HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10232001 - C.10 (3) IJ
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
UPDATING DRAINAGE FEE
ORDINANCE AND PLAN AMENDMENT
No. 2
FOR DRAINAGE AREA 52D
Prepared by Kevin Emigh
Contra Costa Flood Control District
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
September 30, 2001
1. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:
a. The existing Drainage Fee Ordinance (No.98-58) for Drainage Area 52D be
repealed;
b. A new drainage fee ordinance reflecting cost increases for the detention basin
right-of-way and construction be adopted; and
c. The drainage plan for Drainage Area 52D be amended.
2. DRAINAGE AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Drainage Area 52D is located in the East County in the Oakley Area. A portion of the
drainage area is within the incorporation limits of the City of Oakley. The drainage area
is bounded by Marsh Creek to the west, by the Atchison Topeka and Sante Fe Railroad to
the east, Cypress Road to the north, and the extension of Hill Avenue to the south. The
exact boundary is shown on Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
drawing FD-12630.
The drainage area contains approximately 240 acres. The General Plans for the area
designate about 140 acres in the north as residential with 7 to 12 units per acre and the
remaining area in the south as agricultural residential.
3. REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF PLAN AND DRAINAGE FEE ORDINANCE
The plan is being changed to reflect conversion of the South Basin to off-site storage
thereby reducing the amount of basin area required. The South Basin will be intersected
by the future extension of Laurel Road over the Atchison Topeka and Sante Fe Railroad.
To compensate for the storage lost due to the road embankment additional basin area
would have to be acquired or the basin would have to be converted to off-site storage
which is more efficient. The off.-site storage option is recommended. The proposed
amended plan is shown on District drawing FC-13067.
The current fee of$ 0.66 per square foot of new impervious surface is insufficient to
cover the estimated project costs and the long-term debt for the basin right-of-way that
was purchased over ten years ago.
4. COST ESTIMATE
A detailed engineer's estimate is attached as Appendix A The following is a summary of
these costs:
Construction $905,000.00
Rights-of-way (incl. debt) $865,000.00
Engineering and Administration $203,000.00
Total Subregional $1,973,000.00
Marsh Creek Regional Share $104,000.00
Total Costs $2,077,000.00
5. CALCULATION OF THE NEW FEE
As indicated above the total cost to implement the remaining portions of the proposed
plan and funding the drainage areas indebtedness for the Basin #2 right-of-way is
$2,077,000. The estimated amount of impervious surfaces to be constructed in the future
in this drainage area is 2,590,000 square feet. The required fee is calculated by dividing
the estimated cost by the estimated quantity of new impervious surface area. This yields a
fee amount of$ 0.80 per square foot of new impervious surface.
Development types and densities are based on the City and County General Plans and
Specific Plans. The amount of impervious surface for the various types of development is
based on the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District report
entitled "Report on Impervious Surface Drainage Fee Ordinance" dated January 5,1982
The fee schedule is shown in Exhibit A attached to this report.
6. FUTURE UPDATING OF PROPOSED FEES
The standard impervious surface drainage fee ordinance has been modified to include a
paragraph that authorizes annual fee updates using the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index. The updates will occur annually on January 1. The new
paragraph is Section X, Review of Fees.
TCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
An initial study of environmental significance was prepared for the formation of the
drainage area and the adoption of the original plan and fee ordinance. An addendum to
this document was prepared to address the environmental impact of the proposed
improvements that would result from the proposed Drainage Plan Amendment No. 2.
GAG rpData\FldCtl\mkubicek\52dEngineerreport.doc
APPENDIX A
DRAINAGE AREA 52D COST ESTIMATE
Item Units Quanti $/Unit Amount Amount
36"Caston-place Pipe L.F. 1200 $70.00 $84,000.00
2"Cast-in-place Pipe L.F. 1022 $80.00 $81,760.00
46' Cast-in-place Plp2 L.F. 4062 90.00 $365 580.00
Type 3 M.H. EA. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Type 4 M.H. EA. 10 $2,000.00 $20,000.00
Special M.H. EA. 1 $10,000.00 $10,0Q0.00
Outlet Struct. mdFlapgate EA. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
utiet Structure EA. 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Rock Slove Protection C.Y. 100 $75.00 $7,500.00
Fencing LF 3200 $10.00 $32,000.00
Basin#1 Modifications LS 1 $50,000.00 $50 000.00
Basin#2 consolidation Compaction CY 20000 $4.00 $80,000.00
Subtotal Construction $753,840.00
Contingency 20% $150,768.00
Total Construction $904,608.00
Basin#1 Rights-of-Way 1 $60,000-00 $60,000.00
Basin#2 RI hts-of-W * 0.8 $670,000.00 $536,000.00
Interest on Advance Acquisition* 0.8 $300,000.00 $240,000.00
General Pipe RNV 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Subtotal RNV $856,000.00
RNV Conti c 16%for Basin#1 $9,000.00
Total RNV $865,000.00
Dev.En r/Admin.Credit 15% $135,691.20
FCD E r./Admin. 16% $67,845.60
otal En r/Admin. $203,536.80
Marsh Creek Fee @$.04/SF $104,000.00
Estimated Total Cost $2,077,144.80
*Reflects net cast after road rights-of--way are sold assuming 20 percent recovery
3 w r o
N N O O N O O N L2 p Z
LID
g !v
f
+ r + a Q z
` z a a- a a a a a a W Z a
O o a a d a g a d w v y v o
>_
5 _ a ,,� v v v v u u u u o u Q o 0
H I Z Z N a N m� Z Z
W LU
CY a z 0 N w DO N LO DO N ED DO - 3 W f a �.
wO 17 Of D W 't V- "t M 't d M ' N� ^LF)
' a a CO
O O 0 z
g m Q z O
\ I o M a v Z 3 M =
' I O w a a Ix � I
Q
z LL
i <+• ''\`'ii w w w a p m
z To
cl
+ O N a O Q N ^ N N O ,�,7 J 1�'u
1 _
X (if2 c. N N c
l W d U p <
■ �/ EAST CYPRESS RW Q
SSD Q <O•, O O O O O Q U
\ ... �. Do O .-: O 0 m
o ^ N o o I
W N N N M M M In C mIU GX
U U U U V U U U N 7,
a/ J m m V
AA
2 IV 1 O <
GOUR,f \ • ,\ \\ OI
.I��� \ ` ♦ QI I.a
\ . ` 31 , 1•
\ GPPPPPPPIP i ,an
I , \ r 1 `♦ I I G
1✓\ �p0'' M f Y '4 "J6"RCP'.y. ''%•^ {1/ q,l ♦` r.Jl I.•ti _ <
--- ------- -------- --------
/ya ,��:?4.�'���, �1 '.. �,,.. •,`'•y .i `'�•`� ^:u .D ♦ \ i i
� 2
uE.WD'x CRECa C ''.4•' 1� ♦ 1� < �
i , r�' ri•, ---�
--i 1 / \\///�_` y • ------- ----------- -- -- -
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095
Telephone: (925) 313-2296 Contact Person: Cece Sellgren, Environmental Planner
Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: DRAINAGE AREA 52D Plan Amendment PROJECT, County
File#CP 00-36. The Negative Declaration for the Drainage Area 52D Plan Amendment Project was approved on July 13, 1989
(County File#CP 88-82). This Addendum to the Negative Declaration for Drainage Area 52D Formation Project identifies a
minor technical change to the project.
The drainage area plans are being changed to accommodate the future extension of Laurel Road and to better conform to the
tentative map of a subdivision in the planning process. The extension of Laurel Road will require Detention Basin #2 to be
split to allow for road right of way. The changes in the configuration of Basin#2 also require a reconfiguration of the storm
drain network that drains to and from the basin. The alignment of several drainage lines is being altered to conform to the
tentative map for a subdivision.
The project is located east of Marsh Creek, west of Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Delta Road in the City of
Oakley, in east Contra Costa County.
The project was approved on
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act:
( ) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH # )
( ) The.Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared
for (SCH# ).
(X ) An Addendum to the Negative Declaration for Drainage Area 52D Formation Project(CP#88-82)was
prepared (CP#00-36)
Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the
Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
(X ) The Project will not have a significant environmental effect.
( ) The Project will have a significant environmental effect.
( ) Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project.
( ) A statement of overriding 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 Dept. of Fish & Game Fees Due:
County Public Work Dept. EIR-$850 Total Due$
255 Glacier Dr Neg.Dec.-$1,250 Total Paid$
Martinez,CA 94553 __ DeMinimis Finding-$0
Attn:Leigh Chavez X County Clerk-$50 Receipt#:
TT
\\PWS4\SHARDATA\GrpDala\EngSvc\ENVIRO\2000 projects\CEQAonly\N0D\DA 52D Plan Amendment.doc
(Rev.3/4/99)
ADDENDUM
to the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND)
for DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION
CP# 88-82
SCH# 89022112
Project # 2584-6D8227
CP# 00-36
Prepared by:
Earl Crosby
Planner
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
November 17, 2000
Environmental Planner Community Development Department
Public Works Department �, p
Title: o .'-�it1'��'
Lead Agency: County of Contra Costa
Date:
GAGrpData\EngSvcIENVIR0\2000 projects\DA 52DWDDENDUM DA52D.SIG.doc
. r
• ADDENDUM
to the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION
CP# 88-82
SCH# 89022112
Project # 2584-6D8227
CP# 00-36
PREFACE
The Drainage Area 52D Formation Negative Declaration (ND) evaluated the
proposed project which consisted of the formation of the Drainage Area 52D and the
adoption of a drainage plan and fee ordinance, located east of Marsh Creek, west of
Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Delta Road, in the Oakley area, Contra Costa
County.
This document serves as an Addendum to the ND for Drainage Area 52D
Formation-(CP# 88-82; SCH# 89022112). The ND for the project consists of the ND, and
this Addendum.
The Contra Costa Community Development Department (CDD) is the lead agency
for the project, and on June 13, 1989, the Board of Supervisors (Board) as the Goveming
Board for the Contra Costa County Flood and Water Conservation District(FCD) approved
the project and filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk.
CEQA PROCESS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prescribes that an Addendum
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) to a previously adopted ND may be prepared if only
minor technical changes are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred:
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the previous ND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. No substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which require major revisions of ND due to the
involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
1
3. No new information of substantial importance shows that the project will
have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the ND.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the Board shall consider
this Addendum along with the ND 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 attached to the ND. As noted in the Preface, this
Addendum is attached to the ND for Drainage Area 52D Formation (CP# 88-82, SCH#
89022112).
EXPLANATION OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum to the ND for Drainage Area 52D Formation identifies minor technical
changes in the project design.
A. DESIGN
The drainage area plans are being changed to accommodate the future extension of
Laurel Road and to better conform to the tentative map of a subdivision in the planning
process. The extension of Laurel Road will require Detention Basin # 2 to be split to
allow for road right of way. The changes in the configuration of Basin # 2 also require a
reconfiguration of the storm drain network that drains to and from the basin. The
alignment of several drainage lines is being altered to conform to the tentative map for
a subdivision. Table 1 summarizes the minor technical changes in the attached Draft
Engineers Report.
Table 1 - Technical changes in DA 52D Plan
Amended FacilitOri final facility
Basin#2 Basin#2
♦ 1 basin 7.0 acres ♦ Basin split into 2 sub-basins(total area 4.5 acres)
slope 4:1 to accommodate future expansion of Laurel Rd.
♦ Depth 5' ♦ slope decreased to 5:1
Outfall 18"spiral ribbed pipe (SRP) ♦ Depth increased to 6'
♦ Outfall changed to 48"cast in-place concrete pipe
(CIPP)
Basin#3 Deleted-Removed due to lack of conformance with
revised General Plan
Line Al Deleted - Will be installed as part of conditions of
approval for subdivision (7797) w/ existing tentative
map.
Line A2 Deleted - Will be installed as part of conditions of
approval for subdivision (7797) w/ existing tentative
map.
Line A3 Deleted - Will be installed as part of conditions of
approval for subdivision (7797) w/existing tentative
map.
2
• Original facility Amended Facili
Line C1 Line C3
♦ Ties into Basin #2 ♦ Ties into new line C1 (old line C4)at 9+25
♦ Original alignment ♦ Alignment shifted . to conform to street
♦ 30 reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) improvements in proposed subdivision's (6963)
tentative map.
♦ Storm drain i e increased to 36"—48"CIPP
Line C2 Line C2
♦ Ties into Basin #2 ♦ Ties into new line C1 (old line C4) at 9+25
♦ Original alignment ♦ Alignment shifted to conform with street
♦ 24"—42" RCP improvements in proposed subdivision's (6963)
tentative map.
♦ .Storm drain pipe increased to 36"—48" CIPP
Line C3 Deleted—No longer needed as per tentative ma
Line C4 (portion) Line C1
♦ Ties into Basin #2 ♦ Stops at 9+25 at confluence of new lines
♦ 18 SRP C2/C3/C5
♦ Drains into Marsh Creek with a flapgate with rock ♦ 48"CIPP
slope protection energy dissipater ♦ Outfall structure changed to concrete headwall
and fla gate
Line C4 (portion) Line C5
♦ Ties into Basin 2 ♦ From confluence of new lines C1/C2/C3 to Basin
♦ 18"SRP 2
♦ 2 48"CIPP
None Line C4
♦ Line C3 to southern sub-basin of Basin 2
Figure D-13067 in the Engineer's Report visually summarizes the amended Drainage Area.
This Addendum is consistent with County policies and does not lead directly or
indirectly to significant physical changes in the project, nor does it alter the adequacy or
the completeness of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the
ND. Therefore, this Addendum to the ND is appropriate.
ADDITION TO THE ND
This section identifies the language which is added/or changed (bold face type)or deleted
(EAdkeout) to the text and figures of the ND. The environmental impacts are discussed in
"Initial Study of Environmental Significance Supplemental Information for DA-52D", dated
Jan. 24, 1989 (attached). The changes below pertain to the document referenced above.
p 1 2nd para 2"d sentence - Since the basin will be constructed underground with
4-te-4 (5 to 1) side slope it will not result in unstable earth condition. disniations,—an d
displacement.
p 1 2"d para 3' sentence - Since the basin is only five (six) feet deep, the changes in
geologic substructures and topography will be insignificant.
p 2 4" para 2"d sentence - The proposed detention basin less (has) the potential to
become a recreational faeif+ties (facility) in the future.
3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADDENDUM FINDINGS for the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION for
DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION
The following information is added to the previous ND and is presented to comply with
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for the ND for the DRAINAGE AREA 52D
FORMATION project.
1. Environmental Effect: Modifications to the design section as described on p. 2 of
this Addendum, are minor technical changes or additions to the project and will not
result in any additional environmental effects not previously discussed.
Findings: There are no significant environmental impacts associated with the
minor technical changes or additions for the proposed activity for which this
Addendum was prepared.
Statement of Facts:
a. The project to be developed pursuant to this Addendum to the ND for
DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION project is substantially similar to the project
analyzed in the ND.
b. The ND for the DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION project consists of the ND,
comments received, responses to the comments raised, and this Addendum. The
ND was completed in compliance with CEQA.
c. There are no substantial changes, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
(a)(1), in the project which require major revisions of the ND due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. The project is substantially similar to the
project analyzed in the ND.
d. There are no substantial changes.with respect to the circumstances, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(2), under which the_DRAINAGE AREA 52D
FORMATION project is undertaken which require major revisions of the previous
ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Those
circumstances remain substantially similar to the circumstances analyzed in the ND.
e. There is no new information of substantial importance, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3), which shows that the project will have one or
more significant effects not previously discussed in the ND.
4
f. None of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR have occurred (see items 1 c - e above). Therefore, it is
appropriate to adopt this Addendum to the ND to make some minor technical
changes or additions found on p.2 Section A of this document (CEQA
Guidelines 15164). This Addendum shall be considered along with the ND
prior to the Board making a decision on the minor technical changes or
additions to the project, and in considering these changes or additions, the
Board is considering the identical or substantially similar underlying project.
The findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and are
based on the ND for the DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION project which was subject
to public review.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the County Board of Supervisors
shall consider this Addendum along with the.ND 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 attached to the ND. As noted in the
Preface, this Addendum is attached to the ND for the DRAINAGE AREA 52D
FORMATION project (CP# 88-82; SCH# 89022112).
CS:ELC:
\\PWS4\SHARDATA\GrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\2000 projects\DA 52D\ADDENDUM DA52D.doc
5
t
N
b C
Q
UJ
�
X
! Fri a o S � '� ♦ o o t 'V ."°i e • v � n v rm W z <
K m d p 2Y 2 5 +moi n
i iG i
O < N O o 00 b b 0 d p Q
o
'. O x 0
1 � f
• f .. �- N 1v u dd
Avi +'i�u
_ � m' i'l!+ .... � 1'T.�._r_(a+� _: .• e
_.�--.+T -_ _r�—__. S_ •`,..aid�l .j'+-r,.,tc-:.�.-.� <•y7^.♦ -_ ... _
�- ---5",T-i!~c as _- _.I-...;�.. it •ali a7 f `♦ i �_•j,�
•ice t=_-.. ��--� __ _ - " �/ �' .__..._�� ___..— _ .,-� .,a
1 I - __ __-_ -__ _-
,
-----------------
-A- ________________
Yrs _
-
_ i
STA TE OF CAUFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GO%_.NCr GEORGE OEUKh
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 6'9 A 'p4
l AVAW O GiCa
CA 95814 O sT,Q; .
March 23, 1989 Cay, T,. �9
Gus Almquist T``c'Q�
Contra Costa County .
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing-4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Drainage Area 52D Formation, County File CP 88-82
Subject: SCH# 89022112
Dear.Mr_ Almquist:
The State Glearinghouse submitted the abo-ve nzmad environmental document
selected state agencies for review. T`:e state agency review period is r
closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This lett
acknowledges that you have complied with the State C?earirghouse rev,
requirements for draft environmental doci..:?nts, pursuant to the Califon.
Environmental Quality Act. a e e
Please contact Loreen McMahon or Marilyn \ishikawa at 916/ -t5- 0 613 if
have any questions regarding the environmental review process . IQt
contacting the Clearinghouse regarding this matter, please use the eigl
digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly-
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
E. Bragdon
Qommunity Contra oaectO of Community Oeve
Development Costa
Department
County Administration Building County
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing f
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone: 646-2091 ,.�, February 21 , 1989
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAINAGE AREA 520 FORMATION, COUNTY FILE HCP
88-82: The project consists of the formation of Drainage Area 52D and the
adoption of a drainage plan and fee ordinance. The drainage fees will pay
for the drainage system consisting of pipelines to 48 inches in diameter.
Subject property is described as follows: The parcel is located east of
Marsh Creek, west of Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Delta Road, in
the Oakley area.
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 that 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 so -con-tact=me
directly by phone or letter to convey any concerns they -ay have about the
environmental review for the project.
If you require further information regarding the project itself, please
contact Sam Choi of the County Public Works Department, Flood Control
District, at 415/646-4470, extension 281. If you have any comments
regarding this Notice of Preparation, please contact me at 415/646-2091 by
Wednesday, March 22, 1989.
sincerely yours,
Gus Almouist
Civil Engineer
ASA:gms
en5:DA52dFRM.ND r,- J
Enclosures
FE` ,
cc: Sam Choi
File No. NCP 88-82 Gonna : ""'%
F: _ ..,
11&LL to: 43mkta ClawrimCb-Ase. 14M Twth St. Six t21. Ucr%acdta. CA =14916/443-0813
WnCz or CCWK=CK Am wril12%42MAL OX01=4 TRIASIaTrAL raw
1. Project Title, DRAINAGE AREA 52D FORMATION; County File #CP 88-82
2. LoLd Agency: CCC Community Dev. Dept. z, coatLct rtir;saa: Gus Almquist
U- street Addre=: 651 Pine St., N. Wing - 4th EI!2or . 3b. city: Martinez
:.C. cbkwtT- ro Cri-stri ft- 94553-0095 3e. Ptione: (4 15) 646-2091
Corif 3d- Zip:
Man= =Maf 4. Co=ry:- Contra Costa City/c0==?tV* East County, near Oakley
Ab. Aammiow's Parcel Na. Book 33 4c. secticia 30, 31 T., T2N Pazve R3E
U. Cyms Srr"tz, Marsh Creek at Cypress Road 5b. for Rurzt, %C&I't'st Oakley
tLiJa =Its* a. State Air-
b. A.T. & S.F. d. Water-
6. Wit2 RV 1 4 C.parts "Is Ways Marsh Creek
MCM&I"TIPS
CMA OL. General PILm Update 01. Reosi4ectIal: U01ts Acl-emt
al.IKP 06. xx 02. New Elc=mt 02. Oflice: Sq. Ft.
02. Early O=x 07. "M 03. Central Plea A=Dclmedt Acres
03. XX N,:-C Dec 08. NOD 0.4. Victer Plan .03. SbOM=C/ reLal: Sq. ft.
04. Draft EIR 05 Inne-gtJoa AC--C% ytts
supplimzeut/ 06. spec-ulc Plan C-4. IC(lustrill: sq. ft.
05. Subsequent EIR
(Pr:073a No.: 07. c==un1tT Plan A--rt-s
08. Rcdevelop=cat c5._'firer Facilities: %CZ
NEPA C9. R&zo-o-ee CC-. Type
Draft
09. EIS 10. Land Divisica C-. vinix4; i"Gerxi
. TSUBdivisioa. Parcel
10. PCM1 12. U Hap. Tr24z Uxp. etc.) 0S. -Pa"r: Type- Batts
CrIEEit ii. U&C Per=t C. _72-ste ',Tim t=x a
13. Joint Doc=cat 12. Tl-vte Uc= Plan CCS RcUten
14. F.iml Doci=ut 13. CinctL Az Preserve xx otter: Droinace Facilities
15. Other 1a. X>Iotlier- Drainoce Plan
10. ltr= 240 acres 11. cmam: Unknown
12. PDa3J= 133MZ DJ3CC3SM M V0C5rr 15. Sept-C Sysce= :3. XX 'Witter Quitlity
XX AtatheticlVistmi CS. XX FloodiAg/Drainace 16. ase yr CIPLclty 24. xx_Titer SvWlr
02. Atriculu=1 Sand Co. xx Gtowelcl-SelJ C U. SQC3,L I =5- XX 'let land/Rimr-,an
03. XX Air Quality 10. JOWHOU.SLU Balance- M x'x-soil rrcilwc :6. xx vildli:e
04. ArcbAcologacallZietoricitl 11. XX ViDerLis 19. Solid Taste XX r roith I od LIC1 a C
Co. XX Cocgtal Zooe 12. .E I - u----
wise 20. .2��X .occlllx--Arc� :3. lacematible
05. Ecomamc 13- Pubtic Serrices 21. XX-M.'s.,c/cIrculatloo M. xx T=.Ulacive Effects
07. - f=m R&=rd scnoois XX --0- C r 0't i 0 n
rte .h
*.3. PU10M (approx) Feder;Ll S state S S.
14. PUY-n" UM CM AM =TM
Residential and Agricultural
I's. MIECT CMC1l37rlC)q:
The project consists of the formation of Drainage Area 52D and adoption of a drainage plc
fee ordinance. The drainage fee will pay for thc'dro1na,9c system consisting of pipelines
inches in diameter and G detention basin.
:a. stoun-n ai, #Z February 16, 1989
Car- 'IMCIAOe
:or _stsC.C.
-'Ott- of PrroRX-ItIca or ;T'rvlous aym:t docl=eor' :t it.
RFVT�WTT�p���IyS
Resources Agency Caltrans District
Boating/Waterways Dept. of Transport-t'_cn P1ng;
Conservation Aeronautics
Fish and Gane CA Highway Patrol
Forestry Lousing & Community Dev't
Colorado River Board Statewide Healt-h Ping-
Dept. Water Resources Lealth
Reclamation Food & Agriculture
Parks and Rec Public Utilities Comm
Office of Historic Preservation Riblic Works
Native American Heritage Como Correcticns
S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev't. Coma General Servir--s
Coas�1 Conn C .
Energy Caron S-mmta Monica Mtrs
State Lands Coma =-CALMP.A
Air Resources Board
Solid Waste Ment Board CFR - Coastal
SWRCM: Sacto _=eau of Land Management
RWQCB: Region p :crest Service
Water Rights C her:
Water Quality C-cher:
SC3 LSF am
Gate Received at SCi Catalog
Gate Review Starts A. licant
Date to Agencies Ccnsul.tynt
Cate to SC:i Ccncact =1:cne
Clearance Gate A(3dress
::ote=
1
canon CCDM C=ny
I'UBUC WORKS C�Vr
INITIAL STUDY
OF ENVIR3ftk ?ML SIC2=CAMX
Project Name: CRADVZ CE 52D f[ ITCN Public Works Departmient
255 Glacier Drive
MartineX, California 94553
Prepared by: Sam N. Choi Date: September 20,p11988
P-v,L -d by: t. Date:
100140MATIM3.- () General Bale: Ewnrt from Govt. Code 65402 by Boani of
Supervisors Resolution 81/522
_ ()'Categorical Emiption (Class ) (X) Negative Declaration
() Enviro mental Jupact Report Required () Corditior>3l Nag. Declaration
'Ibis Project will not have a significant effect on the envi-n—nt.
The reou=xndatim is based on the follovinq (List all items Idea--i-fieri as
significant):
SIE ATTACH D EIMIRO II•ENM CHECIaZsr M
All iters were considered having insicnific:.-t"iuipact.
Mwxt dwxjes to the project would mitigate the i daitif Led impacts (Ll--t
mitigation measures= Ear any significant impacts ani aa'KiLtA.Dra rr%Ptive
e63claration).
USCS Quad Sheet: _ Base Map Sheet @ H1i=26 Parcel 6 _
J-26
GEa(ERAL ATIClS:
I. rogation: The parcel is located east of Marsh Creek '-est of Sellers Avenue
between Cypress Raad and Delta Road in the Oakley Z.---
2- Project Description: 7be proiect consists of the fe anon of Drainage Area
52D and the adoption of a drainage plan and fee c-diivnoe. The drainage
fees will pay for the drainage system consist iJu cf pipelines to 48 incises
in diameter.
3. Does it appear Haat any feature of the project Ul'es L/rn LJffiybe
will gan rate significant public CorxD u? I
(Nature of of aarxmm)
4. Will the project roquitm a"nvral of permits by /_/no I
than a County agency?
19--y tee: Deparbrent of Fish & Came.
/ 5. Is the projort within the Sriicrc of Influcaaoc of arr: c;itV t+o
UK:SC:ct n:+
D452D.EIR.t12
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
' VZ<w`T=dI. C`IsIST FCFLU
I. 8s.c�round L
1. Name of Proponent Sm,,rr, C h d 1
2. Address and Phone Number of Pr =near '//r— 6'f 6—
n un
r C� S'
3. Date of Checklist Subm:Ltted SPotQ to b PAY
4. :Tame of -Pr000sal, if anolicable DA— 5 Z D FoR M A T"/ DAI
II. Eavimmn-- nrml Facts
(Explanations of all sianificcnt, (S). _ s=e^s are reouirec on a_ttacte:
sheers_)
�.
1.
Ea---t:'--. Will the proposal result ir:
a. gasz ble e.rh conditions or i. c=',es -4r-
geologic
ngeologic substrsc= res?
b. Disr uaticas, d splacements, c--==: --on or
ove_rcove_—yng of the sail?
c. Change in topcgraphy or ground sa--ace
relief features?
d. Thee.d,estzuetioa, covering or nodi- a=ion
- - of any- unique geologic or physical features? N-00
e. Any increase ea-se in end or water e:--sicn of
soils, eit:e^ on or off the sire?
C=-es in deposition or erosion o' - -c
sands, or ctas:ges i—; - sii azicn, deccsi=icn o7
erosion z,iiico :-ay arx-1-_'y zhe cranne- Of 2
river or stream or =fie t*--i of =^e ccen or
an'! tay, inlet or lake? x
.xsu*-e of reooie or proper ge-3lo91-c
-azar cs sucft a-s ear--1-10uakes. 1ardsl:des. \'
mucsl i des, ground f*ailure-. or
Plecse Note: 'S' :s ler sicnificcnt; 'I' is for Insicni(iCcni
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of obJectionable odors? - X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X_
3. 'Cater. Will the proposal result in:
a. (Manges in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either maxine
or fresh waters?
IIK
b. CYanges in absorption rates, da inage tat-
ter:s, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? x__
c. Alterations to the course or lo7 'of `!ood
waters? X_
d. Change in the amount of surface meter in
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, Cr in 2LnY
alteration of surface aster cry::lity. in-
eluding but not limited to tem azure,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? X _
g. Change in the quantity of ground Caters,
either through direct additions or with-
draaals, or through interceptioa of an -
✓ �� '• - -- aquifer by cuts or-e'xcavationsl
. h. Substantial reducp`i.on in the amount Of
water otherwise available for u.:clic
water supplies? �-
i. �_--.posu_re of people or orcoer' ; zo meter =
laced hazards such as flooding or _:cel paves? X
�. Plant Life. Wi11 the proposal resu!-
a. Ci nge in the diversity of spec,-es, or nu• r-
ber of any species of plants (including t-ops,. _
shr•.:bs, o--ass, crops,. and aquatic plant.;)?
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 nortnl replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any ag:r'cultural crop?
5. Anium-1 Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animn-is (birds, land
aniunls including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms sms or insects)? x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of annals?
c. Introduction of new species of ani=ls into
an area, or result in a b:?—=ier w the mig-a-
tion or movement. of nni¢als?
d. Deterioration to e_•cisting fisc or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Inc.-e2ses .in existing noise levels?
b. E:z=sure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the propos--1 produce new
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an arei?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result i--:
a. Increase in the rate of use of azv rata-al
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal ic.olve:
a. A rsk of an explosion or t5e r elr�se of
ha-.-irdous substances (includiz5, tu'c not
limited to, oil, pesticides, ctje^ieals or
a.diatlon) in the event of an accident or
Upset conditions? _
b. Possible interference with an urgency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? x
11. Popalation. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the ht.*- an
population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect edsting hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? -
13. T.-amsoor-ation/Circulation. Will t5e proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vesicular movement?
b. Effects on edsting parking facilities, or
demand for new narking?
c. Substantial impact upon exist-; =-asoor-
tatioa systems?
d. Alterations to present parte:-s of circula-
tion or movement of people a^.dicr goods?
e. alterations to Waterborne, rte'1 0:- air
f. Increase in traffic hasarcis to motor vericies,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the propos:' 'r ave an effect
upon, or result in a need for new o: alterea gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Polio protection?
C. Schools? S_
d. Parks or other recreational
e. Madateuance of public =ac: lities, _nc'_,r::g
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Ener-,y. will the proposal result :e:
a. Use of substantial amounts of _°--el or ene,Y? -
S 1
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing '
sources or energy, or require the develoment
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alter tions to the
following utilities:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. F.sposure of people to potential health
18. Aesthetics. Will the pr000sal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view opeen to
the FaD1ic, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offens'-ve site open
to public view9
19. Recreation. Will the proposal rest-- in an .
imcact upon the aua.lity or auantit;- c' etist=o
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the pr000sal result in the ='zeYation
of or the destruction of a or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adve:-se oaysical
or aesthetic effects to a prebis:.or is or
historic building, structure, o. object? }�
c. Does the proposal have the potentia-.l to
• cane a physical chnnoe which wuld affect
unique ethnic cultuxa.1 values?
d. WL11 the proposal restrict exis:c5 religious
or sacred uses within :.he ooteat:.a= :�.;�act
area? _
21 . `fnndatory ?!codings of Sloni_icance.
a. goes the croject ;iave the oocect___ :o def;:-ade
the Guality of the envi r o=en- . ....cstznt.iaL l y
.reduce the habitat of a Pisa -o' rild'_ife
species, cause a fish or wildl:_e copulation
to d:-on below self sustaining levels, t5reatei - -
to el .-. nate a plant or =i al c=um, _v, .•--
duce the number or reszrict _ne :---.nge of a are
�..^
or enngered plant or w��. I .or el'_nicate
important examples of the major Per=ods of
California history or preh.istory'? �^
b. Does the project have the poteatial to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term im ct on
the environment is one wtich occurs in a rela-
tively 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 con-
siderable? (A project may impact on t7wo or
more separate resources where the immct on
each resource is relatively small, but =here
the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environ.nenral effects
whicz will cause substantial ad-verse eT_ects
on h•.an beings, either dire^lv "or` i�di:yt'_;�? N
III. Discussion of Eravironmental Evaluation
See Attachment. e -
IV. Determination
On.the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project CCOU have a significant effe_t
on the environment, and a IL ATIVE DDQ.aF,TICN wi11 be prepared. a`
I find that although the proposed project quid have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a. significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an at-..ached
sheet have been aided to rhe project. A liTE DRATICRi irII.I� aD
PR PARED.
I find the proposed project :,MY have a sl�' =f 4 =:_ -af`ert :n :he ^
environment, and an �'NI:DaiE. r L. I\LPyC'. Rte•'- is �oui=ed. _
S /�
/S ��' ��.-.� 21 . G
P�em 6Er
Date Si .z
evie-ee
INITIAL STUDY OF EWIMIZENAL SI=FICANCE
SUPPLEKaML U*-0R QnON
FOR DA-52D :
Each item on the Initial Study form was researched using the overlays
provided by the Community Development Department and by field
investigations of the project site. As a result of this analysis, each item
on the checklist was found to be insignificantly affected by the project.
The comments provided in this attachment support this finding.
Field - Verified Items:
1 a,b,c,d. The proposed project includes a detention basin. Since the
basin will be constructed underground with 4 to 1 side slope,
it will not result in unstable earth condition, disruptions,
and displacements. Since the basin is only about five feet
deep, the changes in geologic substructures and topography
will be insignificant.
1 e,f. Since the basin will reduce peak flows before discharging
into Marsh Creek, erosion and deposition of soil into Marsh
Creek will be insignificant.
1 g. Since the basin cuts are surfacial .geologic hazards .can be
considered insignificant.
3 a. Currently, the drainage fry Drainage Area 52D drains into
the Knightsen area causing substantial flooding in there.
The proposed drainage plan will intercepcv said drainage,
detain it in the basin and discha�e into 1.1�--=z Creek, thus
reducing flood problems in ]aightsen and Dra=r-3ge Area 52D.
The proposers plan will not affect existing irrigation
facilities.
3 b. Since the project will not create hard surfaces, absorption
rates will not be changed.
3 c. Since there are no defined water courses or seater gays in
that area, the proposed project will not alter the course or
flow of flood water significantly-
3 d. ahe proposed pipes will not significantly change the drainage
patters or rate of surface runoff sincz surface drai age
swales will be used along the pip`liP.es. e
3 e,f,g. The proposed pipes will be irPervious to grcund•rater in-
trusion.
3 h. The surface flood water will be reduced by instollil,g
pipelines. The reduction of surface water is rutigated by
holding this water in a detention basin which will provide
access to free mater, open space and groundwater recharge.
3 i. Since the basin will be construed with• ssfficient free
board, there will not'be any dater related hazards.
- PAGE IOF3 -
4 a,c,d. Surface flows which support plant and aninal life will remain
unaffected. The proposed pipes will drain the colleLtioi
points where the surface runoff would.othendse inundate. Ii
addition, most of the project's proposed pipelines will b<
installed under the paved right of %qay. .
8. The proposed drainage plan was designed as per the Oakle,
Area General Plan.
18. Since all the proposal pipes and detention basin will be
placed below g=n-,d, there will be no obstruction of am
scenic vistas. J
19. Since there are no existing recreational facilities in the
area, the proposed plan will not impact any recreational
opportunities. The proposed detention basin l�SS "-'- hE
potential to bene a recreational facilities in the future.
Y
Overlay - Verified Items-
4 b, 5 b. Overlay number 5, "Rare and ErOazxl'ered Species" does nor- shot,
any endangered species of plants or anima is Wnich inhabit the
area of the proposed project. '
13 c, d. The existing transportation systems as sham on overlay
number 17, "Major Roads", should not be affected by the
proposed project.
Temporary Construction Related Items:
These particular items are - affected on a snort-tern basis only duri,,
construction of the proposed project. Since ' they are only t.amporary
impacts, they were found to be insignificant.
2 a,b,c. During construction of the proposed project, a .all amount
of dust may occur at the project site. A dust pai.liar.ive and
water should be used to ensure this dust is insignificant..
In addition, the County's construction specifications include
measures for reducing dust.
6 a,b. The noise generated by .the ccnstructien equip-enc
minimized by operating muffled machinery only n..o==1
working hours. The County's constn:�e
include measures for reducing construction roi_o.
13 a,b,e, f. During construction, traffic flv:I will be 17.2iXt. .1'Zd
highest possible level by m.ininizing the ercr:-c_..:-:ent
construction equipment into the traveled right-of--. ay.
County's construction Sixcifications include mcasure-
providing adequate traffic control during construction.
Outside Peport Item:
20 a, b, c, d
- PAM 2OF3 -
The Northwest Information Center performed an archaeological records
• search for the proposed project site which consisted of a review %Of
ethnographic, historical and archaeological maps and literature on file;at
the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. The research
suggests that the area contains one recorded prehistoric archeological site
but no cultural rem. There is, however, the possibility that
prehistoric cultural resources exist within the project area. Should any
cultural features such as human interments, hearths, artifacts, etc. be
encountered during constriction, work should stop within a 100-foot radius
from the find and an archaeologist should be consulted imTediately regarding
steps which must be taken before continuation of work.
Other Items
The remaining ni ng items on the Initial. Study form are not significantly
affected by this project due to the type of project being Proposed.
7. This project will, not produce light or glare.
9 a. This project will not significantly increase the rate of use
of any natural resource.
10 a,b. This project will not intro=-Iw any risks or inter±ere with
an emergency evacuation plan. - .. -
11, 12. This project will not sin;f-cantlY alter the distribution
or density of the population a.*u housing in the area.
14. This project will not sic-aficantly asbzct. the _ public
services.
15. This project's drainage sys:s-:, will not require energy to
function.
16. This project will not rernrixn new utilities but may require
the minor relocation of sorra e-K= -ing services-
17
ervices-17 a,b. This project will not result in the creation of a health
hazard.
UK:SC:clw/chew
DA52D.Stdy.T3
January 24, 1989 0
- PAGE 3 OF 3 -