Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07311984 - 2.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: `-Ju+y-31, 1984 SUBJECT: Report from the Chief Engineer of the Flood Control District recommending that a determination of no significant effect on the environment be made regarding the Acqui- sition of Southern Pacific Transportation Company Property in Walnut Creek project, County File tPW83-48. Specific Request(s) or Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION Determine that the Acquisition of Southern Pacific Transportation Company Property in Walnut Creek project, County File 4PW83-48, 'will not have a significant effect on the environment. BACKGROUND The proposed project is the acquisition of property needed to provide rights-of-way for the San Ramon Bypass channel project. This project is the last phase of the original Walnut Creek project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1960 Public Law 86-645, 14 July 1960, Eighty-sixth Congress, H.R. 7634. Related authorizing legislation by the State of California is contained in Sections 12716, 12717 and 12718 of the State Water Code. The State authorization designates the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conser- vation District as the agency to fulfill the local interest responsibilities. Pursuant to its vested authority, the Flood Control District has given its assurance to the Corps of Engineers that all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way will be provided and all required alternations or relocations of roads, bridges, or utilities will be made without cost to the United States. A review of the preliminary project alignment by the utility companies serving the project area has revealed the likelihood of conflict with the following: one oil products pipeline, four waterlines, five gas lines, six sewer lines, two telephone ducts, and five power poles. These facilities may have to be relocated or modified in order to clear the project right-of-way. Therefore, item 47a of the Environmental Impact Analysis section of the Initial Study should be changed to read: "Yes," (utility modifications are required) . The Negative Declaration for Acquisition of Southern Pacific Transportation Company Property in Walnut Creek, County File #PW 83-48 was published on July 8, '1983 without protest. The comments received focused mainly upon flood control improvements to be constructed within the railroad right-of-way, rather than the acquisition of the property. The Negative Declaration, the comments received and the response made to those comments are summarized in the attached report. Continued on attachment: yes Signatu .Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board ittee Approve Other: Signature(s): Action of Board on: i > 9 8 4 Approved as Recommended Other_ Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Attested 8 Orig. Div.: Public Works - Flood Control JX. OLSSON, MINTY CLERK AND cc: County Administrator EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD County Auditor-Controller Public Works; Director 000346 Flood Control Planning Accounting - gc:sotranscobrdord.t7 By _ _ _� DEPUTY Q� 3 Summary of Comments and Responses Regarding the Negative Declaration for the _Acquisition of Southern Pacific Transportation Company Property in Walnut Creek Project, County File OW 83-48 The following is a summary of the comments received regarding the subject project and the responses made to those comments. A copy of the Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study and copies of the comment and response correspondence are attached as an appendix. 1. Mitigation of Impacts to Surface Drainage The California Department of Transportation and Mr. John Patterson expressed concern that the project would adversely affect offsite drainage. The Corps project will provide for the acceptance of offsite water now draining to the project site. From Mt. Diablo Blvd. to the south the channel will be entrenched (the top of the channel walls will be below the adjacent ground surface) . Therefore, surface water will flow directly to the channel along this reach. North of Mt. Diablo Blvd. the top of the channel wall will be above the adjacent ground surface to the east of the project site. However, the existing railroad - track bed is also above the ground surface to the east. Therefore,_, current surface drainage patterns will not be altered. All drainage' improvements discharging to or crossing the project site will be modified as necessary to drain into the channel . 2. Mitigation of Impacts to Subsurface Drainage. Ms. Shirley Stephens and Ms. Patricia Davidson expressed concern that the channel facilities would create a barrier which would impound ground water and result in seepage problems. The channel facility will include a subdrainage system consisting of gravel beds under the channel bottom slab and gravel backfill with drainpipes along the channel walls. The bottom of the gravel bed will be approximately 5 feet below the adjacent ground surface in the vicinity of Walker Avenue. It is expected that the channel subdrainage system will eliminate or at least significantly reduce seepage problems currently existing along the railroad property. 3. Visual Impacts Mr. Thomas Terrill and Mr. - John Lipscomb expressed concern regarding visual changes resulting from the project. Since the channel will be below the adjacent ground surface south of Mt. Diablo Blvd. or closely conform to the existing railroad track bed profile, north of Mt. Diablo Blvd. , the visual impact of the channel will be minimal. 00034' • 4. Sound Impact Mr. Walter W. Hale, Superintendent, Acalanes Union High School District commented upon the potentially disruptive levels of construction noise near Las Lomas High School . Mr. Vincent Lockary requested the installation of a sound wall along the right-of-way line where adjacent housing is within 100 feet. It is expected that intermittent noise levels within the construction site may reach 85 dB(A) . However since the closest classroom areas are 175 feet to 200 feet from the construction site, the noise level should be attenuated to approximately 75 dB(A) , which should not be disruptive. Regarding the sound wall, the completed channel project will generate so little noise that a sound suppressing structure is not justified. Construction noise will have an impact on adjacent property, but con- struction activities are not expected to last more than two months at any location and noise generating operations will take place only between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 5. Habitat Impact Mr. Terrill and Mr. Lockary requested that specific actions be taken to save trees along the railroad right-of-way. 0 During the design phase of the channel project, a biological assessment will be made to determine which trees can be reasonably expected to survive the disturbance of construction operations. However, preliminary inspection indicates that at least eleven trees with trunk diameters greater than 12-inches will have to be removed at the following locations: Station 594+00 R 14-inch Oak 14-inch Oak 594+75 R 12-inch Oak 595+90 R 24-inch Oak 604+00 R 18-inch Pine 604+50 R 15-inch Pine 631+60 L 12-inch Chinese Elm 632+00 L Triple Oak, 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch 634+75 L 30-inch Oak 670+30 L 33-inc Oak 670+60 R 36-inch Oak In addition, the existing San Ramon Creek channel from the Caltrans Channel lining at Bishop Lane to the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of'-way will be channelized with a rectangular concrete lining which includes an inlet structure at Sans Cranite Creek. 000348 ' F 6. Mitigation for Community Separation Mr. Walter Hale and Mr. Patterson commented upon the disruption of access across the railroad. property due to the channel project. Mr. Hale reported the existance of an access easement across the railroad property serving the east entrance to Las Lomas High School . A recent Title Report on the railroad property, commissioned by the Flood Control District, has disclosed an unrecorded easement granted to the Ac alanes Union High School District on November 14, 1950. This easement provides a 40-foot private roadway crossing from Andrea Drive to the east entrance of Las Lomas High School . Provision will be made in the plans to maintain road access at the present location as part of the final project. During construction temporary pedestrian access will be provided. Mr. Patterson reported the use of the railroad corridor for pedestrian access to the downtown area. Murwood Road currently extends to the railroad property and gives the neighborhood access to the corridor. Provision will be made to allow pedestrian access across the channel facilities at Murwood Road as part of the permanent project. 7. Recreational Trails The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and the City of Walnut- Creek have requested that the District develop a flood control facility which will allow for the future construction of a recreational trail along the railroad corridor. The general plans of the City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County . and EBRPD all indicate a regional trail along the railroad corridor. On December 4, 1979, the Walnut Creek City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1454 further defining the City's interest in an open space corridor along the railroad property. The ordinance states that the desireable width of the easement, 40 feet, may be varied in areas where public projects are developed for the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. The Walnut Creek City Council recommended the adoption of a plan for the construction of flood control channel improvements within the railroad corridor on October 2, 1980. Implementation of such a plan will require.considerable variation from the 40-foot wide open space corridor stated in Ordinance No. 1454. However, the channel plans will allow at least a corridor width of 12 feet in the narrowest portion of the railroad right-of-way for subsequent development of a trail facility. Since the channel provides for the general welfare and public necessity and allows for future trail uses, it is in conformance with the City of Walnut Creek, EBRPD and Contra Costa County General Plans. 000349 8. Transportation Uses Contra Costa County is currently negotiating with the Southern Pacific Railroad for the purchase of the San Ramon branch line for use as a future public transportation corridor. The proposed railroad property acquisition by the Flood Control District will encompass a portion of this branch line corridor. It is the policy of the Flood Control District to allow the use of its property for other public uses so long as such use does not interfer with the function of the flood control facilities. Therefore, development of a continuous transportation facility along the entire length of the San Ramon branch line will not be precluded. 9. Project Safety Mr. Walter Hale expressed concern regarding the safety of the flood control project during and after construction. During construction, unauthorized access to the project site will be controlled by the installation of a temporary 6-foot high chain link fence around the site perimeter and the temporary pedestrain crossing.' The completed project will provide permanent 6-foot high chain link fences adjacent to all open channels. 10. Archaeological Resources Ms . Maureen Steiner of the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State Universiy requested that additional site investigation be conducted to confirm that no impacts upon historic and prehistoric sites will take place due to channel construction. The one site which could potentially be disturbed by channel construction, CA CCO-431, lies along the existing San Ramon Creek channel between the CALTRANS lining and the railroad corridor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an extensive investigation of the site in 1983 . The report of their findings published in February, 1984, indicates that the site is not qualified for the National Register of Historic Places. - In addition, -disturbance of the existing ground will be minimal at this location. 11. Right-of-Way Requirements Ms. Caroline Mattioda and Mr. John Lipscomb expressed their concern regarding channel project right-of-way requirements upon their land. In addition to the railroad property, both permanent and temporary rights-of-way on private property will be required at the downstream confluence with the existing Walnut Creek channel and along the west bank of the existing San Ramon Creek channel near Bishop Lane between the CALTRANS lining and the railroad property. Also, due to the very narrow railroad corridor north of Newell Avenue, a temporary easement will be required at the Newell Hill Center property. This temporary easement will encroach upon five parking spaces near the northwest property corner. 000350 gc:neg.dec.responses.t7 • F Planning Department Contra Costa County Administration Building, North Wing + P.O. Box 951 County Martinez, California 94553-0095 Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Phone: 372-2035 July 8, 1983 NOTICE OF PREPARATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ACQUISITION OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS- PORTATION COMPANY PROPERTY IN WALNUT CREEK County File #PW 83-48: The project is ,acquisition of the property for channel facilities for the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. The project location is as follows: The Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad right-of -way in the City of Walnut Creek consisting of approximately a 100' wide corridor from Ygnacio Valley Road southerly to the San Ramon Creek crossing near Creekside Drive. G As the owner of abutting property, or as an otherwise interested person or organization, you are invited to submit any comments you may have on this project, and raise any significant environmental issues of which you are aware so they can be considered in the environmental review process. This letter plus enclosures will constitute a Notice of Preparation. Please circulate this information to the appropriate persons and agencies as soon as possible. I would encourage those interested to contact me directly by phone or letter to convey any concerns they may have about the environmental review for the project. If you have any comments on this Notice of Preparation, please contact me by August 8, 1983 Sincerely yours, _._Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Dennis M. Barry, Chief Y� Data Services and Evalua on DMB/mb cc: File No. PW 83-48 Attachments 000-351 • f Contra Public Works Department Costa County Initial Study "J0=%%1 OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE �D�I��I pO' Public works Dp■rtmant File#11' 83-48 Administration Building, A uisitipn of Southern pine a Escobar streets Project Name�Q - Martinez, California 94663 Pacific Transportation Company property in Walnut Creek. 6/23/83 Prepared by Date Reviewed by Date—y RECOMMENDATIONS: ( )Categorical Exemption (Class )(x)Negative Declaration ( )Environment Impact Report Required ( )Conditional Neg-Declaration The Project (XW(Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment The recommendation is based on the following (List all items identified as significant): The project is for the acquisition of a portion of the abandoned Southern Pacific Trancportatinn Company railroad right of way only. The project will not have any significant adverse environ- mental impacts. What Changes To The Project Would Mitigate The Identified Impacts (List mitigation measures for any significant impacts and Conditional Negative Declaration). Not Applicable USGS Quad Sheet Base Map Sheet# N14 Parcel# None Q9NE0AL CONSIDERATIONS: -,. P14 ` ...Location__ Tha cot thorn Pacific TranSpart�on Comp3nV ran� ilrright of way _7n tha City of Walnut Creek rnncic .ing of approximately a 100' wide rorridnr from .Ygnacio Valley Road southerly to the San Ramon Creek crossing near Creekside Drive. 2. Project Description The prnjert is aGGuicit Ln of the property for channel farilities far the f.nntra Cncta County Flond Cnntrnl riiatrirt_ '3. Does it appear that any feature of the project will ❑yes ❑no ®maybe generate significant public concern? (Nature of concern): 4. Will the project require approval or-permits by other ❑yes Q no than a County agency? Agency names(s) 5. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence of any city? (Name) City of Walnut Creek. 000352 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS: S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown 1. Water. Will the project result in: ' a) Is any portion of the project within a Flood Hazard Area? ®-YES ❑ NO S N C 0 b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ ❑ C3 �_ c) Increased runoff or alteration to drainage patterns and. streams? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Erosion of'or sedimentation in a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ] ❑ 2. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) Will the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Is any portion of the project within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? (if yes, date County Geologist notified ❑YES ®NO b) Potentially hazardous geologic or soils conditions on or S N C NO U immediately adjoining the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- faction, earthquake faults; consider prime soils, slope, septic " tank limitations). Cite any geologic or engineeringg.re orfs. (County Geologist consulted?) An area north of Mt. Diablo ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ lfi-vi_1Seiihiprtto i high to mnderata li�quifartinn potentia ' c) Grading (consider height amount, steepness and visibility of C) ❑ ® ❑ proposed slopes; consider effect of grading on trees, creek 'Channels and ridge tops)(Are there any grading plans?) r ❑YES ®NO - 3. Plant/Animal Life. " S N C NO U a) - Will there be a reduction or disturbance to any habitat for plants and animals?(including removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) -.Will the Project affect the habitat of any rare, endangered or unique species located on or near the site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) What vegetation (habitat) types exist on the site (give relative - % or proportions if significant). List habitat types. grass area ceverPlmndifiari by _.railroad improvements.. Air. -Will the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, S N C NO U - including creation of objectionable odors, or will future project -- ' :. =residents be subjected to significant pollution levels? = ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ _ 5. .-Noise. Will the project result in: a) Is any portions of the project within the 1990, 60 dBA Noise. ❑YES ®NO Contour? (check Noise Element at 1000 scale maps) b) Increases from existing noise levels? __ ._, ._.❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ---" -" 6. Ener /Natural Resources/Hazards (Consider General Plan, Safety -- - ,and Seismic Safety Elements. Will the projects result in: -- -• a) Any additional consumption of energy?__..-.. . ❑ Cl ❑ ® ❑ b) Affect the potential use, extraction;'conservation or depletion of a natural resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Increase risk of explosion, release o)' hazardous substances or other dangers to public health and safety? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Utilities and Public Service. Will the project: a) Require alteration or addition to or the need for new utility systems (including sphere of influence or district boundary change; water,sewer,solid waste)? ❑YES ®NO ., 000353 b) Result in the need for new or expansion of the following S N C NO U services: fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreation, roads, flood control or other public works fac- ilities, public transit br governmental services (include changes to sphere of influence)? ❑ ❑ ❑ E3 ❑ c) Affect recreational opportunities (consider General Plan Recreation Element-Trails Plans)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Transportation/Circulation. (Consider the Major Roads Plan) Will the project result in: a) Additional traffic generation or increase in circulation pro- blems (consider road design, access, congestion, parking and accident potential)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Special transportation considerations (waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems and parking facilities)? This oroiect will not preclude transportation uses. c) Increase in commuting to and from local community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ "9. . Housing and Community Development. (Consider Housing Ele- ment). Is the project: a) Located within a Neighborhood Preservation Area? ❑YES (� NO b) Is there an opportunity for construction of low and moderate income housing? ❑YES L]NO :10." Cultural Resources. U a) :'.-Review by the Regional Clearinghouse? (their recommend- DYES [j NO - ' ation)? Date b) Any nearby County Historic Sites (Consider Historical Resources Inventory) Negligible impact on Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (currently Masterson's Walnut Ureeation. 11. .Aesthetics. 'ti_(Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will the :. project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? ❑YES n NO i u. 12. Is this project a growth-inducing action (encourage additional c' requests for similar uses)or set a precedent in the area? ❑YES [t NO 13. ..Mandatory Findings of Significance. (A "yes"answer on any of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) _ Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality -of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environ- ment? ❑YES NO b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? DYES El NO c) -:Does the project have impacts which are individually lim- ited,but cumulatively considerable? ❑YES, n NO d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑YES ffj NO Discussion: 000354 i. ocw a� Wo d � t D v = t � t�7Yt- Q Wcx� • � a,you =ya, y j e . Ft .. bQE � N � N u y V c V j e t Q'Ci W Jx O fl '0 04 Nl� © 9 , kj� IN 0 cy l 35 M v u Y ` o ^i