Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Proposed Project and potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to implement erosion control BMPs (refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-1). Therefore, impacts on cumulative construction-related water quality effects would be less than significant.
Additionally, the Proposed Project would result in minimal new hardscape that would not be cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project includes stormwater bio-retention basins and connections to the City’s storm drain system that would direct and filter stormwater runoff. Because the Proposed Project would not increase flood risks, would not deplete a groundwater basin, and would not place people or structures within an area prone to tsunami or seiche, the Proposed Project would not contribute to these cumulatively considered impacts.
The Proposed Project is within a growth area identified in the City’s General Plan and included in the City’s consideration of future growth impacts to water resources. Cumulative development projects and the Proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal regulations designed to minimize cumulative impacts to hydrology and water resources. Mitigation measures for the Proposed Project in combination with compliance with City, State, and federal regulations, are expected to reduce cumulatively considerable impacts to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
HYD-1 Erosion Control Measures
The Project Applicant shall implement the following erosion control measures:
Prior to construction, areas where ground disturbance will occur will be identified. During construction, ground disturbance will belimited to the identified areas. During the construction period, vehicular construction traffic will be confined to the designated access routes and staging areas.
During the construction period, equipment maintenance and cleaning will be confined to staging areas. No vehicle maintenance will occur on-site during construction. Immediately following the conclusion of construction, disturbed areas will be restored to preconstruction contours to the extent possible. Hay/straw bales and silt fences will be used to control erosion during stormwater runoff events. The highest quality soil will be salvaged, stored, and used for native re-vegetation/seeding.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-82Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Drainage gaps will be implemented in topsoil and spoil piles to accommodate/reduce surface water runoff during construction.
Sediment control measures will be in place prior to the onset of the rainy season and will be maintained until disturbed areas have been re-vegetated. Erosion control structures will be in place and operational at the end of each day if work activities occur during the rainy season. During the construction period, fiber rolls will be placed along the perimeter of disturbed areas to ensure sediment and other potential contaminants of concern are not transported off-site or to open trenches. Locations of fiber rolls will be adjusted as needed. Vehicles and equipment stored in the construction staging area will be inspected daily for signs of leakage. Leak-prone equipment will be staged over an impervious surface or other suitable means will be provided to ensure containment of any leaks. Vehicle/equipment wash waters or solvents will not be discharged to surface waters or drainage areas. During the rainy season, soil stockpiles and material stockpiles will be covered and protected from the wind and precipitation. Plastic sheeting will be used to cover the stockpiles and straw wattles will be placed at the base of each stockpile for perimeter control. During the construction period, contractors will immediately control the source of any leak and immediately contain any spill utilizing appropriate spill containment and countermeasures. Leaks and spills will be reported to the designated representative of the lead contractor. Contaminated media will be collected and disposed of at an off-site facility approved to accept such media within 24 hours.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-83Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.12 LAND USE/PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
LAND USE/PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
SETTING
Regulatory Context
City of San Ramon General Plan
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan provides detailed information related to the City’s land use standards. Applicable goals and policies include:
Policy 4.6-I-9 Require residential development to employ creative site design and architectural quality that blends with the characteristics of each specific location and its surroundings, while incorporating 360-degree design principles Policy 4.6-I-10 Provide a wide range of housing opportunities for current and future residents.
Policy 4.6-I-11 Provide high quality public facilities, services, and other amenities within close proximity to residents
City of San Ramon Municipal Code
Title C of the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions governing Land Use throughout the City.
Environmental Setting
Project Site Land Uses
The Project Site is comprised of one 0.7-acre parcel with the corresponding APN 211-100-057. The Project Site is currently developed with a vacant two-story, single-family residential house, referred to as the Harlan House. An aerial photograph of the Project Site is provided in Figure 3. The Project Site has a land use designation of zoned as Single-Family Medium Density Residential in the City’s General Plan, and is located within the WSP area and designated in the WSP Land Use Map as “Park”. The Proposed
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-84Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project includes an amendment to the WSP to address exceptions to the Project Site’s development standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP. The Proposed Project includes a proposed maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.67 and a maximum lot coverage of 0.36.
Surrounding Land Uses
The Project Site is surrounded by multi-family residential to the west and south, single-family residential to the north, and San Ramon Valley Boulevard/I-680 to the east.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Physically divide an established community? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community typically include new freeways and highways, major arterials streets, and railroad lines. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
Question B
Would the project: 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? Less than Significant. No, 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. As described above, the Project Site has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential in the City’s General Plan, and is located within WSP area and designated in the WSP Land Use Map as “Park”. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the WSP to address exceptions to the Project Site’s development standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP. The Project includes a proposed maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.67 and a maximum lot coverage of 0.36. The amendment would not result in any additional environment effects after approval of the proposed zoning changes. The Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the City’s General Plan, as discussed in each individual environmental impact area analyzed within this IS. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site, including population growth resulting from build-out of the City’s General Plan, would be developed in accordance with local and regional planning documents. As described above, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the WSP to address exceptions to the Project Site’s development standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with all zoning requirements and would reflect current land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-85Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Future development would be subject to further CEQA environmental review that would analyze impacts to land use and planning, including consistency with the amended WSP. Additionally, as discussed above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, goals, and policies, and, thus, would not contribute to the potential for adverse cumulative land use effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-86Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.13 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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?
SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Pursuant to the mandate of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) designates mineral deposits that have regional, multi-community, or statewide economic significance. SMARA allows the SMGB to designate and classify lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance. Classification of minerals is completed by the State Geologist in accordance with the SMGB’s priority list into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). Lands classified as MRZ-1 are areas where geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits are present; MRZ-2 indicates areas that contain identified mineral resources; MRZ-3 indicates areas of undetermined mineral resources significance; MRZ-4 indicates areas of unknown mineral resource potential.
Environmental Setting
Mineral extraction is important in Contra Costa County (as in other counties) because minerals, such as crushed rock and sand (among others), supply the necessary components for local home building as well as for a diverse array of other industries (Contra Costa County, 2005b). The most important mineral resources that are currently mined in the County include crushed rock near Mount Zion on the north side of Mount Diablo in the Concord area; shale in the Port Costa area; and sand and sandstone deposits mined from several locations, but focused in the Byron area of southeast County. The Project Site is not located in a mineral resource area.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-87Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. No, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state. According to the USGS Mineral Resources Data System, there are no known mineral resources located on the Project Site.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resources that could be of value to the region. No impacts would occur to mineral resources.
Question B
Would the project: 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? No impact. No, the Proposed Project would not 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.
There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the area. No impacts would occur to mineral resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-88Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.14 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
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?
SETTING
Background Information on Noise
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound.
The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz.
Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may, therefore, be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers.
To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold (20
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-89Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
micropascals) as a point of reference, defined as 0-dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120-dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels (dBA). There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state, A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
The day/night average level (also referred to as Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-dB weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) hours.
The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.
Table 3-11 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.
Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction. Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning. Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-90Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 3-11. TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 meters (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 meter (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 meters (50 ft.) at
80 km/hour (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 meter (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 meter (3 ft.)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas
Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 meters (10 ft.) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic
at 90 meters (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 meter (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
--10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, 2013.
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted, which is also known as the ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.
With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived; Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.
Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (e.g., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-91Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Existing Noise and Vibration Environments
Existing Noise Environment
The Project Site is adjacent to a major regional roadway, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, on the eastern border. I-680, a major highway, parallels the eastern border of the Project Site, approximately 200 feet to the east. The Project Site is located in a primarily residential area, but because of its close proximity to major roadways, the Project Site is within the existing 65- to 70-dB Community Noise Exposure Limit (CNEL) noise contour for these roadways as identified in the City General Plan (City of San Ramon, 2015).
Existing Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.
The nearest sensitive receptor, residential development, is located immediately adjacent to the Project Site to the north, south, and west. Other sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include Neil Armstrong Elementary School approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast and San Ramon Athan Downs Park located 0.2 miles to the northeast.
Regulatory Setting
City of San Ramon General Plan
The following policies of the City General Plan Noise Element are applicable to the Proposed Project.
Policy 10.1-I-1 Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources and noise emanating from intermittent activities.
Policy 10.1-I-2 All projects that are exposed to noise greater than “normally acceptable” levels indicated in Figure 10-2 [of the City’s General Plan] [Table 3-12] shall be required to submit a noise analysis. Applicable noise attenuation measures shall be implemented with the DNL reduced to 45 dB in all habitable rooms.
Policy 10.1-I-3 Acoustical and vibration studies shall be prepared by qualified professionals in accordance with industry-accepted methodology. All applicable and feasible vibration reduction measures shall be incorporated into project plans.
Policy 10.1-I-4 Alternatives to sound walls such as building orientation and landscaped buffers shall be considered during the design process. If deemed appropriate, sound walls shall be well-designed and appropriately sited.
Policy 10.1-I-5 New development shall minimize their noise impacts on adjacent properties through appropriate means, including, but not limited to, the following actions:
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-92Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
x Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment,
x Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings, x Retain or install fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers, x Use soundproofing materials and other building practices or materials, x Encourage the use of commute alternatives,
x Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts, and
x Buffer noise along highways and arterial roadways through natural noise buffers and if necessary, install sound walls when compatible with neighborhood aesthetics and character.
Policy 10.1-I-6 Protect especially sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and senior care uses from excessive noise.
Policy 10.1-I-7 Implement the City’s noise control standards to ensure appropriate regulation of common residential, commercial, and industrial noise sources.
Policy 10.1-I-8 Require new noise sources to use best available and practical control technology to minimize noise from all sources.
Policy 10.1-I-9 Continue to enforce the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce noise impacts.
Policy 10.1-I-11 Encourage new developments to provide facilities which support the use of alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, carpooling and, where applicable, transit to reduce peak-hour traffic and vehicular noise.
Policy 10.1-I-14 Construction activities are exempt from the standards set forth in Figure 10-2, but must implement all practical noise attenuation measures and practices to limit adverse impacts on nearby land uses.
Policy 10.1-I-15 Continue to enforce state laws and local ordinances that pertain to nuisance noise.
Policy 10.1-I-16 Require evaluation of potentially harmful noise sources such as pure tones.
Prohibit or place restrictions on such sources if the evaluation indicates that they may be harmful.
Policy 10.1-I-17 For purposes of city analyses of noise impacts, and for determining appropriate noise mitigation, a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following:
x The ambient noise level is less than 60 dB Ldn and the project increases noise levels by 5 dB or more.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-93Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
x The ambient noise level is 60-65 dB Ldn and the project increases noise levels by 3 dB or more.
x The ambient noise level is greater than 65 dB Ldn and the project increases noise levels by 1.5 dB or more.
TABLE 3-12. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure (DNL or CNEL, dB) 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential
Transient Lodging –
Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert
Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding
Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings,
Business, Commercial
and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the
assumption that any buildings involved are of
normal conventional construction, without any
special noise insulation requirements.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements is made and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development clearly should not be
undertaken.
Source: City of San Ramon, 2015
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-94Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Ramon Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code provides noise level limits for non-transportation (stationary) and mobile noise sources. The City’s Municipal Code Title B, Division B6, Chapter V provides the code related to Noise Control in the City.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project result in: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the 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. During the construction of the Proposed Project, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the vicinity of the Project Site. As shown in Table 3-13, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 85 dB at a distance of 50 feet.
TABLE 3-13. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006
The Proposed Project is anticipated to begin construction by April of 2022 and last for approximately 12 months. Equipment associated with construction activities generally includes dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, cranes, forklifts, welders, pavers and paver equipment, rollers, and air compressors. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours.
The surrounding residential development located within approximately 50 feet of construction activity could experience maximum instantaneous noise levels of up to 85 dBA Lmax. Average noise levels would be expected to be 5-10 dBA less than maximum noise levels, or 75-80 dBA Leq. These levels are greater than the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standard of 60 dBA. However, the City’s General Plan
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-95Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
notes that construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise standards, but that noise attenuation measures and practices must be implemented to limit adverse impacts on nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure N-1 would require that construction activities associated with the Proposed Project comply with the noise control measures recommended by the City’s General Plan Policy 10.1-I-14. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce construction noise levels associated with the Proposed Project to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, the City regulates grading noise by restricting the allowable hours of grading for construction sites within one-half mile of a structure for human occupancy (Ord. No. 409, § 2, 12-9-2008). Additionally, Chapter V, Article 2 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates construction noise by restricting the allowable hours of construction for construction sites within a residential land use.
Accordingly, no construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur outside of daytime hours, minimizing the potential for noise-related sleep disruption. Given the temporary nature of construction activities, restrictions on construction times required by the City’s Municipal Code, and noise minimization measures required by Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts relating to construction noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Operation
Less than Significant. No, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in the 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. Operational noise associated with operation of the Proposed Project would include the sounds of minimal increased traffic, as well as the sounds of people speaking and using outdoor amenities. Such noises would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
As described in Section 3.18, operation of the Proposed Project is expected to generate only 16 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips, and 219 daily vehicle trips. Additionally, as described in Section 2.3 and Section 3.18, residents would not have their own vehicles and a complimentary shuttle service would be provided to residents to meet transportation needs. Given the close proximity of the Project Site to I-680, a major interstate freeway, the Proposed Project’s increase in daily vehicle trips would be negligible and, therefore, the increase in noise would be negligible. Impacts relating to noise levels due to operation of the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
Question B
Would the project result in: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, drilling, and compacting occur. For structural damage, Caltrans uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV), for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards; 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern; and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV for historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. The Harlan House is a historic
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-96Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
building; therefore, the 0.08 in/sec PPV will be used as a threshold of significance for structural damage.
The threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV is used by Caltrans as the threshold for human annoyance caused by vibration. Therefore, activities creating vibrations exceeding 0.2 in/sec PPV would impact sensitive receptors in nearby residences (Caltrans, 2013). Table 3-14 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.
TABLE 3-14. VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 50 feet
(inches/second)
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: Caltrans, 2013.
The Table 3-14 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the Proposed Project are less than the 0.2 inches per second threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from the construction activities associated with the senior assisted living facility. At distances greater than 26 feet, construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels.
However, the Harlan House has the potential to be impacted by vibration by bulldozers, auger/drill rigs, and vibratory compactor/rollers at distances closer than 25 feet. Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 includes a provision prohibiting the use of this equipment within 25 feet of the Harlan House. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts resulting from the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant.
Question 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? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or land use, and is not located within two miles of an airport. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. As stated above, operation of the Proposed Project would not increase existing ambient noise levels above the applicable thresholds at sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-97Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. This impact is considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
N-1 Noise and Vibration Reduction
Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers or engine shrouds that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Municipal Code, non-grading construction operations within a residential land use district will take place between the hours of 7:30 a.m and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, excluding state and federal holidays.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Municipal Code, grading operations within one-half mile of a structure for human occupancy will take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding state and federal holidays. Identify and implement truck haul routes. Truck routes shall be selected so that noise from heavyduty trucks will have a minimal impact on noise sensitive receptors. Proposed truck haul routes are to be submitted to the City at least 30 days before the required usage date, and should include the following recommendations:
o Conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so noise and vibration are kept to a minimum;
o Route construction equipment and vehicles carrying soil, concrete or other materials over streets and routes that will cause the least disturbance to residents in the vicinity of construction sites and haul roads;
o Do not operate haul trucks on streets within 250 feet of school buildings during school hours or hospitals and nursing homes at any time, without a variance. Prohibit the use of bulldozers, auger/drill rigs, and vibratory compactor/rollers at distances within 25 feet of the Harlan House, except for those uses needed for the relocation of the Harlan House.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-98Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.15 POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
SETTING
Regulatory Setting
City of San Ramon Municipal Code
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance included as Title C, Division C4, Chapter XII of the San Ramon Municipal Code is intended to enhance the City’s public welfare by making adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community through exercise of its land use authority in approving residential development projects.
City of San Ramon General Plan
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan provides detailed information related to the City’s housing needs and standards. The Land Use Element contains goals and policies that are relevant to population and housing. Applicable goals and policies include:
Policy 4.6-I-10 Provide a wide range of housing opportunities for current and future residents.
Policy 4.6-I-11 Provide high quality public facilities, services, and other amenities within close proximity to residents.
Environmental Setting
As described in the City’s General Plan, the population for the City San Ramon jurisdictional boundary increased by 72.8 percent since from 2000 to 2015. In 2020, the City’s population was 84,605 people (U.S. Census, 2021). The City’s General Plan is anticipated to accommodate a population of approximately 96,174 at 2035 buildout (City of San Ramon, 2015).
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-99Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project includes rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP, which would allow residential uses on the Project Site. The Proposed Project would construct a three-story senior assisted living facility with 48 rooms and 84 beds with associated parking, driveways, landscaping, and utilities. Project utilities would connect to existing City infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would require up to 35 workers during the peak construction phase.
Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately 12 months. Construction of the proposed project would not affect the population of the City because the construction workforce is available from nearby areas. In addition, the Project Site is within commuting distance of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, so construction workers are not expected to relocate. Temporary construction activities are not expected to increase the demand for housing. Operation of the Proposed Project would create new jobs and increase the demand for new employees. When construction is complete, operation of the Proposed Project would require up to 38 full-time employees. The Proposed Project’s constructionand operation-related employment is expected to be absorbed by the regional labor force and would not attract new workers to the City. The Proposed Project includes a residential component that could permanently increase the City’s residential population. However, the Project Site has a land use designation of Single-Family Medium Density Residential in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the Project Site is anticipated for residential use at buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Question B
Would the Project: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project Site is located on a lot that is not currently inhabited. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not displace existing housing or people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. The Proposed Project is not expected to significantly increase unplanned growth, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with growth. No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-100 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.16 PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
SETTING
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Service
Fire Protection and emergency medical services within the City of San Ramon are provided by the San Ramon Fire Protection District (SRFPD). The SRFPD has ten stations, the closest being Station 34, located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. The nearest hospital to the Project Site is San Ramon Regional Medical Center, which is located approximately 2 miles north of the Project Site, and provides a comprehensive range of inpatient and outpatient medical services (San Ramon Regional Medical Center, 2021).
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement services within the City of San Ramon are provided by the San Ramon Police Department (SRPD). The SRPD has one station, located approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project Site.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-101 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Schools
The San Ramon Valley Unified School District services the City and includes 22 elementary schools, one independent learning school, eight middle schools, and one high school (San Ramon Valley Unified School District, 2021).
Parks
As described in Section 3.17.2, the City of San Ramon Parks and Community Services Department is responsible for management of parks and recreational facilities in the City. The overall standard of providing 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 people reflects a minimum goal to maintain this important quality of life component as the City’s population increases through the years (City of San Ramon, 2016).
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A – Fire Protection
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: fire protection?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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 fire protection. Development on the Project Site and vicinity, and the associated increase in demand for fire services, is currently accounted for in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, payment of property taxes would ensure that fire protection services could be provided to the Proposed Project without diminishing service to others within the SRFPD service area. All building design and construction would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, which includes construction techniques that minimize fire risk. The SRFPD would conduct a plan check prior to approval of the building permit, which would ensure that appropriate steps are taken to minimize the risk of fire, by requiring that recommendations of the SRFPD are implemented, reducing the potential for a fire on the Project Site. Fire protection services would not need to be extended to serve the Proposed Project; impacts would be less than significant.
Question B – Police Protection
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: police protection?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-102 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 police protection. Law enforcement services within the City are provided by the SRPD. The Project Site is within the SRPD’s service area. While the Proposed Project would be expected to marginally increase demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would not create the need for new or expanded police protection facilities because growth on the Project Site and vicinity is anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Question C – Schools
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: schools? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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 schools. The Proposed Project would include residential uses that are limited to a senior demographic, and therefore the Proposed Project would not increase student enrollment. Construction of the Proposed Project would require up to 35 workers during the peak construction phase, while operation would require up to 38 full-time employees. The construction and operation workforce would be available from nearby areas and is not expected to permanently relocate to the City with their families, which would lead to an increase in student enrollment. Furthermore, pursuant to SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995(h)), new development, including residential, commercial, and industrial projects, are required to pay a School Facilities Mitigation Fee. Payment of these fees would offset the costs of school service demands and contribute to the construction or expansion of school facilities. Therefore, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
Question D – Parks
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: parks; other public facilities?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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 parks. As described in Section 3.17.3, impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks would be less than significant.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-103 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Question E – Other Public Facilities
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: parks; other public facilities?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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 other public facilities. As described in Section 3.17.3, impacts to other recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. As described above, the Proposed Project could potentially increase the demand for fire, police, schools, parks, or other public facilities. However, growth within the UGB area is expected and planned for in the City General Plan and payment of the public facilities impact fees (when the Proposed Project is developed) and property taxes would alleviate the demands to public services.
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None Required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-104 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.17 RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
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?
SETTING
As described in Section 3.17.2, the City of San Ramon Parks and Community Services Department is responsible for management of parks and recreational facilities in the City. The overall standard of providing 3 acres of developed parkland per thousand people reflects a minimum goal to maintain this important quality of life component as the City’s population increases through the years.
The closest community park to the Project Site is the San Ramon Athans Down Park, located approximately 0.3 miles northeast of the Project Site. Other nearby parks include the Neil Armstrong School Park, Inverness Park, Montevido School Park, Boone Acres Park, and Bishop Ranch Regional Preserve.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question 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? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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. The Proposed Project includes a residential component that could permanently increase the City’s residential population. However, due to the nature of the senior demographic that the Proposed Project will serve, it is anticipated that the majority of the residents would already reside in or near the City. Construction of the Proposed Project would require up to 35 workers during the peak construction phase. The construction workforce could use the nearby parks during construction; however, such use would not be substantial because they would be working in the area
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-105 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
temporarily. The Proposed Project would require up to 38 full-time employees and is expected to house 84 residents at maximum. It is expected that employees would already reside in or near the City and would not substantially increase the use of nearby recreation facilities. The Proposed Project would also provide on-site guest amenity areas, which would reduce use of existing parks and recreation facilities.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be subject to the Parks and Recreation Facility Impact Fee pursuant to Title C, Division C4, Chapter 9 of the City’s municipal code. The City would determine the park development impact fee at the time of development and payment of the fees is required prior to issuance of building permits. Park development impact fees are used by the City to finance construction of new neighborhood and community parks and address the impacts on existing parks caused by development in the City. Payment of these fees would offset the costs of park and recreation demands.
Therefore, impacts related to recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Question 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? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project does not involve or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. The Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on existing recreational facilities. As described above, the Proposed Project and other planned development in the area would be subject to the Parks and Recreation Facility Impact Fee pursuant to Title C, Division C4, Chapter 9 of the City’s municipal code. Based on the payment of park development impact fees there is no evidence that this Proposed Project would result in cumulative impacts toward recreational facilities, and this is a less than significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-106 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.18 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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 §
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?
SETTING
Transportation Network
The Project Site can be accessed via the following regional and City roadways:
Westside Drive is a two lane east/west oriented roadway in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Westside Drive is classified as a Collector Street by the City General Plan. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a four lane north/south oriented roadway in the vicinity of the Project Site. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is classified as an Arterial and Route of Regional Significance by the City General Plan.
I-680 is an interstate highway serving as the primary regional connector. Within the City limits, I-680 is aligned in a north-south direction serving San Ramon and the Tri-Valley. It connects San Jose in the south to I-80 in Solano County in the north. Within the City limits, I-680 has three mixed flow lanes and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction.
Bikeways, Pedestrian Facilities, Public Transportation System Westside Drive and San Ramon Valley Boulevard both feature existing Class II bike lanes with one-way striped and signed lane for bicyclists on either side of the street. Sidewalks with a raised curb and gutter are also provided along Westside Drive and the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the vicinity
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-107 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
of the Project Site. Bus service in San Ramon is provided by County Connection operated by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority. The nearest County Connection bus stop, Bollinger Canyon Road and Talavera Drive, is located approximately 2 miles north of the Project Site.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook was used to estimate weekday AM, PM, and daily trip generation forecasts. Table 3-15 presents the trip generation of the Proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis. As shown, the Proposed Project is expected to generate 15 AM peak hour trips, 20 PM peak hour trips, and 218 daily vehicle trips.
TABLE 3-15. WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES Land Use Category
(ITE Code) Size Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Assisted Living (254) 84 beds 218 9 6 15 8 12 20
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017
Implementing Policy 5.1-1-2 of General Plan requires that traffic impact studies be prepared for all proposed new development projected to generate 50 or more net new peak hour trips (City of San Ramon, 2015). As shown above, trip generation from operation of the Proposed Project would be below the threshold requiring a traffic impact study. Due to the low number of project-generated trips, the Proposed Project would not adversely impact roadway operations in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Additionally, operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan goals or with any of the City’s transportation plans and policies designed to address roadway operations.
The Proposed Project would not affect access to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the above, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Question B
Would the project: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant. Section 15064.3 was recently added to the CEQA Guidelines and describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section 15064.3(b) establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the use of LOS analysis that evaluates a project’s impacts on traffic conditions at nearby roadways and intersections.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-108 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City does not currently have adopted CEQA thresholds for VMT and the Proposed Project is not located in a Transit Priority Area or otherwise screened out from further VMT analysis. Therefore, an evaluation of the project’s VMT impacts was conducted according to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) VMT Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in Contra Costa (CCTA VMT Methodology), dated July 9, 2020 and is included in Appendix H. The CCTA VMT Methodology has established a VMT threshold of significance of 15 percent below the Bay Area average VMT.
As described in Appendix H, the Proposed Project is forecast to have an average VMT of 14.7 miles per employee, based on the CCTA Travel Model results for the Project area. The CCTA Travel Model indicates that the Bay Area average daily VMT per employee is currently 15.6 miles. Accordingly, 15 percent below the Bay Area average VMT equates to a threshold of 13.2 miles. Therefore, without mitigation, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to VMT in the area under near-term conditions.
The VMT generated by the Proposed Project could be reduced by implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The TDM program would need to achieve a 10% reduction to the average VMT per employee to mitigate VMT impacts to a less than significant level. Accordingly, implementation of a TDM program is required under Mitigation Measure T-1. After implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, the Proposed Project would have a less-than significant impact on VMT and the Proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Question C
Would the project: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. Access to the Proposed Project would be provided by an entry/exit driveway on Westside Drive. An additional exit-only driveway would also be provided on Westside Drive. The Proposed Project would not include any modifications to the existing circulation system in the vicinity of the Project Site that would result in a traffic safety hazard. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur.
Question D
Would the project: Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Access to the Proposed Project would be provided by an entry/exit driveway on Westside Drive. An additional exit-only driveway would also be provided on Westside Drive. Access to the adjacent businesses would be maintained throughout construction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. As described above, the intersections in the vicinity of the Project Site are forecasted to continue to operate acceptably under buildout of the City’s General Plan. Additionally, traffic volumes from operation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with those evaluated under buildout of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-109 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MITIGATION MEASURES
T-1
The Applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan to the City. The TDM Plan shall include strategies to reduce VMT generated by the Proposed Project by at least 10 percent. Reduction strategies may include measures such as ridesharing programs, shuttle services, or carpool parking. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City prior to groundbreaking activities.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-110 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.19 Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
REGULATORY SETTING
California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities. Because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources (TCR) at issue are included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on such TCRs. TCRs can only be identified by members of the Native American community, thus requiring consultation under CEQA.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-111 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, signed into law in 2014, established a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Pursuant to PRC, Division 13, Section 21074, TCRs can be either:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the eligibility criteria for the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1(c)). In applying these criteria, the lead agency must consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources. In light of this, AB 52 requires that, within 14 days of a decision to undertake a project or determination that a project application is complete, a lead agency shall provide written notification to California Native American tribes that have previously requested placement on the agency’s notice list. Notice to tribes shall include a brief project description, location, lead agency contact information, and the statement that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a tribe.
Senate Bill 18
SB 18 requires cities and counties to notify and consult with Native American Tribes in California about proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting tribal cultural resources. SB 18 requires cities and counties to send any proposals for revisions or amendments to general plans and specific plans to those California Native American Tribes within California that are on the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within city or county jurisdiction. If requested by a tribe on the NAHC contact list, cities and counties must conduct consultations with the requesting tribes prior to adopting or amending their general plans or specific plans.
City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives are located within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of San Ramon General Plan (2015). Applicable implementation policies include:
Implementing Policy 8.7-I-5: For projects involving a General Plan Amendment, the development of a Specific Plan (or amendment), or designating open space, provide for tribal consultation opportunities in accordance with state law.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-112 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Consultation
AES sent a record search request to the NAHC on August 2, 2021 and a reply was received on August 31, 2021. The NAHC reported that the search of the Sacred Lands File was negative and included a list of 15 individuals who might have information regarding the Proposed Project Site. AES has not contacted any of those individuals, but the list is appended to Appendix D. The City of San Ramon has a list of Tribes appropriate for consultation under the provisions of AB 52 and SB 18, and sent letters to those groups on August 20, 2021. Only one reply, from Wilton Rancheria, has been received as of this writing.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant with Mitigation. On August 25, 2021, the City sent AB 52 and SB 18 consultation letters to the following individuals and tribes:
Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Donald Duncan, Chairperson Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Merlene Sanchez
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan, Kanyon Sayers-Roods Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe, Charlene Niimeh, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe, Monica Arellano
North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Katherine Perez, Chairperson North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Timothy Perez, Most Likely Descendant Contact The Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Corrina Gould, Chairperson The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Andrew Galvan
Wilton Rancheria, Raymond Hitchcock
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-113 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wilton Rancheria, Jesus Tarango, Chairman
Wilton Rancheria, Dalton Brown, Executive Director of Administration Wilton Rancheria, Steven Hutchason, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Lloyd Mathieson, Chairperson Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Cosme A. Valdez, Chairperson Tule River Indian Tribe, Neil Peyron, Chairperson
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson In the letters, the City requested a response by November 17, 2021. Wilton Rancheria responded to the request for consultation in a letter dated September 14, 2021, but no other responses have been received from the tribes listed above as of this writing. In their response, Wilton Rancheria did not identify any TCRs but recommended mitigation measures. These recommendations have been included in Mitigation Measure TCR-1; Wilton Rancheria strongly recommended avoidance as the best mitigation measure. In addition, Wilton Rancheria requested additional information and a copy of the cultural report prepared for the Proposed Project. The City is participating in ongoing consultation with Wilton Rancheria as of this writing.
There is the possibility that unanticipated discoveries of subsurface archaeological deposits or human remains may occur. Impacts to these resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures TCR-1, CR-2 and CR-3 which recommend avoidance, treatment, and consultation to mitigate impacts to cultural resources would apply to TCRs as well, whether the resources are identified during consultation or construction. The completion of formal AB 52 and SB 18 consultation and application of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Development of the Proposed Project may impact TCRs, adding to cumulative impacts from other projects in the region. TCRs that could be affected by the Proposed Project as well as others in the region are subject to protections under PRC §§ 5024.1, 21083.2 and 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Given the non-renewable nature of TCRs, any impact to TCRs is potentially cumulatively considerable. However, as discussed above, no TCRs were identified during cultural resources investigations or consultation with Native American tribes. If resources are uncovered during construction, application of the consultation process and implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level, Application of similar measures to TCRs located within the region would similarly reduce the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-114 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MITIGATION MEASURES
TCR-1 Native American Monitoring
The following measures have been recommended by the Native American community and will be conducted as applicable:
1) A Native American monitor shall be invited to be present during ground disturbing activities on the site. The invitation shall be sent at least two weeks before ground disturbing activities are planned to occur; unless a response from a Tribe with closer ties to the project location is received, that monitoring position shall be offered to Wilton Rancheria as the only Native American group who has responded to consultation efforts under AB 52 and SB 18. The duration and frequency of monitoring during ground disturbing activities shall be determined by the Native American Inspector, in consultation with a qualified professional archaeologist and the construction contractor.
2) Any TCR uncovered during project construction shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible, including incorporating into greenspace, parks or other open space, or conservation easements where practicable.
3) Representatives of Wilton Rancheria shall be allowed access to any TCR uncovered during project construction to the extent feasible, should traditional use of the resource be desired. To the extent possible, the location of any TCR shall remain confidential.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-115 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.20 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
SETTING
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities PG&E provides electric power and natural gas to the City of San Ramon. PG&E has over 42,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines. PG&E delivers 2.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day to its customers (PG&E, 2021). AT&T provides telecommunications services to the City. Overhead and underground electrical distribution lines exist in the vicinity of the Project Site.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-116 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Water Supply
EBMUD and DSRSD provide potable water service to the City. EBMUD generally serves the northern, western, and central portions of San Ramon, while DSRSD serves the Dougherty Valley. The City receives its potable water supply from Zone 7, a multi-purpose agency that oversees water-related issues in the Livermore-Amador Valley (DSRSD, 2021). Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor that wholesales treated water to four retail water agencies, including DSRSD, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Cal Water Livermore District. In addition, Zone 7 retails non-potable water supplies for irrigated agricultural use, retails treated water to several direct customers, provides and maintains flood control facilities, and manages groundwater and surface water supplies in its service area. Zone 7 and DSRSD entered into the current contract for a Municipal and Industrial Water Supply on August 23, 1994. The contract has a 30-year term (expiring in 2024) and is intended to ensure an equitable, reliable, and high-quality water service for DSRSD’s customers. It provides the water supply for existing DSRSD customers and sets the stage upon which DSRSD would be able to provide service to future customers. Zone 7 is comprised of treated surface water blended with some local groundwater. Approximately 80 percent of Zone 7’s water supply comes from surface water, primarily the State Water Project, which is subject to legal and environmental issues surrounding the San Francisco Bay Delta. Additionally, accumulated or “banked” water supplies are available in local and non-local storage locations.
According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, DSRSD’s water supplies are adequate to meet projected demands during normal years, single dry years, and five-year droughts through year 2040 (DSRSD, 2021). Because the Project Site is located in a fully developed area and water utilities exist on and in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Proposed Project would tie into existing lines.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The Project Site is located within the DSRSD wastewater collection and treatment service area. The DSRSD operates the DSRSD WWTP, which has a capacity of 17 million GPD (DSRSD, 2021). The plant operates under a NPDES permit regulated by the SFBRWQCB (California Water Boards, 2017). The Proposed Project would tie into existing DSRSD wastewater infrastructure.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
City of San Ramon Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Solid waste collection in the City is provided by Valley Waste Management and disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill in Alameda County. Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill is located approximately 12.5 miles east of the Project Site. The landfill has a permitted capacity of approximately 33 million cubic yards and a permitted daily intake limit of 2,518 tons (CalRecycle, 2021). With current intake rates, the estimated closure year of the facility is December of 2022.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board has allocated the City of San Ramon with a disposal rate target of 5.7 pounds of waste per person per day (City of San Ramon, 2015). In 2012, the City’s disposal rate was 2.4 pounds of waste per person per day, which was well below the target.
Title B, Division B6, Chapter 1 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates the collection and disposal of solid waste, yard waste, and household hazardous materials. Further, the City’s General Plan Public Facilities
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-117 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Utilities Element includes a goal to reduce the volume of solid waste generated in the City with recycling and resource conservation (City of San Ramon, 2015).
California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, mandates management of non-hazardous solid waste throughout California. The purpose of AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible; improve regulation of existing solid waste landfills; ensure that new solid waste landfills are environmentally sound; streamline permitting procedures for solid waste management facilities; and specify the responsibilities of local governments to develop and implement integrated waste management programs.
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen requires that at least 50 percent of the weight of non-hazardous job site debris generated by new construction be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. CALGreen requires submission of plans and verifiable post-project documentation to demonstrate compliance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: 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? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Utilities, including water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities, currently exist in the vicinity of the Project Site and the Proposed Project would tie into these utilities. The relocation or construction of new facilities for these utilities would not be necessary.
The Proposed Project would tie in to the existing EBMUD water main located in Westside Drive (EBMUD, 2017). As described for Question B below, the Proposed Project and its residents would not result in a significant consumption of water supplies and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Proposed Project. Water system improvements are not anticipated.
As described in Section 2.3.6, the Proposed Project would tie into existing DSRSD wastewater infrastructure. Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated by the DSRSD WWTP, which operates in accordance with the regulations of the SFRWCQB and the CWA. The Project Site is located within the City’s defined UGB and is expected to experience growth, as stated in the City’s General Plan. The Project Site is accounted for in City wastewater planning projections, and no improvements to existing wastewater collection or treatment facilities are anticipated. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-118 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Proposed Project would create new impervious surfaces on the Project Site. Landscaping and bioretention areas throughout the Project Site would aid in collecting impervious surface runoff prior to entering the piped storm drain system, and all roof drains would be collected in downspouts and directed to the bio-retention planters or thru-curbs in the paved areas of the Project Site. Therefore, impacts to stormwater facilities would be less than significant.
PG&E is the electric and natural gas provider to the City. Telecommunication services are provided by AT&T to the Project Site. The Proposed Project would demand additional electricity, natural gas, telecommunications services than are currently required by the Project Site. As part of the Proposed Project, electrical, gas, and telecommunication connections would be made with tie-ins to existing facilities located in the vicinity of the Project Site. Any additional connections that are deemed necessary during final site design would be placed within utility easements. The Proposed Project would be subject to stringent energy efficiency standards through updates of the California Green Building Code and Title
24. No new expanded facilities would be required for electric and natural gas facilities that could potentially cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Question B
Would the project: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant. Yes, the Proposed Project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Construction of the Proposed Project would require the use of water supplies for activities such as washing aggregates, dust suppression, and washing surfaces. However, water would be limited during the construction phase and quantities are not anticipated to be significant.
Once operational, the residential uses on the Project Site would result in an increased demand for water supply. The Proposed Project would tie in to the existing EBMUD water main located in Westside Drive (EBMUD, 2017). EBMUD has confirmed their ability and willingness to serve the Proposed Project (EBMUD, 2017). Furthermore, the Project Site is located within the City’s UGB and is anticipated for development, and was accounted for in the City’s water supply calculations. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its residents would not result in a significant consumption of water supplies and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Proposed Project. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
Question C
Would the project: 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?
Less than Significant. Yes, the Proposed Project would 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. As described in Section
2.3.6, the Proposed Project would tie into existing DSRSD wastewater infrastructure. Wastewater
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-119 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
generated by the Proposed Project would be treated by the DSRSD WWTP, which operates in accordance with the regulations of the SFRWCQB and the CWA. The Project Site is located within the City’s defined UGB and is expected to experience growth as stated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project Site is accounted for in City wastewater planning projections, and no improvements to existing wastewater collection or treatment facilities are anticipated. The amount of wastewater generated by the Proposed Project during construction and operation is not expected to exceed the DSRSD WWTP’s capacity, and the DSRSD has confirmed their ability and willingness to serve the Proposed Project (DSRSD, 2019). Impacts would be less than significant.
Question D
Would the project: 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? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not 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. The Proposed Project would be expected to generate waste during the construction and operation phases; however, it would not be expected to result in inadequate landfill capacity. Solid waste from the Project Site would be collected and deposited at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.
The Proposed Project does not involve demolition of structures, but construction would involve a one-time disposal of soils from the Project Site resulting from the grading associated with the subterranean parking. Any construction waste generated would be disposed by the project contractor in accordance with the City’s established programs that facilitate the diversion and disposal of construction waste.
During operation of the Proposed Project, solid waste would be collected and properly disposed of by Valley Waste Management. Nursing and retirement homes are estimated to generate approximately 5 pounds of solid waste per person per day, which would result in the generation of approximately 420 pounds of solid waste per day by the Proposed Project (CalRecycle, 2021b).
The amount of waste from the Proposed Project would be a marginal fraction of the City’s total solid waste. Based on the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill permitted intake of 2,518 tons per day, waste generated by the Proposed Project would represent approximately 0.01 percent of the landfill’s daily capacity. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to solid waste facilities would result in a less than significant impact.
The Proposed Project would include recycling facilities and would comply with local solid waste ordinances as well as State standards for reducing solid waste. Because State and local laws and regulations are more stringent than federal standards, State and local laws are the primary driver for the reduction in solid waste. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the laws and regulations that aim to divert waste from landfills, including but not limited to, AB 939, CALGreen, and the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, which require reductions in waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to generation of operational solid waste and compliance with solid waste laws and regulations.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-120 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Question E
Would the project: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant. Yes, the Proposed Project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Proposed Project would include recycling facilities and would comply with local solid waste ordinances as well as State standards for reducing solid waste. Because State and local laws and regulations are more stringent than federal standards, State and local laws are the primary driver for the reduction in solid waste. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the laws and regulations that aim to divert waste from landfills, including but not limited to, AB 939, CALGreen, and the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, which require reductions in waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to generation of operational solid waste and compliance with solid waste laws and regulations.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. Utilities would not need to be expanded or relocated, as the Proposed Project would tie into existing infrastructure which has capacity to serve the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts of utility and service systems.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-121 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.21 Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
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?
SETTING
Regulatory Context
State Responsibility Areas
State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are lands in California where the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection and where CalFire administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations (California State Geoportal, 2021). LRAs are areas where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection, which can include land in unincorporated cities, cultivated agricultural lands, urbane areas, and deserts (Office of the State Fire Marshal 2021). California PRC §§ 4201 through 4204 and California Government Code 51175- 89 direct CalFire to map fire hazard zones within SRAs and LRAs, respectively, based on relevant factors
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-122 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
such as fuels, terrain, and weather. These zones, referred to as FHSZs, are based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. The zones also relate to the requirements for building codes designed to reduce the ignition potential to buildings in the wildland-urban interface zones.
City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:
Safety Element
Policy 9.5-I-1 Require site design features, which are based on a wildfire risk assessment, and fire-retardant building materials to reduce the risk of fire within the City.
Policy 9.5-I-2 Require the completion of a Fire Protection Plan for new development adjacent to a Fire Hazard Area in order to determine which mitigation measures are appropriate to minimize fire hazard.
Policy 9.5-I-3 Work with the Fire Protection District on planning for a new training facility at an appropriate location where neighborhood impacts would be mitigated.
Policy 9.5-I-4 Require sprinklers in new homes located more than 1.5-miles from a fire station.
Policy 9.5-I-5 Require sprinklers in all mixed-use development to protect residential uses from non-residential uses, which typically pose a higher fire risk.
Disaster and Emergency Preparedness
The City of San Ramon Office of Emergency Management falls under the scope of the Police Department and is part of the Community Resource Division. The Office of Emergency Management has a detailed Emergency Operations Plan in place should a significant event occur in or around San Ramon (City of San Ramon, 2021d). The City of San Ramon Strategic Plan for the City Office of Emergency Services includes actions and strategies for avoidance, preparation, and mitigation of potential disasters, to include wildfire (City of San Ramon, 2007).
Environmental Setting
Because of an extended dry season with low humidity, San Ramon has many days where fire danger is critical. Within the City, fuel loading is light and wildfire hazard is moderate except in areas adjacent to the City where steep woodland slopes and rolling grassy hills create high to extreme hazards. Areas in San Ramon representing the greatest risk are the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley areas to the east of the City Limit, and the wildland areas at the Planning Area’s western edge and northwestern corner. The Project Site is located within a flat and currently developed area within City limits. The Project Site is immediately surrounded by urban development and no open space or wildland.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-123 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Proposed Project is not located in an SRA but rather in an Incorporated LRA (CalFire, 2021) that has the FHSZ classification “LRA Unzoned.” This classification indicates that the Project Site is located in an urbanized area that is not susceptible to wildland fire (CalFire, 2021). The closest land designated as a high FHSZ is a rural and mountainous area approximately 0.3 miles west of the Project Site. Given the location of the Project Site, the threat of wildfire is not significant.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ.
Construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the Project Site boundaries and would not result in lane closures and, thus, would not affect emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in place through the State, County, or City. No impact would occur.
Question B
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: 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?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ. The Proposed Project would be located on a relatively flat area surrounded by developed land. The Proposed Project does not involve unique slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, wildfire risk would not be exacerbated and the potential to expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire is less than significant.
Question C
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: 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? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ. The Proposed Project would be constructed and located within the Project Site boundary in an area that is already developed. Overhead and underground utility lines exist in the vicinity of the Project
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-124 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Site. It is not anticipated that new electrical distribution lines, whether overhead or underground, would be necessary to serve the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Question D
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: 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? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not 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. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not located in an SRA or a very high FHSZ. As described in Section 3.8, the Proposed Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or soil and does not have a high risk of landslides or liquefaction. The Project Site is relatively flat and grading associated with the Proposed Project would not substantially alter drainage patterns. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not 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.
No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. Operation of the Proposed Project and cumulative projects could result in a cumulative impact if these projects exacerbated wildfire risk. The City’s General Plan has adopted standards for new construction adjacent to open space lands where wildfire is a threat. The Project Site and surrounding area is within City limits and not within a FHSZ. Furthermore, this Project Site area is largely developed, urban in nature, and not adjacent to wildland or open space lands. These factors reduce the potential for uncontrolled wildfire. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to wildfire.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-125 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.22 MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
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 selfsustaining 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?
Question 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 selfsustaining 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in the previous sections, the Proposed Project could potentially have significant environmental effects with respect to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the sections.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-126 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Question 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.)
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Cumulative impacts for each resource area have been considered within the analysis of each resource area. When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Question C
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The potential direct environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been considered within the discussion of each environmental resource area in the previous sections. When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 4-1 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 LIST OF PREPARERS
CITY OF SAN RAMON – LEAD AGENCY
Cindy Yee, Senior Planner
ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – CONSULTANT
Project Director: Ryan Sawyer, AICP
Project Manager: Kelly Boyle
Technical Staff: Darienne Highsmith
Marcus Barrango
Alexandria Fraser
Amy Gondran
Kathleen Sholty
Kelly Boyle
Charlane Gross, M.A., RPA
Kristen Miner
Taylor Van Demarr
Randi Thomson
Dana Hirschberg
Glenn Mayfield
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 5-1 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 REFERENCES
Architectural Resources Group, 1995. El Nido and the Old Harlan Ranch Buildings, San Ramon, California, Feasibility Study. July 1995.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. FINAL 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 2021.
BAAQMD, 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update - Proposed Thresholds of Significance. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 2021.
BAAQMD, 2019. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available online at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-andattainment-status. Accessed August 2021.
Brunzell Historical, 2021. Subject: Review of the Proposed El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project for Compatibility with Historic Preservation Standards. The Project is located at 19251 San Ramon Valley Blvd, San Ramon, Contra Costa County, California. January 8, 2021.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed October 2020.
CARB, 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed August 2021.
CARB, 2017. Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, 2017. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed August 2021.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2015. Landslide Inventory. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/. Accessed August 18, 2021.
DOC, 2019. Williamson Act Program. Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
Accessed August 9, 2021.
DOC, 2021. California Important Farmland Finder. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 9, 2021.
DOC, 2021b. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Available online:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/. Accessed September 2021.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 5 References
February 2022 5-2 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2021. RareFind 5, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Available online: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl- =%2frarefind%2fview%2fRareFind.aspx. Accessed August 16, 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed September 20, 2021.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Detail, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01-AA-0010). Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/9?siteID=8. Accessed September 2021.
CalRecycle, 2021b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available online at: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates (ca.gov). Accessed September 2, 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. Available online at:
https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4521. Accessed August 2021.
Caltrans, 2021. California State Scenic Highway System. Available online at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa Accessed August 9, 2021.
Caltrans, 2021b. Caltrans Water Quality Planning Tool. Available online at:
http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx. Accessed September 2021.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2006. Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Last updated January 20, 2006. Available online at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/2_010_LivermoreValley.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
DWR, 2021. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Available online at:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. Accessed October 2021.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces. Available online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
Accessed August 18, 2021.
CGS, 2015. Geologic Map of California. Available Online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.
Accessed August 18, 2021.
CGS, 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo. Accessed August 18, 2021.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society. Available online at: http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
Accessed August 16, 2021.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 5 References
February 2022 5-3 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California State Geoportal, 2021. State Responsibility Areas. Available online at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/CALFIRE-Forestry::state-responsibility-area/about. Accessed October 2021.
California Water Boards, 2017. ORDER No. R2-2017-0017 NPDES No. CA0037613. Adopted May 10, 2017. Available online at:
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/734/636492782722700000. Accessed October 2021.
City of San Ramon, 1997. Specific Plan, Westside San Ramon. Available online at: Westside Specific Plan - City of San Ramon (ca.gov). Accessed August 13, 2021.City of San Ramon, 2007.
Strategic Plan for the City Office of Emergency Services. Available online at:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departme nts/Police/Emergency%20Preparedness/City%20Preparedness/strategicplan.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2010. General Plan 2030 Draft EIR. Available online at:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departme nts/Community%20Development/Planning/General%20Plan/General%20Plan%202030/(2)%20S an%20Ramon%20General%20Plan%202030%20EIR.pdf. Accessed August 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2015. City of San Ramon General Plan 2035. Available online at:
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departments /Community%20Development/Planning/General%20Plan/General%20Plan%202035%202019- 10-21/FINAL%20ADOPTED%20GP2035%20(updated%20as%20of%2010-21-19).pdf. Accessed August 9, 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2016. City of San Ramon Parks and Community Services, Master Plan Update and Strategic Action Plan. Adopted March 25, 2008. Updated May 11, 2016. Available online at:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departme nts/Parks%20&%20Comm%20Srvs/Department%20Information/Master%20Plan/MasterPlan2015 UpdateFinal.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2021. City of San Ramon Current Project List. Available online at:
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departments /Community%20Development/Planning/Current%20Project%20List/projectlist.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2021b. Municipal Code. Title D, Division 5, Chapter II. Tree Preservation and Protection. Available online at: http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/sanramon-ca/docviewer.aspx?tocid=001.002#secid-21. Accessed August 16, 2021.
City of San Ramon, 2021c. Storm Drainage & Water. Available online at:
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/our_city/departments_and_divisions/public_works/storm_drainage_ water/stormwater. Accessed September 2021.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 5 References
February 2022 5-4 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Ramon, 2021d. Emergency Preparedness: City Preparedness. Available online at:
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/our_city/departments_and_divisions/police/emergency_preparedne ss/city_preparedness. Accessed September 1, 2021.
Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Available online at: General Plan | Contra Costa County, CA Official Website. Accessed August 10, 2021.
Contra Costa County, 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan, 8. Conservation Element. Available online at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30918/Ch8-ConservationElement?bidId=. Accessed September 2021.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), 2019. Project Approval Conditions. PDF. Accessed January 18, 2022.
DSRSD, 2021. Diagrams & Maps. Available online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/diagramsmaps. Accessed October 2021.
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2017. Review of Agency Planning Application. December 13, 2017.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. June 16, 2009. Available online at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=friant%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor.
Accessed October 2021.
Federal Highway Administration, 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August 2006.
Available online at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8837/dot_8837_DS1.pdf?. Accessed October 2021.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition. September 2017.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2013.
Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Available online at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. Accessed August 2021.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2021. Web Soil Survey Version 3.1. National Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts. December 2018. Available online at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed August 2021.
Office of the State Fire Marshal, 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildfire-prevention-engineering/firehazard-severityzones/#:~:text=What%20is%20%E2%80%9CLocal%20Responsibility%20Area,is%20responsible %20for%20wildfire%20protection. Accessed October 2021.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 5 References
February 2022 5-5 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), 2018. 2018 Joint Annual Report to Shareholders. Accessed August 2021.
PG&E, 2021. Learn about the PG&E natural gas system. Available online at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/naturalgas-system-overview.page. Accessed October 2021.
San Ramon Regional Medical Center, 2021. Services. Available online at:
https://www.sanramonmedctr.com/services. Accessed October 2021.
San Ramon Valley Unified School District, 2021. San Ramon Unified School District – Home Page.
Available online at: https://www.srvusd.net/
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995. Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. News Bulletin Number 63.
U.S. Census, 2021. QuickFacts: San Ramon City, California. Available online at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanramoncitycalifornia. Accessed January 18, 2022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigation Climate change in California. April 20, 2007. Produced by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Air Resources Board.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2021 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered Species Program. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC). Available online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed August 16, 2021.
USFWS, 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Accessed August 16, 2021.
USFWS, 2021c. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Available online at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b 8dbfb77. Accessed August 16, 2021.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2018. 2018 Long-Term National Seismic Hazard Map. Available online at: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/2018-long-term-national-seismic-hazard-map. Accessed August 18, 2021.
USGS, 2021. Quaternary Faults. Available online at:
https://utility.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/Utilities/PrintingTools_GPServer /x_____xY0jli5MmsEg5f7WaZjPkFg..x_____x_ags_ee0dca38-0057-11ec-9ca5- 22000a63ebfa.jpg. Accessed August 18, 2021.
USGS, 2021b. Natural Hazards. Available online at: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probabilityearthquake-will-occur-los-angeles-area-san-francisco-bay-area?qt-news_science_products=0#qtnews_science_products. Accessed August 20, 2021.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 5 References
February 2022 5-6 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wilson & Associates Landscape Architecture, 2019. Arborist Report: Proposed San Ramon Assisted Living Project.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Resolution No. 01-22
RESOLUTION NO. 01-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON RECOMMENDING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPA 19-400-001) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE WESTISDE
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND EL NIDO SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS 19-250-002)
INITIATED BY SOHAIL SIDDIQI, APPLICANT AND
EL NIDO FOUNDATION LLC, PROPERTY OWNER
FOR THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, a specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 1989, the City of San Ramon adopted the Westside Specific Plan (WSP); and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City of San Ramon adopted the update to WSP; and WHEREAS, the WSP Area was created to provide for the future conservation and development of approximately 3,300 acres of predominantly open hillside at the gateway to the City of San Ramon; and
WHEREAS, the WSP Area is intended to establish in more specific terms the nature, character and location of activities and development, to guide the orderly growth of the Westside, and to provide the basis for future implementing actions; and WHEREAS, prior to the City of San Ramon's incorporation in 1983, the San Ramon Valley General Plan designated 19251 San Ramon Valley Blvd. (subject property) as Country Estate Residential, and
WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon adopted its first General Plan in 1986 which redesignated the land use of the subject property from Country Estate Residential to Parks (P); and WHEREAS, the subject property maintained the General Plan land use designation of Parks from 1986 to 2011; and
WHEREAS, the WSP, adopted in 1989 and amended in 1997, also designated the subject property's land use as Parks; and
WHEREAS, in 1994, the City of San Ramon Planning Commission approved the Heritage at El Nido Ranch Subdivision which subdivided the El Nido Ranch into a 180-unit residential subdivision, and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Resolution No. 01-22
WHEREAS, the Park Dedication requirements were fulfilled through the payment of in - lieu fees; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Heritage at El Nido Ranch subdivision, the 0.7 acre subject property was created at the northwest corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Westside Drive and retained the Parks designation along with the historic Harlan (aka El Nido) Home; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009, an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 09- 400-002) was made to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Parks to Multiple Family — High Density Residential, and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the application was modified to re- designate the land use of the subject property from Parks to Medium-Density Residential, and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, and based upon all the evidence in the record including but not limited to all application materials, related CEQA documents, the written and oral staff reports, and oral and written comments received by the City) adopted Resolution No. 2011-029 approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA 09-400-002) amending the land use of the subject property to Medium-Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, while GPA 09-400-002 amended the General Plan land use designation, the WSP land use designation remained unchanged from Park with the expectation that when the subject property is developed, the WSP would need to be amended to align the WSP land use designation with the GP land use designation; and
WHEREAS, since 2011, the owner of the subject property has sought opportunities to relocate the Harlan (El Nido) House in order to develop the site; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, the Applicant submitted project plans for a Development Plan Concept Review for the El Nido Senior Assisted Living Facility on the subject site and to relocate the House to 2610 Pine Valley Road in an effort to preserve the historic character of the house; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2019, Sohail Siddiqi filed formal applications for a 93-bed senior assisted living facility and a Specific Plan Amendment to the Westside Specific Plan to facilitate the development of the El Nido Senior Assisted Living Facility; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2020, the Applicant amended their application to a 84-bed senior assisted living facility; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2020, the Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan, Architectural Review, Land Use Permit, Tree Removal and Initial Study applications were deemed complete for processing; and
WHEREAS, in September 2020, the Applicant requested the applications be placed on DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Resolution No. 01-22
hold so that they could work with the State Office of Historic Preservation on the disposition of the House; and
WHEREAS, in January 2021, the Applicant provided additional information prepared by their Architectural Historian on the history of the House and how the House can maintain its eligibility for historical designation; and
WHEREAS, in May 2021, the City selected an environmental consultant to prepare the CEQA environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2021, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project plans, provided feedback on the site plan and architecture, and after providing feedback on the Project design, requested that the item be continued to a future ARB meeting date to allow the Applicant an opportunity to address the comments received.
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021, the Applicant submitted revised Project plans based on the ARB recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the ARB reviewed the revised development applications and after providing additional feedback on the Project design, recommended Final Architectural Review approval with comments; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2021, a notice of a joint City Council and Planning Commission public hearing for December 21, 2021 was mailed to all property owners within 300 ft. of the Westside Specific Plan boundary area, including the project site, in addition to any interested parties, pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(a)(4) and Chapter D7-IV of the Municipal Code.; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing (first of three required public hearings for a specific plan amendment) on the Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project received public comment, provided recommendations on the amendments to the WSP and El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project, and continued the public hearing to January 18, 2022; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, after receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 15, 2022 to allow staff additional time to complete the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and respond to the Commission’s questions and comments; and
Regarding the California Environmental Quality Act:
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 19-250-002) for the proposed Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project was prepared pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Resolution No. 01-22
public review period in accordance with section 15070 and 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, commencing on February 7, 2022 and ended on March 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Project, where the staff report, Project plans, meeting minutes, summary of actions and other pertinent documents, and public testimony relating to the proposed Project and the IS/MND were heard and considered; and
WHEREAS, no environmental impacts in addition to those discussed in the IS/MND were identified during the public hearing testimony or in written comments received on the environmental document; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2022, a Response to Comments Memorandum on the IS/MND was prepared to address comments received on the Project IS/MND which are attached as Exhibit C of this Resolution and was provided to the Planning Commission at their March 15, 2022 meeting; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures and a monitoring program have been proposed to reduce any potential impact to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 19-250-002) adequately and thoroughly assesses the environmental impacts associated with the Project and with incorporation of the recommended Mitigation Measures, there is no substantial evidence in the record that the proposed Project will result in significant impacts to the environment; and Regarding Specific Plan Amendment Considerations:
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65453 states that a specific plan shall be adopted or amended in the same manner as the General Plan, except that it may be adopted by resolution and/or ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Measure G (1999) requires that subsequent amendments to the General Plan may only be adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council after recommendation in favor of such amendment is made by a 4/5 vote of the Planning Commission, and after a minimum of three public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the WSP serves as the Land Use and Zoning Designation for the WSP area; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the WSP includes the amendment of the subject property’s Park (P) land use designation to Medium Density Residential and associated amendments to the Specific Plan to facilitate the assisted living facility development; and WHEREAS, the proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation would align with the current General Plan Single-Family Medium Density Residential land use designation; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Resolution No. 01-22
WHEREAS, the proposed WSP text amendment proposal to add a guiding policy to encourage the preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest which aligns with General Plan Guiding Policy 8.7-G-1 for San Ramon to identify, evaluate, and preserve the archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources that are found within the San Ramon Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to WSP revising the WSP inclusionary housing policy to be consistent with the adopted Citywide Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would standardize City policy and align with changes to State housing law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held four (4) duly noticed public hearings on December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022 and March 15, 2022 on the subject of the Westside Specific Plan Amendment, where the staff report, plans, other pertinent documents, the staff’s presentation, applicant’s presentation, and public testimony were heard; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Planning Commission requested a specific plan amendment summary table to be provided at the January 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting in order to determine the proposed changes to the WSP as shown in Exhibit A (specific plan amendment summary table); and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission requested additional edits to Exhibit A (specific plan amendment summary table) to be provided at the February 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting for further clarification of the WSP text amendments; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission after independent consideration and independently exercising its judgment in evaluating all of the aforesaid material and testimony, adopts this Resolution with the appropriate findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends, based on the information in Exhibit A, that the City Council make the following findings based on:
For the Westside Specific Plan Amendment:
1. That the subject Specific Plan is internally consistent and consistent with the General Plan; and
2. That the Westside Specific Plan satisfies the specific plan requirements of Section 65451 of the California Government Code; and
3. That subject Specific Plan furthers the housing policies and is consistent with the goals and policies established by the General Plan, as well as the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. That the subject updates will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Resolution No. 01-22
persons residing or working in the plan area or vicinity and will not be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the plan area or vicinity because potential implications to health, safety and welfare have been analyzed and addressed in the associated initial study/mitigated negative declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, and based upon all the evidence in the record (including but not limited to all application materials, related CEQA documents, the written and oral staff reports, oral and written comments received by the City, and all other relevant documents contained in the administrative record) does hereby adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 01-22 recommending that City Council approval of the Westside Specific Amendment (SPA 19-400-001) and Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Project IS/MND.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 15th day of March 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Wallis, Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Marks, Vice Chair Alpert, Chair Kuznik
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Jean Kuznik
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nylander, Planning Commission Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Proposed WSP Amendments, dated February 15, 2022 Exhibit B: Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Project IS/MND (previously provided to the Commission on February 15, 2022), dated February 2022.
Electronic copy of IS/MND available at https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/news/hot_topics/el_nido Exhibit C: Response to Comments Memorandum on Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Project IS/MND, dated March 9, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6932FAFE-BD3B-480E-A5AC-84C339E3BF43
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Proposed Westside Specific Plan Amendments, February 15, 2022 Applicant’s Proposed Specific Plan Amendment
1. Chapter 3, “Specific Plan
Goals & Objectives”, add
“Supporting Goal &
Objective”, pg. 13
Add: “Preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable housing”.
2. Chapter 3: Figure 4.1 Land
Use Plan, pg. 17
Amend WSP Land Use designation for 0.7 acre site from
“Park” to “Medium Density Residential”.
3. Chapter 7, “Community
Design Policy” add
“Guiding Policies”, pg. 41
Add: “Encourage the preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such
preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable
housing”.
4. Chapter 7, “Community
Design Policy”, add
“Design Policies San
Ramon Valley Boulevard
Area” pg. 44
Add: “Encourage the preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such
preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable
housing”.
5. Add terminology
“Properties and buildings of
significant public interest”
definition, pg. 13 and 44
“Properties and buildings of significant public interest” shall mean “such properties that, while not necessarily designated as being of historical significance nonetheless are because of their past use and history, architectural style and/or
community connection, of importance to preserve”
6. Chapter 7, Community
Design, “Exception to
Standards”, pg. 46
In the Medium Density Residential land use, allow Lot
Coverage up to 40% for properties and buildings of
significant public interest.
7. Chapter 7, Community
Design, “Exception to
Standards”, pg. 46
Allow up to 0.70 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for properties and buildings of significant public interest.
City’s Proposed Specific Plan Amendment
8. Chapter 12 “Affordable
Housing”, add reference to
the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and
requirement to provide
affordable housing, pg. 73
Add: “Require each residential project to provide
inclusionary housing consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Exhibit B
Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project IS/MND (previously provided to the Commission on February 15, 2022), dated February 2022 Electronic copy of IS/MND available at https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/news/hot_topics/ el_nido
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND EL NIDO
ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT IS/MND RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
March 9, 2022
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to create a written record of any public comments that were received during the public review period of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Project (Proposed Project), to be located at 19251 San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the City of San Ramon (City) in Contra Costa County, California (Project Site).
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Initial Study to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The environmental document and Notice of Availability were submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH Number 2022020163) on February 7th, 2022; the IS/MND was circulated for review until March 8, 2022. During the public review period, the City received 24 written public comments and 35 spoken public comments on the Proposed Project.
COMMENTERS
The table below identifies the public comments and agencies that submitted comments related to the IS/MND prepared for the Proposed Project.
COMMENTER RECEIVED
Written
Affif and Afshan Siddiqi 2/11/22
Salim Aswat 2/11/22
Iram Satvati 2/11/22
Iram Satvati 2/11/22
Sandeep Bhatnagar 2/11/22
Michelle Pisciotta 2/11/22
Iram Satvati 2/11/22
Iram Satvati 2/11/22
Anthony D’Angelus 2/11/22
Harry Georgiades 2/14/22
Esme Georgiades 2/14/22
Madhu Panthalingal 2/14/22
Faraz Sattar 2/14/22
Iqbal Rashid 2/14/22
Sanaa Suharwardy 2/15/22
Iram Satvati 2/15/22
Carol Lopez Lucey 2/15/22
Iram Satvati 2/15/22
Bushra Shahid 2/15/22
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Brijith Vijayan 2/10/22
Andrea Corry 2/15/22
East Bay Municipal
Utilities District 3/3/22
Dr. William Harlan 2/26/22
Sandeep Dhakras 3/3/22
Spoken
Greg Carr 2/15/22
Robert Downum 2/15/22
William Harlan 2/15/22
Jim Blickenstaff 2/15/22
Timothy Farley 2/15/22
Anwar Mirza 2/15/22
Iqbal Rashid 2/15/22
Deepa Dharani 2/15/22
Call-in-user-1 2/15/22
Sandeep Dhakras 2/15/22
Antony D'Angelus 2/15/22
Andrea Corry 2/15/22
Dora Daniel 2/15/22
Ali 2/15/22
DB Liu 2/15/22
Brijith Vijayan 2/15/22
Steve Chiapetto 2/15/22
Harish 2/15/22
Esme 2/15/22
Menelaos Karavelas 2/15/22
Jiageng Li 2/15/22
Shahryar Abbasi 2/15/22
Madhu Panthilingal 2/15/22
Sadia Saifuddin 2/15/22
Iram 2/15/22
Madhuri Shamanna 2/15/22
Ismail Mahomed 2/15/22
Harry G 2/15/22
Michelle 2/15/22
Sandeep Bhatnagar 2/15/22
Lokesh 2/15/22
Mike Mann 2/15/22
Yip 2/15/22
Silvia Paniagua-Loney 2/15/22
Rajesh Shah 2/15/22
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
RESPONSES
The following responses were prepared to acknowledge and address the comments submitted by the individuals and agencies in the table above. Many of the comments received were expressions of opinion either for or against the Proposed Project, rather than comments regarding the analysis presented in the IS/MND. This document provides responses to all substantive environmental issues raised during the public review period. The City may provide further responses to comments on the Proposed Project (e.g., in public meetings, in a staff report, or in conditions of approval related to the Proposed Project).
Cultural Resources
Several commenters expressed concern regarding the preservation of the Harlan House, including the proposed methods and extent of preservation. Because the Harlan House is listed eligible in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the rehabilitation of the house shall be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI Standards). Brunzell Historical conducted an Architectural Assessment (Attachment D of the IS/MND) that outlined appropriate rehabilitation methods consistent with SOI standards.
Under the SOI Standards, “rehabilitation" is defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values." The intent of the SOI Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. As stated in the definition, "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use.
Section 3.6.4 of the IS/MND (Pg. 3-43) includes mitigation (CR-1) to restore the house in conformance with SOI standards, as detailed in the Architectural Assessment. This includes measures such as preserving distinctive materials and features and if the severity of deterioration requires replacement, the new features should match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. With implementation of IS/MND Mitigation Measure CR1, the Harlan House would be appropriately rehabilitated. Rehabilitation in conformance with SOI standards would not affect CRHR eligibility. Due to the current state of the Harlan House, planned rehabilitation would only enhance the house compared to its current state and the planned use of the interior would lead to routine upkeep and ensure preservation rather than the deterioration caused by continued vacancy and neglect.
A commenter (Raj Shah, 1/26/2022, written) expressed concern that the removal of oak trees could affect the CRHR eligibility of the Harlan House; however, because there is no information suggesting that the Harlan Family planted the trees that would be removed, their removal would not affect CRHR eligibility.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Biological Resources
A Commenter (Andrea Corry, 1/15/2022, written) expressed concern that the Proposed Project could impact neighboring biological resources, including water features and trees. Potential impacts to biological resources associated with the Proposed Project are addressed in Section
3.5 of the IS/MND. Section 3.5.2 (Pg. 3-29) of the IS/MND describes that no wetlands or watercourses are present on the Project Site. The IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (see Section 3.11.4, Pg. 3-81), which outlines erosion control measures which would reduce any potential effects to water quality to a less than significant level.
Section 3.5.3 (Pg. 3-28) of the IS/MND details the City’s tree preservation and protection ordinance, which requires a tree permit prior to removal for any non-exempt tree. Any nonexempt tree which needs to be removed for construction of the Proposed Project would require permitting. As part of the tree removal permitting process, replacement plantings are a condition of project approval (see IS/MND Pg. 3-9). Section 3.5.3 (Question E, Pg. 3-32) of the IS/MND identifies that construction of the Proposed Project could result in damage to preserved trees on the Project Site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in the IS/MND includes tree preservation measures to prevent damage to the valley oak during construction (see Pg. 3-35).
Impacts to biological resources were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.5.4.
Transportation
Many commenters expressed concern related to transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Particular areas of concern included parking, pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, air quality, and emergency access. Potential transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 3.18 of the IS/MND. As described in Section 3.18.3 (Question B, Pg. 3-107) of the IS/MND, the CEQA Guidelines were recently updated to indicate that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts rather than traditional level-of-service-based congestion analysis.
Therefore, traffic congestion is no longer considered a CEQA environmental impact and no impact analyses or mitigation measures addressing traffic congestion are required.
As shown in Table 3-15 of the IS/MND (Pg. 3-107), the Proposed Project would result in approximately 218 new daily trips, of which 15 constitute AM peak hour trips and 20 constitute PM peak hour trips. This amount of peak hour trips is below the City’s defined threshold to require a traffic impact study. The IS/MND concluded that due to the low number of projectgenerated trips, the Proposed Project would not adversely impact roadway operations in the vicinity of the Project Site (see Pg. 3-107 of the IS/MND).
Parking provided by the Proposed Project is described in Section 2.3.2 of the IS/MND. As described in Section 2.3.2 (Pg. 2-2) of the IS/MND, the Proposed Project would provide 33 parking spaces for staff and visitors. As described in the Parking Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix G of the IS/MND), the proposed parking supply would be adequate to serve anticipated facility demand and spillover onto surrounding neighborhood streets or parking facilities is not expected.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
Potential impacts related to transportation safety and emergency access are addressed throughout Section 3.18.3 of the IS/MND. The IS/MND concluded that The Proposed Project does not include any modifications to the existing circulation system in the vicinity of the Project Site that would result in a traffic safety hazard or result in inadequate emergency access.
Additionally, Section 3.4 of the IS/MND analyses potential impacts from pollutants, including increased vehicle emissions, of the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3-5 of the IS/MND, Proposed Project emissions would have a less than significant impact on regional air quality and would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds.
Land Use
Several commenters (i.e. Sandeep Bhatnagar, 2/11/22, written; Antony D’Angelus, 2/11/22, written; Timothy Farley, 2/15/2022, spoken; and more) expressed concern that the Proposed Project is not consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. As stated in Section 3.12.3 (Question B, Pg. 3-84) of the IS/MND, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Westside Specific Plan to address exceptions to the Project Site’s development standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the Westside Specific Plan. With the amendments to the Westside Specific Plan, which is a component of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and General Plan. As such, Section 3.12.3 (Question B, Pg. 3-84) of the IS/MND concludes that the Proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts to land use resources were determined to be less than significant.
Visual Resources
Commenters (i.e. Sandeep Dhakras, 1/31/22, written; Iqbal Rashid 1/25/22, written; Menelaos Karavelas, 2/15/21, spoken; and more) expressed concern that the Proposed Project would not blend into the surrounding aesthetic and would conflict with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Potential impacts to visual resources associated with the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 3.2 of the IS/MND. As described in Section 3.2.3 (Question C, Pg. 3-9) of the IS/MND, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Westside Specific Plan to address exceptions to the Project Site’s development standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the Westside Specific Plan. Since the Proposed Project is considered to be commercial, and the Proposed Project includes a Land Use Permit for commercial uses, the planned usage as a residential care facility for the elderly would be a consistent land use. Approval of the Westside Specific Plan amendment would ensure consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
As described in Section 3.2.3 (Question A, Pg. 3-8) of the IS/MND, the architectural style of the proposed building consists of elements intended to complement the design of the Harlan House.
Renovation of the exterior of the Harlan House would improve the general aesthetic of the Project Site, as the Harland House is currently in disrepair. Additionally, a Landscape Plan has been developed for the Proposed Project (Appendix B of the IS/MND) which would enhance the
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
visual character of the Project Site by adding additional tees and vegetation. Impacts to the visual character and quality of the Project Site would be considered less than significant.
Noise
Several commenters (i.e. Michelle Pisciotta, 2/3/22, written; Iram Satvati, 2/11/22, written; and more) expressed concern related to noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
Potential noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 3.14 of the IS/MND. As described in Section 3.14.3 (Pg. 3-94) of the IS/MND, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could exceed the City’s normally acceptable exterior noise standards. Mitigation Measure N-1 in Section 3.14.4 of the IS/MND would require that construction activities associated with the Proposed Project comply with the noise control measures recommended by the City’s General Plan (see Pg. 3-97 of the IS/MND). Therefore, impacts relating to construction noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
As described in Section 3.14.3 of the IS/MND, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, and impacts relating to noise levels due to operation of the Proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
Air Quality
Several commenters (e.g., Madhu Panthalingal, 2/15/22, spoken) expressed concern related to air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Particular areas of concern included the Proposed Project’s proximity to the I-680 freeway and associated health impacts. Potential air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project are addressed in Section 3.4 of the IS/MND. As described in Section 3.4.3 of the IS/MND, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to determine the significance of cumulative health risk impacts on proposed sensitive receptors from stationary sources, rail activities, and roadways in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3-6 (Pg. 3-23) of the IS/MND, residents of the Proposed Project would not experience a potentially significant cumulative health impact from existing emission sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. Additionally, health risks would be further minimized through the installation of air filtration devices with a rated Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)-13 or higher, as required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6. MERV-13 air filters are considered high efficiency filters able to remove 80 percent of PM2.5 from indoor air and may reduce concentrations of DPM from mobile sources by approximately 50 percent. Therefore, it was determined that operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Hazardous Materials
East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), the potable water provider for the Proposed Project, submitted a comment letter on the Proposed Project which states that the IS/MND and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) indicated that contaminated soils or groundwater may be present on the Project Site. This is an incorrect statement. The IS/MND does not
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
identify any potentially contaminated soils on the Project Site. A Phase I ESA was prepared to analyze the potential hazards created by hazardous material sites in the vicinity of the Project Site, and is included as Appendix F to the IS/MND. The Phase I ESA did not identify any potentially contaminated soils or groundwater on the Project Site. However, it did identify that asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint could exist in the Harlan House. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 in Section 3.10.4 (Pg. 3-74) of the IS/MND includes sampling and analysis of suspect building materials, and appropriate removal and remediation of the Project Site in the event that hazardous materials are identified.
It is understood that EBMUD’s willingness to provide potable water to the Project Site is contingent on the documentation that the Project Site does not contain any potentially contaminated soils or groundwater at the time of infrastructure design. Additionally, EBMUD requested that the City include in its conditions of approval a requirement that the Project sponsor comply with Assembly Bill 325 – “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance”.
EBMUD’s Water Service regulations (Section 31) requires that water service shall not be furnished unless all the applicable water-efficiency measures described in the regulations are installed.
Geology/Soils
A commenter expressed concern that the IS/MND cited an expired Geotechnical Investigation.
Although the Geotechnical Investigation included as Appendix E to the IS/MND has a two-year expiration period, the IS/MND conclusions are not contingent on the report. The IS/MND does refer to soil type descriptions characterized in the report, which would not change year to year.
For example, the IS/MND states that the existing report noted expansive soils are present on the site. However, the IS/MND does not propose implementation of any recommendation in the report. Rather, the IS/MND requires a new geotechnical report be commissioned prior to construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires a new design-level geotechnical report prior to issuance of building permits. This new report would ensure the site is geologically stable and feasible prior to implementation of the Proposed Project.
CONCLUSION
The Lead Agency has carefully considered the public comments, and has determined that neither the comments received, nor the responses thereto, identify any new significant impacts created by the Proposed Project. Therefore, no new information has been added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in response to the public comments; as defined by Section 15073.5(a) of CEQA, the environmental document will not require any “substantial revisions.” Pursuant to Section 15073.5(c) of CEQA, the environmental document does not require recirculation.
10.3.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council (2022-19 :
1 Yee, Cindy
From: wendell ayers < >
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 6:52 PM
To: Yee, Cindy
Subject: Home at SRVB and Westside Drive.
This is from another family living in San Ramon who objects to the conversion of the old home site into an Assisted Living Facility.
It would be totally "Out of Character" with the surrounding neighborhood and would be creating probable traffic problems as I understand that minimal parking is planned.
Surely, a better location could br selected for such a facility. How about incorporating such a facility at the now closed Nob Hill Center since this already a commercial site ang shopping facilities are nearby.
I understand that San Ramon is in need of constructing living units, so why not rezone the Westside Drive property into a multi-family for apartments??
Wendell Ayers
San Ramon, CA 94583
10.3.d
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: D: Public Comment Received Since March 15, 2022