine. He suggested the focus be on water access and open, outdoorsy recreation with less concentration on sports.
Councilmember Henderson supported the idea of working on water access as it is probably the only piece of property that the City owns that it could do something directly into the waterway and it would be a missed opportunity if they don’t explore access. He suggested looking at what other agencies, i.e., East Bay Regional Parks District, ae doing regarding camping and day use opportunities.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if they are referring to tent or RV camping.
Mr. McMurray mentioned it could be both and there may be an opportunity to partner with other agencies. He mentioned he envisions camping like the East Bay Regional Parks District model where certain alcohol is prohibited, there are park hours and park rangers making rounds, not raging parties like at some RV resorts or KOAs.
Councilmember Shaw commented she is not in favor of RV-type camping and she believes there are too many amenities on the plan; she would like to do a few things and do them well.
She inquired what the cost would be to explore dual options, the ballfields concept, and this new 20 concept, as she doesn’t want to get too far down the road and find out it is not viable. She mentioned food trucks on the water might be another idea. She agreed if the ballfields are scaled back, she would like to see something more youth-friendly and would like to bring the Oakley Youth Advisory Council (OYAC) into the discussion. She mentioned Supervisor Burgis mentioned there might be some funding opportunities which she would like to explore.
Dr. Fuller suggested looking at the East Bay Regional Parks District’s site in Oakland. He mentioned he thinks the City will go further with grant funding opportunities if it includes diversity, equity and inclusion.
Mayor Meadows mentioned he believed it is Chabot Regional Park that Dr. Fuller mentioned.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned they need to make a good faith effort to move it forward for grant funding as this would be the third iteration they are considering so she would like to see the dual plans move forward.
Mr. McMurray confirmed dual plans are possible if it is the consensus of the Council and the community can provide input.
Vice Mayor Williams expressed concern if the community likes the newer concept and then they find out it is not viable.
Mr. McMurray expressed that he understands the concern and believes if there is community and political support, where there is will, there is a way. He mentioned it would be premature without community support to engage stakeholders.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if this plan is going to be presented to the community or the newer concept which Mr. McMurray confirmed would not be this plan but a completely different plan.
Councilmember Shaw expressed she would like it mentioned to the community when presented in July that this is a concept and they do not know whether there would be support for it; it may not be something the City can do if there are roadblocks or something that could stop it.
Mr. McMurray agreed.
No public comments were submitted.
8) CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Meadows announced the closed session items and indicated after closed session the meeting would be adjourned, and the next regular meeting will be held July 11, 2023 at 6:30pm in the Oakley City Council Chambers.
8.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Letter dated May 25, 2023 received from Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Northern California concerning use of automated license plate readers
21 8.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION County of Contra Costa et al. (and City of Oakley) v. Monsanto Company et al., Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No. C22-02818
Schaefers v. BNSF Railway Company et. al. (and City of Oakley), Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case Nos. C22-01552 and C22-01555
McCalister v. Moeckel at al. (and City of Oakley), Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No.
C23-00834
City of Oakley v. Scelsi, Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No. MSN16-1620 9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
22 MEMORANDUM
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us Date: June 14, 2023
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
CC: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
For Consideration at the City Council Meeting of July 11, 2023 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session items during its regular meeting held June 13, 2023:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Letter dated May 25, 2023 received from Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Northern California concerning use of automated license plate readers.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9.
County of Contra Costa et al. (and City of Oakley) v. Monsanto Company et al., Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No. C22-02818
Schaefers v. BNSF Railway Company et al. (and City of Oakley), Contra Costa Sup.
Ct. Case Nos. C22-01552 and C22-01555
McCallister v. Moeckel et al. (and City of Oakley), Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No.
C23-00834
City of Oakley v. Scelsi, Contra Costa Sup. Ct. Case No. MSN16-1620 Direction was provided to staff. There was no reportable action. 23 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us Fiscal Impact
None.
Recommendation
Receive and file this report.
Attachments
None.
24 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
3 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us 25 Ordinance No. 5-23 Page 1 of
4 ORDINANCE NO. 5-23
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 26 Ordinance No. 5-23 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.
27 Ordinance No. 5-23 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 28 Ordinance No. 5-23 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
29 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 6-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY UPDATING
MITIGATION FEES IMPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
RECITALS
The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows:
SECTION I. Summary
This ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for the conservation of habitat for covered species in mitigation of the impacts of development in eastern Contra Costa County and procedures to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.
SECTION II. Authority
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.) and Article 11, section 7 of the California Constitution.
SECTION III. Notice and Hearing
This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code sections 54986, 66016.5, and 66017-66018, and all required notices have been properly given and public hearing held.
SECTION IV. Definitions
As used in this ordinance:
A. "Affected Development Projects" means the development projects to which this ordinance applies, as set forth in Section V of this ordinance.
B. "Covered species" means those species of plants and animals whose conservation and management are provided for by the HCP/NCCP for which limited take is authorized pursuant to the state and federal permits.
C. "Development Fee" means the fee described in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and imposed on development projects pursuant to Section VIII.A of this ordinance.
D. "Development Fee Zones" means the three areas depicted as Zones I, II, and III on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and in the detailed map data used to create Exhibit A, both of which are incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section. The Development Fee imposed on a development project is determined based on the Development Fee Zone in which the project is located. 30 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 2 of 12
E. "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development, including a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate.
F. "HCP/NCCP" means the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2006, as may be revised from time to time.
G. "HCP/NCCP implementation fees" means the Development Fee and the Wetland Mitigation Fee.
H. "Implementing Agreement" means the January 22, 2007, Implementing Agreement for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan by and between East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, County of Contra Costa, City of Pittsburg, City of Clayton, City of Oakley, City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game.
I. "Implementing Entity" means the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers agency formed by the County and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg to oversee the implementation of the HCP/NCCP.
J. "Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters" means State and federally regulated wetlands and other water bodies that cannot be filled or altered without permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), from the State Water Resources Control Board under either section 401 of the Clean Water Act or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code, § 13000 et seq.), or from the California Department of Fish and Game under section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as further explained in Chapter 1.3.5 of the HCP/NCCP.
K. "Project applicant" means a property owner, or duly designated agent of the property owner, who has submitted to the City a request for approval of a development project on the property.
L. "Public facilities" includes public improvements, public services, and community amenities.
M. "State and federal permits" means the permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game to the City and other local agencies on August 6, 2007, authorizing take of covered species pursuant to the HCP/NCCP and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (permit number 2835-2007-01-03), and the permit issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to the City and other local agencies on July 25, 2007, authorizing incidental take of covered species pursuant to the HCP/NCCP and the 31 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 3 of 12
federal Endangered Species Act (permit number TE160958-0), as those documents may be amended from time to time.
N. "Take" has the same meaning provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) ("FESA") and its implementing regulations with regard to activities subject to that Act, and also has the same meaning provided in the California Fish and Game Code with regard to activities subject to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et seq.). Specifically, take is defined in FESA to mean "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct" (16 U.S.C. § 1532(18)) and in California Fish and Game Code section 86 as "to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill.''
O. "Urban Development Area" means the areas designated for urban development that are either (1) within the area designated as the "Initial Urban Development Area" as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, or (2) areas added to or removed from the Initial Urban Development Area according to the procedures set forth in Section 3.50 of the Implementing Agreement.
P. "Wetland Mitigation Fee" means the fee described in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and imposed on development projects pursuant to Section VIII.B of this ordinance.
SECTION V. Application of Ordinance
A. This ordinance applies to all development projects within the City of Oakley that are within the Urban Development Area except for the following:
1. Any development project that will permanently disturb less than one acre. The "acreage of land permanently disturbed" by a project, as that term is defined in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, shall be determined by the Community Development Director or his designee.
2. Any development project that the Community Development Director or his designee determines is contained entirely within an area mapped as urban, turf, landfill, and/or aqueduct land cover types in the HCP/NCCP, as generally depicted on Exhibit A and in the map data used to create Exhibit A.
3. Any development project of a type not covered by the HCP/NCCP within the Urban Development Area, as set forth in Chapter 2.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.
4. Development projects with vested rights pursuant to an agreement by and between the project applicant and the City.
5. Development projects exempt under any provision of law. 32 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 4 of 12
6. Development projects where the City determines based on written evidence submitted by the project applicant that application of the ordinance would deprive the project applicant of all reasonable economic use of the property in violation of federal or state constitutional prohibitions against the taking of property without just compensation.
B. The development projects to which this ordinance applies, as set forth above, may be referred to as the "Affected Development Projects." SECTION VI. Purpose of Fees; Use of Fee Revenue
A. The purpose of the Development Fee is to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The Development Fee revenues will be used to fund the acquisition of land that does or could provide habitat for covered species, the management and enhancement of that land and habitat, and the administrative actions necessary to accomplish these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP, incorporated herein by reference.
B. The purpose of the Wetland Mitigation Fee is to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, riparian woodland/scrub, or stream buffers. The Wetland Mitigation Fee revenues will be used to fund the restoration, creation and management of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, and the administrative actions necessary to perform these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP.
SECTION VII. Findings
The City Council of the City of Oakley finds and determines as follows:
A. There is a need to establish a comprehensive framework to protect and conserve species, wetlands, natural communities, and ecosystems in East Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts of future development on rare, threatened, and endangered species.
B. To meet the need identified in Section VII.A, the City participated as a member of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association, a joint exercise of powers authority, to develop the HCP/NCCP and the Implementing Agreement. The City Council finds that the HCP/NCCP, implemented in accordance with the Implementing Agreement, will provide comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contribute to the recovery of endangered species within East Contra Costa County; balance open space, habitat, and urban development; reduce the cost and increase the clarity and consistency of federal and state permitting; consolidate and streamline these processes into one, locally controlled plan; encourage, where appropriate, multiple uses of protected areas; share the costs and benefits of the HCP/NCCP as widely and equitably as possible; and protect the rights of private property owners.
C. Adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will enable the City to promote the health, safety and welfare of all of its residents by helping to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the HCP/NCCP, to implement the associated Implementing Agreement, 33 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 5 of 12
and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, and other applicable laws.
D. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The Development Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the acquisition of land, the enhancement and management of habitat, and the other public facilities identified in Section VI.A in order to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat, and covered species caused by Affected Development Projects. The Wetland Mitigation Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation, and management of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, and the other public facilities identified in Section VI.B in order to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by Affected Development Projects. The HCP/NCCP implementation fees will not apply to all types of development projects, but only to those that impact open space, habitat suitable for one or more covered species, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, or riparian areas. In this way, the HCP/NCCP implementation fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the fees.
E. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities to be funded by the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the need for these facilities, which include the acquisition of land and the management, enhancement, restoration, and creation of habitat, arises from the development projects to which the fees will apply, i.e., development projects of all types that disturb open space, habitat, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.
F. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development projects on which the fees will be imposed. The costs of the public facilities needed to mitigate cumulative impacts from development projects subject to the fees were estimated by projecting the extent of future development impacts, calculating the open space or habitat acreage to be acquired, managed, enhanced, restored, and created to offset these impacts, and estimating the overall costs of acquiring and preserving this acreage for the 30-year term of the state and federal permits. The fees were then calculated based on these costs, as follows:
1. The method of calculating the Development Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the public facilities attributable to individual Affected Development Projects based on:
34 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 6 of 12
a. Area of the Affected Development Project, as the cost of acquiring sufficient open space or habitat land to mitigate for the impacts of a particular development project is directly proportional to the acreage of that project; and b. Location of the Affected Development Project, as the need for the public facilities varies in proportion to the intrinsic habitat or open space value of the land impacted by the project. Thus, fees are tiered so that the highest fee amounts are imposed in Development Fee Zone II, which is deemed to have the highest intrinsic value per acre. A fee equal to 50 percent of the highest fee amount is imposed in Development Fee Zone I, which is deemed to have substantial but lower intrinsic value per acre, and a fee equal to 25 percent of the highest fee amount is required in Development Fee Zone III, which is deemed to have the lowest intrinsic value per acre.
2. The method of calculating the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the public facilities attributable to those individual Affected Development Projects based on:
a. Type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be restored or created must effectively replace the type being impacted by the particular project. The cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub depends on (1) the specific construction tasks necessary to restore or create these areas and (2) the different mitigation ratios applicable to the restoration or creation of various types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, these ratios having been established in the HCP/NCCP to require relatively more restoration or creation of those types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub that have a higher habitat value and function for covered species and/or are more difficult to restore or create, and therefore must be restored or created in larger amounts to offset the anticipated failure of a portion of the acreage restored or created; and b. Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub is directly proportional to the acreage being restored or created, which in turn is directly proportional to the acreage being impacted by the project.
SECTION VIII. HCP/NCCP Implementation Fees
HCP/NCCP implementation fees are hereby adopted to fund the public facilities identified in Section VI of this ordinance, as follows:
A. Development Fee
1. Except as otherwise provided in Sections VIII.D and VIII.F of this ordinance, a Development Fee shall be imposed upon and collected from any and all Affected Development Projects for each acre of land permanently disturbed, as follows:
35 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 7 of 12
Location of Affected Development Project Development Fee Development Fee Zone I $19,871.91 per acre
Development Fee Zone II $39,743.83 per acre
Development Fee Zone III $9,935.96 per acre
2. The Community Development Director, or his designee, shall determine in which of the three Development Fee Zones an Affected Development Project is located, pursuant to Exhibit A and the map data used to create Exhibit A.
3. The Development Fee for each Affected Development Project shall be calculated by multiplying the fee for the applicable Development Fee Zone by the acreage of the site permanently disturbed by the Project, as determined by the Community Development Director or his designee pursuant to Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.
4. Upon or before the issuance of a grading permit or, if no grading permit is issued, upon or before issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall either (1) pay the entire Development Fee or, (2) with the prior written approval of the City, pay at least 67 percent of the Development Fee and execute an agreement with the City, in a form approved by City Attorney, to provide additional funding payments through assessments on the subject parcels or other mechanisms, provided that assessments or other funding mechanisms are legally authorized for this purpose and approved by the Implementing Entity, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.
5. The Development Fee amount applicable to an Affected Development Project shall be the Development Fee amount in effect at the time a grading permit is issued or, if no grading permit is issued, at the time the first building permit is issued for the project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a project applicant may request to pay the Development Fee in a calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the grading permit or first building permit is issued. This request may be granted by the Community Development Director or his designee only in accordance with Section 13.2.2.1 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. If such request is granted, the applicable Development Fee shall be the Development Fee in effect during the calendar year in which the fee is to be paid, including any adjustments made pursuant to Section IX of this ordinance.
B. Wetland Mitigation Fee
1. Except as otherwise provided in Sections VIII.E and VIII.F of this ordinance, in addition to a Development Fee, a Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be imposed upon and collected from any and all Affected Development Projects that will fill, dredge, or remove Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub, and from any and all Affected Development Projects that have been granted an exception to the stream setback established pursuant to Conservation Measure 1.7 of the HCP/NCCP. 36 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 8 of 12
2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee applicable to Affected Development Projects that will fill, dredge, or remove Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub varies by the land cover type impacted by those projects. The Community Development Director or his designee shall determine which of the land cover types will be impacted by an Affected Development Project and the corresponding fee amounts in accordance with Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, and in accordance with Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. The Wetland Mitigation Fee applicable to an Affected Development Project that has been granted an exception to the stream setback shall be determined by the Community Development Director or his designee based on the acreage of setback encroachment, in accordance with Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and Exhibit C.
3. Upon or before the issuance of a grading permit or, if no grading permit is issued, upon or before issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Wetland Mitigation Fee determined for the Affected Development Project.
4. The Wetland Mitigation Fee amount applicable to an Affected Development Project shall be the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount in effect at the time a grading permit is issued or, if no grading permit is issued, at the time the first building permit is issued for the project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a project applicant may request to pay the Wetland Mitigation Fee in a calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the grading permit or first building permit is issued. This request may be granted by the Conservation and Development Director or his designee only in accordance with Section
13.2.2.1 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. If this request is granted, the applicable Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be the Wetland Mitigation Fee in effect during the calendar year in which the fee is to be paid, including any adjustments made pursuant to Section IX of this ordinance.
C. Condition of Approval
1. Compliance with this ordinance, including but not limited to the payment of the fees specified herein, as applicable, shall be a condition of approval of all Affected Development Projects.
D. Dedications
1. On a case-by-case basis, and upon a voluntary offer by the project applicant, the City may accept a dedication of land in lieu of some or all of the Development Fee that would otherwise be imposed upon a development project. Any offer of dedication may be considered for acceptance only if the land dedication is determined by the Implementing Entity to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement.
The amount of the Development Fee for which the dedication would substitute shall be determined by the Implementing Entity pursuant to Section 13.2.2.2 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapters 8.6.7 and 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. 37 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 9 of 12
2. If required to comply with the Stay Ahead provision set forth at Chapter
8.6.1 of the HCP/NCCP and Section 9.2 of the Implementing Agreement, the City may require that some or all Affected Development Projects offer a dedication of land in lieu of some or all of the Development Fee that would otherwise be imposed.
E. Creation/Restoration of Habitat
1. On a case-by-case basis, and upon a voluntary offer by the project applicant, the City may accept the restoration or creation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub in lieu of some or all of the Wetland Mitigation Fee that would otherwise be imposed on an Affected Development Project. The offer of restoration or creation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub in lieu of some all or a portion of the Wetland Mitigation Fee may be considered for acceptance only if the restoration or creation is determined by the Implementing Entity to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement. The amount of the Wetland Mitigation Fee for which such restoration or creation would substitute shall be determined by the Implementing Entity pursuant to Conservation Measures 2.1 and 2.2 and Chapter 9.3. l of the HCP/NCCP.
F. Separate Take Authorization
1. On a case-by-case basis, a project applicant that possesses separate and final approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife for incidental take of all federally or state listed species that may be adversely affected by the development project may apply to the City to pay a fee, the amount to be negotiated by the project applicant with the Implementing Entity, to support the conservation of habitat and open space under the HCP/NCCP in lieu of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees. If the Community Development Director or his designee determines that the mitigation and conservation requirements under the separate approval are equivalent to or exceed what would be required under this ordinance, the City may determine that no further fees are required for purposes of complying with the HCP/NCCP, in which case the HCP/NCCP implementation fees described herein shall not be required of the project.
G. Fee Transmittal
1. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the County AuditorController quarterly, within thirty (30) days of the end of the quarter within which the fee was collected, for deposit into a separate account or fund, and for investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, the HCP/NCCP, the Implementing Agreement, and the Mitigation Fee Act.
SECTION IX. Adjustments to Fees
The Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee shall on March 15 of each year be automatically adjusted automatically as follows:
38 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 10 of 12
A. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit D and based on the formula in Exhibit E, as explained in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. As shown in Exhibit D and Exhibit E, both of which are incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, one portion of the Development Fee amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency Annual Home Price Index for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore, California Metropolitan Division for the 12-month period ending December 31. The remaining portion of the Development Fee amounts shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending December 31.
B. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit D. As shown in Exhibit D, the Wetland Mitigation Fee amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending December 31.
SECTION X. Take Authorization Application and Review Procedures A. The City shall require project applicants for any and all Affected Development Projects to submit an application for take authorization to the Planning Division for review simultaneously with the submittal of the request for approval of the project. The Community Development Director may require that the application be submitted on one or more standard application forms. The application for take authorization must include the following information:
1. A description of the Affected Development Project, including maps, detailed information on the project footprint, extent of construction, and extent of any ongoing maintenance activities covered by the HCP/NCCP consistent with Chapter 2 of the HCP/NCCP.
2. One or more reports documenting the methods and results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. The Community Development Director or his designee may allow specific components of the required surveys, including some or all of the results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, to be provided after the submittal of the initial application and prior to approval of the development project; however, the application for take authorization is not complete until all items in this Section X.A have been submitted.
3. Evidence of compliance or planned compliance with applicable avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. 39 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 11 of 12
4. Quantification of the anticipated acreage of land permanently disturbed, consistent with Chapters 6.2 and 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.
5. Estimated HCP/NCCP implementation fees due and/or documentation of proposed land dedication and/or proposed habitat restoration or creation, consistent with Section VIII of this ordinance.
6. Other information as directed by the Community Development Director in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. ·
B. The City may grant take authorization to a project applicant only upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions:
1. The application for take authorization is deemed by the Community Development Director to be complete.
2. The conditions of approval for the project require the project applicant to comply with all terms and conditions of the implementing Agreement, the HCP/NCCP, and the state and federal permits that apply to the project. These terms and conditions include but are not limited to the following:
a. Payment of the required HCP/NCCP implementation fees and/or approval by the City of an offer of land dedication and/or habitat restoration or creation, pursuant to the requirements of Section VIII of this ordinance. b. Compliance with all relevant surveys, monitoring, avoidance, minimization and conservation measures determined by the Community Development Director to apply to the project, pursuant to Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. c. The City determines that extension of take authorization is consistent with the HCP/NCCP, implementing Agreement, the state and federal permits, and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
SECTION XI. Judicial Review
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the fees established by this ordinance must be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section IX must be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of the increase.
SECTION XII. Repeal and Replacement of Existing Ordinance A. Except as specified in this Section XII and Section XIII, below, City Council Ordinance No. 08-21 is hereby repealed and superseded by this ordinance, as of the effective date of this ordinance. However, this repeal does not affect any fees that were imposed prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which fees shall be paid and collected under the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 08-21. 40 Ordinance No. 6-23 Page 12 of 12
B. This ordinance shall supersede and repeal Article 7 of Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code.
SECTION XIII. Severability
If any individual component of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees or any provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining fee components and/or ordinance provisions, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines any fee set forth in Section VIII of this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, the corresponding fee adopted by City Council Resolution No. 08-21 shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in effect and subject to the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, City Council Resolution No. 08-21 shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION XIV. Effective Date
This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of Councilmembers voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.
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
41 Ord. No. -23 Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Development Fee Zones
(adapted from Figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP)
42 Figure 9-1: Development Fee Zones
Legend
Inventory Area
alkali grassland
alkali wetland
aquatic
aqueduct
chaparral
cropland
grassland
landfill
non-native woodland
oak savanna
oak woodland
orchard
pasture
pond
riparian
rock outcrops
ruderal
seasonal wetland
slough/channel
turf
urban / future urban
vineyard
wetland
wind turbines
Fee Zone
Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
Miles
2 1 0 2
09/05/2006 43
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Initial Urban Development Area
(Figure 2-3 of theHCP/NCCP)
44 *
Figure2-3:InitialUrbanDevelopmentArea
Legend
InventoryArea
County Urban
LimitLine
Initial Urban
DevelopmentArea
LandUseDesignations*
ForAreasOutside
InitialUrbanDevelopmentArea
AgriculturalCore
Agriculture
Development
OpenSpace
(Designatedin
GeneralPlan)
Parks,Public
WatershedLands,
andDeedRestricted
OpenSpace
UrbanParks&
OpenSpaces
(inInventoryArea)
PublicFacilities
PublicFacilities
withUndeveloped
Land
Water
LandUseDesignationswere derived
fromCounty and City GeneralPlan
Maps.Designationswerecombined
tocreate a simplermap.
Miles
2102
07/12/200456
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Wetland Mitigation Fee and Acreage Determination Methods (adapted from Table 9-5 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Ordinance)
Land CoverType Fee per unit of
Impact
Method for Determining Fee Boundary
Riparian woodland/scrub $111,060.40/acre Limit of tree or shrub canopy (drip line) Perennial wetlands $170,908.06/acre Jurisdictional wetland boundary of state or federal government1, whichever is greater
Seasonal wetland $401,479.18/acre Same as above
Alkali wetland $405,871.63/acre Same as above
Ponds $221,421.23/acre Jurisdictional waters boundary ofstate or federal government1, whichever is greater
Aquatic (open water) $110,711.14/acre Wetted area during normal rainfall year or jurisdictional waters boundary, whichever is greater
Slough/channel $156,815.09/acre Area of impact within banks Streams
Streams 25 feet wide
or less
$580.00/linear foot Stream length measured along stream centerline.
Streamwidth measured between top of bank.
Streams greaterthan
25 feet wide2
$869.47/linear foot Stream length measured along stream centerline.
Stream width measured between top of bank.
1 Using methods for determining state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters at the time of HCP/NCCP approval. 2 Impact fee for wider streams is 1.5 times the base stream fee to account for higher construction costs on wider streams. 46 Ord. No. -23 Exhibit D
Exhibit D
Fee Adjustment Indices
(adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Ordinance 2021-25)
Fee Annual AdjustmentIndex1
Development Fee
Average
Annual Rate
(2006-2020)
Example
Portion for Land Acquisition2
(62.52 % initially
3 )
Change in the annual Home Price Index (HPI) for
theOakland-Berkeley-Livermore, CA
Metropolitan Division (MSAD) for the prior
calendar year (Office of Federal Housing Finance
Agency)
4 3.85%
Portion for Preserve System Operation,
Restoration, and Maintenance
(37.48% initially3)
Change in the Consumer Price Index for the San
Francisco-Oakland-FremontCombined Statistical
Area for all urban consumers for the prior calendar
year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5
2.87%
Wetland Mitigation Fee Change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical
Area for all urban consumers for the prior calendar
year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5
2.87%
Note:
1 HCP/NCCP fees to be adjusted automatically by March 15 of every year based on the indices for the prior calendar year. See Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP for more details on methodology and sources. 2 Direct land acquisition costs only. Excludes costs associated with land transaction, site improvements, and due diligence (e.g., pre-acquisition surveys).
3 The portion of the Development Fee that will be adjusted according to the HPI and CPI will vary over time. For the first annual automatic adjustment following the effective date of this Ordinance, 59.53% of the initial fees will be adjusted according to the HPI and 40.47% will be adjusted according to the CPI. The apportionment in subsequent years will depend on the relative values of the indices, in accordance with the formula provided in Exhibit E.
4 See https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-Index-Datasets.aspx#atvolData. Data for the prior calendar year are published in March. To calculate automatic adjustments, the change in the HPI for the prior calendar year will be used.
5 Consumer Price Index, All Items, with base data year of 1982-1984 (i.e., 1982-1984 = 100), for all urban consumers (CPI-U), not seasonally adjusted. See http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca _sanfrancisco_msa.htm . 47 Ord. No. -23 Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula
(adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Ordinance)
Feen=[[Ln-1*(HPIn-1/HPIn-2)]+[Sn - 1*(CPIn-1/CPIn-2)]]*Z Where:
n = year of HCP/NCCP Implementation [year 1 (n=l) is 2007, the calendar year in which the HCP/NCCP implementation ordinance was adopted; year 2 (n = 2) is 2008; etc. Year 0 (n=0) is 2006. Year 17 (n=17) is 2023.]
Feen = Development Fee for year n (the Development Fee for yearn applies from March 15 of year n through March 14 of the following year)
Fee17 = $39,743.83 for Zone II; $19,841.91 for Zone I; and $9,935.96 for Zone III Ln = [Ln-1*(HPIn-1/HPIn-2)]*Z
Ln-1 = Land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n L17 = 59.53% of $39,743.83 = $23,659.15
HPIn-1 = Home Price Index (HPI) for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore, CA Metropolitan Division (MSAD) at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency
Sn = [Sn - 1
*(CPIn-1/CPIn-2)]*Z
Sn-1 = Non-land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n S17 = 40.47% of $39,743.83 = $16,084.67
CPIn-1 = Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area for all urban consumers at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Z = Fee zone factor (based on which fee zone the project is in (see Figure 9-1 in the HCP)). The fee zone factors for the three zones are as follows:
Z = l for Zone II, the Natural Lands Zone
Z = 0.5 for Zone I, the agricultural lands zone
Z = 0.25 for Zone III, the infill zone
48 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: June 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment Number 1 to the Consulting Services Agreement with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for the Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 281
Background and Analysis
The City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget designates funding for various infrastructure repair and replacement projects. This is consistent with the City’s goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents. One of the key projects in the City’s CIP is enhancing the park infrastructure in the community.
The new 4.5-acre Enrico Cinquini Park will be constructed at the northwest corner of the Rose Avenue/Carpenter Road intersection, adjacent to the new residential neighborhoods.
On October 11, 2022, the City Council awarded a landscape architectural design contract to Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The initial budget for this project was $3.5M which included a $2.1M contribution from the developer of the Stonewood Subdivision adjacent to the site, and a $1.4M Park Impact Fee fund from the City. The design team has been working on this project design over the past several months and has evaluated several preliminary design concepts that would best suit this site and the community’s needs.
At the conclusion of the preliminary design, it was determined that the initial funding is not sufficient to construct this park, its associated facilities and features that include a Picnic Area, Shade Structure, Splash Pad, Restroom, Playground, Natural Turf, and a Parking Lot.
Staff pursued additional funding for this project and have secured commitments from the California Legislators in Congress for $1.5M of Federal funding for this project. This is a big step forward on this project and shows the importance of this project by the California legislators.
With the additional funding secured for this project, staff negotiated with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for the cost of their design services for this project, to complete the preparation of the final design and construction documents.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
49 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. will be performing the final design services for this project along with their sub-consultants for an amount not to exceed $98,258, as outlined in the attached proposal and scope of work. Staff recommends incorporating these proposed services into the existing design contract by way of amendment to said contract.
It is anticipated that the design of this park will be completed by spring 2024 and construction will begin by summer 2024.
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Park and Open Space Goal.
Fiscal Impact
Approval of this resolution will accept the proposal and authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the agreement with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for a cost not to exceed $98,258. The funding for this project will be provided by the Park Impact Fee Fund, Developer contribution and a Federal grant.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the proposal from Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc., and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Callander Associations Landscape Architecture, Inc. for final design services related to the Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project – CIP No. 281.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Proposal 50 Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH CALLANDER ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL FINAL
DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH ENRICO CINQUINI PARK
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 281
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget, the City of Oakley approved a 5- Year Capital improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, Project Number 281 is to design the improvements for the Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project; and
WHEREAS, after the completion of the preliminary design, it was determined that additional funding is needed for the construction of this project; and WHEREAS, Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. has submitted a proposal to prepare final design for landscape architectural services for CIP Project Number 281 for an amount not to exceed $98,258; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby approves the proposal with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for the preparation of landscape architectural final design services, and cost estimates for CIP Project Number 281 for an amount not to exceed $98,258, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and authorizes the City Manager to execute the amendment into the agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of this 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED:
___________________
ATTEST: Aaron Meadows, Mayor
______ ________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
51 www.callanderassociates.com
BURLINGAME GOLD RIVER SAN JOSE
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 2025 Gateway Place, Suite 285 Burlingame, CA 94010 Gold River, CA 95670 San Jose, CA 95110 650.375.1313 916.985.4366 408.275.0565
22046_ASA#1.doc
Recreate
Educate
Live+Work
Connect
Sustain June 19, 2023
ADDITIONAL SERVICES AUTHORIZATION #1
TO: Mr. Kevin Rohani
Public Works Director
City of Oakley, Public Works Department
3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
925-625-7003
[email protected]
RE: ENRICO CINQUINI PARK/proposal for additional design services The original agreement and scope of work for the project was based upon the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by MSLA (dated March 2, 2021) as well as the $3.5M budget inclusive of soft costs and design fees. Since beginning the project, it was determined that the City wanted to go in a much different direction than the concept plan which would provide a more significant destination park for the community. The preferred concept plan, dated February 7, 2022, includes a much larger splash pad and play area, enlarged restroom and showers, and an on-site parking lot with lighting just to name the key features.
The construction estimate, dated February 6, 2022, has also increased to $5.833M inclusive of design fees. This additional services authorization is for the additional design services required for the expanded scope of work.
The following additional services will be provided on this project in accordance with our agreement dated October 11, 2022 and are considered an amendment thereto:
Scope
5.1.1 Construction Documents: Provide additional design services for the expanded scope of work and budget. This includes a larger splash pad and play area, enlarged restroom and showers, an on-site parking lot and lighting, and a new budget of $5.833M inclusive of design fees. These design services will be provided per the agreement and follow the same tasks.
Compensation
5.1.1 Construction Documents (lump sum) ........................................ $69,629 Freyer & Laureta, Inc (lump sum) ............................................... $21,989 SEC Engineers (lump sum) ............................................................. $2,640 Reimbursables ............................................................................................... $4000
Fees ............................................................................................................. $98,258
Total Estimated Compensation................................................................ $98,258 52 Additional Services Authorization #1
RE: ENRICO CINQUINI PARK/proposal for additional design services June 19, 2023
22046_ASA#1.doc
© copyrighted 2023 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Schedule
Callander Associates will proceed to commence the above services upon receipt of a signed copy of this authorization concurrently with completion of our other services.
Signatures
Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc.
Agreed and authorized to proceed for:
City of Oakley
Brian Fletcher, ASLA
Principal | Landscape Architect CA #4671
Signature date
Name & Title
Attachment: Task Matrix, dated June 19, 2023
ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - AMENDMENT #1, Dated 3/7/2023 SEC Proposal Parking Lot Lights, Dated January 20,2023
Standard Schedule of Compensation dated 2023
Preferred Concept Plan, dated February 7, 2023
Preferred Estimate of Probable Construction Cost, dated February 6, 2023
Notice: Landscape architects are licensed by the State of California.
Terms and conditions are subject to change after ninety days. 53 Task Matrix- ASA #1
Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project - CIP NO .281 June 19, 2023
Freyer & Laureta BSK SEC
@ $240 @ $180 @ $148 @ $123 @ $183 Subconsultant Fees Subconsultant Subconsultant Phase Description hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s hrs $'s $'s $'s $'s2.0 Construction Documentation2.01 Construction Documents - 35% Submittal 18.0 4,320.00 $ 32.0 5,760.00 $ 40.0 5,920.00 $ 2.0 246.00 $ 2.0 366.00 $ 94.0 16,612.00 $ - $ - $ - $
2.03 Construction Documents - 65% Submittal 12.0 2,880.00 $ 46.0 8,280.00 $ 80.0 11,840.00 $ 3.0 369.00 $ 4.0 732.00 $ 145.0 24,101.00 $ - $ - $ - $
2.05 Construction Documents - 90% Submittal 5.0 1,200.00 $ 50.0 9,000.00 $ 57.0 8,436.00 $ 2.0 246.00 $ 2.0 366.00 $ 116.0 19,248.00 $ - $ - $ - $
2.07 Construction Documents - Bid Submittal 3.0 720.00 $ 20.0 3,600.00 $ 32.0 4,736.00 $ 2.0 246.00 $ 2.0 366.00 $ 59.0 9,668.00 $ - $ - $ - $ SUBTOTAL 3.0 38.0 9,120.00 $ 148.0 26,640.00 $ 209.0 30,932.00 $ 9.0 1,107.00 $ 10.0 1,830.00 $ 414.0 69,629.00 $ 19,990.00 $ - $ 2,400.00 $ Subconsultant Administration 10% 1,999.00 $ - $ 240.00 $ hrs CALA Freyer + Laureta BSK SEC
2.0 Construction Documentation 414.00 69,629.00 $ 21,989.00 $ - $ 2,640.00 $ Reimbursables $ - 4,000.00 $ - $ - $
TOTAL COMPENSATION 414.00 73,629.00 $ 21,989.00 $ - $ 2,640.00 $ TOTAL $ 98,258.00
CA Fees
Principal Proj Manager 1
Callander Associates' Personnel and Rates
Designer 1 Administrator Construction Man.
22046_FEE_ASA#1.xls© copyrighted 2020 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.
54 Enrico Cinquini Park, City of Oakley
ESTIMATED
LABOR (Hours)
TASKS Personnel & Rates ($/hr) TOTAL F&L Administrative 2-Man Survey Crew F&L Staff Engineer II F&L Project Manager F&L Principal LABOR
COST
($)
90 375 140 215 240
Additional Parking Lot Design (including C3 provisions) Concept Development Plan 35% Submittal 40 4 4 $7,420
Construction Documents - 65% Plan 40 4 2 $6,940
Construction Documents - 90% Submittal 16 1 2 $2,935
Construction Documents - Bid Submittal 16 1 1 $2,695
Total Labor Hours 112 10 9 $19,990
ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES - AMENDMENT #1 Add Services #1_Enrico Cinquini Park 2023.03.07.xlsx/Budget Estimate
Freyer & Laureta, Inc.
Last Printed: 3/7/2023 55
January 20, 2023
Mr. Brian Fletcher, President
Callander Associates
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133
Burlingame, CA 94010
[email protected]
650-375-1313
We are pleased to confirm Oakley CIP NO 281 Enrico Cinquini Park Northwest corner of Rose Avenue/Carpenter Road SEC 22716 added scope as follows:
Parking lot lights for approximately 30 spaces
Design includes:
Power engineering for power to lights
Site lighting with point by point photometrics
Services include:
Preparation of concept, 35%, 90% and 100% drawings for architect and owner review
Preparation of construction drawings
Preparation of typed specifications
Title 24 energy compliance
Conferences
Incorporation of plan check comments
Services exclude:
Any scope and services not noted above
Bidding and Construction support
Trips to site during construction
Pre-bid and pre-construction meeting at site
As built drawings from contractor redline drawings
Creation of Punch lists
56 We are pleased to quote the above scope as follows:
Electrical engineering...........$2,400
Indicate acceptance of this proposal by signature below.
SIGNED
Rickert Henriksen
ME (M29,816), EE (E10,629)
FPE (FP01,497), LEED AP
President _____________________________
57 www.callanderassociates.com
BURLINGAME GOLD RIVER SAN JOSE
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 2025 Gateway Place, Suite 285 Burlingame, CA 94010 Gold River, CA 95670 San Jose, CA 95110 T 650.375.1313 T 916.985.4366 T 408.275.0565
Recreate
Educate
Live+Work
Connect
Sustain
Standard Schedule of Compensation 2023 San Jose & Burlingame
GENERAL
The following list of fees and reimbursable expense items shall be used in the provision of services described in the agreement. These amounts shall be adjusted in January, upon issuance of an updated Standard Schedule of Compensation:
Hourly Rates
Reimbursable Expenses Rates
Expenses cost + 15%
printing and reproductions, postage and
delivery, mileage, travel expenses (hotel /
food), testing and outside services, and other
project related expenses
Communications and Insurance Surcharge 2.5% of total fees Subconsultant Administration 10% of Subconsultant Costs
PAYMENTS
Payments are due within ten days after monthly billing. Callander Associates reserves the right to suspend services for non-payment if payment is not received within a period of 60 days after invoice date. Additionally invoices 60 days past due are subject to a 1.5% per month interest charge. Retainer amounts, if indicated, are due upon signing the agreement and shall be applied to the final invoice for the project.
Principal $240 /hour
Senior Associate $218 /hour
Associate $208 /hour
Arborist/Construction Manager $183 /hour
Senior Project Manager $188 /hour
Project Manager 1 $180 /hour
Project Manager 2 $171 /hour
Job Captain $158 /hour
Designer 1 $148 /hour
Designer 2 $135 /hour
Assistant Designer $120 /hour
Accounting $182 /hour
Senior Project Administrator $138 /hour
Project Administrator $123 /hour
58 prepared for the
City of Oakley
prepared on: 02/06/2023
prepared by: DC
checked by: BF & ZK
Item # Description Qty Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal
A. Project Start-up
1. Bonding and mobilization ALLOW 8% 348,978.54 $ 348,978.54 $
2. Construction staking ALLOW 2% 87,244.64 $ 87,244.64 $
3. Temporary fencing 1,310 LF 6.00 $ 7,860.00 $
4. Traffic control ALLOW LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $
$ 469,080.00
B. Demolition
1. Clear and grub 200,465 SF 0.25 $ 50,116.25 $
2. Miscellaneous demolition ALLOW LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ $ 75,120.00
C. Earthwork and Grading and Utilities
1. Rough grading, 1' avg. depth 7,085 CY $ 80.00 $ 566,800.00
2. Storm water pollution prevention ALLOW LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
3. Water meter and point of connection, 1-1/2"
size
ALLOW LS $ 43,000.00 $ 43,000.00
4. Sanitary sewer point of connection ALLOW LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
5. Backflow preventer 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
6. Storm drain line, 12" pipe 300 LF $ 125.00 $ 37,500.00
7. Water line, 2" pipe 380 LF $ 80.00 $ 30,400.00
8. Sanitary sewer line, 4" pipe 320 LF $ 100.00 $ 32,000.00
9. Catch basin 7 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 24,500.00
10. Dry well 4 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00
11. Manhole 1 EA $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
12. Backflow preventer 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
13. Bioretention (4% of hardscape) 4,620 SF $ 20.00 $ 92,400.00
14. Curb drain 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
15. Misc utilities ALLOW LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
$ 957,600.00
D. Site Construction
1. Concrete curb 745 LF 50.00 $ 37,250.00 $
2. Asphalt pavement 12,800 SF 12.00 $ 153,600.00 $
3. Striping ALLOW LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $
4. Driveway 2 EA 7,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $
5. Concrete pavement 29,590 SF 18.00 $ 532,620.00 $
6. Play area tile 6,655 SF 27.00 $ 179,685.00 $
7. Curb ramp 1 EA 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $
8. Concrete mowband 250 LF 50.00 $ 12,500.00 $
$ 959,160.00
E. Site Furnishings
1. Trash/recycling receptacle 12 EA 1,200.00 $ 14,400.00 $
2. Picnic tables 12 EA 1,500.00 $ 18,000.00 $
3. Park signage 1 EA 6,200.00 $ 6,200.00 $
4. Single BBQ 4 EA 1,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $
5. Group BBQ 1 EA 5,800.00 $ 5,800.00 $
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Enrico Cinquini Park
Preferred Concept Plan
22046_EST.xls
© copyrighted 2019 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc. 1 of 3 59
prepared for the
City of Oakley
prepared on: 02/06/2023
prepared by: DC
checked by: BF & ZK
Item # Description Qty Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Enrico Cinquini Park
Preferred Concept Plan
6. Bench 7 EA 1,300.00 $ 9,100.00 $
7. Chain link fence with slats 110 LF 125.00 $ 13,750.00 $
8. Split rail fence 480 LF 115.00 $ 55,200.00 $
9. Restroom option A ALLOW LS 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $
10. Splash pad including surfacing, equipment
and mechanical equipment
ALLOW LS 490,000.00 $ 490,000.00 $
11. Pet waste station 3 EA 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $
12. Shade shelter, small ALLOW LS 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $
13. Shade shelter, large ALLOW LS 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $
14. Play equipment ALLOW LS 246,134.00 $ 246,134.00 $
15. Memorial statue ALLOW LS 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $
$ 1,483,580.00
F. Irrigation
1. Backflow preventer 1 EA 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $
2. Water meter and point of connection, 1" size 1 EA 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $
3. Electrical point of connection 1 EA 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $
4. Controller assembly 1 EA 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $
5. Master valve 1 EA 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $
6. Flow sensor 1 EA 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $
7. Mainline 1,330 LF 20.00 $ 26,600.00 $
8. Irrigation system, shrub and groundcover
areas
46,210 SF 2.50 $ 115,525.00 $
9. Irrigation system, turf areas 29,970 SF 2.25 $ 67,432.50 $
10. Irrigation system, tree bubblers 240 EA 100.00 $ 24,000.00 $ $ 305,560.00
G. Soil Preparation
1. Soil preparation and fine grading 145,490 SF 0.75 $ 109,117.50 $ $ 109,120.00
H. Planting
1. Trees, 24" box 120 EA 500.00 $ 60,000.00 $
2. Shrubs and grasses (5' O.C. spacing) 1,774 EA 45.00 $ 79,848.00 $
3. Groundcover (8' O.C. Spacing) 1,065 EA 18.00 $ 19,163.52 $
4. Turf from sod 29,970 SF 1.00 $ 29,970.00 $
5. Biofiltration turf from sod 4,620 SF 2.00 $ 9,240.00 $
6. Mulch 115,520 SF 1.00 $ 115,520.00 $
$ 313,740.00
I. Landscape Maintenance
1. Landscape Maintenance 3 MO 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $
$ 15,000.00
J. Lighting and Electrical
1. Electrical service, security camera conduits
& Misc electrical
ALLOW LS 50,500.00 $ 50,500.00 $
2. Parking lot and pedestrian lights 8 EA 7,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ $ 110,500.00
22046_EST.xls
© copyrighted 2019 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc. 2 of 3 60
prepared for the
City of Oakley
prepared on: 02/06/2023
prepared by: DC
checked by: BF & ZK
Item # Description Qty Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Enrico Cinquini Park
Preferred Concept Plan
K. Total Estimated Construction Costs $ 4,798,460.00
L. Contingencies
1. Design contingency ALLOW 10% 479,846.00 $ 479,846.00 $
2. Bid contingency ALLOW 10% 479,846.00 $ 479,846.00 $
$ 959,690.00
M. Total Estimated Construction Costs &
Contingencies
$ 5,758,150.00
N. Professional Services
1. Additional services fees Allow LS 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ $ 75,000
O. $ 5,833,150.00
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. has no control over construction costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occure between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices.
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Based on drawing titled "Preferred Concept Plan, dated "February 2023" 22046_EST.xls
© copyrighted 2019 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc. 3 of 3 61
62 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Fourth Quarter Report on the Capital Improvement Program
Background and Analysis
This report summarizes the status of the various projects in the City of Oakley Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the end of the Fourth Quarter for FY 2022/23.
The City's CIP is a multi-year forecast of capital needs that includes new construction projects and planned improvements of existing facilities. The CIP establishes structure by identifying, prioritizing, approving, and the funding of capital improvement projects.
Since the demand for capital projects typically exceeds the amount of available funds, projects are prioritized based on the City Council’s Strategic Goals.
The following highlights some of the projects and their progress in the Fourth Quarter of FY 2022/23 (April-June 2023):
1. Oakley Regional Community Park Project
Project # 176
Schedule: Project Master Planning is underway
Budget: $3,547,859
Funding Source: Community Park Fund, and Park Impact Fee This project transforms a 55-acre site at the end of Sellers Avenue that was given to the City as part of the development agreements with the Emerson, Gilbert, and Burroughs development projects. This site had several deteriorated structures related to a dairy farm that had been closed for decades. The first phase of this project was to demolish and remove the abandoned structures, which were a safety concern, and to clean up the site. This task was accomplished in the summer of 2019. In March of 2021, the City applied for a State Proposition 68 grant to fund the first phase of this project and did not qualify for the grant. The construction of the Oakley Regional Park will span several years as funding is secured through a combination of Grants and local funds. There will be a new master planning of this park that is currently underway to solicit input from the community as to the features desired for incorporation in this park and develop a new concept plan that can be used for future grant funding opportunities.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
63 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US
2. Downtown Gateway Plaza and Infrastructure Improvement Project Project # 205
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $6,500,000
Funding Source: General Capital Projects Fund, Measure J Fund, Gas Tax Fund The Downtown Gateway Plaza and Infrastructure Improvement Project will compliment a new San Joaquin Joint Power Authorities train platform station located north of Main Street in the general area between 2nd Street and Norcross Lane. The San Joaquin Joint Power Authorities has secured the grant funding for the design and construction of the new platform station and will operate the train platform station after its construction. This train platform station is strategically located in the downtown, adjacent to the Main Street Gateway Plaza and its associated parking lot. The infrastructure improvements were designed and will be constructed by the City. The new parking lot is anticipated to provide over 270 parking spaces and is a big part of the future growth for Downtown Oakley. The construction of this project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023.
3. FY 2022/23 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Reconstruction Project Project # 275
Schedule: Construction is completed
Budget: $150,000
Funding Source: Gas Tax Fund
This project repaired and replaced damaged concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the community as part of the 50-50 cost sharing program between the City and property owners. This project has been successfully implemented for the past few years and continued into FY 2022/23. This project has helped to provide safe pedestrian facilities and reduce liability and claims for trip and fall accidents.
4. East Cypress Road Widening (Knightsen Avenue to Jersey Island Road) Project Project # 247
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $8,900,000
Funding Source: Traffic Impact Fee Fund
64 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 3
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US The growth and development of new subdivision projects along the East Cypress Road corridor has necessitated various infrastructure improvements to accommodate the increased traffic demands on this road. This project will reconstruct East Cypress Road from Knightsen Avenue to Jersey Island Road. The improvements will include a 6- lane roadway, curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signal, and underground utility infrastructure. The widening will stop just short of the Contra Costa Canal where the developer to the east of the canal is responsible to continue the widening and improvement of East Cypress Road to Bethel Island Road. The design of this project is complete, and the project is in the bidding phase. The construction is anticipated to start in summer 2023 and will be completed by fall 2024.
5. Downtown Parking Lot Construction Project
Project # 215
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $3,979,000
Funding Source: Main Street Fund, General Capital Fund
This project, in continuing the implementation of the Strategic Goals of the City Council to improve and enhance Downtown Oakley; constructed a new parking lot and associated street infrastructure on the north side of Main Street and the Norcross Lane intersection. This new parking lot is located behind the Entrepreneur Center and the new Oakley Mercantile Building and will serve the greater downtown merchants and their customers. The construction is anticipated to be completed by summer 2023.
6. Oakley Civic Center Emergency Generator Project
Project # 228
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $197,500
Funding Source: General Capital Fund
The Civic Center facility is the center of government in Oakley, which handles all critical functions for the community residents, including Police services. The current facility does not have a standby emergency generator to address the frequent PG&E power outages that take place in this region. This project will install an emergency generator which will provide electricity to the entire Civic Center facility in times of power emergencies. The new generator has been delivered and installed and the City is currently working with PG&E to coordinate the power transfer to the new generator prior to the start-up of operations. Once this PG&E task has been completed, the generator will be on standby and ready to supply electricity during future power outages. It is anticipated that the construction work will be completed by fall 2023. 65 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 4
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US
7. Holly Creek Park Restroom Construction Project
Project # 248
Schedule: Construction is completed
Budget: $450,000
Funding Source: Park Impact Fee Fund
This project constructed a permanent restroom facility at Holly Creek Park. The demand for City of Oakley recreational fields continues to grow, particularly for organized sports such as Baseball and Soccer leagues. The field at Holly Creek Park is one of the favorites and a much-desired field in Oakley for leagues to use for sporting activities. This park did not have any restroom facilities which necessitated the placement of portable toilets at this park. This approach has created many operational and sanitary issues and was not a sustainable solution to address the need for a public restroom facility. This project constructed a permanent restroom facility at this park, like the restroom facility that was constructed at the Koda Dog Park.
8. Recreation Center Emergency Generator Project
Project # 249
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $300,000
Funding Source: ARPA Fund
This project will install an emergency generator at the Oakley Recreation Center facility. The Recreation Center campus is the center of recreational activities for the Oakley community, and currently does not have a back-up power source. In periods of PG&E power outages, the operations at the Recreation Center that require electricity comes to a halt. This project will install an Emergency Generator behind the Recreation Center building to provide stand-by power during periods of PG&E power outages to ensure that the Recreation Center operations will continue uninterrupted. It is anticipated that the construction work will be completed by early 2024.
9. Laurel Road Extension Project (Teton Road to Sellers Avenue) Project # 273
Schedule: Design is underway
Budget: $300,000
Funding Source: Traffic Impact Fee Fund
66 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 5
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US This Project will extend Laurel Road from Teton Road to Sellers Avenue, providing an alternate and much needed secondary route for the residents of far east Oakley along East Cypress Road. Currently, the only major access in and out of far east Oakley is via East Cypress Road. This current route along East Cypress Road passes by an elementary and middle school and crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks. Traffic volumes have increased over the years and continue to grow with the new housing developments in far east Oakley. Extending Laurel Road from Teton Road to Sellers Avenue will provide much-needed direct access to Highway 4 and job centers in the Bay Area and reduce traffic congestion from East Cypress Road.
This project will construct a new bridge across the BNSF railroad tracks and construct a new 4-lane roadway with curb, gutter, sidewalks, medians, and streetlights. In addition, a new traffic signal will be constructed at the intersection of Laurel Road and Sellers Avenue. The preliminary design of this project is underway which will determine the Right of Way needs of the project. Staff will be working on the Right of Way acquisition process and securing funding for this project, which is estimated to be nearly $40M.
10. Laurel Road Widening Project (O'Hara Avenue to Cloverbrook Avenue Project # 280
Schedule: Design is underway
Budget: $2,500,000
Funding Source: Traffic Impact Fee Fund
Laurel Road from O'Hara Avenue to Cloverbrook Avenue is the last section of Laurel Road that needs to be widened and improved. Laurel Road is a major Arterial Road and the City's designated truck route with a direct connection to Highway 4. This section of Laurel Road has not been widened or improved due to the lack of Right of Way and is starting to deteriorate due to the large volume of vehicles that use Laurel Road every day. Staff is working with the property owners at the intersection of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue to obtain the necessary right of way for the roadway widening. The design of this project will begin promptly and will require major utility relocation of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) utility poles as a part of this project. This entire project will span over 3 to 4 years to complete, due to the complex nature of its various components.
67 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 6
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US
11. Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project
Project # 281
Schedule: Design is underway
Budget: $3,500,000
Funding Source: Park Impact Fee Fund
The developer of the Stonewood Subdivision, a collection of 262 lots, was conditioned to construct a new park (Enrico Cinquini Park) at the intersection of Rose Avenue and Carpenter Road. The obligation of the developer is the total amount of their Park Impact Fee ($2.1M), which would not be sufficient to construct this park and its associated facilities and features. As a result, the City will design and construct this park by utilizing the Park Impact Fee obligation of the developer, as well as supplementing it with additional City Park Impact fees. The beautiful and feature packed park for the community will include a new natural turf field, site grading, landscaping and irrigation, a half basketball court, a bocce ball court, a cornhole court, a splashpad water feature, a playground, and a covered picnic area. The design of the project is currently underway, and construction is anticipated to start in Spring 2024
12. City Hall Rooftop Solar Power Project
Project # 286
Schedule: Construction is underway
Budget: $550,000
Funding Source: Public Facility Impact Fee Fund
This project will install solar panels on the roof of the Civic Center facility to provide the electricity needed for the operation of the Civic Center facilities in a sustainable and environmentally friendly approach. The implementation of this project will reduce the carbon footprint of the Civic Center operations, which is a part of the new Strategic Goals for the City. It is anticipated that the construction work will be completed by summer 2023.
13. Senior Center Roof and HVAC Repair and Replacement Project Project # 288
Schedule: Construction is completed
Budget: $80,000
Funding Source: CDBG Fund
68 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 7
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US The City of Oakley has leased the former fire station building located at 215 2nd Street to the Oakley Senior Citizens group. The roof had started to deteriorate and needed to be restored before the rainy season; and the HVAC system was also failing and inadequate for the space. The rehabilitation project included roof restoration and replacing the HVAC system to accommodate the needs of the Senior Center and its users. This work was funded by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, as well as the City of Oakley’s matching funds.
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety goals.
Fiscal Impact
Each project listed in this report has a budgeted source of funds which have been approved by the City Council. These sources include Grants, Gas Tax, Measure J Sales Tax, Traffic Impact Fees, General Fund, Main Street Fund and other Special Use funds. There is no fiscal impact associated with this CIP Update, this report is solely for informational purposes.
Staff Recommendation
The Oakley City Council should provide comments and input to staff on the CIP report for the Fourth Quarter of FY 2022/23.
Attachments
None
69 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Agreement with Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for Engineering Design Services associated with East Cypress Road Lane Alignment Analysis (Railroad Tracks to Main Street) Capital Improvement Project Number 301 Background and Analysis
East Cypress Road is a major transportation corridor in Oakley that not only serves the Oakley residents but also residents of the far east county area and Bethel Island who use East Cypress Road on their daily commute and ultimately access Highway 4 and job centers in the greater Bay Area.
East Cypress Road was constructed by Contra Costa County decades ago as a twolane roadway serving the agricultural regions of far east Oakley. Over the years as the entire region has experienced rapid growth, there has been a transformation of agricultural parcels of land to subdivisions as part of major private residential development projects. Each development project has reconstructed East Cypress Road along their project frontage to new modern City standards. This process will continue into the coming years as various parcels of land along East Cypress Road are developed and as part of those developments, sections of East Cypress Road will be reconstructed.
The City’s transportation network continues to grow to accommodate the new residents who move to Oakley and live along the East Cypress Road corridor. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 301 will perform a detailed analysis of the alignment of East Cypress Road in the section from the railroad tracks to the intersection with Main Street. The purpose of this analysis is to come up with the most optimized lane alignment to enhance traffic flows and minimize congestion. There are physical constraints on the roadway, such as bridges, that would have to be evaluated as part of this project, to create the most optimized lane configurations on this section of East Cypress Road.
Staff have worked with the consulting firm, Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. on the preparation of a proposal for this project. Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. have a long history of the development of East Cypress Road and its evolution and would be best suited to undertaking this lane configuration analysis. After the conclusion of this analysis, any recommendations that will be proposed for implementation will be included in future year CIP budgets.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
70 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety goals.
Fiscal Impact
The FY 2023/24 CIP budget has allocated funding from the Traffic Impact Fee fund for this project.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the proposal from Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for the design services associated with CIP No. 301 – East Cypress Road Lane Alignment Analysis (Railroad Tracks to Main Street) and to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement not to exceed an amount of $53,264.50.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Proposal from Mark Thomas & Co. Inc.
71 Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE EAST CYPRESS ROAD LANE ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS (RAILROAD TRACKS TO MAIN STREET) – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 301
WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget the City of Oakley approved a 5- Year Capital improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, Project Number 301 is to perform analysis of lane alignment on East Cypress Road (Railroad Tracks to Main Street); and
WHEREAS, staff solicited a proposal from Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for the design of this project; and
WHEREAS, Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. has submitted a comprehensive proposal for engineering design services for CIP Project Number 301 for an amount not to exceed $53,264.50; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby approves the proposal from Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for engineering design services for CIP Project Number 301 for an amount not to exceed $53,264.50, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and authorizing the City Manager to execute this into an Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED:
____________________
ATTEST: Aaron Meadows, Mayor
_________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
72 Cypress Road Improvements
City of Oakley
CYPRESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
Mark Thomas will prepare a preliminary feasibility study of the westbound (WB) Cypress Road and right turn lane improvements onto Main Street at the Cypress Road/Main Street intersection. The purpose of the feasibility study is to determine the feasibility, cost, and design options of constructing a dedicated right turn lane for westbound Cypress Road onto Main Street.
As part of the feasibility study, Mark Thomas will consider the implications of adding a dedicated right turn lane as well as up to three options for Cypress Rd, including but not limited to reducing the lane widths to accommodate a dedicated right turn lane and modifying the Marsh Creek Regional Trail bridge and Cypress Rd overcrossing. The feasibility study will identify potential right of way impacts, environmental constraints, drainage, and utility relocations.
Conceptual cost estimates will be prepared, and this will be documented in a feasibility study. The feasibility study will use City-provided aerial mapping, publicly available aerial imagery, City GIS-based assessor parcel data, and data collected by Mark Thomas.
Applicable Standards
The preliminary plans and preliminary estimates will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans' regulations, policies, procedures, manuals and standards. Items A through F are not all inclusive, but are intended only to illustrate types of sources.
A. Roadway design will be in accordance with the 7th edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (with updates through May 20, 2022), the 2022 Caltrans Standard Plans, the 2022 Caltrans Standard Specifications and updates, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD) and its California Supplement.
B. City of Oakley Standard Plans
The specifics of the study scope tasks are described below.
TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Task 1.1. Project Management & Coordination
This task will include ongoing general project management activities, including managing task activities and preparing progress reports. Mark Thomas will organize and maintain project files and records to track correspondence, contractual matters, data requests, transmittals and other project data. Mark Thomas will also coordinate study activities with its internal team, and City Staff through regular communication via telephone calls, emails and other correspondence.
Task 1.2. Meetings
Mark Thomas will attend a project kick off meeting and four (4) bi-weekly video calls (assumed 30 min calls) via MS Teams and one project presentation meeting of findings to City Staff. This task includes preparation of agendas, 73 Cypress Road Improvements
City of Oakley
meeting minutes, log of action items, and data request log. A simple project Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule will be prepared at task initiation and updated monthly throughout the task duration.
TASK 1 DELIVERABLES
• Meeting Agendas and Minutes (2 Meetings)
− One (1) Kick-off Meeting, One (1) Project Presentation Meeting • Bi-weekly Meeting Attendance (up to 4 meetings)
• Monthly Progress Reports to be included with monthly invoices TASK 2. DATA COLLECTION
Task 2.1. Data Gathering
Mark Thomas will compile existing background data provided by the City for the project area. This is anticipated to include aerial topographic mapping, assessor’s parcel data right of way mapping, utility mapping, and other relevant information. The base map will use City provided aerial mapping, publicly available aerial imagery, City GIS-based assessor parcel data, and data collected by Mark Thomas. Mark Thomas will supplement City supplied mapping and data with publicly available aerial imagery.
TASK 2 DELIVERABLES
• Base Map – not a separate deliverable but used as background for the exhibits prepared under Task 3 TASK 3. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Task 3.1. Preliminary Geometrics
Mark Thomas will develop conceptual geometrics for the dedicated right turn lane onto Main Street from Cypress Road. Mark Thomas will coordinate with the City for the preferred alternative to be used for the feasibility study. The variations will be based on different accommodation of the dedicated right turn lane. Mark Thomas will consider the implications of adding a dedicated right turn lane as well as up to three options for Cypress Rd, including but not limited to reducing the lane widths to accommodate a dedicated right turn lane and modifying the Marsh Creek Regional Trail bridge and Cypress Rd overcrossing. Prior to beginning layout of the facility, Mark Thomas will prepare the three preliminary cross sections for City consideration and review.
Conceptual drainage design will also be considered. Feasibility study will determine general right of way impacts. In addition, Mark Thomas will consider utility conflicts for Cypress Road.
Task 3.2. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate
Mark Thomas will prepare rough order of magnitude (ROM), construction cost estimates for each of the dedicated right turn lane alternatives. Cost estimates will include allowances and contingencies appropriate for high level budgeting purposes. Cost estimates will be for current year construction cost and escalation can be added depending on anticipated project construction year schedule. Estimates will not include full project development costs; however, depending on project delivery approach, support costs could be added as a percentage of overall cost. 74 Cypress Road Improvements
City of Oakley
TASK 3 DELIVERABLES
• Conceptual Design Exhibits
• Preliminary Cost Estimate
TASK 4. FEASIBILITY MEMORANDUM
Mark Thomas will document the findings of the feasibility study in a Feasibility Memorandum. The Feasibility Memorandum will describe the findings of the study, including design factors, unknowns, design challenges, project risks, alternative costs, and project delivery schedule.
The Feasibility Memorandum will also include analysis of the potential project funding opportunities and eligibility for various local, regional, state, and federal funding programs. Mark Thomas will consult with City staff to identify and document the likely environmental considerations and level of CEQA and NEPA environmental documentation for the project in the Feasibility Memorandum. The Feasibility Memorandum will be prepared and submitted to the City initially in draft form for comments. Upon receipt of comments, the Feasibility Memorandum will be updated to address comment and resubmitted in final form.
TASK 4 DELIVERABLES
• Draft Feasibility Memorandum
• Final Feasibility Memorandum
SCHEDULE
It is assumed the duration will be 3 months.
BASE ASSUMPTIONS/EXCLUSIONS
1. No surveys will be conducted. Exhibits will use existing GIS mapping as background.
2. No traffic counts or analysis will be conducted for this study.
3. No geotechnical investigation will be conducted.
4. City to provide GIS-based assessor parcel data.
5. City to provide as-builts for existing structures including Marsh Creek Trail bridge and Cypress Road overcrossing and utility as-built data for Cypress Rd.
6. No utility field investigation or potholing will be conducted for this study.
7. Regulatory or resource agency permitting is not included.
8. Retaining wall or structural design is excluded from this scope.
9. No retrofit of the existing bridge is required.
10. All deliverables will be in electronic format and no hard copies reproductions are included in the scope.
11. Our scope assumes no changes in profile of Cypress, Main Street, and the existing structures.
12. Landscape or irrigation plans not included in this scope. 75 Principal
Sasha DanskyProject ManagerDanielle SanchezProject ManagerTechnical LeadProject EngineerDesign Engineer ISr. Project CoordinatorProject Accountant $405 $232 $232 $232 $175 $131 $157 $144
1.0 TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1 Project Controls and Management 2 12 8 4 26 $5,422 $5,422
1.2 Meetings 3 3 6 $1,910 $1,910
Subtotal Phase 1 5 15 0 0 0 0 8 4 32 $7,332 $7,332
2.0 TASK 2. DATA COLLECTION
2.1 Data Gathering 1 4 8 13 $1,978 $1,978
Subtotal Phase 2 0 1 0 0 4 8 0 0 13 $1,978 $1,978
3.0 TASK 3. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
3.1 Preliminary Geometrics 2 8 3 4 24 72 113 $17,905 $17,905
3.2 Preliminary Project Cost Estimate 1 2 3 2 8 40 56 $8,662 $8,662 Subtotal Phase 3 3 10 6 6 32 112 0 0 169 $26,566 $26,566
4.0 TASK 4. FEASIBILITY MEMORANDUM
4.1 Feasibility Memorandum 1 40 2 4 8 55 $11,888 $11,888 Subtotal Phase 4 1 40 2 0 4 8 0 0 55 $11,888 $11,888
TOTAL HOURS 9 66 8 6 40 128 8 4 269
OTHER DIRECT COSTS $500 $500
TOTAL COST $3,643.75 $15,301.54 $1,854.73 $1,391.05 $6,985.32 $16,757.72 $1,253.31 $577.07 $48,264.50 $48,264.50 Suggested Contingency (10% of labor) $5,000.00
TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY $53,264.50
TOTAL COST
COST PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT SCOPE - City of Oakley: Cypress Road Improvements Project Total MT
Cost
Mark Thomas
Total
Hours
Please note that the rates shown are for estimating purposes only. See rate schedule for actual rates/ranges.
MT Fee (FAR (X) Rates)
3/17/2023 76
Engineering Surveying
Design Engineer I $88 - $145 Surveyor $109 - $155
Design Engineer II $109 - $177 Sr. Surveyor $123 - $187 Project Engineer $147 - $184 Project Surveyor $144 - $219 Sr. Project Engineer $158 - $216 Sr. Project Surveyor $167 - $226 Sr. Technical Engineer $158 - $216 * Single Chief $153 - $203 Technical Lead $182 - $248 * Single Instrumentman $144 - $181 Sr. Technical Lead $217 - $316 * Single Chainman $135 - $177 Engineering/Design Manager $282 - $361 * Apprentice $81 - $139 Sr. Engineering Manager $311 - $452 * 1 Person Field Crew $153 - $203 * 2 Person Field Crew $288 - $407
Construction Management * 3 Person Field Crew $369 - $584 Office Engineer $109 - $207
* Asst. Resident Engineer $155 - $284 Technicians
* Inspector - CM $150 - $284 Intern $47 - $103
RE/Structural Representative $205 - $345 Technician/Office/Survey Technician $62 - $129 Area Manager - CM $308 - $452 Sr. Technician/Survey Technician $91 - $177 Lead Technician/Survey Technician $123 - $200
Planning
Planner I $82 - $106 Project Management & Oversight
Planner II $106 - $132 Project/Survey Manager $182 - $258 Sr. Planner $120 - $165 Sr. Project/Survey Manager $217 - $345 Division Manager $244 - $381
Landscape Architecture/Urban Design Principal $390 - $461 Landscape Designer I $76 - $113
Landscape Designer II $94 - $142 Project Support
Landscape Architect $109 - $190 Technical/Sr. Technical Writer $59 - $171 Sr. Landscape Architect $117 - $213 Project/Sr. Project Assistant $70 - $132 Project/Sr. Project Coordinator $94 - $168
Grant Writing Graphic/Sr. Graphic Designer $100-$187
Funding Specialist $109 - $210 Project/Sr. Project Accountant $103 - $177 Sr. Funding Specialist $147 - $226 Sr. Graphic Manager $141 - $207 Funding Manager $249 - $326 Project Accountant Manager $155 - $216 District Management Special Services
* Inspector - Apprentice $59 - $106 Expert Witness $470 * Inspector/Sr. Inspector $97 - $158 Strategic Consulting $470 Assistant/Associate Sanitary Engineer $138 - $207
Sanitary/Sr. Sanitary Project Engineer $161 - $281
Operations/Deputy District Manager $223 - $339
District Manager-Engineer $305 - $368
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. RATE SCHEDULE
EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2023
Reimbursables including, but not limited to; reproductions, delivery and filing fees; outside consultant fees; and survey field expenses will be billed at Cost Plus 5% . Mileage will be billed per current IRS Rate.
Additional promotional steps exist within various rate categories.
This rate schedule expires June 30, 2023; rates are subject to escalation with new hourly rate schedule as of July 1, 2023. * These charge rates are subject to Prevailing Wage laws and Union contract.
RATE SCHEDULE (X) | PAGE 2 OF 2
77 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract to Specified Play Equipment Company for the Koda Dog Park Shade Structure Project - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Number 287
Background and Analysis
Koda Dog Park has become a very popular destination for residents and visitors to bring their dogs to exercise and play. One of the more frequent requests coming from the community has been for shade to be installed at this park, specifically within the off-leash areas that people frequent while their dog’s play. This project will provide a much-desired upgrade to Koda Dog Park and will increase the Park’s ability to be a focal point that encourages community use and civic pride.
This project will construct several new shade structures which will complement this park and its facilities for the enjoyment of all its visitors. Staff have sought after ideas, renderings, quotes and recommendations from various vendors and sources. With an almost endless supply of standard and custom options, staff has selected a design and proposal for $149,637.92 provided by Specified Play Equipment Company. This design is functional, aesthetically pleasing and was found to be the best option for this project with the longest and strongest warranty in the industry. The inflation and shortage of materials that has affected all parts of society, have also impacted the cost of projects. However, with the approach that we have used with Sourcewell, it ensures that we get the best competitive pricing for projects.
The City of Oakley is a member and participant of Sourcewell, a municipal contracting agency. Sourcewell allows participating municipal agencies to leverage the benefits of cooperative purchasing and reduces procurement costs rather than paying higher costs associated with individual procurement. Sourcewell serves all educational, government, and nonprofit agencies nationwide and offers cooperative contracted products and equipment to government entities throughout the United States. All Sourcewell contracts have been competitively solicited nationwide and the evaluation committee selected Specified Play Equipment Company as the best responsive proposer for providing playground and related equipment.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
78 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US The construction of this project is anticipated to be completed by the end of August of 2023.
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This project is consistent with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ Park and Open Space Goals.
Fiscal Impact
The City’s Park Impact Fee Fund will fund the purchase and construction for this project as part of the FY 2022/23 budget which allocated $150,000 for the project.
Sourcewell’s cooperative purchasing program was utilized for this project procurement.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the construction agreement with Specified Play Equipment Company for the Koda Dog Park Shade Structure Project for an amount not to exceed $149,637.92.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Specified Play Equipment Company - Koda Dog Park Shade Proposal 79 Resolution No. __-23 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. __-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY
APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH SPECIFIED PLAY
EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE KODA DOG
PARK SHADE STRUCTURE PROJECT - CIP NUMBER 287
WHEREAS, the community has a requested shade structure be installed at Koda Dog Park to supplement the existing trees that are providing shade for park users; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked over the past several months to develop the design of the new Shade Structure and have worked with the Sourcewell procurement process to get bids for this project; and
WHEREAS, Specified Play Equipment Company submitted the lowest responsible bid for a total cost of $149,637.92 for the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Construction Agreement with Specified Play Equipment Company for the construction of the Koda Dog Park Shade Structure Project - CIP Number 287 is approved for an amount not to exceed $149,637.92, and the City Manager is authorized to execute an Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on July 11, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED:
_______________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution approving a side letter to the Oakley Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding
Background and Analysis
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Oakley Police Officers Associations (OPOA) was approved at the May 24,2022 council meeting.
The MOU is a five-year document, starting July 1, 2022 and expiring June 30, 2027.
From time to time and if agreed upon by both parties, there may be a need for updated language to help clarify an intent of an item, or to ensure consistency on how things are applied. When these are identified, we will look to improve upon the language in the form of a side letter.
With the continued growth in the Police Department, a new Special Services Team (SST) is being established. This team was referred to previously as Problem Oriented Policing (POP). When assigned to this team, officers and sergeants will receive special assignment pay.
This side letter updates the naming of the team to ensure special assignment pay is applied and accepted by CalPERS as we are required to have an agreement in place. This does not change the intent of the previous language and does not affect the overall budget.
City Staff, Police Management and the OPOA board have discussed this side letter and all agree this is in the best interest of all parties involved. It is further agreed that this will take effect as of July 9, 2023 which is when the shift change in the Police Department will occur and when the SST team will be selected.
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with our strategic plan, sustainable organization goal. By clarifying language so that it can be applied consistently it will help us to build trust at City Hall as well as reinforce Team Oakley through communication and transparency.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
100
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution approving a side letter to the Oakley Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Side Letter
101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APPROVING A SIDE
LETTER TO THE OAKLEY POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS, the Oakley Police Officers Association (OPOA) and the City have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was approved at the May 24, 2022 council meeting, and
WHEREAS, The Police Chief has made a change to a special assignment unit, and
WHEREAS, the intent of the MOU is not changing, and
WHEREAS, Problem Oriented Policing (POP) is being changed to Special Services Team (SST), and
WHEREAS, it is agreed that updating language will allow for the name change to be considered compensable by CalPERS, and
WHEREAS, it is further agreed this will take effect July 9, 2023 with the shift change, and
WHEREAS, City Staff, Police Management and the OPOA board have discussed this side letter and all agree it is the best interest of all parties involved, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby approves the following:
The Side Letter to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Oakley Police Officers Association.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Oakley held on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
102
SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
OAKLEY POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF OAKLEY This Side Letter of Agreement is entered into by and between the Oakley Police Officers Association and the City of Oakley effective July 1, 2022. The items listed in this Agreement shall supersede any provisions included in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The parties agree to the following Terms and Conditions:
2. Special Assignments
g. Police Liaison - Special Services Team (SST)
Any employee assigned to SST shall receive a five percent (5%) augmentation to base salary in the first full pay period following being assigned to SST.
City of Oakley Oakley Police Officers' Association
Joshua McMurray, City Manager Date Tyler Radcliffe, President Date DocuSign Envelope ID: A9260440-055E-4EA3-A240-21CB40608BDD 6/21/2023 6/21/2023
103 946
DocuSign Envelope ID: A9260440-055E-4EA3-A240-21CB40608BDD 104 947
STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with the Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. to provide training and support related to critical incidents as well as counseling services on an as needed basis for members of the Oakley Police Department.
Background and Analysis
Our Police Officers are called upon to handle critical incidents on almost a daily basis. These incidents can be mild to severe but affect each individual officer differently. A series of incidents in a short time period may have a greater effect on these officers.
This contract will establish a Peer Support Team within our department. It will also provide a Critical Stress Management Program along with 24/7 program response and support services. These programs will train our staff on what to look for during and after a critical incident. It will also provide us with the support of trained professionals who will be available at any time to assist with this support.
Although individual critical incidents may not require support services, sometimes a series of these incidents in a short time period will. This contract will also establish services with a licensed clinician to provide up to 10 individual sessions per year to assist our Police personnel with anything they need, whether it be on or off the job.
As the environment around police continues to change, this contract is critical to providing our staff with the resources they need. The Public Safety Counseling Group is specific to law enforcement and all individuals working for them have some sort of tie to the law enforcement community. They are available immediately upon request without the need for an officer who is reaching out for help to have to wait for the next available appointment, which can be weeks, through our current system.
In addition to the original contract amount the City may need to increase the number of sessions for an individual or send peer counselors to training. This will be an additional cost to the flat rate provided in Exhibit A.
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
105
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US This contract will be a two year contract with the ability to renew on one year increments. The contract cost will increase by 5% after the two year term is complete.
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with our strategic plan, sustainable organization goal.
Specifically covering the objective of employee wellness. This contract will provide specific support tailored directly to our law enforcement personnel and will continue to encourage a safe and healthy working environment.
Fiscal Impact
The contract is included in the 2023/2024 Police budget, within the General Fund, and will not exceed $50,000.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with the Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. to provide training and support related to critical incidents as well as counseling services on an as needed basis for members of the Oakley Police Department.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Contract
106
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
THE PUBLIC SAFETY FAMILY COUNSELING GROUP, INC TO PROVIDE TRAINING
AND SUPPORT RELATED TO CIRITICAL INCIDENTS AS WELL AS COUNSELING
SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FOR MEMBERS OF THE OAKLEY POLICE
DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the SP27+ has an objective of employee wellness in the sustainable organization goal, and
WHEREAS, the Oakley Police Department responds often to critical incidents, some in which our officers would benefit from peer support or counseling, and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Counseling Group would be available to our officers 24/7, 365 days per year, and
WHEREAS, the training and support services provided will be specific to law enforcement, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby approves the following:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a consulting services agreement with the Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc to provide training and support related to critical incidents as well as counseling services on an as needed basis for the members of the Oakley Police Department as outlined in Exhibit A of the contract. This agreement will be a two-year agreement with the option to renew annually.
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
107
SHORT FORM
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND
PUBLIC SAFETY FAMILY COUNSELING GROUP, INC
THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT for professional consulting services is entered into by and between the City of Oakley, a municipal corporation in the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Public Safety Family Counseling Group, INC, a full service consulting firm (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor") effective as of July 1, 2023 (“Effective Date”).
Section I. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall continue until June 30, 2025.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Contractor shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor is engaged in the general geographical area of the City. Contractor shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, firstclass manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Contractor's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Contractor's obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Contractor a sum not to exceed the amount described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. City shall pay Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. These payments shall be the only payments from City to 108
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall submit invoices to City each month for services provided.
Contractor and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Contractor under this Agreement is based upon Contractor's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Contractor. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Contractor and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit invoices during the term of this Agreement, as outlines in Exhibit A. Invoices shall be on Contractor’s Letterhead (or formal invoice form) and contain the following information:
HIPAA protected or legally privileged information shall not be included in any invoice at any time.
2.2 Payment of Taxes. Contractor is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
2.3 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Contractor terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Contractor for all amounts due for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination.
2.4 Authorization to Perform Services. The Contractor is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement.
Section 4. RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS. Contractor agrees to comply with all City recycling requirements for matters directly related to this Agreement performed within City of Oakley jurisdictional boundaries, and as set forth in the Oakley Municipal Code, including, but not limited to:
a. Construction and Demolition. Contractor must contact a customer service representative (CSR) at Oakley Disposal Service, Inc. to arrange for service for any and all construction and demolition work to be performed as part of this project unless Contractor has been approved by the City as a “self-hauler” as defined in Oakley Municipal Code §4.20.308. The CSR will ask if the drop box contains 109
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
recycle material and will direct the Contractor to drop the construction and demolition debris, including dirt and cement, to a permitted processing facility. The Contractor must indicate on their order form, by checking the applicable box, that they need documentation to comply with the Oakley Municipal Code. This documentation must be provided to the City within ten (10) days of receipt of said documentation by Contractor.
b. Commercial Self-Haul. Business self-haul materials are accepted at various Oakley Disposal Service, Inc. local facilities for recycling and include, but are not limited to, wood, inerts, metals, tires, greenwaste, plastics, cardboard, mattresses, foam padding, propane tanks, e-waste and appliances. Contractor agrees to drop any and all business self-haul materials at a site designated on the website www.cccounty.us/depart/cd/recycle/.
c. Road Maintenance and Construction Projects. Contractor agrees to recycle greenwaste, asphalt, concrete and metal from any and all road maintenance and construction projects at Oakley Disposal Service, Inc. designated locations. d. Office Recyclables. If Contractor has an office, temporary office, or trailer within the City of Oakley, Contractor agrees to recycle all paper, cardboard, bottles, cans, and toner cartridges at Oakley Disposal Service, Inc. designated locations. e. Special Waste Materials. Contractor shall dispose of inert materials, including, but not limited to, concrete, asphalt and rubber, at Oakley Disposal Service, Inc. designated locations. Shingles and wood waste shall be diverted to the Recycling Center and Transfer Station (RCTS) located at 3700 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. Scrap metal shall be dropped off at a large-scale scrap metal recycle facility operating within Contra Costa County which may be found at www.cccrecycle.org.
f. Universal Waste. Contractor shall dispose of batteries, mercury containing devices and lamps, and certain consumer electronics at a recycling center designated by Oakley Disposal Service, Inc.
Section 5. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Contractor, at its own cost and expense, shall procure "occurrence coverage" insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Contractor shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the City. Contractor shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Contractor has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted 110
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Verification of the required insurance is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
5.1 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected.
5.2 Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner, Contractor shall provide written notice to City at Contractor's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five calendar days after Contractor is notified of the change in coverage.
5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Contractor fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Contractor's breach:
Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
Order Contractor to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Contractor hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Contractor demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or
Terminate this Agreement.
Section 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
6.1. Contractor shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless City, and its employees, officials, volunteers and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, costs and liability (including but not limited to loss of use, loss of profits or loss of goodwill arising in any manner from the work) arising out of any personal injury, loss of life, damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, arising out of the performance of this Agreement by Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, subcontractors or subContractors, excepting only liability arising from the sole negligence, active negligence or intentional misconduct of City.
111
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
6.2. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shalt apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply.
6.3. By execution of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration, and that these provisions survive the termination of this Agreement.
Section 7. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Contractor only insofar as the results of Contractor's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
7.2 Contractor, Not Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 8. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
8.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
8.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
112
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
8.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
8.4 Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature legally required to practice their respective professions. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions.
In addition to the foregoing, Contractor and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid business licenses from City.
8.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Contractor shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Contractor thereby.
Contractor shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 9. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
9.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Contractor.
Contractor may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination.
9.2 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties.
113
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
9.3 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Contractor recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Contractor and is based upon a determination of Contractor's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge.
Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Contractor.
Contractor may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Contractor shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
9.4 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Contractor shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
9.5 Breach by Contractor. If Contractor materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City may immediately terminate the Agreement.
Section 10. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
10.1 Records Created as Part of Contractor's Performance. Ownership of records created under this Agreement shall be treated as provided in Exhibit A, section 4.3.
10.2 Contractor's Books and Records. Contractor shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Contractor to this Agreement,
10.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section
9.2 of this Agreement requires Contractor to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. Privileged or HIPAA protected information shall remain confidential subject to the terms of Exhibit A Compensation section 4.5 HIPAA Requirements.
Section 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
114
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
11.1 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Contra Costa or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
11.2 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
11.3 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
11.4 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
11.5 Use of Recycled Products. Contractor shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
11.6 Conflict of Interest. Contractor may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Contractor in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Contractor shall not employ any official of City in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
Contractor hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Contractor was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of City in the previous twelve months, Contractor warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Contractor understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. Seq., the entire Agreement is void and Contractor will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Contractor will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Contractor. Contractor understands that, 115
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
11.7 Inconsistent Terms. If the terms or provisions of this Agreement conflict with or are inconsistent with any term or provision of any attachment or Exhibit attached hereto, then the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.
11.8 Reserved.
11.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Joshua McMurray, City Manager ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.
11.10 Notices.
Any written notice to Contractor shall be sent to:
Public Safety Family Counseling Group, INC
Attn: Scott Dansie, Operations Manager
3381 Walnut Blvd., Suite 210
Brentwood, CA 94513
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
City of Oakley
Joshua McMurray, City Manager
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
11.11 Integration. This Agreement, including the attached exhibits, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.
11.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
11.13 Authorized Signature. Each person and party signing this Agreement warrants that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the principal and that the party will be bound by such signature. 116
Public Safety Family Counseling Group Contract
The parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY: CONTRACTOR:
City of Oakley, a municipal corporation In
the State of California
Public Safety Family Counseling
Group, INC
Joshua McMurray, City Manager Elizabeth Dansie, President
Attest:
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Derek Cole, City Attorney
117
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work/Compensation Schedule
118
Public Safety Family Counseling Group, INC.
Exhibit A – Scope of Services and Compensation
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The primary purpose of this service contract is the ongoing support, consultation, and training of peer support and Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) programs while providing 24/7/365 response and support services to the City of Oakley Police Department (City) and its personnel.
BASE SERVICES
1. 24/7 On-Call/Standby Availability
1.1. Consultant will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for Crisis Response and Stabilization Services for City and City’s personnel.
2. Crisis Response and Stabilization services. Such services may include, but are not limited to critical incident stress debriefings, crisis management briefings, on-site response, crisis intervention, and in person consultation as necessary following extraordinary events encountered by City’s personnel or impacting the performance of City personnel’s duties.
2.1. Crisis Response and Stabilization Services may be rendered at City’s offices, in the field, at Consultant’s offices, or virtually as approved by Consultant.
2.2. In the event that Consultant is requested to respond to an active scene or incident, City personnel shall accompany Consultant when requested.
3. Individual Crisis Stabilization and Counseling Services
3.1. Consultant will provide Individual Crisis Stabilization and Counseling Services as requested for City personnel, including 24/7 availability as needed.
3.2. Consultant will provide first responder specialized support and short-term individual crisis intervention and, as necessary, appropriate professional referrals to City’s employee assistance program or other suitable venue when indicated.
3.2.1. Short-term individual crisis intervention is defined as up to ten (10) one-on-one crisis intervention sessions per year without the need for referral or authorization from City.
Such sessions may be provided either in-person at Consultant’s offices or virtually.
3.2.2. In the event that an employee requires more than ten (10) hours of service per quarter, the City employee seeking service shall obtain written authorization in advance from City or authorize Consultant to contact City on behalf of the affected employee. The authorization process shall not require Consultant to disclose of the affected employee’s crisis or other HIPAA information without the employee’s consent.
3.2.3. In the event that an employee self-refers, or is directed or referred by City, because of a suicidal crisis, services shall be rendered without regard to session or time limits until one of the following occurs. The suicidal crisis is stabilized, abated, or the affected employee 119
is referred to a higher level or other suitable care. City agrees to compensate Consultant according to Compensation section 2 in the event that this clause is triggered without the need for additional authorization.
3.2.4. Referrals to third party services such as employee assistance programs, outside wellness training, or recovery/treatment retreats are not covered under this Agreement and are subject to other agreements between City and the third-party provider.
4. Telephone, email, and virtual Consultations
4.1. Expert collaboration with City Personnel regarding issues related to Critical Incident Stress, crisis intervention, education needs, organizational matters, and other psychological services as requested.
4.2. Provide on-going consultation to the City’s Peer Support Team on topics including, but not limited to, program development, team selection, and team operations.
4.3. Consult with City Personnel regarding critical incident stress management support education services for line, supervisory, and management staff as requested.
4.4. Unlimited telephone, email, and virtual consultations are provided as “Base Services” under this agreement.
5. Peer Support Team Member Services
5.1. Consultant will provide one, one-on-one check-in appointments per year for each peer support team member, coordinator, and liaison for the purpose of fostering professional wellness in their assigned role and to support positive wellness habits.
6. Training Services
6.1. Introductory Program Presentations
6.1.1. Upon request, Consultant will conduct up to six introductory shift briefing presentations for the purpose of introducing Consultant’s firm, services, and program goals. Consultant will also solicit and compile peer support team member nominations following a blind nomination process when requested by City.
6.1.2. City agrees to arrange for professional, non-sworn, and other administrative personnel to attend one of the aforementioned trainings.
6.2. Command Presentation and Training
6.2.1. Upon request, Consultant will conduct one, one hour presentation and training for Command Staff in order to familiarize them with CISM and peer support team program goals and operations.
6.3. Management/Supervisory Presentation and Training
120
6.3.1. Upon request, Consultant will conduct one, two-hour presentation and training for management and supervisory staff in order to familiarize them with CISM and peer support team program goals and operations.
6.4. Line Personnel Training
6.4.1. Upon request, Consultant will provide two, four-hour training blocks covering CISM, wellness, and resiliency for line level personnel.
6.4.2. Training will be presented at City facilities or virtually and may be open to outside agencies upon City’s request with Consultant approval.
6.5. Initial Peer Support Team Member Training
6.5.1. International Critical Incident Stress Foundation (ICISF) basic peer support training is required for all peer support team members. The basic peer support training consists of the 32-hour Group Crisis Intervention and Assisting Individuals In Crisis courses (GRIN).
GRIN training is not included in the base fee of this Agreement.
6.5.1.1. City may elect to host an ICISF GRIN course for its personnel or may elect to send personnel to a course hosted by another entity, at City’s sole discretion. Hosting a GRIN course may be incorporated into this Agreement for an additional fee.
Sending personnel to an outside course is subject to the prevailing attendance fee at the time of the course.
6.6. Regional Peer Support Continuing Education Training
6.6.1. Participation in Regional Peer Support Continuing Education Training for all City designated liaisons, coordinators, and peers is included as a Base Service.
6.6.2. Participating agencies share a rotating responsibility for hosting Regional Peer Support and Coordinator Meetings. Responsibility for hosting said trainings and meetings is split among participating agencies on a rotating basis.
6.6.3. Regional training may be offered in person or via a virtual electronic platform.
7. Meetings
7.1. Upon request, Consultant will help facilitate and attend peer support team meetings exclusively for City’s peer support team members. Said meetings shall be set up by a Peer Support Team Coordinator or Liaison and should occur once per quarter. These meetings may be held/attended in-person or virtually. Four quarterly meetings are included in the base price of this Agreement.
7.2. Upon request, Consultant will help facilitate and attend a bimonthly (occurring every other month) peer support team coordinator and liaison meeting. Said meetings shall be set up by a peer support team coordinator or liaison. These meetings may be held/attended in-person or virtually. Six team coordinator meetings are included in the base price of this Agreement.
7.3. Consultant shall attend Command Staff meetings as requested for the purpose of discussing and making recommendations as to CISM and peer support program needs and goals. 121
8. Policy Development and Review
8.1. Consultant will supply City with a Sample Peer Support Policy and assist City personnel with review and recommendations for creating a comprehensive Peer Support Team and CISM Policy.
8.2. City shall have their own City Attorney and/or risk manager review any recommended policy prior to implementation. City is responsible for ensuring that any proposed policy is compliant with city, state, and federal law.
9. When City requests services to be rendered onsite, City shall make suitable space available to Consultant. When suitable space is not available, City shall make other location arrangements appropriate for the services to be rendered.
10. When Consultant is unavailable or unable to render services as indicated above, Consultant shall make necessary arrangements for referral to appropriate mental health professionals for coverage and make contact information available to City personnel.
11. Consultant shall not be responsible for computer, video, audio, or other technological needs for City or City’s personnel to attend training or access services.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
1. Additional Individual Crisis Stabilization and Counselling Services
1.1. The City may elect to authorize additional Individual Crisis Stabilization and Counselling Services for impacted employees (beyond the 10 sessions per year afforded under section 2) on a case-by-case basis.
2. Additional Training and Meeting Services
2.1. Consultant may provide Critical Incident Stress Management or other training services within Consultant’s scope of practice for line, supervisory, and management staff as requested by City.
2.1.1.Training requests must be submitted at least 90 days in advance.
2.2. Consultant may provide or attend additional meetings or other gatherings beyond those outlined above as requested by City.
COMPENSATION
1. City shall compensate Consultant a flat base fee of $40,000.00 for “Base Services” as outlined under Scope of Services Sections 1 through 11, except where noted otherwise and subject to the following provisions.
1.1. Services may be rendered in-person, via telephone, email, or virtual platform based on the specific circumstances, nature, and needs of the service, City, and Consultant. Response services shall be provided in-person except under extraordinary circumstances. 122
1.2. Regional Peer Support Continuing Education Training may be provided in person or virtually and may be rescheduled, postponed, or cancelled for extraordinary events.
1.3. When Consultant is unavailable or unable to 24/7 standby/on-call availability, Consultant shall make necessary arrangements for referral to appropriate mental health professionals for coverage and any expense incurred by Consultant in doing so shall be the sole responsibility of Consultant.
2. Individual Crisis Stabilization and Counseling Services authorized beyond the 10 sessions per quarter outlined under “Base Services” section 2 and provided in Consultant’s offices shall be compensated at a rate of $225.00 per hour on an “as-utilized” basis.
3. Additional Training and Meeting Services requested by City outside those outlined in base services and provided by consultant shall be compensated at a rate of $250.00 per hour on an “as-utilized” basis.
3.1.1. Billing for Additional Training and Meeting Services shall include course development or preparation time as required to create or adapt training or otherwise prepare for presentation to City.
3.1.2. All services rendered away from Consultant’s office in Brentwood, CA are billed “portalto-portal” and include all time spent for travel, stand-by, or onsite.
3.1.3. ICISF licensed training courses are subject to the following additional approximated fees.
ICISF Registration and Licensing $400 per course
Materials Fees $150 per person
ICISF Certificates $15 per course, per person
3.1.4. During the term of this Agreement, the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation courses titled Group Crisis Intervention and Assisting Individuals in Crisis (GRIN) may be offered at the flat rate of $18,000.00 per session. This course is subject to a minimum class size of 21 and a maximum class size of 42 attendees per session. Invoicing for these classes will occur when/as utilized.
4. Additional Service Terms
4.1. Services rendered under this Agreement do not include expert witness fees, deposition, court fees, representation, or testimony for or during any legal or formal administrative proceeding.
Fees related to any actual or proposed action in any proceeding start at $500.00 per hour and are subject to a minimum advanced deposit prior to any required appearance.
4.2. Copyright and Right of Use
4.2.1. Any and all work, artwork, copy, posters, billboards, photographs, videotapes, audiotapes, systems designs, software, reports, designs, specifications, drawings, diagrams, surveys, source codes or any original works of authorship created by Consultant or its subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with services performed under this Agreement shall be deemed the exclusive intellectual or otherwise licensed property of Consultant and Consultant shall retain all rights therein. Consultant shall 123
grant a right of use license to City while the City remains under contract with Consultant and the materials are created or branded for City’s use at no additional charge.
4.3. Ownership of Documents
4.3.1. All documents, data, drawings, designs, reports, studies, memoranda, or any other items or work product prepared or obtained by Consultant or its subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with services performed under this Agreement are instruments of Consultant’s services. They are not intended, nor are they represented to be suitable for reuse by others on extension of this project or on any other project.
Any reuse without specific, written verification and adaptation by Consultant for the specific intended purpose will be at the user’s sole risk and without liability or legal exposure or expense to Consultant. Consultant shall not waive their interest in any work product created under this Agreement except where otherwise noted herein.
Consultant shall grant a right of use license to City while the City remains under contract with Consultant and the materials are created or branded for City’s use at no additional charge.
4.4. Third Party Insurance Verification
4.4.1. Neither Consultant nor Consultant’s insurance providers are able to comply with demands from or supply documents to Third Party Insurance Verification services that City may contract with, currently or in the future, to verify independent contractors’ insurance policies. In the event that City utilizes such services, City shall designate a City staff member to collect insurance documents from Consultant and resolve any verification requirements.
4.4.2. City has had the opportunity to review all of Consultant’s insurance policies related to this Agreement and will certify that said insurance meets the requirements of any provisions related to insurance requirements prior to execution of this Agreement or City has agreed to waive unmet requirements if they are outside the scope of Consultant’s insurance.
4.5. HIPAA Requirements
4.5.1. Confidentiality of Consultant’s services and records are governed by State and Federal statues, court decisions, ethical standards, and generally accepted business practices for their profession. Notwithstanding any other section of this Agreement, no record or other identifying information, including but not limited to HIPAA protected information shall be released without a valid court order, written authorization from the individual(s) affected by the information release, or other legal authority compelling release of such information. Additionally, compliance with any audit or inspection requirement contained herein necessitates an investment of Consultant’s time, efforts, and resources in order to maintain the required confidentially of records subject to audit or inspection and as such, shall be considered billable hours and compensated according to this Agreement.
This section shall supersede all other sections and shall survive termination, cancellation, or expiration and remain in effect indefinitely.
4.6. Confidentiality of Consultant’s Information
124
4.6.1. City shall not disclose any confidential or proprietary information received from Consultant, including but not limited to client information or other intellectual property, to anyone except City’s employees who require access to the information to access Consultant’s services without adaptation by Consultant.
4.6.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant recognizes that City is obligated to comply with the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6252 et seq.) and that records in the possession of the City may be required to be disclosed. The City will assert exemptions to the California Public Records Act as allowed, including protecting personal contact information and other confidential information as allowed.
4.6.3. If the City receives a Public Records Act request for documents related to the Consultant, it will promptly notify the Consultant of such request. The Consultant may then seek to assert protections and privileges in court, as it may deem appropriate. The Consultant shall notify the City within 5 days if it will seek judicial intervention. If it does not, the City will release the requested documents. Nothing herein prohibits the City from asserting any exemptions to disclosure that it deems appropriate.
4.6.4. Parties agree to exercise at least the same care, control, and security over records, documents, and/or confidential information obtained from the other party as they would for their own records, documents, and/or confidential information.
4.7. Billing and Invoices
4.7.1. Consultant shall endeavor to provide a monthly utilization statement and/or invoices to the City no later than the 15th day of each month following the month in which services are provided. The utilization will include a description of services rendered and the date on which such services were provided. In addition, the monthly statement will provide a running account of hours utilized. Due to HIPAA restrictions individual client information will at no time be included in accounting information. Utilization statements shall be combined with monthly invoices for convenience. City shall pay all; undisputed invoices within 30 days of receipt.
4.7.2. City shall ensure timely requests for and utilization of Consultant’s services. All services not utilized within the one-year term of this Agreement are non- refundable and will be lost as of June 30, 2023. Failure of City to utilize Consultant’s services in a timely manner shall not be cause for a refund or extension of time.
4.8. Force Majeure
4.8.1. Except with respect to failure to pay any amount due under this Agreement, nonperformance of either party will be excused to the extent that performance is rendered impossible by strike, fire, flood, natural disaster, pandemic, death of Provider, public protest or riot, governmental acts that are not caused by or within the control of the nonperforming party, order or restrictions, failure of suppliers, or any other reason where failure to perform is beyond the control and not caused by the negligence of the nonperforming party.
5. The term of this Agreement shall be July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025. The term of this agreement is broken into fiscal year service periods running from July 1st through June 30th for every year this 125
Agreement remains in effect. This Agreement may be renewed annually via purchase order following the initial two year term.
5.1. All service rates listen herein shall increase by 5% per year for all renewals beginning after June 30, 2025.
126
Exhibit B
Insurance Requirements
Specific Insurance Requirements and Required Policy Limits PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS:
Including, but not limited to architects, engineers, consultants, counselors, attorneys and accountants.
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of its contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum scope of coverage
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01) covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form number CA 0001 Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (nonowned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(Not required if Consultant provides written verification it has no employees) Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Architects and Engineers coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability.
If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity. 127
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies, with the exception of Professional Liability Insurance, are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage should be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall state that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which Consultant or any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Consultant to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.
128
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claimsmade policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause.
All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. 129
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A :
NAIC #
NAME:
CONTACT
(A/C, No):
FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):
PHONE
INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$ PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
NON-OWNED
OWNED SCHEDULED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH- STATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICY EFF LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY PROJECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
06/09/2023 RK Jacobs Insurance Services, Inc. 5620 Birdcage St, Suite 230 Citrus Heights CA 95610 Angelica Alvarez (916) 526-0170 (916) 400-0262 [email protected] Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc 3381 Walnut Blvd Ste 210 Brentwood CA 94513-4495 NATIONWIDE INS CO OF AMER 25453 NATIONWIDE MUT INS CO 23787 A Y Y ACPBPOZ3120150843 07/01/2023 07/01/2024 1,000,000 5,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 A ACPBAZ3120150843 07/01/2023 07/01/2024 1,000,000 A ACPCAZ3120150843 07/01/2023 07/01/2024 1,000,000 B N ACPWC3120150843 07/01/2023 07/01/2024 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 The City, including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers are named as Additional Insured. (for both ongoing and completed operations) The above mentioned businessowners policy includes data compromise coverage with a response expense limit of $50,000 and defense and liability limit of $50,000. The above mentioned businessowners policy includes identity recovery coverage with a limit of $25,000. The above mentioned businessowners policy includes computer attack coverage with a limit of $50,000. Waiver of subrogation applies on above listed businessowner policy and when required by written contract on above listed business auto policy. Primary non contributory applies to above listed businessowner policy and 30 day advanced notice of cancellation is provided. City of Oakley 3231 Main Street Oakley CA 94561 130
131
132
133
STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Sellers Avenue Subdivision 9614 Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan, and Design Review (RZ 01-22, TM 01-22, FDP 01-22, DR 01-22) – Request for approval of a Rezone to P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 20.42 acres into 77 single family residential lots, a Final Development Plan in conjunction with the P-1 District, and Design Review.
APNs 033-150-013.
Summary
This is an application by MLC Holdings (“Applicant”) requesting approval of: 1) a Rezone (RZ 01-22) to amend an existing P-1 District; 2) a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01-22) subdividing approximately 20.42 acres into 77 single residential lots, stormwater detention treatment area, and neighborhood park; 3) a Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District; and 4) Design Review (DR 01-22) for floor plans and architecture, and conceptual landscape plans (“Project”). The proposed homes consist of two single-story and two two-story house plans each with three elevations. Floor plans range from 2,054 to 2,833 square feet of livable area. The project site is located at 5911 Sellers Avenue and is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District. (APNs: 033-150-013).
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 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 an overlap between the type of Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
134
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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 and vesting tentative map. 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 along the
western boundary of Sellers Avenue,
which is also the City limit line at the
project location. The project site
frontage along Sellers Avenue runs
728 feet. From there, the property
continues west where it intercepts the
BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe)
railroad tracks which run in a
northwest-southeast direction. The
site currently exists as a ruderal field
that undergoes discing for
maintenance. It also includes a couple
of abandoned agricultural buildings
that sit about 400 feet west of Sellers
Avenue and near the site’s northern
property line. Rural residential
properties lie to the north, south, and
east. Those located in the City are
designated as Residential Very Low (RV) in the Oakley General Plan. An existing single family residential development is located on the other side of the railroad tracks.
That development is designated as Residential Low Medium (RLM) in the Oakley General Plan. A few other parcels further south of the tracks have an approved subdivision project and two existing rural residential uses. This project site is designated Residential Low, the same as the proposed project site. Figure 1 shows the project site and surrounding properties.
Figure 1. Project site and surrounding properties
(Google Earth, Februray 11, 2022)
135
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 3
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US
PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The applicant for this project also filed a Preliminary General Plan Amendment (PGPA) application (PA 05-21) with the Oakley Planning Division in 2021. After receiving feedback on another similar PGPA (also filed by the applicant), the applicant decided to not proceed with a PGPA Work Session for this project, and instead later file a vesting tentative map and associated entitlements with a density compliant with the existing land use designation of Residential Low (RL).
Project Description
REZONE (RZ 01-22)
The project application includes a request for approval of a rezone consisting of an amendment from an existing P-1 District approved for the now expired tentative map and development plan to a new P-1 District tied to the proposed tentative map and other proposed. This rezone would approve the project’s P-1 District in conjunction with the Vesting Tentative Map and Development Plan, which will establish the lot layout and sizes, minimum setbacks, street network, and ingress/egress for the project area.
The conventional district that is compatible with the project’s land use designation would be the R-10 District, a single-family residential district with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. 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
(5,400
smallest lot)
18 (garage)
12 (living) 5 (no
aggregate)
Not specified (Min.
10’ plotted on
Development Plan)
14 R-10 District 10,000 20 (all) 5 (20
aggregate) 15 15
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TM 01-22)
The proposed project would result in the subdivision of approximately 20.42 acres into a new, 77-unit single-family residential neighborhood, including public streets, open space with a neighborhood park (Parcel B) and stormwater retention basin (Parcel F). The project will also be dedicating approximately 2.35 acres of land 136
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 4
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US along Sellers Avenue and the future Laurel Road extension right of way along the project’s northern boundary. Approximately 2.76 acres will be required for the stormwater detention basin and open space/park area. As proposed, the gross density (includes gross acreage before right of way dedication, parks, landscaping, etc.) would be approximately 3.77 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ga) with residential lot sizes ranging between 5,400 (32 lots) and 10,239 (Lot 8) square feet (sf), and an average residential lot size of approximately 5,970 sf.
Access to the neighborhood streets would be via Sellers Avenue between Lots 4 and 5.
An emergency vehicle access (EVA) to Sellers Avenue proposed near the southern boundary of the site south of Lot 1. This EVA is proposed to be improved with turf block and use decorative bollards to still allow non-vehicular access to pedestrians and bicyclists. Internal roads are proposed as a grid pattern with a cul-de-sac terminating in the northwestern edge of neighborhood near the retention basin and open space/park.
The east-west road along the southern boundary could potentially be designed into the property to the south at a future date. The applicant has proposed a homeowner’s association to maintain the detention basin, park area, and all common areas of landscaping.
Dedication and improvements to Sellers Avenue will result in a 47-foot pavement width, including approximately 17 feet of the existing pavement on the east side of the centerline, and 32 feet of landscaping and a sidewalk on the project side. The applicant will also be dedicating 57 feet along the northern property line for the future improvements for the Laurel Road extension right of way, which will be a Citysponsored project crossing Laurel Road over the railroad tracks and connecting it to Sellers Avenue. The project will not be installing any of the Laurel Road improvements at this time, except for a sound wall on the private properties.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FDP 01-22)
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). Typically, 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 an 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 includes a Development Plan that shows plotting of the different floor plans. The FDP will also establish the general neighborhood layout design, number and size of lots, types of residential structures, and other project-specific details. Any requested change to the approved FDP would be reviewed by the Planning Commission/City 137
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 5
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Council where that body would determine whether the change is substantial enough to warrant a public hearing in order to further review the request. For this project, each of the three proposed plans are plotted at least 25 times, with Plans 2 and 3 each plotted 26 times.
DESIGN REVIEW (DR 01-22)
As part of the Design Review application, the applicant is proposing house floor plans, architecture, color and material schemes, and landscape plans, including for the overall site, typical front yards, and the proposed open space/park area. The Design Review also includes details for proposed plants, including trees, proposed along Sellers Avenue, project streets, and in the park area. Illustrations for good neighbor fencing, the boundary/sound wall proposed and conditioned along various portions of the perimeter of the development, a design for a cluster mailbox, and enhanced paving are also included.
The project includes four different floor plans ranging from 2,054 sf. to 2,833 sf. of livable area consisting of two one-story and two two-story plans. All plans include a front-facing 2-car garage door, and a minimum of four bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms.
Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed floor plans.
Table 2. Summary of Proposed Floor Plans
Livable sf. Livable sf. by
Floor (1st/2nd) Rooms Bathrooms Garage (sf./cars)
Plan 1 (4514) 2,054 2,054 / N/A 4 bedrooms 2.5 419 / 2
Plan 2 (4516) 2,176 2,176 / N/A 4 bedrooms 2.5 421 / 2
Plan 3 (4522) 2,493 1,135 / 1,358 4 bedrooms
1 loft 3 420 / 2
Plan 4 (4524) 2,833 1,166 / 1,667 5 bedrooms
1 loft/game room 3 661 / 3
Three architectural styles are used for the three floor plans. They are referred to as Spanish (Elevation “A”), Santa Barbara (Elevation “B”), and Farmhouse (Elevation “C”).
Each of the three architectural styles has three color and material themes tied specifically to that style. Figure 2 (following page) shows the conceptual streetscape per the Applicant’s Plans.
138
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 6
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Figure 2. Conceptual Streetscape per Applicant’s Plans
The Overall Landscape Plan shows approximately 170 new trees made up of 11 species, including front yard trees located near the private street lines. There is also an average of one ornamental tree located in each private front yard near the house.
Twenty-one 24” box trees are proposed along Sellers Avenue. Sound walls are labeled to be installed along Sellers Avenue, the railroad tracks, and the future improvement of Laurel Road. A condition of approval has been proposed that would require the height of the walls along Sellers Avenue and the railroad tracks (6- and 12-feet high, respectively) with the added requirement of an acoustical analysis to determine the required height of the wall along the future Laurel Road extension right of way that is consistent with the thresholds of the General Plan.
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.
139
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 7
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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 “A” to the IS/MND attached to this Staff Report. As stated in the document, based on the responses to comment, recirculation of the IS/MND was not warranted.
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 based on CEQA thresholds of significance. 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.
On April 4, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7-23 which included recommending the City Council adopt the Project’s MND along with the proposed entitlements, as conditioned. Adoption of the MND is included in the proposed resolution for approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan, and Design Review. 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 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 the project area. 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 $394,191.55 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;
140
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 8
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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 similar to newer single family residential neighborhoods that must address on-site stormwater detention and that provide for on-site park facilities. The internal road network will only serve the project site for the time being; however, it will allow for the potential connection to the properties to the south. The type of development associated with this density and lot size is expected to be desirable in that it includes a variety of home sizes, and the development includes an open space area and neighborhood pocket park. It falls somewhere in the middle of the density ranges of nearby residential neighborhoods. The density is lower than the existing neighborhood across the railroad tracks to the southwest, and it is higher than what is designated to the north and south, and to the east across Sellers Avenue in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Although it is both of a higher and lowers density to adjacent properties, it is within one density range of all surrounding properties within the City of Oakley. Due to the significant requirement for dedication along Sellers Avenue and the future right of way for the Laurel Road extension (approximately 2.35 acres), and the approximately 2.76 acres used by the stormwater detention treatment area 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.
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 architectural designs.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Rezone application.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
The Vesting Tentative Map (“VTM”) has been reviewed for compliance with all applicable codes including the Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The VTM’s gross density (approximately 3.77 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. 141
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 9
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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 right of way dedication and onsite stormwater retention basin, 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 Sellers Avenue along the project frontage. The project will also dedicate land for the future Laurel Road extension, which is an essential element to the City’s overall circulation patterns.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map application, as conditioned.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Final Development Plan (“FDP”) (sheet 2 of Applicant’s Plans) shows the plotting of the homes and P-1 District development regulations. Plans 1, 2, and 3 are each plotted 19 times. Plan 4 is plotted 20 times. Plans 1 and 2 are the single-story homes and combine to make up 38 of the 77 lots (49.4%) and eight (8) of the 15 corner lots (53%) in the neighborhood. Plotting at least 25% of the total homes and at least 50% of the corner lots as single-story homes both implement separate Oakley Residential Design Guidelines.
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 14 feet for the rear.
The “Minimum Setbacks” table on the FDP does not include the minimum corner side yard setback; however, the actually plotting of the homes shows it is always at minimum 10 feet and that minimum will be required on the eventual plot plans submitted for building permits. The setbacks to garages vary between 18 feet and 22 feet to the front property line. Several of the homes on irregular lots show even greater setbacks to the garage. Since the sidewalk is located about five (5) feet away from the front property line, the available driveway length for each home will be the front setback to the garage, plus an additional five (5) feet.
This Final Development Plan (“FDP”) makes up the plans that represent the underlying P-1 District. It will set forth the Development (Plotting) Plan, lot layout and sizes, and street network. It will also tie into the elements of the other entitlements, such as the Vesting Tentative Map and Design Review and make those details a part of the overall FDP. Future proposed amendments to the FDP are subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council as to whether they are substantial enough to require a public hearing or may be approved at a Staff level.
142
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 10
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Final Development Plan application, as conditioned.
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 are enclosed to houses that will be in this subdivision, except for the possibility of future development to the south where the entire entry street abuts the property line. Due to the existing railroad tracks and future Laurel Road extension, there are no planned connectors to the west or north.
Sellers Avenue abuts the east side where two entries are proposed (one that may be shared in the future by the property to the south). None of the houses will front onto Sellers Avenue or the future Laurel Road extension. Sounds walls are proposed along the railroad tracks and Sellers Avenue, and the project has been conditioned to also construct a wall along the future Laurel Road extension right of way subject to an acoustical study.
Residential Siting and Lot Design
Residential siting and lot design is important because it can create setback variations and add interest to the streetscape in a neighborhood. The applicant has established a minimum setback of 12 feet to the home and 18 feet to garages from the front property line which, as proposed with the existence of the parkway strip, is the back of sidewalk.
Side setbacks are set at a minimum 5 feet and rear setbacks at 14 feet. The P-1 District does not specify a corner side yard setback; however, based on the plotting plan, every corner lot has a home setback at least 10 feet from the corner side yard property line. In the same sense, all lots have an aggregate side yard setback of at least 15 feet. Also, the garages are aligned with the wider of the two side yards allowing for better side yard access adjacent to the garage, which is consistent with Oakley’s Municipal Code related to driveway extensions. Having the wider side yard adjacent to the garage is consistent with Oakley Residential Design Guidelines.
For front yard setback variation, each home’s footprint varies so no home will have a 12-foot setback to the living area combined with an 18-foot setback to the garage. For example, When the garage is at 18 feet for Plan 2, the living area will be at 14. For Plan 1, with the living area at 12 feet, the garage will be at 22 feet. For Plan 3, with the garage at 18 feet, the living area is at 16.5 feet. None of the proposed homes will result in a setback of the minimum for both the garage and main home. Given the short 143
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 11
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US distance between the garage and back of sidewalk created with an 18-foot setback to garages and a parkway strip, Staff is recommending the developer replace the parkway strip with a monolithic curb and sidewalk (more analysis on this in the Landscaping and Walls section below) so allow for an additional 5-feet of driveway between the garages and sidewalk.
Building mass is an element of lot siting and design and can 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 an assorted 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 with decorative board and batten.
Two common Oakley Design Guidelines look for new single family residential developments to achieve an overall minimum of 20% single-story homes and that at least 50% of all corner-lots be single-story homes. In the case of the proposed project, two of the four plans are single-story, and they are plotted on a total of 49% of the lots, and eight (8) of the 15 corner lots. Another guideline is to maintain at least a 15-foot setback between adjacent second story elements. There are 10 situations where twostory homes are directly side by side. Of those 10 situations, five of them have homes ten feet apart. This guideline is not 100% implemented but given the attempts to minimize adjacent two-story homes and keep the wider side yards adjacent to the garage, the applicant has attempted to implement the guideline into the design. A condition of approval has been proposed that will require to the applicant to attempt to replot the homes to provide the 15-foot spacing between adjacent two stories elements, but only if they can maintain the wider side yard adjacent to the garage and not impact other lots in the subdivision. Any inability to implement this guideline will need to be submitted to the City by the applicant and be subject to review and approval by both the Community Development Director and City Engineer before being accepted.
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 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 144
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 12
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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.
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.
Landscaping and Walls
The landscape plans provide for a mix of tree species and sizes to be planted along the Sellers Avenue frontage and throughout the subdivision. The Planning Commission recommended the parkway strip (landscaping between the street and sidewalk) be replaced with a monolithic curb/gutter/sidewalk design, which has been proposed in the current version of the project. The monolithic design results in more off-street parking space on the lot, less difficulty finding space for street trees, and less likelihood of poorly maintained landscaped areas, especially along corner lots.
The proposed sound walls for this
subdivision did not originally meet the
design criteria for new subdivisions. The
Planning Commission adopted a condition
that recommended the wall columns to
include stone veneer. In addition, after the
Planning Commission public hearing, Staff
received additional comments from the
public for a CMU-style wall at least along
Sellers Avenue and the future Laurel Road
extension. As a result of the Planning
Commission’s condition of approval and
public’s input, the applicant has proposed
a split-face CMU wall with stone veneer columns (see Figure 3).
Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Design Review application, as conditioned.
Figure 3. Example of Proposed CMU Sound
Wall
145
STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 13
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US 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 City Council approve the project titled, “Sellers Avenue Subdivision 9614 (RZ 01-22, TM 01-22, FDP 01-22, DR 01-22),” as conditioned through the following actions:
Introduce the proposed ordinance amending an existing P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District;
Adopt the proposed resolution adopting the project’s CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan, and Design Review applications.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Notice of Public Hearing
3. Applicant’s Plans
4. Sellers Avenue Subdivision - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Sellers Avenue Subdivision - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Exhibit “A”: Sellers Avenue Subdivision – Responses to Comments on IS/MND
6. Planning Commission Staff Report from April 4, 2023
7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 4, 2023
8. Planning Commission Resolution 7-23
9. Proposed Ordinance
10.Proposed Resolution with Exhibit “A” Mitigation Monitoring Program 146
Vicinity Map
Sellers Avenue Subdivision 9164
APN: 033-150-013
Sellers Ave.
147
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on July 11, 2023 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering application as described below:
Project Name: Sellers Avenue Subdivision (DeJesus) Rezone (RZ 01-22), Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01-22), Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22), and Design Review (DR 01-22).
Project Location: 5911 Sellers Avenue, Oakley, CA 94561. APNs 033-150-013.
Applicant: MLC Holdings, 2603 Camino Ramon, Ste. 140, San Ramon, CA 94583; Attn: Paul Manyisha; [email protected].
Request: Application by MLC Holdings requesting approval of: 1) a Rezone (RZ 01-22) to amend an existing P-1 District; 2) a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01-22) subdividing approximately
20.42 acres into 77 single residential lots, stormwater detention treatment area, and neighborhood park; 3) a Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22) in conjunction with the project’s P-1 District; and 4) Design Review (DR 01-22) for floor plans and architecture, and conceptual landscape plans. The proposed homes consist of two single-story and two two-story house plans each with three elevations. Floor plans range from 2,054 to 2,833 square feet of livable area. The project site is located at 5911 Sellers Avenue and is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District. (APNs: 033-150-013).
How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before July 5, 2023 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/ by navigating to the July 11, 2023 City Council agenda and clicking the project title link. (Note: City Hall is closed on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of each month). Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to and may testify at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to Ken Strelo, Planning Manager at the City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or by email to [email protected].
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. 148
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA
DEVELOPER
CIVIL ENGINEER
CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON
2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 866-0322
C0NTACT: COLT ALVERNAZ
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
VANDERTOOLEN ASSOCIATES
855 BORDEAUX WAY, SUITE 240
NAPA, CA 94558
(707) 224-2299
CONTACT: KATY MENDENHALL
MLC HOLDINGS, INC
2603 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 140
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 543-4012
CONTACT: PAUL MANYISHA
1. COVER SHEET - INDEX SHEET
2. P1.0 - FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CIVIL SHEETS (VESTING TENTATIVE MAP)
3. C1.0 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
4. C1.1 STREET SECTIONS & DETAILS
5. C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
6. C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
7. C4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
8. C5.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
LANDSCAPE SHEETS
9. L-1 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
10. L-2 TYPICAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
11. L-3 PARK ENLARGEMENT
12. L-4 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY & DETAILS
ARCHITECTURE SHEETS
13. A-1 STREET SCENE
14. A-2 PLAN 4514 - FLOOR PLAN
15. A-3 PLAN 4514 "A" - SPANISH ELEVATIONS
16. A-4 PLAN 4514 "B" - SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS
17. A-5 PLAN 4514 "E" - FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
18. A-6 PLAN 4514 - ROOF PLAN
19. A-7 PLAN 4516 - FLOOR PLAN
20. A-8 PLAN 4516 "A" - SPANISH ELEVATIONS
21. A-9 PLAN 4516 "B" - SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS
22. A-10 PLAN 4516 "E" - FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
23. A-11 PLAN 4516 - ROOF PLAN
24. A-12 PLAN 4522 - FLOOR PLAN
25. A-13 PLAN 4522 "A" - SPANISH ELEVATIONS
26. A-14 PLAN 4522 "B" - SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS
27. A-15 PLAN 4522 "E" - FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
28. A-16 PLAN 4522 - ROOF PLAN
29. A-17 PLAN 4524 - FLOOR PLAN
30. A-18 PLAN 4524 "A" - SPANISH ELEVATIONS
31. A-19 PLAN 4524 "B" - SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS
32. A-20 PLAN 4524 "E" - FARMHOUSE ELEVATIONS
33. A-21 PLAN 4524 - ROOF PLAN
34. A-22 WRITTEN COLOR SCHEMES
35. A-23 COLOR BOARDS - SPANISH
36. A-24 COLOR BOARDS - SANTA BARBARA
37. A-25 COLOR BOARDS - FARMHOUSE
SHEET INDEX
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
SACRAMENTO
(925) 866-0322
(916) 375-1877
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-0.DWG6/7/2023 10:05 AM
MAY 2023
City of Oakley
Planning Division
JUN 9, 2023
RECEIVED
149
61 41 57 SELLERS AVENUE
FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
RETENTION BASIN
OPEN SPACE
RAILROAD
23 21
18 16
12 10
7 3
77 73
70 67
64 55
51 48
44 39
35 32
29 27
24 22 20 17 14 11
8 5
4 1
76 74
71 69
66 62
60 58
53 50
46 42
45 37 38
34 30
19 15 13 9
6 2
75 72
68 65
63 59
56 54
52 49
47 43
25 40
31 33
36 26
28 F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\DP-1.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P1.0
TYPICAL 60' X 90' LOT SETBACKS TYPICAL 60' X 100' LOT SETBACKS
UNIT MIX SUMMARY
PLAN UNIT COUNT % MIX
MINIMUM SETBACKS
COVERAGE SUMMARY
PLAN BUILDING
FOOTPRINT*
TYP 60' X 90'
LOT COVERAGE
TYP 60' X 100'
LOT COVERAGE
GENERAL NOTES
150
SELLERS AVENUE
FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
RETENTION BASIN
OPEN SPACE
2 4
1 3
8 5
6 7
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18
29 27
28 30 33
37 36
35 34
32 31 44
41 40
39 43
42 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
49 50
51 52
47 48
66 68
67 63
65 64
74 73
72 71
70 77
76 75
PARCEL C
PARCEL A PARCEL D
PARCEL E
26 45
38 53 54
46 62
69 PARCEL F
PARCEL B
C1.0
GENERAL NOTES
CONTACTS
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-1.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
VICINITY MAP
SITE
151
ELEVATION PROFILE
A
A
56' STREET SECTION
32' STREET SECTION
X X X
X X X X X X X FUTURE LAUREL ROAD SECTION
SELLERS AVENUE SECTION
C1.1
STREET SECTIONS & DETAILS
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-1.1.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
TYPICAL TRANSITION FROM
VERTICAL CURB TO BEVELED CURB
SECTION A-A
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY DETAIL
TYPICAL DRIVEWAY & UTILITY LOCATION DETAIL
152
SELLERS AVENUE
LEGEND
EXISTING CONDITIONS
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-2.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456 0 60 120 180
C2.0
153
1 2
3 4
6 7
5 8
9 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 25 24 23 22 21 20
26 27
28 29
30 33 42
34 41
35 40
36 39
37 38
32 43
44 45
49 58
50 57
51 56
52 55
53 54
48 59
47 60
46 61
74 73
72 71
70 75
76 77
65 66
67 68
69 64
63 62
31 A A
B
B
C
C SELLERS AVENUE
FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
RETENTION BASIN
OPEN
SPACE
D
D
X
X
X
X X X
LOT 61
LOT 7
LOT 61
C3.0
LEGEND
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B SECTION C-C
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-3.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION CUT FILL
SECTION D-D SECTION B-B (FUTURE)
154
1 2
3 4
6 7
5 8
9 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 25 24 23 22 21 20
26 27
28 29
30 33 42
34 41
35 40
36 39
37 38
32 43
44 45
49 58
50 57
51 56
52 55
53 54
48 59
47 60
46 61
74 73
72 71
70 75
76 77
65 66
67 68
69 64
63 62
31 SELLERS AVENUE
FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
RETENTION BASIN
OPEN
SPACE
TYPICAL UTILITY SECTION
LEGEND PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-4.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
C4.0
155
1 2
3 4
6 7
5 8
9 14 13 12 11 10 19 18 17 16 15 24 23 22 21 20 25
26 27
28 29
30 33 42
34 41
35 40
36 39
37 38
32 43
44 45
49 58
50 57
51 56
52 55
53 54
48 59
47 60
46 61
74 73
72 71
70 75
76 77
65 66
67 68
69 64
63 62
31 SELLERS AVENUE
FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
OPEN
SPACE
DMA 1
RETENTION BASIN
C5.0
C.3 CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE
MANAGEMENT
AREA (DMA)
IMPERVIOUS AREA TOTAL
PERVIOUS
(SF)
TOTAL
DRAINAGE
AREA
(SF)
REQUIRED
TREATMENT
VOLUME
(CuFt)
PROVIDED
TREATMENT
VOLUME
(CuFt)
TREATMENT
PAVEMENT TYPE
(SF)
ROOF
(SF)
TOTAL
(SF)
LEGEND
DMA 1
25 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
100 YR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT
AREA (AC)
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENT
(C)
RAINFALL
DEPTH
(IN)
REQUIRED
VOLUME
(AC-FT)
PROVIDED
VOLUME
(AC-FT)
F:\3247-000\ACAD\TM\TM-5.DWG
DATE: MAY 2023
SELLERS AVENUE
SUBDIVISION 9614
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
37 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
0 60 120 180
156
Copyright 2023 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates. L-1 Oakley, California Project No. 05420 SELLERS AVENUE SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" NORTH 0' 25' 50' 100' vanderToolen Associates 855 Bordeaux Way Suite 240 Napa, CA 94558 tel: 707.224.2299 www.vandertoolen.com OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN MAY 26, 2023 12657 AlCOSTA BLVD., STE. 175 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 543-4004 GENERAL NOTES: · TREE LAYOUT IS SCHEMATIC. FINAL TREE LOCATIONS AND SPECIES SUBJECT TO CITY REVIEW. STREET TREES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 30' O.C. · ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS THAT ARE INSTALLED BY DEVELOPER SHALL RECEIVE IRRIGATION BY MEANS OF AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM(S). THE SYSTEM(S) WILL BE DESIGNED UTILIZING BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES TO MEET LOCAL AND UBC CODES. 6' HIGH GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE AND GATE. SEE DETAIL B, SHEET L-4. LATTICE-TOP ENHANCED GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE AT CORNER LOTS. SEE DETAIL E, SHEET L-4. SOUND WALL. SEE DETAIL A, SHEET L-4. SIGHT TRIANGLE, TYP. SEE SHEET L-3 FOR PARK ENLARGEMENT SOUND WALL ALONG RAILROAD WITH TALL SCREENING SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE WUCOLS PROPOSED TREE PALLETE * WATER NEEDS BASED ON THE WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION. CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL V. LOW DODONAEA VISCOSA `PURPUREA` STD. PURPLE HOPSEED BUSH 15 GAL LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE 24"BOX LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `ZUNI` ZUNI CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL LOW LAURUS X `SARATOGA` SARATOGA HYBRID LAUREL 24"BOX LOW LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24"BOX MOD PISTACIA CHINENSIS `RED PUSH` RED PUSH CHINESE PISTACHE 24"BOX LOW PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA` LONDON PLANE TREE 24"BOX MOD PRUNUS CERASIFERA `KRAUTER VESUVIUS` PURPLE LEAF PLUM 15 GAL MOD QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24"BOX V. LOW RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA `MAGNIFICENT` MAGNIFICENT INDIAN HAWTHORN 15 GAL MOD ENHANCED PAVING. SEE DETAIL C, SHEET L-4. CBU MAILBOXES. SEE DETAIL D, SHEET L-4. TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE, REFER TO SHEET L-2 TUBE STEEL FENCE AROUND RETENTION BASIN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AT CORNER OF LAUREL ROAD & SELLERS AVENUE EXTENDED SIDEWALK FOR FUTURE CONNECTION EVA WITH TURF BLOCK AND BOLLARDS 157
CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA CEANOTHUS SPP. GALVEZIA SPECIOSA LOROPETALUM SPP. SALVIA SPP. ALOE SPP. ANIGOZANTHOS SPP. BOUTELOUA G. 'BLONDE AMBITION' CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA HELIANTHEMUM NUMMULARIUM NEPETA X FAASSENII FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS JUNCUS PATENS SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM L-2 Oakley, California Project No. 05420 SELLERS AVENUE SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH 0' 10' 20' 40' vanderToolen Associates 855 Bordeaux Way Suite 240 Napa, CA 94558 tel: 707.224.2299 www.vandertoolen.com TYPICALS LANDSCAPE PLAN CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN MAY 26, 2023 12657 AlCOSTA BLVD., STE. 175 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 543-4004 GENERAL NOTES: · TREE LAYOUT IS SCHEMATIC. FINAL TREE LOCATIONS AND SPECIES SUBJECT TO CITY REVIEW. STREET TREES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 30' O.C. · ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS THAT ARE INSTALLED BY DEVELOPER SHALL RECEIVE IRRIGATION BY MEANS OF AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM(S). THE SYSTEM(S) WILL BE DESIGNED UTILIZING BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES TO MEET LOCAL AND UBC CODES. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE WUCOLS PROPOSED TREE PALLETE * WATER NEEDS BASED ON THE WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION. CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL V. LOW DODONAEA VISCOSA `PURPUREA` STD. PURPLE HOPSEED BUSH 15 GAL LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE 24"BOX LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `ZUNI` ZUNI CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL LOW LAURUS X `SARATOGA` SARATOGA HYBRID LAUREL 24"BOX LOW LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24"BOX MOD PISTACIA CHINENSIS `RED PUSH` RED PUSH CHINESE PISTACHE 24"BOX LOW PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA` LONDON PLANE TREE 24"BOX MOD PRUNUS CERASIFERA `KRAUTER VESUVIUS` PURPLE LEAF PLUM 15 GAL MOD QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24"BOX V. LOW RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA `MAGNIFICENT` MAGNIFICENT INDIAN HAWTHORN 15 GAL MOD SIGHT TRIANGLE STREET TREE, TYP. MULCH AT SIDE YARD GATE ACCENT TREE, TYP. 4' WIDE CONCRETE WALK GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE & GATE PLAN 4524 PLAN 4522 PLAN 4516 PLAN 4514 Copyright 2023 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates. 158
Copyright 2023 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates. L-3 Oakley, California Project No. 05420 SELLERS AVENUE SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" NORTH 0' 10' 20' 40' vanderToolen Associates 855 Bordeaux Way Suite 240 Napa, CA 94558 tel: 707.224.2299 www.vandertoolen.com PARK ENLARGEMENT CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN MAY 26, 2023 12657 AlCOSTA BLVD., STE. 175 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 543-4004 NTS
SELLERS AVENUE FUTURE LAUREL ROAD
RAILROAD KEY MAP GENERAL NOTES: · TREE LAYOUT IS SCHEMATIC. FINAL TREE LOCATIONS AND SPECIES SUBJECT TO CITY REVIEW. STREET TREES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 30' O.C. · ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS THAT ARE INSTALLED BY DEVELOPER SHALL RECEIVE IRRIGATION BY MEANS OF AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM(S). THE SYSTEM(S) WILL BE DESIGNED UTILIZING BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES TO MEET LOCAL AND UBC CODES. AGE 5-12 PLAY EQUIPMENT BENCH ON CONCRETE PAD, TYP. PICNIC TABLE, TYP. TRASH RECEPTACLES A.D.A. PICNIC TABLE CONCRETE PAVING RECREATIONAL TURF, TYP. SOUND WALL ALONG RAILROAD BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE WUCOLS PROPOSED TREE PALLETE * WATER NEEDS BASED ON THE WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION. CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL V. LOW DODONAEA VISCOSA `PURPUREA` STD. PURPLE HOPSEED BUSH 15 GAL LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE 24"BOX LOW LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `ZUNI` ZUNI CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL LOW LAURUS X `SARATOGA` SARATOGA HYBRID LAUREL 24"BOX LOW LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX 24"BOX MOD PISTACIA CHINENSIS `RED PUSH` RED PUSH CHINESE PISTACHE 24"BOX LOW PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA` LONDON PLANE TREE 24"BOX MOD PRUNUS CERASIFERA `KRAUTER VESUVIUS` PURPLE LEAF PLUM 15 GAL MOD QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24"BOX V. LOW RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA `MAGNIFICENT` MAGNIFICENT INDIAN HAWTHORN 15 GAL MOD BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE WUCOLS* ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA CEANOTHUS SPP. CISTUS SPP. DIETES SPP. GALVEZIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. LOROPETALUM SPP. PHORMIUM SPP. PITTOSPORUM SPP. RHAMNUS CALFORNICA RHAPHIOLEPIS SPP. ROSA SPP. SALVIA SPP. SOLLYA HETEROPHYLLA TEUCRIUM SPP. WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA MANZANITA DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH BUSH ANEMONE WILD LILAC ROCK ROSE FORTNIGHT LILY ISLAND SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA CHINESE FRINGE FLOWER NEW ZEALAND FLAX PITTOSPORUM COFFEE BERRY INDIA HAWTHORN LANDSCAPE ROSES SAGE BLUEBELL CREEPER GERMANDER COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 2 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL
LLLLLLLLM
MM
LM
M
LLLL
LLLM
M
LLLL * WATER NEEDS BASED ON THE WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION. DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS JUNCUS PATENS LEYMUS TRITICOIDES 'GREY DAWN' MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS PRUNELLA VULGARIS ROSA CALIFORNICA SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM PLUGS PLUGS PLUGS PLUGS 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 2 GAL 1 GAL TUFTED HAIRGRASS IDAHO FESCUE BLUE RUSH CREEPING WILD RYE STICKY MONKEYFLOWER DEERGRASS SELFHEAL CALIFORNIA ROSE BLUE-EYED GRASS LLMLLLMLL ACACIA C. 'COUSIN ITT' ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM AGAVE SPP. ALOE SPP. ANIGOZANTHOS SPP. BOUTELOUA G. 'BLONDE AMBITION' CALAMGROSTIS A. 'KARL FOERSTER' CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA ERIOGONUM GRANDE RUBESCENS HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS LOMANDRA SPP. NANDINA D. 'LEMON LIME' NEPETA X FAASSENII PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' ZAUSCHNERIA CALIFORNICA LITTLE RIVER WATTLE YARROW AGAVE ALOE KANGAROO PAW BLUE GRAMA GRASS FEATHER REED GRASS ROCK PURSLANE BUCKWHEAT BLUE OAT GRASS DWARF MAT RUSH HEAVENLY BAMBOO CATMINT BEARDTONGUE CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL BERKELEY SEDGE BEARBERRY COTONEASTER SANTA BARBARA DAISY BEACH STRAWBERRY SUNROSE CREEPING MYOPORUM FAIRY FAN FLOWER LAMBS' EARS LOW COAST ROSEMARY CAREX DIVULSA COTONEASTER D. LOWFAST ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS HELIANTHEMUM NUMMULARIUM MYOPORUM P. 'PROSTRATUM' SCAEVOLA ' MAUVE CLUSTER' STACHYS BYZANTINA WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` TM SHRUBS ACCENTS GROUNDCOVERS BIO-RETENTION BASINS & SWALES PROPOSED SHRUB PALETTE PLAY EQUIPMENT PICNIC TABLE RECREATIONAL TURF 159
Copyright 2023 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates. L-4 Project No. 05420 vanderToolen Associates 855 Bordeaux Way Suite 240 Napa, CA 94558 tel: 707.224.2299 www.vandertoolen.com LANDSCAPE IMAGERY & DETAILS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Oakley, California MAY 26, 2023 SELLERS AVENUE 12657 AlCOSTA BLVD., STE. 175 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 543-4004 B
C
D
E
A SOUND WALL ENHANCED PAVING
160
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-1
#21012
161
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
PLAN 4514
LAU.
60"
COATS
FOYER
HALL
20'-1" x 20'-1"
GARAGE
WORK/
STUDY
PWDR.
WORK/
STUDY
ENTRY
PRIM.
BATH
W.I.C.
19'-8" L.F.
PANTRY
18" 18"
24"
8'
36"
24" 36" 36"
HALL
12'-0" x 14'-1"
DINING
BATH 2 HALL
PORCH
13'-10"x 10'-6"
BEDRM. 4
10'-11"x 10'-1"
BEDRM. 2
10'-1" x 11'-1"
BEDRM. 3
16'-1" x 13'-8"
PRIM. BEDRM.
16'-0" x 14'-1"
GREAT RM.
KITCHEN
30"
24"
12"
24"
45'-0"
52'-0"
19'-4"
6'-0"
11'-8"
4'-0"
62'-0"
8'-0"
14'-0"
2'-0"
4'-0" 6'-0"
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
FLOOR PLAN
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-2
#21012
162
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-3
#21012
163
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-4
#21012
164
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-5
#21012
165
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
ROOF PLANS
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-6
#21012
166
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
PLAN 4516
60"
BATH 2
WORK/
STUDY
FOYER
HALL
20'-1" x 20'-1"
GARAGE
PWDR. ENTRY
STORAGE
W.I.C.
29'-8" L.F.
PANTRY
18" 18"
24"
8'
36"
24" 36" 36"
12'-0" x 14'-1"
DINING
16'-0" x 14'-1"
GREAT RM.
PORCH
PRIM.
BATH
30"
12'-0" x 10'-5"
BEDRM. 3
12'-0" x 10'-6"
BEDRM. 4
11'-10"x 10'-3"
BEDRM. 2
16'-1" x 13'-8"
PRIM. BEDRM.
KITCHEN
24"
12"
24"
COATS
45'-0"
58'-0"
19'-4" 15'-0"
62'-0"
10'-8"
2'-0"
10'-0"
2'-0"
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
0 2 4 8
FLOOR PLAN
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-7
#21012
167
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-8
#21012
168
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-9
#21012
169
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-10
#21012
170
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
ROOF PLANS
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-11
#21012
171
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
PLAN 4522
W.I.C.
25'-6" L.F.
WORK/
BATH 2 STUDY
10'-11"x 11'-1"
BEDRM. 3
10'-8" x 11'-1"
BEDRM. 2
HALL
18'-7" x 12'-5"
LOFT
60"
PRIM. BATH
14'-1" x 17'-0"
PRIM. BEDRM.
LAU.
24" 12" 24"
DBL.
36"
13'-2" x 10'-1"
BEDRM. 4 BATH 3 8'
36"
PANTRY
36"
24"
18"
36"
18"
17'-2" x 17'-0"
GREAT RM.
20'-1" x 20'-1"
GARAGE
PORCH
FOYER
KITCHEN
COATS &
STORAGE
WORK/
STUDY
12'-0" x 17'-1"
DINING
39'-6"
45'-0"
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-12
#21012
172
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-13
#21012
173
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-14
#21012
174
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-15
#21012
175
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
ROOF PLANS
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-16
#21012
176
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
PLAN 4524
WORK/
STUDY
BATH 2
12'-10"x 11'-1"
BEDRM. 4
11'-0" x 12'-1"
BEDRM. 2
10'-11"x 11'-0"
BEDRM. 3
16'-1" x 14'-6"
PRIM. BEDRM.
PRIM. BATH
W.I.C.
28'-10" L.F.
14'-8" x 9'-0"
LOFT
LAU.
HALL
60"
18'-1" x 11'-8"
GAME RM.
24" 12" 24"
30"
18"
18"
36"
36"
ENTRY
10'-7" x 11'-8"
BEDRM. 5
PORCH
22'-1" x 20'-1"
GARAGE
FOYER
HALL
10'-0" x 19'-2"
TANDEM
GARAGE
BATH 3
STORAGE
PANTRY
10'-0" x 16'-9"
DINING
13'-3" x 18'-0"
GREAT RM.
36"
WORK/
STUDY
KITCHEN
36"
COATS
8'
STORAGE
36"
42'-0"
45'-0"
40'-0"
4'-0"
20'-10" 12'-0" 12'-2"
6'-0"
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-17
#21012
177
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-18
#21012
178
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-19
#21012
179
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-20
#21012
180
JOB #: 21012
Kevin L. Crook
Inc
klcarch.com
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
ROOF PLANS
0 2 4 8
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-21
#21012
181
WRITTEN COLOR SCHEMES
JOB # 21012
CREATED 10/3/2022
"A" ELEVATIONS
SPANISH SCHEME 16 SCHEME 17 SCHEME 18
PRIMARY STUCCO
SW7052
GRAY AREA
SW7005
PURE WHITE
SW6101
SANDS OF TIME
SECONDARY STUCCO
SW7046
ANONYMOUS
SW7504
KEYSTONE GRAY
SW6082
COBBLE BROWN STUCCO: OMEGA
FASCIA / TRIM /
GARAGE DOOR
SW7020
BLACK FOX
SW7034
STATUS BRONZE
SW6083
SABLE PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SW6061
TANBARK
SW7605
GALE FORCE
SW7580
CARNELIAN ROOF: EAGLE
EAGLE ROOF: LOW
PROF "S" MALIBU
2773
WALNUT CREEK BLD
2530
WEATHERED ADOBE
2636
PIEDMONT BLEND ROOF: WESTLAKE
WESTLAKE ROOF:
LOW PROF. "S" VILLA
1VICS6330
SALERNO CLAY
1VICS0024
DESERT SAGE
1VICS6464
CA MISSION BLEND VENEER: ELDORADO
"B" ELEVATIONS
SANTA BARBARA SCHEME 19 SCHEME 20 SCHEME 21
STUCCO
SW7558
MEDICI IVORY
SW7688
SUNDEW
SW6071
POPULAR GRAY
FASCIA / TRIM
SW9091
HALF-CAFF
SW9115
COWBOY BOOTS
SW7041
VAN DYKE BROWN
GARAGE DOOR
SW6068
BREVITY BROWN
SW2843
ROYCROFT BRASS
SW7040
SMOKEHOUSE
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SW2837
AURORA BROWN
SW0065
VOGUE GREEN
SW7076
CYBERSPACE
GABLE END DETAIL
SW6061
TANBARK
SW6061
TANBARK
SW6061
TANBARK
EAGLE ROOF: LOW
PROF "S" MALIBU
2636
PIEDMONT BLEND
2702
CALABAR BLEND
2689
BROWN RANGE
WESTLAKE ROOF:
LOW PROF. "S" VILLA
1VICS7330
VERONA CLAY
1VICS6169
CASA GRANDE BLD
1VICS3233
BROWN BLEND
"E" ELEVATIONS
FARMHOUSE SCHEME 28 SCHEME 29 SCHEME 30
STUCCO
SW7005
PURE WHITE
SW6254
LAZY GRAY
SW7632
MODERN GRAY
FASCIA / TRIM
SW7069
IRON ORE
SW7004
SNOWBOUND
SW7048
URBANE BRONZE
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING / GARAGE DR
SW7005
PURE WHITE
SW6256
SERIOUS GRAY
SW6074
SPALDING GRAY
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SW7069
IRON ORE
SW6608
RAVE RED
SW7625
MOUNT ETNA
BRICK: TUNDRA ASHLAND HARTFORD HARTFORD
EAGLE ROOF: SHAKE
PONDEROSA
SCP8805
SEATTLE BLEND
5699
CHARCOAL RANGE
5702
CALABAR BLEND
WESTLAKE ROOF:
FLAT SHAKE
1FBCJ4072
SAHARA QTZ BLD
1FBCJ1430
CHARCOAL BLEND
1FBCJ3181
SMOKEY TOPAZ BLD
TODAS LAS TAPAJUNTAS, CAñALERAS, CAñALONES, ETC.SERAN PINTADOS PARA IGUALAR A LA SUPERFICIE DE JUNTO
TODAS LAS RESTAURAS DE PINTURA SE CORTARAN EN LAS ESQUINAS INTERIORES
SELLER'S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
ALL FLASHING, GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE. ALL PAINT BREAKS TO BE CUT AT INSIDE CORNERS.
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-22
#21012
182
COLOR BOARDS - SPANISH
*COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CALIBRATION. REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAL
BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS.
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SPANISH
SCHEME #16
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
FASCIA / TRIM /
GARAGE DOOR
SECONDARY
STUCCO
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SPANISH
SCHEME #17
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
FASCIA / TRIM /
GARAGE DOOR
SECONDARY
STUCCO
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SPANISH
SCHEME #18
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
FASCIA / TRIM /
GARAGE DOOR
SECONDARY
STUCCO
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-23
#21012
183
COLOR BOARDS - SANTA BARBARA
*COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CALIBRATION. REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAL
BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS.
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SANTA BARBARA
SCHEME #19
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
GARAGE DOOR
FASCIA / TRIM
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
GABLE END DETAIL
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SANTA BARBARA
SCHEME #20
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
GARAGE DOOR
FASCIA / TRIM
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
GABLE END DETAIL
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
SANTA BARBARA
SCHEME #21
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
GARAGE DOOR
FASCIA / TRIM
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
GABLE END DETAIL
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-24
#21012
184
COLOR BOARDS - FARMHOUSE
*COLORS MAY VARY DUE TO SCREEN AND PRINTER
CALIBRATION. REFER TO PAINT CHIPS AND MATERIAL
BOARDS FOR ACTUAL COLORS.
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
FARMHOUSE
SCHEME #28
FASCIA / TRIM
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING /
GARAGE DOOR
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
BRICK
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
FARMHOUSE
SCHEME #29
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
BRICK
FASCIA / TRIM
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING /
GARAGE DOOR
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA OCT. 3, 2022
#21012
FARMHOUSE
SCHEME #30
FASCIA / TRIM
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING /
GARAGE DOOR
FRONT DOOR /
SHUTTERS
STUCCO BODY
ROOF
BRICK
SELLER’S AVENUE
OAKLEY, CA
06/06/2023
A-25
#21012
185
186
187
188
189
190
City of Oakley
Planning Division
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
November 2022
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento CA 95834
Office 916.372.6100 Fax 916.419.6108
191
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
November 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 1 B. SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.......................................... 5 D. DETERMINATION........................................................................................................... 5 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 6 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................15 I. AESTHETICS. ........................................................................................... 16 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.............................................. 19 III. AIR QUALITY. ........................................................................................... 21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ...................................................................... 30 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................... 37 VI. ENERGY................................................................................................... 40 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.............................................................................. 44 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................... 48 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ............................................... 51 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ....................................................... 55 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................... 59 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................. 60 XIII. NOISE....................................................................................................... 61 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................... 72 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. .................................................................................. 74 XVI. RECREATION. .......................................................................................... 77 XVII. TRANSPORTATION................................................................................... 78 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................ 84 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................... 86 XX. WILDFIRE. ................................................................................................ 90 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.............................................. 91 Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CalEEMod Results Appendix B – Planning Survey Report
Appendix C – CNDDB Search Results
Appendix D – Traffic Impact Analysis
192
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 November 2022
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Title: Sellers Avenue Subdivision (RZ 01-22, TM 01-22, FDP 01-22, DR 01-22)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakley
Planning Division
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Strelo
Planning Manager
(925) 625-7000
4. Project Location: 5911 Sellers Ave
Oakley, CA 94561
Accessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 033-150-013-2
5. Project Applicant Name and Address: Paul Manyisha
MLC Holdings
2603 Camino Ramon, Ste. 140
San Ramon, CA, 94583
6. General Plan Designation: Residential Low (RL)
7. Zoning Designation: Planned Unit Development (P-1)
8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The approximately 20.42-acre project site, identified by APN 033-150-013-2, is located at 5911 Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley, California. The site predominantly consists of undeveloped ruderal grassland with the exception of one farmhouse and two ancillary buildings in the northern portion of the site. Seven trees exist on-site. Surrounding existing land uses include scattered rural residences with small-scale agricultural uses to the north, south, and east. The project site is bound by the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) railroad tracks to the west. Single-family residences are located further west, beyond the BNSF railroad tracks. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as Residential Low (RL) and the site is zoned Planned Unit Development (P1).
10. Project Description Summary:
Development of the Sellers Avenue Subdivision (proposed project) would include the demolition of the existing on-site structures, as well as the subdivision of the project site
INITIAL STUDY
193
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 November 2022
into 77 single-family residential lots, Parcel A, and Parcel B. The project would also include the development of a retention basin and tot lot/picnic area in the northwest corner of the project site, and the off-site, northerly extension of water and sewer lines. The project would require approval of a Rezone to amend an existing P-1 District (RZ 01-22), a Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22), a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) (TM 01-22), as well as a Design Review (DR 01-22).
12. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), a project notification letter was distributed to the chairpersons of the following tribes on June 21, 2022: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and The Confederated Villages of Lisjan. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan responded with a request for additional information, and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe responded with a request to observe and participate in cultural resource studies. The Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone People responded with a request to consult on the project, and consultation is ongoing.
B. SOURCES
All technical reports and modeling results prepared for the project analysis are available at:
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/ceqa-documents/. The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND):
1. Antioch Unified School District. Facilities Master Plan. July 2018.
2. Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/hazard-viewer/. Accessed May 2022.
3. ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-summaries. Accessed August 2022.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update.
Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-qualityact-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed August 2022.
7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
8. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
9. California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019.
10. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2022. 194
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 November 2022
11. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Contra Costa County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. January 7, 2009.
12. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary: Potrero Hill Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3591. Accessed May 2022.
13. California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa. Accessed May 2022.
14. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.
November 2018.
15. California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Brentwood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California. 2018.
16. City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
September 2002.
17. City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan. Adopted January 11, 2022.
18. City of Oakley. Mobility White Paper, City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update.
December 2021.
19. City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015.
20. CityGate Associates. Deployment Performance and Headquarters Staffing Adequacy Study, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, California, Volume 1 Executive Summary. June 15, 2016.
21. Contra Costa Conservation and Development. 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map. Available at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-UnderContract. Accessed May 2022.
22. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2018 Annual Report. Available at:
https://cccfpd.org/2018-annual-report/. Accessed September 2022.
23. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&s ite_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+A ND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29. Accessed May 2022.
24. Diablo Water District. 2020 Facilities Plan. June 2020.
25. Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2022.
26. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006.
27. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0355G.
Effective May 18, 2022.
28. H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.
29. Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan. April 2017.
30. Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager, City of Oakley. Personal communication [email] with Rod Stinson, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. September 6, 2022.
31. MLC Holdings, Inc. DeJesus Property Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan. December 2021.
32. Moore Biological Consultants. Application Form and Planning Survey Report. May 2022.
33. Solano Archaeological Services, LLC. Cultural Resources Study – Sellers Avenue Development Project, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. December 14, 2021.
195
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 November 2022
34. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=oakley+califor nia. Accessed May 2022.
35. TJKM. Sellers Avenue Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis. August 1, 2022.
36. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia/POP010220#POP0102
20. Accessed August 2022.
37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed August 2022.
196
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 November 2022
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Ken Strelo, Planning Manager City of Oakley
Printed Name For
November 3, 2022
197
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 November 2022
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This IS/MND provides an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project. The applicant has submitted this application to the City of Oakley, which is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA review. The IS/MND contains an analysis of the environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed project.
In December 2002, the City of Oakley adopted the Oakley General Plan and the Oakley General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR was a program-level EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the Oakley General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan.
In January 2022, the City of Oakley adopted the Focused General Plan Update and the Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND analyzed implementation of the Focused General Plan Update. The Focused General Plan Update amended the City’s existing General Plan to bring it into compliance with State requirements related to environmental justice, mobility, and climate change and adaptation.
The Focused General Plan Update also updated the setting information, and provided minor revisions to the goals, policies, and programs in the following elements: Land Use, Growth Management, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Noise, and Economic Development. All updates were applied to be consistent with current conditions, to remove policies and programs that have already been implemented or are no longer applicable, to update policies and programs to reflect current City practices, and to clarify the City’s approach to achieving the vision and goals of the General Plan.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(a), the City of Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, General Plan EIR, and Focused General Plan Update IS/ND are incorporated by reference. The aforementioned documents are available online at:
• https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/departments/planning-zoning/reference-documents/ • https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/general-plan-update/
The impact discussions for each section of this IS/MND have been largely based on information in the Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, Oakley General Plan EIR, and Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, as well as technical studies prepared for the proposed project.
The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND would be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA, and the mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project. In addition, a project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be adopted in conjunction with approval of the project. 198
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 November 2022
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a comprehensive description of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, including the project location and setting, and project components.
Project Location and Setting
The project site, further identified by APN 033-150-013-2, is located at 5911 Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley, California (see Figure 1). The site consists of approximately 20.42 acres of predominantly undeveloped ruderal grassland. One farmhouse structure, two ancillary buildings, fencing, are found in the northern portion of the site, and seven trees exist on-site. The topography of the site is relatively flat.
Surrounding existing land uses include scattered rural residences with small-scale agricultural uses to the north, south, and east of the project site (see Figure 2). The BNSF railroad tracks serve as the western border of the project site. Single-family residences are located further west, beyond the BNSF railroad tracks. The project site is located approximately 3.52 miles east of State Route (SR) 4 and approximately 4.08 miles southeast of SR 160. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site RL and the site is zoned P-1.
Project Components
The proposed project would include the demolition of the on-site structures, removal of seven onsite trees, and subdivision of the project site into 77 residential lots, an open space lot, and one lot dedicated for internal roadways. The project would also include the development of a retention basin and tot lot/picnic area in the northwest corner of the project site, and the off-site northerly extension of water and sewer lines within Sellers Avenue. The proposed project would require approval of a Rezone to amend the existing P-1 District, Final Development Plan (FDP 01-22), a VTM (TM 01-22), and Design Review (DR 01-22). The following sections describe the foregoing project components.
Rezone/Final Development Plan
The proposed project would include a Rezone to amend the existing P-1 District and a Final Development Plan. The Rezone would allow lots under 6,000 square feet (sf). Preparation of a Final Development Plan is required for developments in the P-1 District pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.1.1002.h.3.
Vesting Tentative Map
The VTM would divide the project site into 77 single-family residential lots, Parcel A, and Parcel B (see Figure 3). The single-family lots would range in size from 5,400 sf to 10,237 sf. Parcel A would consist of the internal private circulation network, which would provide access to each lot.
Parcel B, located in the western portion of the project site, would contain a tot-lot/picnic area, an open space area, and a retention basin. Sound walls would be installed along the eastern and western site boundaries.
Below is additional detail regarding the site access and circulation, landscaping, and utility infrastructure.
199
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8 November 2022
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
200
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9 November 2022
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
201
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 November 2022
Figure 3
Vesting Tentative Map
202
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 November 2022
Site Access and Circulation
Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided by a new roadway off of Sellers Avenue.
An internal private roadway system would be constructed in Parcel A of the project site to provide access to each unit. The internal circulation system would generally provide 36 feet of travel lane and five-foot-wide sidewalks on each side.
Landscaping
All existing on-site trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Landscaping improvements would be provided throughout the project site and along residential frontages (see Figure 4). A variety of trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant landscaping would be provided along internal roadways including, but not limited to, Lagestroemia Indica x Fauriei ‘Natchez’ (Natches Crape Myrtle), Lagestroemia Indica x Fauriei ‘Zuni’ (Zuni Crape Myrtle), and Laurus x ‘Saratoga’ (Saratoga Hybrid Laurel), and Pistacia Chinensis Red Push’ (Red Push Chinese Pistache).
Dodonae Viscosa ‘Purpurea’ STD (Purple Hopseed Bush) trees would align the main access point into the project site. All landscaping would comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
The tot-lot/picnic area, located on Parcel B, would consist of recreational turf, paved concrete walkways, picnic tables and a seating bench, trash receptacles, and play equipment for children ages five to 12.
Utilities
A preliminary utility plan has been prepared for the proposed project and is included as Figure 5.
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Diablo Water District (DWD).
The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch water lines throughout the project site and 1,880 linear feet (LF) of a northerly 24-inch water line in Sellers Avenue. The water system would connect to the existing 24-inch water main in E. Cypress Road.
Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site and 2,600 LF of a northerly eight-inch sewer line in Sellers Avenue. The new sewer network would connect to the existing sanitary sewer main in E. Cypress Road.
The off-site extension of the water and sewer lines in Sellers Avenue would occur entirely within the existing right-of-way (ROW).
A Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 6). Stormwater from the impervious areas within the site would be collected in new storm drain inlets/catch basins and directed through storm drain lines towards the retention basin located in the westernmost corner of the site. The retention basin would be landscaped with compost and sandy loam pursuant to Bioretention Soil Media Specification in the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook in order to effectively treat stormwater. The retention basin and roadway networks would be designed according to the criteria in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to treat stormwater on the project site.
203
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 November 2022
Figure 4
Landscape Plan
204
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 November 2022
Figure 5
Preliminary Utility Plan
205
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14 November 2022
Figure 6
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
206
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15 November 2022
Design Review
Per Section 9.1.1604 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be subject to Design Review by the City. Specifically, the site plan would be analyzed based on elements of design, development location, arrangement of all structures, and design in harmony with surrounding facilities. The purpose of the regulations is to allow design review of all developments, signs, buildings, structures, and other facilities in order to further enhance the City’s appearance, and the livability and usefulness of properties.
Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Oakley:
• Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • Approval of a Rezone (RZ) amending the P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District; • Approval of a Final Development Plan (FDP);
• Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM); and
• Approval of Design Review (DR).
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
207
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 November 2022
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
a. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic resource would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic resource. A scenic resource includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency.
The City’s predominantly flat landscape is rich in scenic resources. Oakley’s scenic resources include the waterways of the Delta, Dutch Slough, Marsh Creek, and Contra Costa Canal, habitat areas, and open space land. Other scenic resources include the view of Mount Diablo west of the City.1 Views of the Delta, Dutch Slough, Marsh Creek, and the Contra Costa Canal, are not available from the project site.
Mount Diablo can be viewed above the roofline towards the southwest horizon by motorists travelling along Sellers Avenue. However, public views of Mount Diablo would not be obstructed by development of the proposed project given the proposed building heights in comparison to the scale of Mount Diablo.
Furthermore, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, potential impacts to scenic vistas and visual character associated with future development of the project site were already evaluated and considered in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that the General Plan’s goals, policies, and programs would reduce any potential impacts on the aesthetic qualities to a less-than-significant level.2
Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to the project having a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, portions of SR 580 and 680 are listed as Officially Designated as State Scenic Highways while SR 4 and SR 160 are 1 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan [pg. 6-24]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 2 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3-24]. September 2002. 208
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 November 2022
listed as Eligible designations.3 The project site is located approximately 17.80 miles north of SR 580 and 19.64 miles east of SR 680. Views of the project site from either highway are not available due to the substantial distance and intervening urban development.
Development of the proposed project would, therefore, not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. The project site is located within a developed area of the City. Therefore, the applicable CEQA consideration is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations related to scenic quality.
The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as RL 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 includes a 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 generally consistent with the residential development type allowed in the surrounding RL designated sites.
Implementation of the proposed project would also require Design Review, which is a City regulation related to scenic quality. Design Review would ensure that the aesthetic and architectural design of the development would be compatible with surrounding development. The proposed project would include landscaping features at the project site frontage and within the project site that would be similar to existing features in the development west of the site, and proposed residences would be designed in keeping with the surrounding residential land uses.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic qualities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Substantial sources of light do not currently exist on the project site, as the site is mostly undeveloped except for the farmhouse and associated structures. However, off-site light sources may include streetlights and traffic along Sellers Avenue, the BNSF railroad, scattered rural housing to the north, south and east, as well as more intensive light sources from the residential developments to the west. Development of the project site with 77 single-family residences and the internal road system would add new sources of light and glare to the site where few currently exist. The proposed project is anticipated to include streetlights along internal roadways and the project frontage, as well as interior lights from windows of the proposed residences. Anticipated light sources are expected to be similar to that of the residential developments to the west.
Pursuant to Section 9.1.1604 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to undergo a Design Review to ensure that development of the project would be in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines, which, among other things, establishes the City’s standard for residential streetlights and limits residential lighting for security purposes. In addition, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the impacts of new sources of light or glare 3 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed May 2022.
209
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 November 2022
associated with future development of the project site were already evaluated and considered in the General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND analysis. Therefore, any creation of new sources of light and glare by the proposed project would be considered a lessthan-significant impact. 210
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 November 2022
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a,e. Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as “Farmland of Local Importance.”4 The DOC defines Farmland of Local Importance as “land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.” The site does not contain Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the project site is designated RL, zoned P-1, and does not include forested land. Overall, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use or result in the loss of forest land to non-forest use. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b. The project site is zoned P-1, which does not permit agricultural land uses. In addition, the site is not under an active Williamson Act contract.5 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c,d. The project site is not zoned forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no 4 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2022. 5 Contra Costa Conservation and Development. 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-Under-Contract. Accessed May 2022.
211
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 November 2022
impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.
212
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21 November 2022
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Oakley is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure 213
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 November 2022
continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10 and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 1. By exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 1
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/yr)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.
Emissions of particulate matter can be split into two categories: fugitive emissions and exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance for exhaust are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that BAAQMD does not maintain quantitative thresholds for fugitive emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, rather, BAAQMD requires all projects within the district’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2022.1 - a Statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. Where project-specific information is available, such information is applied in the model. The proposed project’s modeling assumed the following:
• Construction would begin in January 2023 and occur over approximately 2.5 years;6
• Demolition would involve the removal of approximately 8,000 sf of building material;
• The off-site infrastructure improvements would involve 0.5-mile of ground disturbance;
• Operational trip generation rates were updated to 9.43 vehicle trips per unit, consistent with the project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM; • Wood-burning fireplaces would not be included; and
6 It is noted that actual construction of the proposed project would likely commence later than January 2023.
However, given the ongoing trend of increasingly stringent requirements for heavy-duty equipment engines, this assumption is considered conservative, and actual construction-related emissions would likely be less than those presented herein.
214
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23 November 2022
• The project would comply with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), the 2019 CALGreen Code, and the MWELO.
The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well. All CalEEMod modeling results are included as Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod modeling results, buildout of the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2.
As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Construction
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 5.07 54 NO
NOX 44.5 54 NO
PM10* 1.96 82 NO
PM2.5* 1.80 54 NO
Notes:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Sources: CalEEMod, September 2022 (see Appendix A).
All projects within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs, which would be required by the City as conditions of approval:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take 215
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 November 2022
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs listed above for the project’s construction activities, would help to further minimize construction-related emissions.
Overall, because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for construction emissions, project construction would not result in a significant air quality impact.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, buildout of the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, operations of the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Thus, operations of the project would not be considered to conflict with air quality plans during project operations.
Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 7.26 1.25 54 10 NO
NOX 4.13 0.68 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.14 0.02 82 15 NO
PM2.5 * 0.14 0.02 54 10 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, September 2022 (see Appendix A).
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1, the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Because the proposed project would result in both construction-related and operational emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, construction and operations of 216
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25 November 2022
the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. According to BAAQMD, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the air quality plans.
Because construction and operations of the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant, and impacts would be considered less than significant. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family residences located to the west, across the railroad tracks, and the scattered residences to the north, east, and south of the project site boundary. The closest residential unit to the project site is located approximately 55 feet south of the site boundary. The closest receptor to where the off-site infrastructure improvements would occur is located approximately 30 feet to the west.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, TAC, and criteria pollutants, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.
To provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads 217
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 November 2022
or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
While BAAQMD has established the foregoing screening criteria for potential impacts, it should be noted that the SFBAAB has been in attainment of California AAQS (CAAQS) and National AAQS (NAAQS) for CO for more than 20 years.7 Due to the continued attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS, and advances in vehicle emissions technologies, the likelihood that any single project would create a CO hotspot is minimal. With regard to the proposed project, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 802 daily vehicle trips, 60 of which would be during the AM peak hour, and 80 during the PM peak hour.8 The addition of 140 total peak hour trips per day generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to increase traffic volumes at any nearby intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited due to tunnels, underpass, or similar features do not exist in the project area. Therefore, based on the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for localized CO emissions, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM.
The proposed project does not include any operations that would be considered a substantial source of TACs. Accordingly, operations of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of TACs.
Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.
However, as discussed above, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-summaries. Accessed August 2022. 8 TJKM. Sellers Avenue Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis. August 1, 2022. 218
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27 November 2022
of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would likely be limited to approximately three years. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources.
During construction, only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time.
Operation of construction equipment would occur on such portions of the site intermittently throughout the course of a day over the overall construction period. Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for any long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, sensitive receptors in the area would not be exposed to pollutants for a permanent or substantially extended period of time.
Furthermore, any one nearby sensitive receptor would be exposed to varying concentrations of DPM emissions throughout the construction period. According to BAAQMD, research conducted by CARB indicates that DPM is highly dispersive in the atmosphere. Thus, emissions at the project site would be substantially dispersed at the nearest sensitive receptors, and the concentration of DPM at the nearest sensitive receptors would be lower than the concentration of DPM at the source of emissions.
Considering the limited nature of construction activities, the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the project site, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time, during development the project, would be low. For the aforementioned reasons, project construction would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the NAAQS and CAAQS, and are designed to aid the district in achieving attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS.9 Although the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are intended to aid achievement of the NAAQS and CAAQS for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment, the thresholds of significance do not represent a level above which individual project-level emissions would directly result in public health impacts. Nevertheless, a project’s compliance with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication that criteria pollutants released as a result of project implementation would not inhibit attainment of the health-based regional NAAQS and CAAQS. Because project-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, and, thus, would not inhibit attainment of regional NAAQS and CAAQS, the criteria pollutants emitted during project implementation would not be anticipated to result in measurable health impacts to sensitive receptors. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants.
Conclusion
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 219
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 November 2022
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants, including localized CO, TACs, or criteria pollutants, during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d. Emissions of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission that have the potential to cause dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in questions ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.
Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.10 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.
However, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted to the hours of 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays per Section 4.2.208 of the City of Oakley Municipal Code. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities.
BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have not been received by the APCO for one year. The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1].
May 2017.
220
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29 November 2022
With respect to dust, as noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s BCMMs. Such measures would act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within project site, among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Although the project would require soil hauling, all haul trucks would be covered to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during transport. Following project construction, vehicles operating within the project site would be limited to paved areas of the site, and non-paved areas would be landscaped. Thus, project operations would not include sources of dust that could adversely affect a substantial number of people.
For these reason, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 221
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 November 2022
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The following discussion based primarily on a Planning Survey Report (PSR), prepared by Moore Biological Consultants for the proposed project.11 The PSR is included as Appendix B to this IS/MND. The PSR did not evaluate the off-site improvement area because all ground disturbance would occur within the existing ROW, where development has already occurred, and sensitive biological resources do not exist.
a,f. Currently, the project site consists of approximately 20.42 acres of predominately undeveloped ruderal grassland that was previously used for agriculture. One farmhouse structure and two ancillary buildings are located in the northern portion of the site. Seven trees are located on-site, six of which surround the on-site farmhouse structure and one in the northeastern corner of the site.
Special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Both acts afford protection to listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of 11 Moore Biological Consultants. Application Form and Planning Survey Report. May 2022. 222
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31 November 2022
Conservation Concern, sensitive species included in USFWS Recovery Plans, and CDFW special-status invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines are also considered special-status species. In addition, plant species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) categories 1A, 1B, 2B, 3, and 4 are considered special-status plant species and are protected under CEQA.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCCHCP/NCCP), which is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources in the County, including special-status species. Raney Planning and Management conducted a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the project site quadrangle, Brentwood. Based on the results of the CNDDB search, 10 special-status wildlife species and eight special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site (see Appendix C). Of the 18 special-status species that could occur within the vicinity of the project site, eight species (two special-status plant species and six specialstatus wildlife species) are covered under the ECCCHCP/NCCP and 10 species (six special-status plant species and four special-status wildlife species) are not covered under the ECCCHCP/NCCP.
In February 2015, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy prepared an ECCCHCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species.12 The purpose of the assessment was to provide a programmatic, cumulative CEQA effects analysis for CEQA species not covered by the HCP/NCCP. The 2015 ECCCHCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that mitigation measures required in the ECCCHCP/NCCP also provide mitigation for non-covered species; therefore, projects consistent with the ECCCHCP/NCCP would have a less-than-significant impact on other potential special-status species. As a result, because the project area is covered by the ECCCHCP/NCCP, the 18 special-status species that were identified to have the potential to occur in the project area, as noted above, are not discussed further herein.
According to the 2015 ECCCHCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species, for all but two of the potential special-status species addressed (Lime Ridge navarretia [Navarretia gowenii] and the Lime Ridge eriastrum [Eriastrum ertterae]), impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. Because of uncertainty regarding the distribution of the Lime Ridge navarretia and the Lime Ridge eriastrum, the 2015 ECCCHCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that a potentially significant impact could occur related to the two aforementioned species. Based on the CNDDB search conducted by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., known occurrences of Lime Ridge navarretia or Lime Ridge eriastrum did not occur within the project site quadrangle.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact the species. Based on the conclusions of the 2015 ECCCHCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species and the absence of the Lime Ridge navarretia and Lime Ridge eriatrum in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on any potential special-status wildlife species and potential special-status plant species 12 H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.
223
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32 November 2022
not covered by the ECCCHCP/NCCP that could occur within the vicinity of the project site because the proposed project would be required to comply with the ECCCHCP/NCCP.
In compliance with the ECCCHCP/NCCP, the PSR prepared for the proposed project by Moore Biological Consultants included all species covered under the ECCCHCP/NCCP.
According to the PSR, approximately 19.78 acres of the site are categorized by the Grassland (Ruderal) land cover type, 0.64 acres of the site are considered Developed (Urban) (see Figure 7).
Based on the on-site land cover types, Moore Biological Consultants determined that covered plant species do not have the potential to occur on-site. As a result, special-status plants are not discussed further. However, based on the on-site land cover types, Moore Biological Consultants conducted planning-level surveys on the project site for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle.
Special-Status Wildlife
The on-site ruderal grassland and on-site trees could provide potential habitat for western burrowing owl (Athene cunnicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In addition, other avian species protected by the MBTA could use the existing grassland as foraging and potential nesting habitat.
Western Burrowing Owl
The primary habitat requirement for western burrowing owls is small mammal burrows that the species uses for nesting. Typically, the species uses abandoned ground squirrel burrows, but western burrowing owls have been known to dig burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, western burrowing owls may use pipes, culverts, and piles of material as artificial burrows. Western burrowing owls breed semi-colonially from March through August.
The project site contains ruderal grassland within the range of western burrowing owl habitat. However, the CNDDB search did not include records of the species within 500 feet of the project site. The nearest record of burrowing owl in the CNDDB search area is approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the project site. As part of the PSR, the site was inspected for burrowing owls and ground squirrel burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (i.e., white wash, pellets, feathers). Few ground squirrel burrows were observed during the survey. However, burrowing owls or burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy were not observed during the survey. Nonetheless, because suitable habitat for western burrowing owl exists on the project site, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls would be required by the ECCCHCP/NCCP to confirm presence or absence of the species. If burrowing owls are present on or near the project site, the proposed project could result in an adverse impact to the species.
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk is a summer resident and migrant in California’s Central Valley and scattered portions of the southern California interior. 224
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33 November 2022
Figure 7
Land Cover Types
225
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 November 2022
Areas typically used for nesting include the edge of narrow bands of riparian vegetation, isolated patches of oak woodland, lone trees, planted and natural trees associated with roads, farmyards and sometimes adjacent residential areas. Foraging occurs in open habitats, including grasslands, open woodlands, and agricultural areas.
According to the PSR, the site contains areas of ruderal grassland and is along the western edge of the range of Swainson’s hawk habitat. Seven trees, as well as several potential nest trees near and visible from the site, are identified as potentially suitable for nesting. As part of the PSR, trees within the project site and vicinity were inspected for raptor stick nests. Raptor stick nests were not observed in the on-site trees or in trees visible from the site. Swainson’s hawks were not observed during the field survey, which was conducted outside of the nesting season for the species. The CNDDB search conducted as part of the PSR did not include any occurrences of Swainson’s hawks within 1,000 feet of the project site. However, one occurrence was found within 0.5 miles of the project site. Nonetheless, pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk are required by the ECCCHCP/NCCP to confirm the presence or absence of the species. If the species were to occur on or near the project site, implementation of the proposed project could result in direct take or nest abandonment, which would be considered an adverse impact.
Golden Eagle
Golden eagles are fairly adaptable in habitat but often reside in areas with few shared ecological characteristics, such as mountains and cliffs. In addition, golden eagles tend to avoid developed areas. The project site contains ruderal grassland that is located within the range of the golden eagle.
As noted above, the seven on-site trees as well as trees within the project vicinity which are potentially suitable for nesting, were inspected for raptor stick nests, and raptor stick nests were not observed. In addition, golden eagles were not observed on-site, and the CNDDB search did not include any occurrences of golden eagles within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Furthermore, the species typically nests more often on cliffs in remote natural areas than in trees near urban areas. Nonetheless, pre-construction surveys for golden eagle are required by the ECCCHCP/NCCP to confirm presence or absence of the species. If golden eagle is present on or near the project site, the proposed project could result in an adverse impact to the species.
Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds
The trees on-site may be used by other migratory birds protected by the MBTA, including the white-tailed kite, for nesting. As part of the proposed project, all trees on site would be removed. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of State and federal laws, and in the event that such species occur on or near the project site during the breeding season, project construction activities could result in an adverse effect to species protected under the MBTA.
ECCCHCP/NCCP Requirements
Procedures for pre-construction surveys, best management practices, and construction monitoring, as well as Applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures for species covered by the ECCCHCP/NCCP are outlined in Section 6.3.3 Surveys for Construction 226
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 November 2022
Monitoring and Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measures of the ECCCHCP/NCCP.13 The project would be required to comply with all ECCCHCP/NCCP requirements, including conducting pre-construction surveys prior to ground disturbance activities to establish whether nests of Swainson’s hawks and golden eagles are occupied. If nests are occupied, the project would be required to comply with the minimization requirements and construction monitoring in the ECCCHCP/NCCP. In compliance with the ECCCHCP/NCCP, the project would also be required to follow Applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures if nests are located within 1,000 feet of the project site.
All birds covered by the ECCCHCP/NCCP (tricolored blackbird, western burrowing owl, golden eagle, and Swainson’s hawk) are also considered migratory birds and are subject to the prohibitions of the MBTA. Therefore, actions conducted under the ECCCHCP/NCCP comply with the provisions of the MBTA. Conservation Measure 1.12, Implement Best Management Practices for Rural Road Maintenance, and Conservation, Measure 1.14, Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside of the UDA, of the ECCCHCP/NCCP incorporates avoidance guidelines for compliance with the MBTA.
Because the project would comply with all ECCCHCP/NCCP requirements, the project would also comply with the provisions of the MBTA.
Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to pay all applicable fees according to the Fee Zone Map of the ECCCHCP/NCCP prior to construction and in compliance with Section 9.2.712 of the Oakley Municipal Code. The developer would be required to pay the appropriate fees based on the applicable fee calculator at the time of development.
Conclusion
Based on the above, western burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawks, golden eagles, and other nesting migratory birds and raptors, have the potential to occur on-site. However, the project would comply with ECCCHCP/NCCP requirements, and pre-construction surveys would be required. The project would be required to comply with the ECCCHCP/NCCP’s Applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and nesting and migratory birds. The proposed project would comply with all applicable ECCCHCP/NCCP requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS, nor conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. As such, a less-thansignificant impact would result. b,c. The project site consists of ruderal grassland habitats and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including wetlands, or potentially jurisdictional waters of the State.14 Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 13 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006. 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed August 2022. 227
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 November 2022
d. The project site consists of predominantly undeveloped ruderal grassland with the exception of one farmhouse and two ancillary buildings in the northern portion of the site, and is bordered by scattered rural residences with small-scale agricultural uses to the north, south, and east, and single-family residences beyond the BNSF railroad tracks along the western site boundary. Furthermore, the project site and the surrounding areas have been used as agricultural land since at least 1939 and, therefore, have been subject to regular disturbance. The developed nature of the surrounding area precludes the use of the project site as a migratory corridor and, therefore, the project site and surrounding area are not anticipated to support any substantial wildlife movement corridors or wildlife nursery sites. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
e. As previously noted, seven trees currently exist on the project site, all of which would be removed as part of the project.
Section 9.1.1112 of the Municipal Code defines protected trees and heritage trees, and establishes requirements governing the removal of such. Section 9.1.1112 defines a protected tree as any tree adjacent to or part of a riparian habitat, foothill woodland, or oak savanna that measures 20 inches or larger and an indigenous tree that measures 40 inches or larger or as a California native oak that measures at least 50 inches in circumference (15.6 inches diameter). Section 9.1.1112 also requires that any protected trees that are to be removed shall be replaced.
The seven on-site trees proposed for removal have not been evaluated by an arborist to determine whether any are considered protected by the City. If the on-site trees are determined to be protected, removal of such would require replacement, consistent with the regulations established in Section 9.1.1112 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. 228
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37 November 2022
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Discussion
The following discussion is primarily based on a Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by Solano Archaeological Services, LLC (SAS). 15 It is noted that the off-site
improvement area was not surveyed as all ground disturbance would occur within the existing ROW, where development has already occurred.
a-c. The Cultural Resources Study consisted of cultural resources background research, Native American community outreach, and an archaeological survey for the proposed project. On December 6th, 2021, SAS conducted a records search through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project site. The record search results indicated that cultural resources have not been documented within the project site, although five cultural resource sites have been recorded within the half-mile search radius. Three previous investigations included at least a portion of the project site, and an additional 18 studies were conducted within the general vicinity. Although historic era cultural resources have not been identified on-site, the presence of such resources in the project area indicates that the project vicinity has a history of transportation, residential, and likely agricultural activity particularly during the early-mid 20th century.
On December 9th, 2021, SAS archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site using 20-meter parallel transects where exposed mineral soil, rodent burrows, other ground exposures, and erosional areas were thoroughly inspected for archaeological materials and indications of subsurface conditions. The field survey identified two potential cultural resources on the project site. The first resource is an isolated artifact consisting of a fragment of decorative cast-iron potentially part of a late 19th or early 20th century woodstove, fence, horse-drawn buggy, or possibly outdoor furniture. Due to a lack of associations, unique characteristics, data potential, and integrity, SAS determined that the isolated artifact is not eligible for California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) listing and as such does not constitute a historical resource per CEQA. The second cultural resource is noted as a complex of agricultural buildings and spatially associated debris located in the northeastern portion of the project site which appear to date to the early to middle decades of the 20th century. Additional archival research conducted by SAS identified the building (or buildings) in the project area appear to date to at least the early 1940s. However, the buildings are not anticipated to meet the CRHR criteria for historic resources (i.e., embodies distinctive characteristics of a specific period or region, yield 15 Solano Archaeological Services, LLC. Cultural Resources Study – Sellers Avenue Development Project, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. December 14, 2021. 229
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 November 2022
important information related to history of the local area, associated with significant historical events, etc.) as the on-site buildings appear to be consistent with the type of barn structure that is common in the project area. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, SAS recommended that a qualified architectural historian evaluate the on-site buildings for consistency with the CRHR criteria. If the on-site buildings are determined to meet the criteria to be considered historical resources, then development of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Additionally, while the project site has been subject to ground disturbance associated with past agricultural activities, unknown archaeological resources, including human remains, have the potential to be uncovered during future ground-disturbing construction and excavation activities at the project site. If previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Based on the above, development of the site may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as well as unique archaeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
V-1. Prior to the demolition of any on-site buildings, a qualified architectural historian, as approved by the City of Oakley Planning Division, shall evaluate the project site and the on-site structures for qualification per CRHR criteria. If the on-site buildings do not qualify for protection, further mitigation is not required.
If the on-site buildings meet the CRHR criteria, then the structures shall be properly documented prior to their demolition. The documentation shall, at a minimum, consist of a report documenting the historical context with descriptive narrative of the resource, and an update of the resource’s Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 record. The photodocumentation shall capture the form, materials, design, and setting of the buildings to preserve those characteristics that justify their California Register eligibility. If building relocation is pursued, the photodocumentation shall include views of the resources in their new locations, with an emphasis on the context and architectural setting of their new surroundings. The photo-documentation shall be prepared in concert with a historical context statement and narrative description of the buildings to place the properties in their architectural and historical context. The documentation package shall be distributed to the NWIC, the Contra Costa County Historical Society, the City of Oakley, the Oakley Chamber of Commerce, and, for the purposes of public outreach, the Oakley Public Library.
230
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39 November 2022
Proof of compliance with the foregoing measure shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Planning Division for review and approval.
V-2. 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-3. 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 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.
231
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 November 2022
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the City’s Strategic Energy Plan (SEP), with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations are provided below.
California Green Building Standards Code
The CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC, which became effective on January 1, 2020.16 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen Code standards regulate the method of use, properties, performance, types of materials used in construction, alteration repair, improvement and rehabilitation of a structure or improvement to property. The provisions of the CALGreen Code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ MWELO, or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use;
• Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board; and
• For most single-family and low-rise residential development developed after January 1, 2020, mandatory on-site solar energy systems capable of producing 100 percent of the electricity demand created by the residence(s). Certain residential developments, including those developments that are subject to substantial shading, rendering the use of on-site solar photovoltaic systems infeasible, are exempted from the foregoing requirement. 16 California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019. 232
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 November 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC. Energy reductions relative to previous Building Energy Efficiency Standards are achieved through various regulations including requirements for the use of high-efficacy lighting, improved water heating system efficiency, and high-performance attics and walls. For residential buildings, compliance with the 2019 standards would use approximately seven percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures compared to homes built under the 2016 standards.17 The Building Energy Efficiency Standards require residential buildings that are three stories or less to include solar photovoltaic systems. Rooftop solar electricity generation would ensure future residences that are built under the 2019 standards further reduce energy consumption and result in about 53 percent less energy use than those residences built under the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Strategic Energy Plan
In the fall of 2015, the City of Oakley adopted a SEP to help meet State mandates for required energy use and GHG emission reductions.18 The SEP included six energy planning goals and priorities, including, but not limited to, improving energy performance to exceed Title 24 requirements for new construction and major renovations of the City facilities; exploring opportunities for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and/or clean self-generation measures; and exploring existing economic and fiscal criteria commonly used for the evaluation and implementation of energy use reduction and energy generation strategies.
Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.
All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB’s InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency for equipment used in construction of the proposed project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are constantly being researched nationwide, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction. 17 California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018. 18 City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015. 233
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 November 2022
The CARB prepared the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan),19 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes examples of local actions (municipal code changes, zoning changes, policy directions, and mitigation measures) that would support the State’s climate goals. The examples provided include, but are not limited to, enforcing idling time restrictions for construction vehicles, utilizing existing grid power for electric energy rather than operating temporary gasoline/diesel-powered generators, and increasing use of electric and renewable fuel-powered construction equipment. The regulation described above, with which the proposed project must comply, would be consistent with the intention of the 2017 Scoping Plan and the recommended actions included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.
Operational Energy Use
Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment.
In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed residential development. It should be noted that, as required by Mitigation Measure VIII-1 in this IS/MND, natural gas infrastructure would be prohibited in the proposed residences.
The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high performance attics and walls, and high efficacy lighting. As noted previously, pursuant to the CALGreen Code, residential structures three stories or less, including those proposed as part of the project, must include on-site solar energy systems sufficient to meet 100 percent of the residences’ electricity demand.
Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the SEP, as the proposed project would comply with the latest CBSC standards regarding energy conservation, renewable energy resources, and green building standards.
With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as 19 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017. 234
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43 November 2022
discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the project site is not anticipated to substantially increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 235
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 November 2022
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Discussion
ai-ii. The project site does not contain any active or potentially active faults, nor is the site located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.20 However, according to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley is subject to seismic risk because the City is within the San Francisco Bay Area, an area of high seismicity.21 Proper engineering of the proposed buildings in compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to seismic ground shaking. Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance 20 California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Brentwood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California. 2018. 21 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3-161]. September 2002. 236
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45 November 2022
with the CBSC design standards would be enforced through building plan review and require approval by the City.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
aiii,aiv, The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, subsidence/settlement, landslides, lateral spreading, and expansive soil are discussed in detail below.
Liquefaction and Subsidence/Settlement
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Because saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. Additionally, loose unsaturated sandy soils have the potential to settle during strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction can often result in subsidence, which refers to the gradual settling or sudden sinking of land surface, or settlement, which refers to the vertical movement of soil when a load is applied to the surface.
According to the MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, project site is located within a “High” Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility zone.22 As a result, the potential exists that on-site soils may be subjected to liquefaction, and associated subsidence could occur. However, Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.328 requires that as part of obtaining a Grading Permit, an application must be accompanied, among other documents, with three copies of a geotechnical or engineering geology report to excavate and grade the project site.
The project’s Improvement Plans would be required to be signed by a State-certified civil engineer who prepared the geotechnical report and reviewed to ensure that the plans conform to all recommendations contained in the report. Furthermore, Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.702 provides that, upon completion of rough grading work, but before the issuance of building permits, the City Engineer may require that a soil engineering report be prepared certifying the adequacy of the site for the intended use, as affected by soil engineering reports.
Therefore, because compliance with the requirements set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and 6.9.702 would ensure that all potentially hazardous on-site subsurface soil conditions are identified and addressed in conformance with industry standard recommendations, including potential conditions, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure or be located on a geologic unit that would potentially result in on-site or offsite liquefaction or subsidence. 22 Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/dataresearch/hazard-viewer/. Accessed May 2022. c,d.
237
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 November 2022
Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site is relatively flat and is not located near any slopes. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to landslide risks and would not expose people or structures to potential risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. Given that the project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any free faces including excavations, channels, or open bodies of water, lateral spreading would not present a likely hazard at the site.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume changes with variations in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of withstanding the potential damaging movements of the soil.
Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project site is comprised of two primary soil types.
Approximately 90 percent of the project site is comprised of Sycamore silty clay loam with 0 to 2 percent slopes, which has a shrink-swell numerical rating of 0.12. The remaining approximately 10 percent of the project site is comprised of Sorrento silty clay loam, which has a shrink-swell numerical rating of 0.50. The numerical ratings indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Therefore, the potential exists for expansive soils to exist on site and adversely affect the proposed project. However, as detailed above, the proposed project would be subject to Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and 6.9.792, which would ensure on-site expansive soils are identified and addressed in accordance with industry standard recommendations set forth by a State-certified civil engineer, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Compliance with such would ensure that adverse effects do not occur within the project site.
Conclusion
Based on the above, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, landslides, or lateral spreading are not anticipated to occur. Through compliance with all applicable regulations, including those set forth by Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and
6.9.792, impacts related to liquefaction, subsidence/settlement, and expansive soils would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides, would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. 238
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47 November 2022
b. During construction activities, topsoil would be exposed following site grading and prior to constructing building foundations. As a result, the potential for topsoil erosion would exist.
Following development of the site, all exposed soils would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaping and, thus, the potential for erosion to occur would not exist longterm.
As discussed further under questions ‘ci’ and ‘ciii’ in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, pursuant to the City of Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.308 and 6.11.212, preparation of an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction activities and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction is required. The erosion control measures required by both the SWPPP and the Erosion Control Plan would ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. e. The proposed project would connect to existing City sewer services. Thus, the construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f. The City’s General Plan does not note the existence of any unique geologic features within the City. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in direct or indirect destruction of unique geologic features.
The City’s General Plan indicates that few paleontological resources are known to occur within the City Planning Area.23 In addition, portions of the surrounding area are developed and paleontological resources have not been encountered in the vicinity. Thus, existing paleontological resources are not expected to occur on the site. Nonetheless, the potential exists for previously unknown paleontological resources could exist within the project site.
Ground-disturbing activity such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb or destroy such resources if present. Therefore, the proposed project could result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
VII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-2 and V-3.
23 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan [pg. 6-19]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 239
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 November 2022
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a,b. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. While updated CEQA Guidelines have not yet been released, on April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.
24 The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation.
Based on the modeling conducted for the proposed project, as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND, operational GHG emissions are presented in Table 4.
However, as noted previously, the BAAQMD’s applicable threshold of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and the foregoing information is provided for disclosure purposes only. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project are considered in comparison with BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance below.
24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.
Accessed August 2022.
240
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49 November 2022
Table 4
Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions
Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Mobile 1,020.00
Area 2.28
Energy 234.00
Water 11.60
Waste 5.76
Refrigerants 0.18
Total Operational GHG Emissions 1,273.82
Operational GHG Emissions per Capita 4.83 MTCO2e/yr/capita Note: Operational GHG Emissions per Capita = MTCO2e/yr / 264 residents.
Source: CalEEMod, September 2022 (see Appendix A).
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
As discussed above, on April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. According to the new thresholds of significance, a project must either include specific project design elements (e.g., exclude use of natural gas, achieve a specific reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).25
The City of Oakley does not have a GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the new BAAQMD GHG thresholds related to specific project design elements.
According to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, in order to find a less-thansignificant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
• The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development);
• The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and
• The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
In order to be consistent with the first criterion, the proposed project would be required to include all electric appliances and plumbing. Mitigation would be required to ensure that 25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
241
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 November 2022
the proposed project would not include the use of natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing and, thus, would comply with the first criterion.
Regarding the second criterion, as discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding energy use during both project construction and project operations. Required compliance with applicable standards and regulations ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
With respect to the third criterion, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the citywide VMT per capita was calculated to be 26.76, and, as a result, the impact threshold of 15 percent below the Citywide average VMT per capita equates to
22.75 VMT per capita. The project is projected to generate VMT per capita of 22.06.
Therefore, the project would achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan.
With respect to the fourth criterion, the proposed project would be subject to the singlefamily residential requirements set forth in the CALGreen standards. Per the 2019 CALGreen Code, single-family residential projects are required to install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for each unit, which would be suitable for EV charging. Compliance with this requirement would be sufficient to comply with the Tier 2 CALGreen standards, as required by BAAQMD.
Conclusion
Based on the above, without the implementation of mitigation, the project may not comply with the BAAQMD’s required thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
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 Planning Division.
242
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51 November 2022
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. 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?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. A significant hazard to the public or the environment could result from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Future operations of the proposed residences on the project site could involve the use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. A development project could 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 should a site contain potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that are not properly addressed prior to project implementation. A REC indicates the presence or likely presence of any hazardous 243
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 November 2022
substances in, on, or at a property due to any release into the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.26 Based on a review of historic aerial photographs, the project site was previously used as agricultural land. As a result, the potential exists that organochlorine and arsenic pesticide residues may be present within surficial soils. If such materials are present in on-site soils, a potential health hazard could occur during project construction.
Additionally, as noted in the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project, the on-site farm buildings date to at least the nearly 1940s. As the buildings were built prior to the federal ban on materials such as lead-based paint (LBP) and/or asbestos containing materials, the potential exists for such materials to exist on and/or within the structures. LBP is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has one milligram per cubic centimeter or greater (5,000 micrograms per gram or 5,000 parts per million) of lead by federal guidelines. Lead is a highly toxic material that may cause a range of serious illnesses, and in some cases death. In buildings constructed after 1978, LBP is unlikely to be present. Structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior to the 1960s should be expected to contain LBP. Asbestos is the name for a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals that are considered to be “fibrous” and, through processing, can be separated into smaller and smaller fibers. When inhaled, the material caused serious illness. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and related materials) and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos-containing material” unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. Asbestoscontaining materials could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials.
Therefore, demolition of the on-site structures could present a potential hazard risk related to LBP or asbestos.
Finally, although not observed during the review of aerial photographs, the potential exists that buried items, such as a septic system or well used for agricultural irrigation, may exist on-site due to the relative age of the farmhouse and auxiliary structures. As such, if buried items, such as septic systems or wells are to be discovered during project development, the buried items must be removed in accordance with County and State regulations prior to development of the proposed project.
Based on the above, potentially hazardous conditions could occur if pesticide residuals are present in on-site soils, if the on-site buildings contain LPB or asbestos, or if existing wells or septic systems are present on-site and are not removed in accordance with County and State regulations. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
26 ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.
244
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 November 2022
IX-1. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall complete testing of on-site soils for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8081A. In the event that soil is determined to be hazardous by exceeding the USEPA Regional Screening Level for residential exposure scenarios, the soil shall be transported and disposed of at a Class I facility permitted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous waste shall be transported to disposal by a licensed hazardous waste hauler under a uniform hazardous waste manifest. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, if warranted, shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval.
IX-2. 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) or lead-based paint (LBP). If the on-site structures do not contain either of the foregoing materials, further mitigation is not required; however, if ACMs or LBP are identified, 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. The results of the site assessment, as well as verification of proper disposal, if warranted, shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval.
IX-3. 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 and the City’s Planning Division.
c. The nearest schools relative to the project site are Iron House Elementary School and Delta Vista Middle School, which are both located 0.66-mile northwest of the site, and Faith Christian School, which is located approximately 0.90-mile southwest of the site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur. d. According to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker data management system, hazardous materials sites, including leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) cleanup sites, have not been identified on or within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. 27 In addition,
the project site is not located on or near any hazardous waste sites identified on the 27 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=oakley+california. Accessed May 2022. 245
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 November 2022
Envirostor’s Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, which is compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
28 Based on the above, the proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impact would occur.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the Byron Airport, located approximately 10.40 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project site is not located within two miles of any public airports and does not fall within an airport land use plan area.
Accordingly, no impact would occur related to a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. For construction of the off-site improvements, travel along Sellers Avenue could be intermittently restricted. However, with implementation of the Traffic Control Plan required by Mitigation Measure XVII-1, vehicle travel would not be obstructed, and evacuation routes would remain open throughout the construction period.
During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. In addition, all proposed internal roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles.
Overall, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
29 Furthermore, the existing roadways in the
project vicinity would act as fire breaks and would reduce the risk for the uncontrolled spread of wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. 28 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS &status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTES E%29. Accessed May 2022. 29 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Contra Costa County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. January 7, 2009.
246
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 November 2022
a,
ci-ciii.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements, alter the drainage pattern of the site resulting in erosion or siltation, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation.
Construction
During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to grading and excavation of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the ground with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality.
The SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acres.
The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s General Construction Permit prior 247
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 November 2022
to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a SWPPP to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes BMPs to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit and, with implementation of the required SWPPP and BMPs included therein, construction of the proposed project would not result in a violation of water quality standards and/or degradation of water quality.
Furthermore, per Municipal Code Sections 6.9.306 and 6.9.404, the proposed project would be required to submit an erosion and sediment control plan with submittal of the grading permit application to ensure water quality is not degraded. The plan would include erosion and sediment control measures that would be implemented during grading and would be approved by the City Engineer. Given the required submittal and approval of a SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction.
Operations
Following project buildout, the surface of the site would be covered with either impervious surfaces or landscaped areas, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. As such, the potential for erosion and associated impacts to water quality would be reduced. However, the addition of impervious surfaces on the site would result in the generation of urban runoff during project operations, which could contain pollutants if the runoff comes into contact with vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or landscape fertilizers and herbicides.
All municipalities within Contra Costa County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit.
The City of Oakley has adopted the County C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 sf or more of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would include 369,190 sf of new impervious area; therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the County C.3 Stormwater Standards.30 The proposed project would also be subject to the requirements of the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as well as the County C.3 Standards, which are included in the City’s NPDES General Permit. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to Title 6, Chapter 11, of the Municipal Code, which establishes standards for stormwater management and discharge.31 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant would submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Compliance with such requirements would ensure that impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would not occur during operation of the proposed project.
A Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 6). Runoff from impervious surfaces within the project site would be directed to new catch basins within the internal roads. From the catch basins, new storm drain lines 30 MLC Holdings, Inc. DeJesus Property Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan. December 2021. 31 City of Oakley. Oakley Municipal Code [Title 6, Chapter 11]. Updated February 23, 2021. 248
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57 November 2022
ranging in diameters of 12, 15, 18, and 24-inches would convey flows to the bioretention area located in the northwest portion of the site which would accommodate runoff from all 77 residential lots as well as the internal roadways on-site. The drainage management area (DMA) would be designed according to the criteria in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect surface water quality. The on-site bioretention area would accommodate runoff from all residential lots and roadways on-site and would be designed according to the criteria in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook.
In order to adequately treat all runoff from the project site, the project would be required to provide 47,112 cubic feet (CF) of water treatment volume. The proposed infiltration basin would provide 47,112 CF of treatment volume and, thus, the project would meet the requirements and all runoff would be adequately treated on-site.
Conclusion
Based on the above, given compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and existing County regulations, impacts related to water quality would not occur during project construction or operations. Thus, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirement, alter the drainage pattern of the site resulting in erosion or siltation, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrade water quality during construction, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b,e. Potable water service for the proposed project would be provided by the DWD. According to the DWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the primary water supply for distribution is treated surface water.32 As a result, any increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would be primarily met through surface water supply, rather than groundwater.
The DWD operates a groundwater supply system that currently consists of groundwater extracted from two wells in Oakley, which is then conveyed in a dedicated well supply pipeline to a blending facility. According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the wells are connected to the East Contra Costa Subbasin underlying the City. The East Contra Costa Subbasin has been designated as a medium-priority basin by the Department of Water Resources, and is not in overdraft conditions.33
The project site represents a relatively small area compared to the overall surface area of the East Contra Costa Subbasin. In addition, runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces would be directed to a bioretention facility where runoff water would percolate and recharge the East Contra Costa Subbasin. Therefore, any new impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge within the East Contra Costa Subbasin.
Based on the above, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies, interfering substantially with groundwater recharge, or conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 32 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2022. 33 Ibid. 249
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 November 2022
civ. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project site, the project site is located within the 500-year floodplain (Zone X), which is not designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area. 34 Additionally, pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 6.12.138(e), the project would be required to provide adequate draining to reduce flood hazards. Thus, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
d. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. The project site is located 48.7 miles from the California coastline and approximately 2.08 miles south of the San Francisco Bay tributaries. Given the distance to the San Francisco Bay tributaries, it is not anticipated that the project site would be affected by flooding risks associated with tsunamis. Furthermore, seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project because the project site is not located adjacent to a large, closed body of water. As such, the proposed project would not result in a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact would occur.
34 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0355G. Effective May 18, 2022. 250
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59 November 2022
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter a land use so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the 20.42-acre project site consists of primarily undeveloped ruderal grassland, with the exception of one farmhouse structure and two ancillary buildings in the northern portion of the site.
Surrounding existing land uses include scattered rural residences with small-scale agricultural uses to the north, south, and east. The BNSF railroad tracks bound the western border of the property, and single-family residences are located further west beyond the BNSF railroad tracks. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as RL and the site is zoned P-1. Thus, development of the site with the proposed uses was generally evaluated as part of the City’s General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND.
The proposed project would be a continuation of the surrounding development and would not isolate an existing land use. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The project site is currently designated RL by the City’s General Plan and is zoned P-1.
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 preconstruction surveys for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and migratory birds.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
251
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 November 2022
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Oakley General Plan EIR states that the only viable mineral resource currently mined in the City of Oakley is sand.35 In addition, the General Plan does not identify any known mineral resource areas within the Planning Area, including the project site.
Furthermore, because the site is located near residential development, the site would not be suitable for mining operations. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral recovery site, and the proposed project would result in no impact related to mineral resources. 35 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 278]. September 2002. 252
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 November 2022
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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 ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of 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?
Discussion
a. The following discussion presents information regarding noise standards and criteria applicable to various land uses, as well as sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site and the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below:
• Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to decibels in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.
• Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours.
• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The average sound level over a given time-period. • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The maximum sound level over a given time-period. • Median Sound Level (L50): The sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time over a given time-period.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) hours weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of ten prior to averaging.
Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. The nearest sensitive uses include the singlefamily residences located to the west, across the BNSF tracks, and the scattered rural residences to the north, east, and south of the project site boundary. The closest residential unit is located approximately 55 feet south of the project site boundary. The closest receptor to the off-site improvement area is located approximately 30 feet west of where construction would occur.
253
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 November 2022
Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on Sellers Avenue directly east of the project site and the BNSF railroad directly west of the project site. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted a continuous (24-hour) noise level measurement on the project site.
The noise measurement location is shown on Figure 8. A summary of the noise level measurement survey result is provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data
Site Date Ldn
Daytime Nighttime
Leq L50 Lmax Leq L50 Lmax
LT-1 6/7/2022 69 66 44 84 62 39 61
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Source: Saxelby Acoustics. 2022.
Standards of Significance
The City of Oakley General Plan Noise Element establishes a noise level standard of 60 dB as normally acceptable at residential land uses. Based upon General Plan Figure 9-1, an ambient noise level of 60 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable for single-family residential uses. Policy 9.1.6 in the City’s General Plan is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
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: City of Oakley General Plan Noise Element, 2002.
Per the City’s General Plan, with regard to non-transportation noise, exterior noise levels at residences should not exceed 55 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).
The following sections use the aforementioned thresholds of significance to determine if noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would occur.
Construction Noise
During construction of the proposed project, heavy-duty equipment would be used for demolition, grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would result in temporary noise level increases. Standard construction equipment, such as backhoes, dozers, and dump trucks would be used on-site. Project haul truck traffic on local roadways would also result in a temporary noise level increase during construction activities. 254
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 November 2022
Figure 8
Noise Measurement Site
255
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 November 2022
Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well the equipment is maintained. In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary depending on the proximity of construction activities to that point. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime hours. Section 4.2.208 of the Municipal Code restricts noise-producing construction activities to weekday hours between 7:30 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends.
Table 7 shows the predicted construction noise levels for development of the proposed project.
Table 7
Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB 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: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.
Based on the table, activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels up to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest single-family residence to the site is located approximately 55 feet south of the proposed construction area. Because the nearest single-family residences are located greater than 50 feet away from the project site, sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise levels less than 90 dB during construction.
However, the nearest receptors to the off-site improvement area are located within 50 feet of the construction area and, as a result, could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 90 dB. As such, although construction activities are temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in a potentially significant increase in noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction could be considered potentially significant.
Operational Noise
Noise generated during operations of the proposed project would be limited to residential noise and traffic noise, as discussed in further detail below.
Residential Noise
Operation of the proposed project would include typical residential noise, such as landscaping maintenance and HVAC systems, which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses. Assuming the project HVAC systems and maintenance 256
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 November 2022
equipment would be in normal working order, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur with regard to on-site operational noise.
Traffic Noise
Operations associated with the proposed project would generate noise associated with vehicle traffic on local roadways. To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels were predicted at sensitive receptors for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Noise levels due to traffic were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) and trip generation estimates from the project traffic consultant (TJKM). Table 8 summarizes traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the project vicinity.
Table 8
Existing Traffic Noise Levels and
Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level at
Closest Sensitive Receptors (dBA Ldn)
Existing No
Project
Existing +
Project Change
Sellers Ave. E Cypress Rd. To Laurel Rd. 60.7 61.4 0.7
W Cypress Rd. Main St. to Sellers Ave. 66.3 66.7 0.4
Sellers Ave. Project Access #2 to Delta Rd. 54.4 54.5 0.1 Delta Rd. Main St. to Sellers Ave. 63.9 64.1 0.2
Main St. W Cypress Rd. to Laurel Rd. 57.9 58.1 0.2
Laurel Rd. West of Main St. 56.8 57.1 0.3
Delta Rd. Main St. to Sellers Ave 61.7 61.7 0.0
Main St. Laurel Rd. to Delta Rd. 64.1 64.1 0.0
Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2022.
Based upon the table, the proposed project is predicted to result in a maximum increase in traffic noise levels of 0.7 dBA.
Based upon the Table 6 criteria, 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 roadway noise levels would be considered significant. As shown in Table 5, the existing noise level in the project vicinity is 69 dB Ldn. Therefore, the maximum increase in traffic noise of 0.7 dBA would not exceed the 1.5 dB threshold of significance, and the increase in traffic noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed project is not considered to be significant.
Noise at Proposed Sensitive Receptors
It should be noted that impacts of the environment on a project (as opposed to impacts of a project on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v.
City of Los Angeles, (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 (Ballona). The California Supreme Court recently held that “CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the 257
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 November 2022
effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. What CEQA does mandate…is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 392; see also Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 197 [“identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes”], quoting Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.).
Based on the above, for the purposes of the CEQA analysis, the relevant inquiry is not whether residents at the proposed single-family homes would be exposed to pre-existing environmental noise-related hazards, but instead whether project-generated noise will exacerbate the pre-existing conditions. Although the analysis of a project’s existing noise environment is not required for CEQA purposes, such analysis is included in this document to evaluate compliance with applicable General Plan standards.
As shown in Figure 9, the proposed project would be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding the City of Oakley’s 65 dBA Leq limit for outdoor activity areas of new residential uses. As a result, the City would require the following condition of project approval, which would reduce outdoor noise levels to below the 65 dBA threshold:
• Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the western project boundary shall be shielded from the adjacent railroad by a 12-foot-tall masonry sound wall and the eastern project boundary shall be shielded from Sellers Avenue by a 6-foot-tall sound walls, subject to approval by the City Engineer. The locations of these barriers are shown in Figure
10. 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 the higher of the railway/roadway centerlines or building pad elevations and may achieve the wall height through use of earthen berm and wall combinations to achieve the total height.
The maximum noise level at the proposed neighborhood park was estimated to be 63 dBA Ldn, which would comply with the City’s acceptable noise limit of 70 dBA Ldn. Additionally, standard construction practices provide an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of approximately 25 dBA. Therefore, where exterior noise levels are 70 dBA Leq or less, additional interior noise control measures are typically not required. For the proposed project, exterior noise levels are predicted to be up to 62 dBA at first floors and 66 dBA Ldn at second floors, resulting in an interior noise level of approximately 37 dBA at first floors and 41 dBA Ldn at second floors, based on typical building construction, which would meet the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise level standard for residential uses.
Conclusion
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code.
However, considering the potential for construction activities to result in temporary increases in noise levels in the project area in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, a potentially significant impact could occur.
258
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67 November 2022
Figure 9
Future Transportation Noise Contours (dBA Ldn)
259
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 November 2022
Figure 10
Future Transportation Noise Contours with Sound Walls (dBA Ldn) 260
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69 November 2022
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XIII-1. Prior to 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.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction 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 noisesensitive land uses or sufficiently shielded to reduce noise-related impacts.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, 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 to the vibration depends 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.
Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV. 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 9, which was developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. As shown in the table, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and paving occur. Table 10 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors. Use of vibratory compactors/rollers could be required during construction of the proposed project. 261
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 November 2022
Table 9
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
mm/sec in/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.15 to
0.30 0.006 to
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 to 15 0.4 to
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: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.
Table 10
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) PPV at 50 feet (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Based on Table 10, construction vibration levels anticipated for the project would be less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet or more. Sensitive receptors that could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, including those affected by the off-site improvements, are located approximately 30 feet, or further, from where construction would occur. Therefore, the receptors would be subjected to vibration levels less than the
0.20 in/sec PPV threshold.
Furthermore, the proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Additionally, construction activities would be 262
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71 November 2022
temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours, consistent with Section 4.2.208 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Because construction activities are not anticipated to expose people to or generate excessive groundbourne vibrations or groundborne noise levels, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The nearest airport to the site is Byron Airport, located approximately 10.35 miles southeast of the site. The site is not covered by an existing airport land use plan. Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. Thus, no impact would occur. 263
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 November 2022
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of 77 single-family residential units.
Using the City of Oakley General Plan’s average person per household value for singlefamily uses of 3.43, the proposed project would generate approximately 264 additional residents (77 x 3.43 = 264.11).36 The 2020 U.S. Census estimated the population of Oakley to be approximately 43,357.37 An increase in population of 264 residents would constitute an approximately 0.61 percent increase in the City’s population, which is not considered substantial growth. Furthermore, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND, adequate utility infrastructure would be available to support the proposed project. Finally, the population growth generated by the proposed project would not be unplanned because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site and, thus, has been planned for residential development by the City.
As part of the project, infrastructure would be extended into areas that do not currently have access to municipal water and sewer service, which could indirectly result in population growth in the area. However, the potential population growth would not be unplanned. For example, the proposed sewer line extension has been sized to accommodate flows from the proposed project and existing downstream development only, and would not allow for additional upstream development. Should future development be proposed upstream, such development would be required to upsize the sewer line and undergo project-specific CEQA evaluation. In addition, as demonstrated in Figure ES-1 of the DWD 2020 Facilities Plan, a 24-inch water pipeline has been planned along Sellers Avenue and connecting to the existing main in E. Cypress Road.38 Thus, the proposed project would fulfill a planned infrastructure improvement for the project area.
The land east of the project site, across Sellers Avenue, is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County. Therefore, if future development is proposed and wishes to connect to the new water and sewer infrastructure in Sellers Avenue, the site would first require annexation into the City of Oakley. As part of the annexation process, CEQA review and any warranted infrastructure improvements and/or upsizing would be required.
Based on the above, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 36 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan [pg. 2-7]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 37 U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia/POP010220#POP010220. Accessed August 2022. 38 Diablo Water District. 2020 Facilities Plan [Figure ES-1]. June 2020. 264
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73 November 2022
b. The proposed project would require demolition of one existing farmhouse structure and two ancillary buildings. However, the structures are not inhabited, and the removal of such would not be considered to result in the displacement of existing people or housing. As such, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 265
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 November 2022
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a. Fire protection services within the project area are provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). The CCCFPD provides fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical, rescue, ambulance transport, and public education services to more than one million people across the 304-square-mile service area.39 Services are provided from 25 fire stations, the closest to the project site located approximately 1.81 miles to the northwest. The proposed project would be subject to participation in a Community Facilities District (CFD) prepared and administered by CCCFPD. Participation in the CFD would mitigate any increased demands on fire services that may result from the proposed project, as well as ensure that the project conforms with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.4.2, which requires new developments to pay a fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. Additionally, the proposed project would not include any alterations to the circulation system of the surrounding area which could conflict with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.4.4, or otherwise response times.
As the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the increased demand for fire services due to residential development was anticipated and included in the CCCFPD’s planning efforts. In addition, the project would be required to pay development fees in accordance with the City of Oakley Municipal Code. As the proposed project is not expected to cause significant degradation to response times or service ratios for the CCCFPD, which would induce the need for physically altered or expanded governmental facilities for fire protection services, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
b. Police protection is provided to the City of Oakley by the Oakley Police Department. The Oakley Police Department currently employs 43 persons, including the Chief of Police, two Lieutenants, six Sergeants, four Detectives, 21 Police Officers, two part time Police Records Assistants, one Records Supervisor and three full time and two part time Police Services Assistants and one Property & Evidence Technician. 40 As previously discussed,
the proposed project would result in the development of 77 single-family residences. As 39 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2018 Annual Report. Available at: https://cccfpd.org/2018-annualreport/. Accessed September 2022. 40 Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager, City of Oakley. Personal communication [email] with Rod Stinson, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. September 6, 2022. 266
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75 November 2022
new residences typically generate a demand for police services, an increase in demand for police services would likely occur with implementation of the project. Nevertheless, the increase in police service demand from development of the project site has been included in City of Oakley’s demand predictions based on anticipated General Plan buildout. In addition, development fees would be applied to the proposed project, as well as a Police Services levy to mitigate the financial impact to the City’s police services budget.
Based on the above, the proposed project would create a demand that was anticipated for the site and would not induce the need for physically altered or expanded governmental facilities for police protection services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact. c. The Oakley Union Elementary School District and the Liberty Union High School District provide public educational services to the project site. Given that the proposed project would include development of the project site with 77 single-family residences, the proposed project could increase the demand for schools in the area. Using a standard student generation rate of 0.53 students per dwelling unit, the proposed project’s addition of 77 single-family residences would result in approximately 41 new K-12 students.41 The City of Oakley General Plan includes goals and policies set forth to ensure adequate primary and secondary schools are developed in response to population growth. The City expects the General Plan to assist in the goal of providing an efficient and complete educational system for the citizens of Oakley. For example, Policy 4.65, set forth in the General Plan, ensures that school facility impacts fees are collected and requires that the City shall work with developers and school districts to establish mitigation measures to ensure the availability of adequate school facilities.
The proposed project would be subject to payment of School Impact Mitigation Development Fees to fund local school services. Proposition 1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving…the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996[b]). Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer are deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” In other words, payment of applicable development fees would be sufficient in reducing the impacts associated with an increase in students from the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding an increase in demand for schools.
d,e. The City of Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.2.208 requires at least 7.02 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As noted previously, buildout of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 264 new residents to the City. As a result, approximately
1.85 acres of parkland would be required to achieve the desired parkland ratio (0.00702 acres of parkland per resident x 264 new residents = 1.85 acres of parkland). Oakley Resolution 19-03 requires subdividers of land within the City to dedicate land and/or pay fees in lieu of the dedication for the neighborhood and community parks and recreation programs which is discussed in further detail in Section XVI, Recreation, below. 41 Antioch Unified School District. Facilities Master Plan [pg. 248]. July 2018. 267
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 November 2022
The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR also analyzed impacts of buildout of the General Plan on other public facilities, such as libraries. The Oakley Branch Library is located in Freedom High School at 1050 Neroly Road and is open Tuesday through Saturday. Other libraries in close proximity to the City of Oakley include the Antioch Library and the Brentwood Branch Library. Future residents of the proposed project would have access to the aforementioned facilities. The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the necessary General Plan policies, impacts related to public services would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Given that the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable park in-lieu fee, and that development of the site was anticipated by the City and would be consistent with the General Plan, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to parks and other public facilities.
268
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77 November 2022
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would involve the development of 77 single-family residences, which are anticipated to serve approximately 264 residents. Thus, an increase in demand on recreational facilities is anticipated. The City of Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.2.208 requires 7.02 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Thus, as noted previously, 1.85 acres of parkland would be required to accommodate the anticipated population increase associated with the proposed project.
Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.2.204 mandates developments that include subdivision of land to either dedicate parkland or pay fees in lieu of the dedication for the neighborhood and community parks and recreation programs. As previously noted, the project would include an approximately 126,901-sf (2.91-acre) open space and bioretention area, which would include a tot-lot. Given the small portion of land dedicated to the tot-lot, the proposed project would not meet the parkland requirements set forth in Municipal Code Section
9.2.208. Therefore, the project applicant would be subject to in-lieu fees require pursuant to the Municipal Code. The park impact fees imposed by the City are used to generate revenue to provide park and recreational services on a community-wide level and to the general project vicinity
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. Furthermore, the project would not require further construction or expansion which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and a less-than-significant impact related to recreation would occur. 269
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 November 2022
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacityincreasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the State Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.”
Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.)
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. 270
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79 November 2022
Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”42 Please refer to question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.
Project Trip Generation
The Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by TJKM to identify the proposed project’s potential trip generation and any transportation related impacts associated with such (see Appendix D).43 Project vehicle trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). Based on the ITE rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate 802 daily vehicle trips, including 60 AM peak hour and 80 PM peak hour trips.
44 Consistency with the City of Oakley General Plan Policies – Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The proposed project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are discussed below.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and offstreet paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Sidewalks do not currently exist 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 Sellers Avenue; on both sides of Main Street, south of Laurel Road; and on the south side of Laurel Road, east and west of Main Street.
The proposed project would include construction of sidewalks along the project frontage on the west side of Sellers Road and both sides of the future Laurel Road, and within the project site. All new sidewalks would be required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would connect to the existing pedestrian network in the project vicinity. The project would add new curb ramps at both driveways of the project site and at the southwest corner of the Sellers Road and future Laurel Road intersection. The proposed curb ramps would be required comply with City standards at all intersections and driveways.
Considering the above, the proposed construction of new sidewalks and curb ramps would enhance the existing pedestrian infrastructure and would be required to comply with applicable City and ADA standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing pedestrian facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to pedestrian facilities.
42 Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. 43 TJKM. Sellers Avenue Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis. August 1, 2022. 44 The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated the construction of 85 dwelling units, based on a previously iteration of the proposed site plan. The currently proposed project only includes 77 dwelling units. Therefore, the analysis within the Traffic Impact Analysis is an overestimate and would be considered conservative. 271
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 November 2022
Bicycle Facilities
Approximately 29 miles of bicycle facilities are installed throughout the City of Oakley, including 15 miles of Class II on-street bicycle lanes and 12.4 miles of Class I multi-use paths.45 In addition, 23 miles of additional bicycle facilities are either planned or proposed, such as new Class II bicycle lanes on Main Street and Laurel Road in the vicinity of the project site.
46 In the vicinity of the project site, Class II bicycle facilities exist along E.
Cypress Road on the north side between Knightsen Avenue and Main Street, and on the south side between Main Street and Frank Hengel Way; along Main Street between Cypress Road and Simoni Ranch Road on both sides; along Sellers Avenue, north of E.
Cypress Road; and along Laurel Road between Harvest Drive and Main Street on both sides. In addition, a Class I bicycle facility exists at Marsh Creek Regional Trail along Marsh Creek, which can be accessed through Delta Road approximately 1.5 mile west of the project site.
Although the proposed project would not include any new bicycle facilities, bicycle access to the project site would be provided by nearby bicycle facilities along both sides of E.
Cypress Road and both sides of Laurel Road, west of Main Street. The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies planned Class II bike lanes along Sellers Road, south of E. Cypress Road, which is along the project frontage. Implementation of the proposed project would not preclude the future development of the planned bike lane. As such, development of the project would not preclude construction of any planned bicycle trails, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing bicycle facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to bicycle facilities.
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. The following Tri-Delta Transit Routes currently operate in the project vicinity:
• 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 AM to approximately 10:00 PM 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 AM peak hour period only.
• Route 391, the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route, provides weekday service to most East County cities. Route 391 operates from 4:00 AM to 1:15 AM with 30 to 60-minute headways.
• Route 393, the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route, provides weekend service to Route 391. Route 393 operates from 5:20 AM to 2:00 AM with approximately 60-minute headways.
45 City of Oakley. Mobility White Paper, City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update. December 2021. 46 Ibid. 272
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81 November 2022
In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest existing transit facility is located at the intersection of Main Street and E. Cypress Road. Following the planned extension of Laurel Road, the nearest transit stop to the project site would be at Main Street and Laurel Road. The bus stops are not accessible by way of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; however, future planned facilities and the proposed extension of Laurel Road, would provide additional pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to and from the project site.
Although the proposed project would add riders to the existing transit services, TJKM concluded that the increase in ridership could be accommodated by the existing transit capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site; therefore, impacts related to transit were already anticipated and evaluated in the General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Although the City of Oakley has not yet established any standards or thresholds regarding VMT, pursuant to Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the impact of driving.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) considers residential projects to have a significant impact on VMT if the project generated home-based VMT per resident is higher than the following:
• 85 percent of the home-based VMT per resident in the municipality; or • 85 percent of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident.
TJKM performed a VMT analysis for the project using the CCTA Model. Two full model runs were performed in accordance with the CCTA VMT methodology. The first model run was for Baseline Conditions, which represent the Year 2020 traffic conditions for the City of Oakley, and the second model run was for Baseline Plus Project Conditions.
Under Baseline conditions, the home-based VMT per capita for the City of Oakley is 26.76.
For the project to have a less-than-significant impact, the project must produce VMT within the 85 percent threshold, which equates to 22.75 (0.85 x 26.76) VMT per resident.
Under Baseline conditions, the home-based VMT per capita for the City of Oakley is 26.76.
For the project to have a less-than-significant impact, the project must produce VMT within the 85 percent threshold, which equates to 22.75 (0.85 x 26.76) VMT per resident. 273
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 November 2022
Under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, the VMT per capita for the project Travel Analysis Zone is 23.39, which exceeds the 22.75 threshold. However, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the incorporation of sidewalk improvements and on- and off-site pedestrian connections included as part of the project would reduce project VMT to 22.06, which is less than the applicable threshold.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c,d. Primary access to the project site is proposed by way of two roadways from Sellers Avenue. The proposed internal roadway network would be 48 to 56 feet wide. The roadway widths are expected to accommodate on-street parking as well as emergency vehicle access.
During project operations, the proposed project would not alter the existing transportation network nor increase hazards due to a geometrical design feature, and oncoming traffic travelling northbound and southbound on Sellers Road would have a clear line of sight to vehicles exiting the project site for at least 430 feet, north and south of both proposed project entrances. As part of the Traffic Impact Analysis, TJKM conducted a vehicle queuing and storage analysis for all exclusive left-turn or right-turn pockets at the intersections in the project vicinity. The 95th percentile (maximum) queues were analyzed using the HCM 6th Edition Queue methodology contained in Vistro Software. According to the analysis, queue lengths at the intersection of Main Street/Laurel Road would increase by a maximum of 20 feet, or less than one vehicle length. Queue lengths would increase by approximately one vehicle at the eastbound left-turn at the intersection of Main Street and Laurel Road, and by less than one vehicle at the westbound left-turn at the intersection of Sellers Road/E. Cypress Road. Thus, safety hazards would not occur. It is noted that the intersection of Main Street and Laurel Road is significantly overloaded by projected development in the City of Oakley, and alternate access to the south may be required.
However, this southern access is planned for development in the General Plan, and implementation of the proposed project would not substantially worsen the unacceptable conditions. Furthermore, as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the City’s planned improvements are expected to alleviate such queuing issues.
Implementation of the proposed project would introduce additional vehicle traffic along E.
Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. However, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site and, thus, impacts related to hazards and emergency access associated with the proposed project were already analyzed and anticipated in the General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND.
During project construction, public roads in the vicinity would remain open and available for use by emergency vehicles and other traffic. In addition, the new internal roadways would provide two points of access to the project site, which would be adequate for emergency vehicle access. All interior drive aisles and parking stalls would comply with City design standards, and, thus, on-site circulation would be expected to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles. As such, the proposed on-site vehicle circulation would allow for emergency vehicle access and would not impede current response times to the project site. Additionally, the planned future extension of Laurel Road may expedite response times. However, during construction of the off-site water and sewer line extensions, vehicle travel along Sellers Avenue may be affected by truck traffic 274
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83 November 2022
and/or road closures. As a result, during the construction period, the proposed project could increase hazards and result in inadequate emergency access.
Based on the above, operations of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. However, during construction, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVII-1. Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Truck drivers shall be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and SR 4, as determined by the City Engineering Department;
• All site ingress and egress shall occur only at the main driveways to the project site and construction activities may require installation of temporary (or ultimate) traffic signals as determined by the City Engineer;
• Specifically-designated travel routes for large vehicles shall be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress;
• Warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit shall be posted on Sellers Avenue;
• Any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks shall be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program;
• Construction employee parking shall be provided on the project site to eliminate conflicts with nearby areas. Construction of the project shall be staggered so that employee parking demand is met primarily by using on-site parking; and
• If importation and exportation of material becomes a traffic nuisance, the City Engineer shall limit the hours the activities can take place.
275
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 November 2022
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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).
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, a Cultural Resource Study was prepared for the proposed project by SAS.
47 The study indicated that Native American
or historic-era cultural resources were not present in the project site. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a records search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on December 16, 2021. According to the NAHC SLF, the search results were negative and, thus, the project site does not contain known tribal cultural resources.
In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), a project notification letter was distributed to the chairpersons of the following tribes on June 21, 2022: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and The Confederated Villages of Lisjan. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan responded with a request for additional information, and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe responded with a request to observe and participate in cultural resource studies. The Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone People responded with a request to consult on the project, and the City responded to coordinate a meeting time. The Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone People have not yet responded and, as a result, consultation is ongoing.
Based on the history of disturbance at the project site and former agricultural uses, as well as the lack of identified tribal cultural resources at the site, tribal cultural resources are not expected to occur within the site. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that development of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 47 Solano Archaeological Services, LLC. Cultural Resources Study – Sellers Avenue Development Project, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. December 14, 2021. 276
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85 November 2022
tribal cultural resource if previously unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during grading or other ground-disturbing activities. Thus, a potentially significant impact related to tribal cultural resources could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-2 and V-3.
277
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 November 2022
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a-c. Water, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, electricity, and telecommunications services would be provided to the project site by way of new connections to existing infrastructure in the immediate project area. Brief discussions of each utility that would serve the proposed project are included below.
Water
The proposed project would include the installation of eight-inch water lines throughout the proposed internal roadway, and 1,880 LF of a northerly 24-inch water line in Sellers Avenue. The water system would connect to the existing 24-inch water main in E. Cypress Road.
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the DWD. Pursuant to the DWD’s 2020 UWMP, DWD’s primary water supply for the distribution system is treated surface water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP) purchased from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). CVP water is conveyed through the Contra Costa Canal and Los Vaqueros system and treated at the Randall‐ Bold Water Treatment Plant in Oakley, which is jointly owned by DWD and CCWD.48 According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the DWD has a baseline demand of 177 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).49 Thus, the project is projected to increase water demand by 46,728 gallons per day (177 GPCD x 264 residents), or 52.34 acre-feet per year. 48 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2022. 49 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 3-5]. May 2022. 278
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87 November 2022
According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the DWD’s projected water supply exceeds the water demand for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years until at least 2040.50 For example, during the fifth year of drought in 2025, the anticipated supply exceeds the anticipated demand by 1,207 acre-feet per year. Therefore, the DWD would have sufficient water supply to accommodate the 52.34 acre-feet per year increase associated with the proposed project.
Furthermore, the project site has been anticipated for development by the City of Oakley’s General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND. The DWD’s demand estimates consider increases in demand due to buildout of the City’s General Plan;51 consequently, the DWD has anticipated some level of increased water demand due to development of the project site compared to existing conditions. Thus, given the DWD’s anticipated water surplus even with consideration of building of the project, adequate long-term water supply exists to accommodate the proposed project.
Wastewater
The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site and along Sellers Avenue, which would then direct wastewater to approximately 2,600 LF of eight-inch sanitary sewer lines northwards to the existing sanitary sewer main in E. Cypress Road.
Sanitary sewer services would be provided to the project site by ISD. The wastewater system is composed of collection, treatment, and effluent recycling facilities. ISD operates and maintains the sewer system, which collects wastewater flows from individual developments within the City and conveys them to ISD’s Water Recycling Facility.
Wastewater is ultimately treated and stored either at the facility in a large 76 million gallon holding pond, or the treated water is conveyed to an outfall pipe in the San Joaquin River.
The Water Recycling Facility has an average daily flow of 2.3 million gallons per day (MGD). The facility has a treatment capacity of approximately 4.3 MGD.52 Using standard industry assumptions that (1) domestic water use represents 40 percent of consumption; and (2) wastewater generation represents 90 percent of domestic water use, the proposed project would generate approximately 16,822 gallons of wastewater per day (46,728 gallons x 0.4 x 0.9). The addition of wastewater from the proposed project would represent less than 0.4 percent of the Water Recycling Facility’s total capacity.
Therefore, future development of 77 residences would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities, as the Water Recycling Facility has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.
Furthermore, given that the project is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use, the type and intensity of growth that would be induced by the proposed project has been considered in the General Plan and associated wastewater generation has been analyzed in the General Plan EIR and IS/ND. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. 50 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 5-5 to 5-6]. May 2022. 51 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 2-2]. May 2022. 52 Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan [pg. I-3]. April 2017. 279
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 November 2022
Therefore, given the available capacity within the wastewater facility, the proposed project would not result in inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the existing commitments.
Stormwater
As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would be directed and treated at the retention basin within the project site. The proposed on-site drainage systems would be required to comply with the City’s SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, as well as the County C.3 standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect stormwater flows into ISD’s existing system.
Electricity and Telecommunications
Electricity and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. PG&E would provide electricity services to the project site, while AT&T would provide telecommunication services. The proposed project would not require major upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Furthermore, adequate wastewater capacity would also be available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to ISD’s existing commitments. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material from the City of Oakley is hauled to Potrero Hills Landfill, located in Solano County. The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 4,330 tons per day. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Potrero Hills Landfill has a remaining capacity of 13,872,000 cubic yards out of a total permitted capacity of 83,100,000 cubic yards.53 Due to the substantial amount of available capacity remaining at Potrero Hills Landfill, sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Additionally, because the site has been anticipated for development by the City General Plan, impacts related to solid waste resulting from development of the site have already been evaluated in the City’s General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND.
Furthermore, as required by CALGreen Code Section 4.408, the proposed project would be required to submit a Waste Management Plan to the City detailing on-site sorting of construction debris. Implementation of the Waste Management Plan would ensure that the proposed project meets established diversion requirements for reused or recycled construction waste.
53 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary: Potrero Hill Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3591. Accessed May 2022.
280
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89 November 2022
Based on the above, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste. 281
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90 November 2022
XX. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a-d. According to the CALFIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High or High FHSZ.
54 In addition, the project site is located near
existing development and roadways, as well as the BNSF railroad tracks, that may act as a fire break. The presence of urban development and paved areas would preclude the uncontrolled spread of wildlife. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial risks or hazards related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
54 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Contra Costa County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. January 7, 2009.
282
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91 November 2022
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while a limited potential exists for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and other birds protected by the MBTA to occur on-site, the proposed project would comply with the ECCCHCP/NCCP requirements including avoidance and minimization measures. In addition, Mitigation Measures V-1, V-2, and V-3 would ensure that, in the event that the on-site structures are considered historic, or if previously unknown prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site, such resources would be protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and other State standards.
Considering the above, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of Oakley, could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local and State regulations.
283
Sellers Avenue Subdivision
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 November 2022
All cumulative impacts related to air quality, noise, and transportation are either less than significant or less than significant after mitigation. Given the scope of the project, any incremental effects would not be considerable relative to the effects of all past, current, and probable future projects. In addition, buildout of the site was anticipated by the City for residential uses. As such, the proposed project is within the realm of what has been anticipated for the site and potential impacts resulting from development of the project have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Update IS/ND. Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, with the implementation of mitigation, development of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, other applicable local and State regulations, and mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section XIII, Noise, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to hazardous materials and noise, after the implementation of the required mitigation measures. Therefore, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact. 284
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CalEEMod Results 285
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
1 / 61
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2023) - Unmitigated
3.5. Linear, Paving (2023) - Unmitigated
3.7. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
286
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
2 / 61
3.9. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.11. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
3.13. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
3.15. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.17. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.19. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated
3.21. Architectural Coating (2023) - Unmitigated
3.23. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
3.25. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
287
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
3 / 61
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
288
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
4 / 61
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
289
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
5 / 61
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
290
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
6 / 61
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
291
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
7 / 61
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
8. User Changes to Default Data
292
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
8 / 61
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Sellers Avenue
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 20.6
Location 37.98267204054916, -121.67973841346748
County Contra Costa
City Oakley
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1362
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
77.0 Dwelling Unit 20.4 150,150 901,890 — 223 —
User Defined Linear 0.50 Mile 0.20 0.00 — — — —
293
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
9 / 61
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.42 5.07 44.5 42.0 0.07 1.96 9.47 11.4 1.80 3.72 5.52 — 8,266 8,266 0.34 0.08 1.97 8,299 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.10 5.06 41.7 38.5 0.07 1.81 19.8 21.6 1.66 10.1 11.8 — 7,714 7,714 0.31 0.07 0.05 7,743 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.93 3.57 15.0 15.3 0.02 0.67 2.59 3.25 0.61 1.18 1.79 — 2,759 2,759 0.11 0.05 0.57 2,775 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.35 0.65 2.73 2.79 < 0.005 0.12 0.47 0.59 0.11 0.22 0.33 — 457 457 0.02 0.01 0.10 460
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
294
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
10 / 61
2023 5.42 5.07 44.5 42.0 0.07 1.96 9.47 11.4 1.80 3.72 5.52 — 8,266 8,266 0.34 0.08 1.97 8,299 2024 1.76 5.00 12.5 15.9 0.03 0.53 0.33 0.87 0.49 0.08 0.57 — 3,056 3,056 0.12 0.06 1.86 3,080 2025 1.65 4.91 11.7 15.7 0.03 0.46 0.33 0.80 0.43 0.08 0.51 — 3,046 3,046 0.12 0.06 1.75 3,070 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 5.10 5.06 41.7 38.5 0.07 1.81 19.8 21.6 1.66 10.1 11.8 — 7,714 7,714 0.31 0.07 0.05 7,743 2024 1.75 4.99 12.6 15.7 0.03 0.53 0.33 0.87 0.49 0.08 0.57 — 3,030 3,030 0.12 0.07 0.05 3,053 2025 1.64 4.90 11.7 15.5 0.03 0.46 0.33 0.80 0.43 0.08 0.51 — 3,022 3,022 0.12 0.06 0.05 3,044 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.93 3.04 15.0 15.3 0.02 0.67 2.59 3.25 0.61 1.18 1.79 — 2,759 2,759 0.11 0.04 0.48 2,775 2024 1.26 3.57 8.99 11.2 0.02 0.38 0.24 0.62 0.35 0.06 0.41 — 2,173 2,173 0.09 0.05 0.57 2,189 2025 0.82 2.55 5.87 7.76 0.01 0.23 0.17 0.40 0.21 0.04 0.25 — 1,514 1,514 0.06 0.03 0.38 1,526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.35 0.55 2.73 2.79 < 0.005 0.12 0.47 0.59 0.11 0.22 0.33 — 457 457 0.02 0.01 0.08 460 2024 0.23 0.65 1.64 2.05 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 360 360 0.01 0.01 0.10 362 2025 0.15 0.46 1.07 1.42 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 251 251 0.01 0.01 0.06 253
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.81 7.26 3.72 32.0 0.07 0.14 2.19 2.33 0.14 0.39 0.52 15.3 8,248 8,263 1.95 0.27 26.2 8,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.24 6.69 4.13 25.2 0.07 0.14 2.19 2.33 0.13 0.39 0.52 15.3 7,792 7,807 1.99 0.29 1.73 7,946295 Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
11 / 61
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.37 6.84 3.71 26.4 0.07 0.12 2.19 2.31 0.12 0.39 0.50 15.3 7,531 7,547 1.96 0.28 11.9 7,691 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.62 1.25 0.68 4.82 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.02 0.07 0.09 2.53 1,247 1,249 0.33 0.05 1.98 1,273
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.26 3.00 2.52 27.1 0.06 0.04 2.19 2.24 0.04 0.39 0.43 — 6,459 6,459 0.25 0.24 25.1 6,563 Area 0.44 4.20 0.30 4.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 336 336 0.01 < 0.005 — 336 Energy 0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,407 1,407 0.14 0.01 — 1,413 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Total 3.81 7.26 3.72 32.0 0.07 0.14 2.19 2.33 0.14 0.39 0.52 15.3 8,248 8,263 1.95 0.27 26.2 8,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.10 2.83 2.98 24.7 0.06 0.04 2.19 2.24 0.04 0.39 0.43 — 6,014 6,014 0.28 0.27 0.65 6,103 Area 0.03 3.81 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Energy 0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,407 1,407 0.14 0.01 — 1,413 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08296
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
12 / 61
Total 3.24 6.69 4.13 25.2 0.07 0.14 2.19 2.33 0.13 0.39 0.52 15.3 7,792 7,807 1.99 0.29 1.73 7,946 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.06 2.80 2.79 23.9 0.06 0.04 2.19 2.24 0.04 0.39 0.43 — 6,064 6,064 0.27 0.26 10.9 6,159 Area 0.20 3.99 0.03 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Energy 0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,407 1,407 0.14 0.01 — 1,413 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Total 3.37 6.84 3.71 26.4 0.07 0.12 2.19 2.31 0.12 0.39 0.50 15.3 7,531 7,547 1.96 0.28 11.9 7,691 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.56 0.51 0.51 4.36 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,004 1,004 0.04 0.04 1.80 1,020 Area 0.04 0.73 < 0.005 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 233 233 0.02 < 0.005 — 234 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 7.68 8.57 0.09 < 0.005 — 11.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total 0.62 1.25 0.68 4.82 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.02 0.07 0.09 2.53 1,247 1,249 0.33 0.05 1.98 1,273
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
297
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
13 / 61
Off-Road
Equipment
0.55 0.46 4.27 5.86 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 864 864 0.04 0.01 — 867 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.55 0.46 4.27 5.86 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 864 864 0.04 0.01 — 867 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.92 3.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.93 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
298
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
14 / 61
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 91.7 91.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 93.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 83.8 83.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2023) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
299
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
15 / 61
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.54 0.45 2.79 3.03 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 415 415 0.02 < 0.005 — 416 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.89 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
300
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
16 / 61
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 45.8 45.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 46.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Linear, Paving (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.85 0.72 7.12 9.00 0.01 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 301
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
17 / 61
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.19 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 37.5 37.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.7 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.21 6.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.24 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 0.52 117 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2.90 2.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 302
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
18 / 61
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.39 2.84 27.3 23.5 0.03 1.20 — 1.20 1.10 — 1.10 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 0.23 2.25 1.93 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 282 282 0.01 < 0.005 — 282 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.41 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — 303
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
19 / 61
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 126 126 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 227 227 0.02 0.04 0.01 238 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1.73 1.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 3.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.25
3.9. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
304
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
20 / 61
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
4.70 3.95 39.7 35.5 0.05 1.81 — 1.81 1.66 — 1.66 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.39 0.32 3.27 2.92 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 435 435 0.02 < 0.005 — 437 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.62 1.62 — 0.83 0.83 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.60 0.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.1 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
305
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
21 / 61
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 147 147 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 149 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 12.2 12.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 12.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
4.43 3.72 37.3 31.4 0.06 1.59 — 1.59 1.47 — 1.47 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 306
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
22 / 61
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
4.43 3.72 37.3 31.4 0.06 1.59— 1.59 1.47— 1.47— 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05— 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.36 0.31 3.07 2.58 0.01 0.13— 0.13 0.12— 0.12— 542 542 0.02 < 0.005— 544 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.76 0.76— 0.30 0.30———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.56 0.47 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005— 90.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.14 0.14— 0.05 0.05———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00— 183 183 0.01 0.01 0.83 186 307
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
23 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 170 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2.31 2.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.50 1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 308
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
24 / 61
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
1.50 1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.64 0.54 5.06 5.64 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,027 1,027 0.04 0.01 — 1,031 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.92 1.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 170 170 0.01 < 0.005 — 171 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.08 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 254 254 0.01 0.01 1.15 258 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 228 228 0.01 0.03 0.59 239 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 232 232 0.01 0.01 0.03 235 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.34 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 229 229 0.01 0.03 0.02 239 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
309
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
25 / 61
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 101 101 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 102 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 97.9 97.9 0.01 0.01 0.11 102 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 16.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.03 0.86 8.04 9.39 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723 310
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
26 / 61
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.19 0.16 1.47 1.71 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.08 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 249 249 < 0.005 0.01 1.05 253 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 226 226 0.01 0.03 0.59 237 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.03 231 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 226 226 0.01 0.03 0.02 236 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 165 165 < 0.005 0.01 0.33 168 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 162 162 0.01 0.02 0.18 169 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 311
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
27 / 61
3.17. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.67 0.56 5.21 6.51 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,196 1,196 0.05 0.01 — 1,201 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.95 1.19 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 198 198 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
312
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
28 / 61
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.07 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 244 244 < 0.005 0.01 0.97 248 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 222 222 0.01 0.03 0.59 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 224 224 0.01 0.01 0.03 227 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 222 222 0.01 0.03 0.02 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 114 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 111 111 0.01 0.02 0.13 116 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.19. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
313
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
29 / 61
Off-Road 1.04 0.88 8.06 10.0 0.01 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Equipment
Paving — 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.33 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 62.1 62.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 137 137 0.01 0.01 0.62 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
314
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
30 / 61
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.22 5.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.21. Architectural Coating (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 0.15 0.93 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 0.15 0.93 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 315
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
31 / 61
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.37 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.6 53.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.7 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.87 8.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.90 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 50.8 50.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 51.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 47.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 19.1316 Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
32 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 3.12 3.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.23. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 317
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
33 / 61
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.65 0.82 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 49.9 49.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 50.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 45.6 45.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 46.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 33.0 33.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 33.5318 Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
34 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.25. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 319
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
35 / 61
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.07 0.46 0.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 70.3 70.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 48.9 48.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 49.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 44.7 44.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 45.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.1320 Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
36 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
3.26 3.00 2.52 27.1 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.11 0.15 — 6,459 6,459 0.25 0.24 25.1 6,563 Total 3.26 3.00 2.52 27.1 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.11 0.15 — 6,459 6,459 0.25 0.24 25.1 6,563 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
3.10 2.83 2.98 24.7 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.11 0.15 — 6,014 6,014 0.28 0.27 0.65 6,103 Total 3.10 2.83 2.98 24.7 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.11 0.15 — 6,014 6,014 0.28 0.27 0.65 6,103 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
321
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
37 / 61
Single 0.56 0.51 0.51 4.36 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 1,004 1,004 0.04 0.04 1.80 1,020 Family
Housing
Total 0.56 0.51 0.51 4.36 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 1,004 1,004 0.04 0.04 1.80 1,020
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 269
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 269
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 44.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 44.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 44.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 44.5
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
322
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
38 / 61
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,141 1,141 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,144 Total 0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,141 1,141 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,144 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,141 1,141 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,144 Total 0.11 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,141 1,141 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,144 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
323
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
39 / 61
Architect — 11.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Hearths 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Consum
er
Products
— 3.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.41 0.39 0.04 4.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 Total 0.44 14.8 0.30 4.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 336 336 0.01 < 0.005 — 336 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 11.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Consum
er
Products
— 3.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.03 14.4 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 Consum
er
Products
— 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.96 324
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
40 / 61
Total 0.04 1.78 < 0.005 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 46.4 51.8 0.56 0.01 — 69.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 7.68 8.57 0.09 < 0.005 — 11.6 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 7.68 8.57 0.09 < 0.005 — 11.6
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 325 Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
41 / 61
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.94 0.00 9.94 0.99 0.00 — 34.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.65 0.00 1.65 0.16 0.00 — 5.76
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
326
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
42 / 61
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 1.08
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 327
Sellers Avenue Detailed Report, 9/8/2022
43 / 61
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —