HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02271996 - C.23 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, CHIEF ENGINEER
DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT: Contract Award Recommendation: Bettencourt Basin Mitigation Planting Project,
Project No. 7581-6D8485-95, Tassajara area
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations Background us i ica ion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AWARD the contract for furnishing labor and materials for the subject project to Pacheco Brothers
Gardening, Inc., the low bidder, who has also met the requirements of the County's Minority and Women
Business Enterprise Contract Compliance Program, in the amount of$33,251.00 and at the unit prices
submitted; and REQUIRE the contractor to present surety bonds for Payment and Faithful Performance
in the amounts of$16,625.50 and $33,251.00, respectively.
DIRECT the Chief Engineer to prepare the contract for the project.
AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to sign the contract on behalf of the Board subject to the Chief Engineer
having reviewed and found sufficient all required documents, including the contract signed by the
contractor, the aforementioned surety bonds, and a certificate of insurance.
DIRECT that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon the execution of the contract by
the Chief Engineer any bid bonds posted by the bidders be exonerated and any checks or cash
submitted for bid security be returned.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public
Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Chief Engineer or his designee.
Pursuant to section 6705 of the Labor Code, the Board also DELEGATES to the Chief Engineer or to
any registered civil or structural engineer designated by him the authority to accept detailed plans
showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping or other provisions to be made for worker protection
during trench excavating covered by that section.
DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. be inva!idated
for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to the second listed bidder
or any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received.
Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from reawarding the contract to another bidder in cases wh :re
the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract or fails to furnish rer1(..w-.,J
bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100)-5107).
Continued on attachment: X yes SIGNATLIRE:..-k.
' -�-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER:
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON: 09.12,6/1 A96 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYE NOES:
ABSENT- ABSTA IT'
Contact: Jospeh P.Murphy,(510)313-2321
Orig, Div.: PW(Constr)
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
Public Works
- Accounting,R.Gilchrist I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copyof
- Construction,R.Bruno an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
- Design,V.Germany Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Transp. Eng.,Hea her Ballenger
S.B.E.-
ATTESTED: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
926 Natoma St. PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
San Francisco,CA 94103-2514 of Supervisors and County Administrator
Contractor By j ta ,Deputy
R B/tt
g:\CONST\80\BBM-27.t2
Bettencourt Basin Mitigation Planting Project,
Project No. 7581-6D8485-95
Board Date: February 27, 1996
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The project, including engineering and appropriate overhead charges, is funded by Drainage Area 101A
(100%).
RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The plans and specifications were approved and the project advertised for bids by the Board of
Supervisors on January 9, 1996. The bids were received and opened at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,
California, on February 6, 1996. The construction bids received were as follows.-
1.
ollows:1. Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,251.00
2. Poms Landscape Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,286.00
3. Lone Star Landscaping, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,605.00
The Engineer's estimated construction cost was $69,900.00.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT: Approve Plans and Specifications and Advertise for bids for the Byron Airport Aviation
Fueling System Project.
CP # 85 - 43.
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RESCIND September 26, 1995 (Consent Item C.7) Authorization to Advertise for bids,
APPROVE the Plans and Specifications for the Project and
ADVERTISE for bids to be received on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 2:00 p.m.
DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to publish the Notice to Contractors in accordance with Section
20125 of the Public Contract Code.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated contract cost of the project is $180,000, funded by Airport Enterprise Fund (100%).
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The project is needed to provide a reliable aircraft fueling system to meet current aviation
demands. The existing underground fuel storage tank at old Byron Airport is currently out of
service and will be abandoned upon certification of the new system.
j �l
Continued on Attachment: x SIGNATURE
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 02/27/1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
JY:jlg
g:\design\BO:bo27a.t2
Ong.Div: Public Works(Design Division)
Contact: Joe Yee,313-2323 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correctcopy of
cc: County Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Attn: E.Kuevor Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Auditor-Controller ATTESTED: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
PW Accounting PHIL BATCHELGR, Clerk of the Board
Construction of Supervisors and County Administrator
Community Development y)
H.Wight,AirportBy� ,Deputy
Page 2 d.J'
February 27, 1996
The Public Works Director has filed with the Board of Supervisors the Plans and Specifications
for the project.
The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have
been filed with the Clerk of the Board and copies will be made available to any interested party
upon request.
This project has been determined to be in conformance with the General Plan. The environmental
assessment titled East Contra Costa County-Byron Airport pertaining to this project was approved
by the Board in August 1986.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the project is not approved for advertising, it will not be constructed. Without a functional fueling
system, one of the most basic needs of the Airport will continue to be unmet, and result in
continued reduced income to the Airport Enterprise Fund. Since May 1995, the Airport Enterprise
Fund has lost about $5,000 monthly in fuel sales.
R
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, as the Governing Body of the Contra Costa 005
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, CHIEF ENGINEER
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1996
SUBJECT: DA 104 - Upper Sand Creek Basin - Brentwood Area
Project No.: 7589-6D8514 Task: ACQ Account: 3540
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. Recommended Action:
A. APPROVE Right of Way Contract and ACCEPT Grant Deed from the Donald
Williamson Partnership, et al.
B. AUTHORIZE Chief Engineer to execute said Right of Way Contract on behalf of
the District.
C. APPROVE payment of $576,000 for said property rights and AUTHORIZE the
Auditor-Controller to issue a check in said amount payable to Chicago Title
Company, 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek, Escrow No. 77281, to be
forwarded to the Real Property Division for delivery.
D. DIRECT the Real Property Division to have the above-referenced Grant Deed
recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
Continued on Attachment:X SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 02/27/1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_1L OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify that thisis a trueandexrrectcopy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board
DD:glo ATTESTED: TeprsurhY 11,'M6
a,'M6
g:lrealpropltemp1bo1227.t2 PHIL BATCHELGR,Clerk of tho Board
Orig. Div: Public Works(R/P) of Supervisors and County Administrator
Contact: Donna Dawkins(313-2224) I,
cc: County Administrator BY uty
Auditor-Controller(via R/P)
P.W.Accounting
Recorder(via R/P)
DA 104- Upper Sand Creek Basin - Brentwood Area
February 27, 1996 '
Page Two
II. Financiallmoact:
Payment of$576,000 from DA 104.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
These property rights are required for the DA 104- Upper Sand Creek Basin project
in accordance with approved plans and specifications.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
The project will not have sufficient land rights to allow construction in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications.
Recorded at the request of:
Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Return to:
Contra Costa County
Public Works Department
Real Property Division
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Donna Dawkins
Portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 057-050-001
Title Co. Order No. 77281
GRANT DEED
For Value Received, The Donald Williamson Partnership dated July 17, 1986, and Shirley
Perry, Trustee of the Shirley Perry Declaration of Living Trust,
GRANT to
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a
political subdivision of the State of California,
the following described real property in the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of
California,
FOR DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
GRANTORS
Date The Donald Williamson Part rship
000A,
By
Shirley Perry TrLYstee
ATTACH APPROPRIATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
DD:glo
g-Xrea1prop\temp\DE1 DWA2
February 9, 1996
A5
DA 104 - Upper Sand Creek Basin
PARCEL 1782 - Williamson and Perry
Ptn. APN 057-050-001
DWG. ED - 10194
Exhibit"A"
PARCEL 1782: (Fee Title)
Real property in the City of Antioch, Contra Costa County, California, being a portion of the
southwest one-quarter of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, being
a portion of the parcel of land [as to an undivided three-sevenths (3/7) interest] described in the
Quitclaim deed from Shirley F. Perry to Shirley Perry, Trustee of the Shirley Perry Declaration of
Living Trust, recorded October 14, 1987, in Book 13959 of Official Records at page 427, and [as
to an undivided four-sevenths (47) interest] as described in the Quitclaim deed from Donald A.
Williamson to Donald A. Williamson, Trustee of the Donald A. Williamson Declaration of Living Trust
dated April 18, 1986 recorded October 14, 1987, in Book 13959 of Official Records at page 424
described as follows:
Beginning at the west one-quarter corner of said Section 9 (T.1 N, R.2E, M.D.M.), said point being
the northeast corner of Parcel C, as shown on the Map of Subdivision MS 55-83, filed May 14, 1985
in Book 116 of Parcel Maps at page 1, records of said County; thence, along the west line of said
Section 9, also being the east line of said Parcel C, south 10 23' 02" west 711.85 feet to the
boundary line of Parcel 1778 as described in the deed to CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT from The Donald Williamson Partnership,
dated July 17, 1986, and Shirley Perry, Trustee of the Shirley Perry Declaration of Living Trust;
recorded June 2, 1995 as series #95-087820 thence, along said line, south 88036'58" east 100.00
feet; thence north 460 03' 37" east 123.63 feet; thence east 353.81 feet; thence south 74.84 feet;
thence east 382.14 feet; thence north 74.84 feet; thence east 499.28 feet; thence leaving said
boundary line (series #95-087820) north 49029'55"west 960.39 feet; thence north 8903657" west
676.76 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing an area of 16 acres of land, more or less.
Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System Zone III (CCS27).
This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction, in conformance with
the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
Signatur
� --
Licensed Land Surveyor
Contra Costa County Public Works
Mo.X999
Date: ::2
gAdericakexhibits\da104b.exh
2/8196
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, CHIEF ENGINEER C.-Ito
DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FORMA-
TION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76 and the MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
IN THE ALAMO AREA.
Project No.: 7542-6D8563 CP#96-7
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the Addendum to the Negative Declaration, CP#96-7, (the custodian of which is the
Chief Engineer and is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez),
DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County
Clerk, and
DIRECT the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County
Clerk.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for the project will come from the Drainage Area 76 funds.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND:
The Addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Formation of Drainage Area 76 and the
Miranda Creek Improvement Project identifies some changes to the design of the improvements
to the creek. The changes are as follows:
1. The project involves the installation of approximately 510 ft. of 84-inch pipe and another
30 ft. of 108-inch pipe, instead of 800 ft. of 72- to 96-inch pipe.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATUR
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 02/27/1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Vickie Germany(313-2296)
Orig. Div: Public Works(Design Division)
cc: P. Harrington, Flood Control
P. Gavey, Real Property Ihercgoy tifythatthlslastrusendcorrectCopyot
J.Olsen, Design ��d'of Sukv�►esors on ttt red on the shown.
°t the
Flood Control Engineering ATTESTED: FEBRUM 27 1 9C)6
Accounting PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
Engineering Services
County Administrator t
By Deputy
County Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
Community Development
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FORMATION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76
and the MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Page 2
February 27, 1996
Ill. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND (continued):
2. Water from the Stratmore outfall pipe will be diverted to a point approximately 650
downstream, instead of 800 ft. downstream. Approximately 3 cubic yards of material will
be removed from an approximately 80 ft. reach of the creek, downstream of the earthen
outfall ditch, to provide positive drainage for the new storm drain.
3. The bypass storm drain will be connected to the creek with an approximately 30-ft, long
earthen outfall ditch. The outfall structure is no longer required.
4. Like the previously planned area for the outfall (Station 2+50), the new area (Station 4+25)
lacks the thick riparian area. In addition, the area was previously disturbed with an outfall
from a drainage ditch.
5. The extent to which residential improvements(i.e., mature landscaping and fences)will be
disturbed is reduced. The tennis court will no longer be impacted.
On the basis of the previously adopted Negative Declaration and Addendum, the proposed
project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Since the revised project involves
only minor technical changed or additions [CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b)] to a previously
adopted Negative Declaration an addendum to the Negative Declaration, not a new Negative
Declaration, is appropriate.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Delay in approving the project and the Addendum to the Negative Declaration will result in delay
of construction of the project.
VG:mat
HAMATOA76REVADDENDUMBO
r .
ADDENDUM
to the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the FORMATION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76 and
the MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
County File# CP#93-87
CP# 96-7
Prepared by:
Maureen Toms, Planner
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
January 1996
viental Planner (Chief Planning Official)
iic Works Department
Title:
Lead Agency: County of Contra Costa
Date: a` Q
ADDENDUM
to the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the FORMATION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76 and
the MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
County File # CP#93-87
CP# 96-7
Prepared by:
Maureen Toms, Planner
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
January 1996
� )JI
ADDENDUM
to the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the FORMATION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76 and
the MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
County File #CP#93-87
CP# 96-7
PREFACE
The Negative Declaration (which consists of the Initial Study, Checklist and Supplement
to Environmental Checklist) evaluated the proposed project which involves the
construction of a large (72- to 96-inch) diameter storm drain bypass system on Miranda
Creek from the Stratmore drain outfall (opposite the westerly end of Bunce Meadows
Drive) to a point approximately 800 feet downstream, where the creek has adequate
capacity against flooding.
This document serves as an Addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Formation of
Drainage Area 76 and the Miranda Creek Improvement Proiect (County File #CP#93-87).
Consequently, the revised Negative Declaration for the project consists of the Negative
Declaration and the Addendum.
The Contra Costa Community Development Department (CDD) is the lead agency for the
project, and on March 1, 1994, the Board of Supervisors (Board) as the Governing Board
for the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (FCD) approved the project and filed
a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk The Board acknowledged that the project
could not have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA PROCESS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prescribes that an Addendum [CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164(b)] to a previously adopted Negative Declaration shall be
prepared by either the lead agency or the responsible agency if minor technical changes
or additions are necessary. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the
Board shall consider the Addendum along with the Negative Declaration prior to making
a decision on the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (c) an
Addendum does not require circulation for public review but can be included in or
1
C
attached to the Negative Declaration. As noted in the Preface, the Addendum is attached
to the Negative Declaration for the Formation of Drainage Area 76 and the Miranda Creek
Improvement Project (County File #CP# 93-87).
EXPLANATION OF THE ADDENDUM -
The Addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Formation of Drainage Area 76 and
the Miranda Creek Improvement Proiect identifies minor technical changes to the design
of the improvements to the creek. The changes are as follows:
1. The project involves the installation of approximately 510 ft. of 84-inch pipe
and another 30 ft. of 108-inch pipe, instead of 800 ft. of 72- to 96-inch pipe.
2. Water from the Stratmore outfall pipe will be diverted to a point
approximately 650 downstream, instead of 800 ft. downstream.
Approximately 3 cubic yards of material will be removed from an
approximately 80 ft. reach of the creek, downstream of the earthen outfall
ditch, to provide positive drainage for the new storm drain.
3. The bypass storm drain will be connected to the creek with an approximately
30-ft. long earthen outfall ditch. The outfall structure is no longer required.
4. Like the previously planned area for the outfall (Sta. 2+50), the new area
(Sta. 4+25) lacks the thick riparian area. In addition, the area was previously
disturbed with an outfall from a drainage ditch.
5. The extent to which residential improvements (i.e., mature landscaping and
fences) will be disturbed is reduced. The tennis court will no longer be
impacted.
ADDITION TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This section identifies the language which is added/or changed (bold face type) or
deleted (strikeout) to the text and figures of the Negative Declaration:
Initial Study, p. 2, Parcel #: 192-031-017, 192 110-024-
Initial
024Initial Study, p. 2, Project Description, 1st sentence: The project consists of the
construction of approximately 510 ft. of 84-inch pipe and
approximately 30 fL of 1084nch diameter storm drain bypass system on Miranda Creek
from the Stratmore drain outfall (opposite the westerly end of Bunce Meadows Drive) to
a point approximately 890 650 feet downstream.
Initial Study, p. 2, Project Description, 3rd sentence: The construction work involves the
2
e�2JP
installation of approximately 808 540 feet of storm drain pipe, manholes, an 30-ft. long
earthen outfall structure ditch at the downstream end of the bypass, and the placement
of rock slope protection to prevent erosion (see Figures 3 & 4).
Supplement to Environmental Checklist, p. 1, 2nd paragraph, item 4: Field visits on March
4, 1992, March 24, 1993, July 1, 1993, October 5, 1993, and October 7, 1993, April 11,
1995, August 14, 1995, September 30, 1995, and October 24, 1995.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist, p. 1, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: The removal
of approximately three cubic yards of material from the bottom of an approximately
80 ft. reach of the creek, downstream of the earthen outfall ditch will result in a
minor, insignificant change in the Ttopography in of the project area will change during
construction, but we" be restored upon completion of the project.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist, p. 1, 4th paragraph, 1 st sentence: Flows entering
Miranda Creek from the Stratmore outfall structure will be diverted approximately 800 650
feet downstream in order to avoid the area of the creek identified to have insufficient
capacity (see Figures 3 &4).
Supplement to Environmental Checklist, p. 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Miranda
Creek, downstream from the existing Stratmore outfall structure, will continue to receive
flows, but at a reduced amount because storm water which currently enters Miranda Creek
via the existing Stratmore outfall structure will be intercepted and conveyed approximately
808 650 feet downstream.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of the previously adopted Negative Declaration and Addendum, the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Since the revised
project involves only minor technical changed or additions [CEQA Guidelines Section
15164(b)] to a previously adopted Negative Declaration an addendum to the Negative
Declaration, not a new Negative Declaration, is appropriate.
CAWPWIN611DA76REVIADDENDUMAV
3
I=IGURE 3
+
EXJSTJNG STRAThdCRE 6i
�\ I OUTFALL STRUCTURE
f
MIRANDA C��F
l
t J
Z a z
r r Www a W 1 1
z WS pR
r J a-U'
m¢ a>-
ca{a
J PROPOSED EARTHEN P/
J J — OUTFALL DITCH Q-
AZ
PREVIOUS PROPOSED
OUTFALL STRUCTURE ��\Q
;Lu /� \
+
\A t
` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
-ad WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA 76
- PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS(PREVIOUS) MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
aM t Y a� t I - MIRANOA CREEK.EXISTING NATURAL CREEK
SITE PLAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS(REVISED)
j.o•zap,I./uop/xn/ u0p X00.009133\330\S831.8\:3 9661 CS°9b:b£ L -°
Existing Stratmore Drain t
Outfall Structure 111 JENNIFER LN
Sto 10+75
End of proposed project
@
80 JENNIFER LN i
a
31 VERNAL CT _
_ Approx. location f
o cofferdam
130 BUNCE MEADOWS DR
41 VERNAL CT ,
125 t9UNCE MEADOWS DR
Proposed alignment 126 BUNCE MEADOWS OR
for the 84-inch pipe
r
119 BUNCE MEADOWS DR
181 STONE VALLEY WAY
� F
pprox. location of ,1320ME!pOWS DR
offerdom --
e'' 113 BUNCE MEADOWS OR
30 ft. section of 108-inch pipe ,
30 ft. long earthen outfall dit '
Be inning of 0
pr posed roject '
,.ee. 1030 INA DRIVE
"
!*----Previous bypass pipe alignmentl�I ?
Ln i
0 187 STONE VALLEY WAY, '
Z
fn � .50Ad t
"- Previously planned outfall structure
INA DRIVE
195 STONE VALLEY WAY "
n
u
rr '
, v
040 r ,
0 1100 200 300 400 Miranda Creek Improvement Project
Contra Costo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
Contra Costro County.California 'r
The ordinary high water Is Computer Services-Mapping Sciences Section
between the top of bank and C
the toe of slope. ;Q
SHEET 3 OF 9 Jon 2,1995 mww
CONTRA PUBLIC WORKS DEPI ': TMENT
COSTA INITIAL STUD
COUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FILE#7505-6F8176
CP# q�
PROJECT NAME: Formation of Drainage Area 76 and the Miranda Creek Improvement Project
PREPARED BY. Maureen Tom6f, DATE: December 28, 1993
REVIEWED By- t,3-�•- DATE: 1 195
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Categorical Exemption Negative Declaration
Environment Impact Report Required Conditional Negative Declaration
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Ther is based on the
following summary of the Environmental Evaluation:
1 The project will not create unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures or increase
the exposure of people or property to geologic or water related hazards.
2. There are no rare or endangered species of plants or animals in the project area. The project will not
increase the rate of use of natural resources.
3. The project will not convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural
productivity of prime agricultural land. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of the community.
4. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment
5. The project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of the long-term
environmental goals.
Construction activities will create minor short term,temporary impacts. But no significant impacts will occur
since the following best management practices are incorporated into the project and in project specifications:
6. There will be no significant change in air quality in the project area. Construction machinery and
vehicles will emit exhaust fumes and possibly objectionable odors during construction which may
temporarily deteriorate local air quality. To minimize the impact,contract spw9cations shall stipulate
the use of property tuned and muffled equipment Air quality impacts will also be reduced by
eliminating unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. Adherence to standard dust control
practices shall be required in order to reduce air quality impacts and potential for erosion during
construction.
7. In order to avoid water quality impacts, construction of either end of the storm drain bypass shall
occur during periods of low or no flow(6g.April to October). If water is present,the construction area
shall be de-watered by installing cofferdams and diverting water through a pipe,around the work site,
and discharged downstream in a non-erosive manner. Furthermore,sediment traps and/or fitters shall
be installed on an as needed basis.
8. There are no rare or endangered species of plants in the project area. If native trees are removed,
they will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with native species. Areas of the creek,disturbed by construction
activities,will be seeded.
9. Best management practices mentioned in #6, and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Monday through Friday, unless modified upon written approval,will reduce construction noise levels
and shall be incorporated as part of the construction contract.
10. Standard construction safety practices will be followed during construction to ensure no accidental
release of hazardous substances or increase the potential for exposure to these substances. In order
in Pvniri ;:in Prr-Jrfi-ntp] rid iin(1Prnr(-)f;nri iitififinc v,;ff ho rnnt-1 4
Initial Study of Er )nmental Significance
Drainage Area 76
Page 2
emergency response or evacuation plan.
11. During construction, equipment and construction activities may temporarily inhibit smooth circulation,
but standard traffic control measures, such as flagging, warning signs, temporary detours, shall be
incorporated into the contract specifications and will minimize this impact.
12. ff cultural resources are encountered during construction,all work will be halted within a 30 yard radius
of the finding and a qualified archaeologist retained to ascertain the nature of the discovery. Measures
recommended by the archaeologist and approved by the Public Works Department will be
implemented.
What changes to the project would mitigate the identified impacts?
N/A
USGS Quad Sheets: Las Trampas, CA Base Map Sheet#G15 Parcel # 192-031-018
192-031-019
192-110-020
192-110-021
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Location: The project is located in the Alamo area of central Contra Costa County (see Figure 1).
The approximate boundaries of the proposed drainage area are Livoma Road on the north, Stone
Valley Road on the south,Shell Ridge (within Mt. Diablo State Park)to the east,and Interstate 680 to
the west. The majority of the Drainage Area is located within the County and a minor amount is within
the City of Walnut Creek(see Figure 2). The drainage area encompasses approximately 1,470 acres
of low to very low density single family residences,open space,agricultural land,and state park land.
The Miranda Creek bypass pipe will be constructed in the vicinity of the westerly end of Bunce
Meadows Drive (see Figures 3 &4).
2 Project Description:
The project consists of the construction of a large(72-to 96-inch)diameter storm drain bypass system
on Miranda Creek from the Statmore drain outfall(opposite the westerly end of Bunce Meadows Drive)
to a point approximately 800 feet downstream; the formation of a drainage area; and adoption of a
plan of improvement and impervious surface fee ordinance for financing project costs. The fee,based
on the square footage of impervious surface would be assessed on future development, excluding
developments with vesting tentative maps. The construction work involves the installation of
approximately 800 feet of storm drain pipe, manholes,an outfall structure at the downstream end of
the bypass,and the placement of rock slope protection to prevent erosion (see Figures 3&4). The
purpose of the project is to bypass storm water and divert it downstream where the creek has
adequate capacity against flooding.
In the vicinity of the existing Stratmore drain outfall, were the bypass pipe crosses under the creek,
approximately 2,500 square feet of creek area will be disturbed. Presently, this area is covered with
grouted and ungrouted rock slope protection. The bypass storm drain outfall structure will be
constructed adjacent to the creek and connected to the creek with a short channel. The location of
the proposed outfall structure was selected to avoid as much riparian vegetation as possible. At the
point of reentry into the creek, approximately 1,500 square feet of creek will be disturbed. Areas of
the creek, disturbed by construction activities, will be seeded.
3. Does it appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? []yes [] no
[J] maybe (Nature of concern): Several property owners where the bypass will be installed are in
favor of the project, however, construction traffic and noise may be of concern,
4. Will the project require approval or permits by other than a County agency? [./]yes [] no Agency
Name(s) Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers
5_ Is the project within the sphere of influence of any W. Yes, Walnut Creek
O
a
v 1
>- d
0 0
off , 4 • �.'
/� � ` '� � 7"" • Imo"
0 -
:- d
1-7 Li
+�, �`� \ rye • �
rJ �•
F �
� z
-
G
Lj
b U�
3
z
0
i
w
o
u : a
u -
'1
u m
'—E
a � o = �
am ate;
o � Eta
o� a'v �� E
r u
� Y
Q1
�+3 U
E f°
(C� m
z Y D F �
c U
W � �
m �
� o
o a
FIGURE 3
+ EXJSTJNG STRATMORE
OUTFALL STRUCTURE
JWRANQA
� � r
! , w CL Pp0
r
C-3 r r 9RQcl)
+
PROPOSED OUTFALL v
STRUCTURE PJ�U
E7r
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
.nd WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA 75
11816618420213 PROPOSED iWPROVEMENT MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
a.• r 7► • • - MIRANOA CREEK.EXISTING NATURAL CRE '
j EK SITE PLAN
I
DESIGNED:I'FINCH CHECKED-,R.ACWW SCA,E: '_ 300. i
FIGURE 4
STA 10.75 _
Bypass Storm Oroln END OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Creek Under crossing Strotmore DroinA tfoll
o or �sloslt $
`8
III JENNIFER LN. �—
r „tii;
90 JENNIFER LN. $ ry S r,
31 VERNAL.CT. $$ � � • �V1
�"r .I
` 130 BUNCE MEADOWS DR,
125 BUNCE MEADOWS DR,
41 VERNAL CT. ilii 7+1A
`4,. .
nraa.aQ a�`t.
126 BUNCE MEADOWS DR,
i
y,0 0i19 BUNCE MEADOWS D "Z14DOW S
191 STONE VALLEY WAY DRIVE
Ap rax.Loa tt
Cofferdam
e o•aa i 113 BUNCE MEADOWS DR,
;ITti `ty
s PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR THE
I Yroo-k::'� '� 72•to 96-INCH DIAMETER BYPASS PIPE
1030 INA DR.
197 STONE VALLEY AY
l w[rsk c=,xc4a r STA 2'50 BEGINNING OF
y.a . ,rte PROPOSEp
J040 INA DR.
fi
195 STONE VALLEY W `
.� Bypass 4torm Drain OUtfa
�r04• a t,:���•_=
Conform with exist! reek
0 100• 200'
0YO a0 SCALEs P s 100'
'PROPOSED MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
'FOR SCEMAM PURPOSES
LEGEND: CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND
T.O.B. — TOP OF BANK WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
T.O.S. — TOE OF SLOPE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 14,1993
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent: Contra Costa County- Flood Control and Water Conservation
District
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
(510) 313-2000
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: December 28, 1993
4. Name of Proposal: Drainage Area 76 - Miranda Creek Improvements
II. Environmental impacts
(Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.)
*S *1
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ ✓
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the
soil? ✓
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ ✓
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? _ ✓
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site? ✓
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake? ✓
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards? ✓
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ ✓
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ ✓
c_ Alternation of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change
2 *S *I
in climate, either locally or regionally? _ ✓
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements,
'in either marine or fresh waters? ✓
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff? ✓
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ✓
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ ✓
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity? _ ✓
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ ✓
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? ✓
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? _ ✓
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _ ✓
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? _ ✓
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ ✓
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
*Please Note: "s" is for significant; "Y" is for insignificant.
3 *S *I
organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ✓
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ✓
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ✓
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ ✓
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? ✓
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ✓
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ✓
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an _
emergency evacuation plan? ✓
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area? ✓
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? ✓
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ ✓
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ✓
*Please Note: 'IS" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
4 *S *I-
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods? _ ✓
e. - Alterations to waterborne, rail or air-traffic? _ ✓
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ ✓
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ ✓
b. Police protection? _ ✓
C. Schools? _ ✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? _ ✓
f. Other governmental services? _ ✓
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ ✓
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? _ ✓
16. Utilities/Service Systems. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas? _ ✓
b. Communications systems? _ ✓
C. Water? — ✓
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ ✓
e. Storm water drainage? __ ✓
f. Solid waste and disposal? _ ✓
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
5 *S *I
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? - _ ✓
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ ✓
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ ✓
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? _ ✓
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ ✓
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ ✓
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ ✓
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
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 the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ ✓
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant_
6 *S *I
environment is significant.) T ✓
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or -
indirectly? - _ ✓
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. (see attachment)
IV. Determination
On the basis of this Checklist and Environmental Evaluation:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Da et �' re
Reviewed By:
MT:mat
c:da761cegachk.mir
(form rev. 12/93)
*Please Rote. 'IS" is for significant; "ill is for insignificant.
SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Formation of Drainage Area 76 and the Miranda Creek Improvement Project
- The project consists of the formation of Drainage Area 76, the construction of a storm drain bypass
system on Miranda Creek, and the adoption of a drainage fee ordinance. The drainage area
encompasses approximately 1,470 acres in the Alamo area of central Contra Costa County.
In the process of preparing the Environmental Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following
resources were reviewed:
1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System
2. The County General Pian and EIR on the General Plan, January 1991
3. RAREFIND - California Natural Diversity Data Base, October 28, 1993
4. Field visits on March 4, 1992, March 24, 1993, July 1, 1993, October 5, 1993, and October 7,
1993
5. Sonoma State Cultural Resources Records Search, October 21, 1993
6. Species list from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), December 3, 1993
1. EARTH:
(A, C, D, F & G) Since review of the Resource Mapping System did not identify any unique geologic
or physical features, and the Botella clay and Conejo clay soils in this area have only a slight hazard
of erosion, trenching activities are not expected to result in unstable earth conditions or change
geologic substructures. Topography in the project area will change during construction, but will be
restored upon completion of the project. An earthquake fault, which is inferred active on the basis of
a tectonic model, is located approximately 600 feet west of the project area. However, it is not
expected that the project will increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.
Flows entering Miranda Creek from the Stratmore outfall structure will be diverted approximately 800
feet downstream in order to avoid the area of the creek identified to have insufficient capacity (see
Figures 3 & 4). Since flows will be reduced, the project will result in a minor reduction in the amount
of erosion currently occurring in the reach of the creek to be bypassed. Changes in erosion, siltation
and deposition are minor and will not significantly modify the channel.
(B & E) Some vegetative cover will be removed during the installation of the bypass pipe, which will
expose soils to wind and water erosion. This impact is minor and temporary. Adherence to standard
dust control practices include, but are not limited to, general watering of graded areas, use of chemical
stabilizers and seeding, will reduce this impact. Dust control practices shall be incorporated into
construction contracts.
2. AIR:
(A & B) Short-term emissions and objectionable odors are generated during construction activities,
but they are minor and temporary. Contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and
muffled equipment. Air quality impacts will also be reduced by eliminating unnecessary idling of
machines when not in use. Implementation of dust control practices noted in #1 - EARTH (B & E) will
also avoid air quality impacts.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist
Drainage Area 76 - Miranda Creek Improvements
Page 2
(C) Since the installation of a bypass pipe does not create barriers to air movement, or create
impervious surfaces, no alteration of climate,air movement, moisture, or temperature will occur because
of the proposed project:
3. WATER:
(A - 1) The watershed is drained by Miranda Creek and its tributaries and empties into San Ramon
Creek (see Figures 2 & 3). Flows originating from Miranda Creek, upstream of the existing Stratmore
outfall structure, will not be changed. Miranda Creek, downstream from the existing Stratmore outfall
structure, will continue to receive flows, but at a reduced amount because storm water which currently
enters Miranda Creek via the existing Statmore outfall structure will be intercepted and conveyed
approximately 800 feet downstream. The Statmore drain flows account for approximately one-third of
the total flow in Miranda Creek, downstream of its existing junction with the creek. The flows in Miranda
Creek, downstream of the proposed outfall, will not change as a result of the project.
Upon completion of the project, changes to the amount of surface water along Miranda Creek, within
the project area, will vary. The maximum reduction is approximately 1.1 feet. Changes in the amount
of surface water in the creek are not significant since this reach of the creek has insufficient capacity
for flows from a higher-than-average storm event and often results in the flooding of adjacent properties
(see #4 - PLANT LIFE A-D).
The project will not result in a change in absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Groundwater will not be affected by the proposed project. The project will not reduce the water
available to the public since a public water source is not affected. The project will help reduce the
exposure of property to flooding downstream from the existing Stratmore outfall structure. Construction
at either end of the bypass pipe shall occur during periods of low or no flow (eg. April to October) to
avoid water quality impacts. If water is present, the construction area shall be de-watered by installing
cofferdams and diverting water through a pipe, around the work site, to be discharged downstream
in a non-erosive manner. Furthermore, sediment traps and/or filters shall be installed-on an as needed
basis.
4. PLANT LIFE:
(A - D) The Resource Mapping System, RAREFIND, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list, and
field visits indicate no rare or endangered species of plants exist in the area. The project will not create
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. The project will not reduce the acreage of
any agricultural crop and will not introduce new species of plants to the area.
The bypass pipe will be constructed in the roadway (Bunce Meadows Drive) and across private
property, requiring the removal of some landscaping. The property owners will be compensated for
the loss of landscaping. During construction of the proposed bypass outfall, some native trees along
the creek may be removed. If native trees are removed, they will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with native
species. Areas of the creek, disturbed by construction activities, will be seeded. The minor reduction
of creek flows in the reach of the creek where storm water will be diverted may enable vegetation to
C. ;up
Supplement to Environmental Checklist
Drainage Area 76 - Miranda Creek Improvements
Page 3
grow further down the banks of the creek, which may impede further erosion of the banks.
Implementation of practices noted in #3 WATER (A-I)-will also minimize impacts on plant life.
5. ANIMAL LIFE:
(A - D) The project will not cause a change in the diversity of or number of species in the project area.
The Resource Mapping System, RAREFIND, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list, and field visits
showed no rare or endangered animal life in the area. The project will not result in the introduction of
new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals, nor
will it result in the deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat. The minor reduction of creek flows
in the project area will not have a significant impact on animal life. Implementation of practices noted
in #3 WATER (A - 1) will also minimize impacts on animal life.
6. NOISE:
(A & B) In general, construction activities produce noise levels of 86 dBA at 50 feet, which is well
below the threshold of pain of 120-140 dBA. Best management practices noted in #2 - AIR (A & B),
and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless modified upon written
approval, reduce construction noise levels and shall be incorporated as part of the construction
contract.
Once the bypass pipe is installed it will not generate noise.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE:
Installation of the underground bypass pipe, of and by itself, will not produce any new light or glare.
8. LAND USE:
Drainage Area 76 encompasses approximately 1,470 acres of low to very low density single family
residences, open space, agricultural land, and state park land. The installation of the bypass pipe will
minimize existing localized flooding. The project, including the installation of the bypass pipe under the
roadway and across several properties, will not result in the alteration of the present or planned land
use of the area as noted in the County's General Plan.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES:
(A) During construction equipment will use fuel, but given the short span of construction, this impact
is not significant. Once completed the bypass pipe will consume no natural resources aside from those
resources (i.e. gasoline) used during periodic maintenance activities.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist
Drainage Area 76 - Miranda Creek Improvements
Page 4
10. RISK OF UPSET:
(A) The proposed project has the potential to release hazardous substances, such as accidental
petroleum spills, during construction. Per standard specifications, standard construction safety
practices will be followed during construction to ensure no accidental release of hazardous substances
or increase the potential for exposure to these substances. The County Resource Mapping System
did not identify any petroleum pipelines or electric transmission lines in the Miranda Creek improvement
project area. In order to avoid an accidental cut, underground utilities will be located and marked prior
to any trenching activities.
(B) As discussed in #13 - TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (A - D & F), traffic control measures will
minimize the interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan.
11 & 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of
the area, nor will it affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing (see #8 - LAND
USE).
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
(A - D & F) The project does not generate additional traffic, increase the demand for additional
parking, alter circulation patterns,or impact existing transportation systems, except during construction.
During construction, equipment and construction activities may temporarily inhibit smooth circulation,
but traffic control measures, such as flagging, warning signs,temporary detours, shall be incorporated
into the contract specifications and will minimize this impact. Transportation and circulation impacts
will end upon completion of the project.
(E) The project will not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES:
(A- D) The project does not increase the need for fire or police protection, schools, or parks (see #8 -
LAND USE).
(E & F) The proposed bypass pipe will require occasional maintenance. These activities are usually
of very short duration and will be incorporated into the routine maintenance program for the area. The
formation of the drainage area and adoption of a drainage fee is needed to pay for improvements to
Miranda Creek.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist C
Drainage Area 76 - Miranda Creek Improvements
Page 5
15 - 19. ENERGY, UTILITIES, HUMAN HEALTH, AESTHETICS AND RECREATION:
Installation of a bypass pipe will not result in wasted energy. The pipe requires no energy to operate,
so new utilities are not required. Since the bypass pipe is underground, health hazards are not
created. The project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view, nor will it result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. As mentioned in #4 PLANTS, some
landscaping will be removed as a result of the project, however, since the property owners will be
compensated for the loss of landscaping, replacement will be at their discretion. No recreational
opportunities currently exist where the bypass pipe will be installed.
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
(A- D) According to the Resource Mapping System and the Sonoma State University Records Search
the project area contains no recorded historical or archeological sites. The County General Plan has
designated portions of the drainage area (east of the Miranda Creek project area) as a highly sensitive
area, however the project area has been previously disturbed through construction of residences, the
roadway, and the-Stratmore outfall system, and the installation of underground utilities. Per standard
specifications, all personnel connected with the project will be informed of the possibility of finding
archaeological resources (e.g., human remains, artifacts, bedrock, bone or shell). If during construction
such resources are encountered, all work will be halted within a 30 yard radius of the finding and a
qualified archaeologist retained to ascertain the nature of the discovery. Measures recommended by
the archaeologist and approved by the Public Works Department will be implemented.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
(A-D) Due to construction equipment, air quality will be temporarily degraded at the project site.
However, no permanent long-term impacts will result (see #2 - AIR). There are no cumulative impacts
associated with the project. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of-a fish or wildlife
species, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community , or cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels. No endangered species of plants or animals are within the project
area. There will be no encroachment upon any habitat or elimination of any animal, fish, or wildlife
community (see #s 4 & 5 - PLANT and ANIMAL LIFE). Should examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory be found, measures described in #20 - CULTURAL RESOURCES shall
be implemented. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals. In addition, there will be no adverse environmental effects on
humans as long as the suggestions for items 1 (B & E), 2 (A & B), 6 (A & B), 10 (A & B), and 13 (A -
D & F) are implemented.
VGMT:nia*t
cAa761da76rev.sup
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
U�m�^�N��� ��� 0��^��|���0U� � ^�N��U�
NOTICE N���� ��y0— DETERMINATION
��N��N1�N08����� 0 N��/N��
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095
'
Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact: Vickie Germany, Public Works Dept.
Project Description, Common Name (if any)and Location- ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE FORMATION OF DRAINAGE AREA 76 AND THE MIRANDA CREEK IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT -7: The project involves the installation of storm drain bypass system
, County File #96
(approximate 510 feet of 86-inch pipe and another 30 feet of 108-inch pipe) on Miranda Creek from
the Stratmore drain outfall (opposite the westerly end of Bunce Meadows Drive) to a point
approximately 650 feet downstream, The construction work involves the installation of approximately
540 feet of ston'n drain pipe, manholes, 30-foot long earthen outfall ditch at the downstream end of
the bypass, and the placement of rock slope protection to prevent erosion.
The project was approved un
Pursuant 10the provisions cdthe California Environmental Quality Act:
AmEnvironmental impact Report was prepared and certified.
[---1
The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for
| � | ANegative Declaration approved bvthe Board cdSupervisors onMarch 1' 1SS4was issued
----�
indicating that preparation of an Environmental impact Report was not required.
Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office
ofthe Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
The Project will not have asignificant environmental effect.
�-1
The Project will have a significant environmental effect.
Mitigation measures were made ocondition ufapproval nfthe project.
Astatement ofoverriding considerations was adopted. _-
Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Date: By:
Community Development Department Representative
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING
I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public
Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date.
Signature Title
Applicant:
CCC Public Works Dept.
Attn: Janet Fmtd/v
255Glacier Drive
Martinez,CA 94553 County Clerk Fee Due $26
DATE
ITEM#
CONSIDERED WITH
LISTED IN ERROR
DELETED