Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12142004 - D5 EIR fF F F - '' Alhambra Valley Estates F } F F Final Environmental Impact County File #SD028634., " • September tt ContraCostaCounty Community i i Department e Administrative f f 651 Pine Street ♦ R Floor,North • Martinez,CA 94553 ���br. ValleyEstates Finallnvi, W : o t t i a mpact , Kr Count F"I SH2:003032026 septerr►ber 2004 Centra Costa counter Cnrnmunity Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Strut.Second Noor,North Wing Marti nez,CA 94553 -- - -- TABLE OFCONTENTS ���K� m� Contents x ��n� ��o `������onwm 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 14 1.1 Background... ......... .................. ...... ............................................-----...... ... --� 1'1 -- 1.2Organization of the Fhl@| BR------------------------------' 1-2 � 1.3Summary OfResponse to DE|RCoDlrneOts-----------------------. 1-2 - � 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................................................................ 2- � 2.1 Format qfComments and Responses.............. .............. .....................---- .............. 2-1 2.3List ofPersons and Agencies Commenting............ ......................... ................................ 2,1 � 2.3 Master Responses to Comments.......... ..... .......................... ....................................... 2-3 ~` 2.4 COOlnleMts and Responses ...................... .................. ............................... ...................2-1O 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA..................................................................................................... 34 -- 3.1 Text Revisions and Err8ta—......... ......................................................... ......... .............. 3-1 3.2ReVksoOs.to Figures ----------------------------------- 3-7 ' 4: PREPARERS AND REFERENCES......................................................................................... 44 41 Preparers of Response tODE/R Comments................. ...... ............................................. 4-1 ~` 4.2 Additional References......-- ...........— ............................. .................. .......--............ 4-2 APPENDIX A: Mitigation Monitoring Plan LIST OF FIGURES � Figure 2.0-1: /QhambraVo/ksvEmtoteo— Proposed LotDeaign ----------------. 3-8 _ Figure3.1-1: Key Viewing Areas............ ............................................... ..................... ........... 3-9 Figure 3.0~1: Project Area Drainage Subbasin$.... ...................... ......... .....— ....................'5-1D Figure 3.9-2: Existing Zoning Districts.................... — .............. ...... .............. ......................3-11 Figure 3.12-2: Peak Hour Project Trips/\K8and /PM\ Trips Only) ................. — ..........3-12 - - � _ � - - September 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TGC-ii Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 ■ INTRODUCTION 1 .1 Background Security Owners Corporation (applicant) proposes to subdivide a 15.02-acre parcel of land (project site) into 23 lots for the subsequent development of single-family detached residential units'. The triangularly-shaped project site is located south of the City of Martinez, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road, in unincorporated Contra Costa County. On October 17, 2001, the applicant filed an application with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department (County) seeking approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Subdivision 8634) and a rezoning for the project site. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 4.5 acres of the project site from A-2 (General Agriculture District, 5-acre Minimum) to R-20 (Single Family Residential District, 20,000 Square-Foot Minimum), and to subdivide the project site into 23 residential lots. The County deemed the application complete for processing on November 20, 2002. Further project information is found in the Project Description (Chapter 2) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)was prepared by the County for the proposed project, and was released for public review on March 4, 2004.A 45-day review period was provided, through April 19, 2004, The Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on April 5, 2004 to provide an additional opportunity to comment on the DEIR. The purpose of the review period is to allow the public and affected agencies to comment on the adequacy of the environmental document. Responses to public and agency comments are provided in this Final EIR. The Contra Costa Planning Commission, prior to making a decision on the project, must consider these responses to comments and Final EIR in conjunction with the Draft EIR. The DEIR was also sent to the Mate Clearinghouse (State Clearinghouse#2003032026) for review by participating State agencies, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. A letter was received from the Clearinghouse stating that the project has complied with its review requirements for draft ' Development of the proposed lots with single family detached residential units is not a part of the current entitlement process. Subsequent applications for development of the lots will be submitted to the County after action is taken on the proposed Subdivision and Rezoning. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 1-1 September 2004 1: INTRODUCTION environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The State Clearinghouse received comments on the project from the State Department of Fish and Game. 1 .2 Organization of the Final EIR The Final EIR is organized as follows. • Chapter 1 contains background information on the project and environmental review process and a brief summary of the comments addressed. • Chapter 2 (Comments and Responses) outlines the format of the comments and responses, provides a list of commenters, provides Master Responses for comments of general concern that were mentioned in multiple letters, and then provides copies of ail of the written or oral comments, each followed by detailed responses. • Chapter 3 (Revisions and Errata) summarizes the revisions to the DEIR suggested by the Response to Comments, including corrections, modifications of text, tables and figures, and new or revised mitigation measures. • Chapter 4 lists supplemental information and references used to prepare the Response to Comments, and includes a list of the persons who prepared the Responses and Final EIR. • Appendix A comprises the Mitigation Monitoring flan for the project, outlining all of the proposed mitigation measures and assigning responsibility for implementation as well as timing for verification. These sections, in conjunction with the DEIR, combine to form a complete Final Environmental Impact Report. 1 .3 Summary of Response to DEIR Comments The following outline briefly describes some of the key issues addressed in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. It includes summaries of Master Responses to concerns raised most frequently, summaries of other significant issues raised, and a summary of the substantive revisions proposed to the DEIR. MASTER RESPONSES A. Aesthetics Master Response A addresses comments about the size and appearance of the"gateway„ parcel (Parcel A); increased setbacks for homes along Alhambra Valley Road; single-story and two-stonf heights of homes; the visibility of flag lots; preservation of trees#4,#5, and #6; and solid walls and fencing along Alhambra Valley Road, B. Transportation and Traffic Master Response B addresses comments about the adequacy of traffic counts; vehicle trip generation estimates; traffic safety around John Swett Elementary School; impacts on recreational traffic; the proposed trail along Alhambra Valley Road; relocation of the subdivision entrance to preserve tree#4; and traffic slowing measures on Alhambra Valley Road. C. Hydrology Master Response C addresses comments about development and fill in the 100-year floodplain; relocation of the 48-inch storm drainage pipe; and the capacity of the project to convey the 100-year storm flow through the site. 1-2 _ Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 1: INTRODUCTION D. Sanitary Sewer (Utilities and Service Systems) Mester Response D addresses comments about the potential for a gravity flow sewer system; the feasibility of a self-contained community septic system; and leakage protection for the proposed farce main. E. Biological Resources Master Response E addresses comments about the adequacy of the 50-foot creek setback to protect sensitive biological species; and appropriate mitigation for such species. F. Noise Master Response F addresses concerns about potential mitigation measures for noise and suggestions to require a 100-foot setback from Alhambra Valley Road. OTHER RESPONSES A. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Response A2 addresses concerns by the District regarding its preference for a gravity sewer system, requests that environmental analysis of that and other alternatives be included in the DEIR, and several corrections to the background text and project description. B. Muir Heritage Land Trust Response A3 addresses concerns by the Land Trust regarding creek setback and appropriate mitigation measures for sensitive status species. C. City of Martinez Response A4 addresses concerns by the City of Martinez about limiting driveway access to Alhambra Valley Road, landscape and utility undergrounding along the road, and compliance with the City's engineering standards for the water supply system. D. Security Owners Corporation (Applicant) Response API addresses concerns by the applicant about several required mitigation measures, including dedication of an off-site agricultural conservation easement, limitations on creek enhancements, hours of work,widening of Alhambra Valley Road, and restrictions on solid walls along the road. E. Other Issues A number of other miscellaneous issues are addressed in the responses to comments made at the Zoning Administrator's public hearing or in writing. Many comments were made opposed to the size of homes, the inclusion of 3-car garages, and/or the rezoning of the 4.5-acre A2 parcel to R20. These comments were acknowledged but the response noted that they related to the merits of the project rather than the adequacy of the DEIR. These comments are most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIR Revisions to the Draft EIR (DEIR) text and mitigation measures are included within Section 2 (responses to Comments) and are summarized in page order in Section 3 (Revisions and Errata), Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 1-3 September 2004 1: INTRODUCTION 1-4 Alhambra Valley Estates Final Eli;-County files#SD028634 RZ0231I12 September 20x4 2 : COMMENTS RESPONSES 2.1 Format of Comments and Responses Fifty-one letters containing 313 comments (excluding duplicate comments on form letters) were received concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the proposed Alhambra Malley Estates project. Forty-four of the letters were from area residents, one was from an unidentified author, and one was a petition, signed by 202 area residents, to save tree#4. One letter was from the project applicant (Security Owners Corporation), and letters were received from four agencies or organizations. Seven individuals spoke at the Zoning Administrator meeting of April 5, 2004. A list of all communications received is presented in Section 2.2 of this section. Master Responses are provided in Section 2.3 for several issues that are predominant concerns addressed by the comments, including Aesthetics, Traffic, Hydrology, Sanitary Sewer, and Biological Resources. The full text of each written and transcribed oral communication appears in Section 2.4. Each comment is identified by a letter and a number, and the responses to each comment immediately follow the letter or transcription. Also included in the Master Responses or specific responses are proposed revisions to the text of the EIR. The text revisions were determined by the County to be appropriate to clarify and further enhance the adequacy and readability of the EIR. Some comments, including paragraphs not identified by a letter and a number, state the commenter's opinions about the merits of the project. These opinions are acknowledged ("Comment acknowledged") but do not receive specific responses. Responses are focused on the comments on environmental issues. 2.2 Dist of Persons and Agencies Commenting The comments received on the DEIR have been grouped by agencies and organizations, the applicant, public hearing comments, and public individuals, and have been given a letter designation, A, AP, PH, or P as listed below. Alhambra Malley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2.1 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Al California Department of Fish and Game A2 Central Contra Costa Sanitation District A3 Muir Heritage Land Trust A4 City of Martinez APPLICANT API Security Owners Corporation PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS PH1 Jinn Busby, President of Security Owners Corporation (applicant) PH2 Hal Olsen, President of Alhambra Valley Improvement Association PH3 Nick Jackalone, Resident of 101 Quail Hollow PH4 Veronica Maida PH5 Lucia Jackaione, Resident of 101 Quail Hollow PHS Kathleen Robishaw PH7 Frederick Maida PUBLIC P1 Louis Moncher, 12 Wanda Way P2 Jerry & Linda Ott, 25 Wanda Way P3 Jacqueline Heath, 127 Gordon Way P4 John &Anita Guadarrama, 5118 Alhambra Valley Road P5 Diane Martin, 340 Summerhill Lane P6 James Martin, 340 Summerhill Lane P7 Nancy Don Konics, 926 Deer Creek Crive P8 Tom Atherstone, 5069 Alhambra Valley Road P9 Carol &Fred Albright, 24 Wanda Way P10 Elvin Cometta, 37 Wanda Way P11 Peter and Marianne Allen, 20A Wanda Way P12 Ron & Lynn Sadusky, 23 Wanda Way P13 The Wilson Family, 5354 Stonehurst Drive P14 Marie Olson, 22 Wanda Way P15 unidentified P16 John Sala, 5325 Stonehurst Drive P17 Kathleen Robishaw, 5325 Stonehurst Drive P18 John Johnston, 41 Wanda Way P19 Mary Lou Johnson, 5131 Alhambra Valley Road P20 Janet Andronis, 148 Gordon Way P21 Dawn Roth, 5330 Stonehurst Drive P22 Julie & Steve Weiss, 4950 Alhambra Valley Road P23 Ed Roth, 5330 Stonehurst Drive P24 Harry& LeAnne Cisteran,6710 Corte Segunda P25 Bryan & Dawn Cisterman, 6709 Corte Segunda P26 Marcia&Tour Gard/Gard, 932 Corte Diablo P27 Juanella& David Nichols, 15 Corte De La Canada P28 Paola& Joe Quilia, 5278 Alhambra Valley Road P29 David&Josephine Schelhorn, 15 Corte De La Canada P30 Sal&Mark Rangel, 208 Vista Way P31 Lidamo& [Mane Del Seco, 5286 Alhambra Valley Road P32 Dave& Barbara Singh, 5272 Alhambra Valley Road P33 Mary Waltz, 5262 Alhambra Valley Road P34 Dan & Debbie Caccavo, 5276 Alhambra Valley Road P35 Rick&Veronica Maida, 5260 Alhambra Valley Road 2-2 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P36 Corina &Mark Fraschieri, 950 Tavan Estates Drive P37 Laverne Young, 5241 Alhambra Valley Road P38 John/Christine Ricca/Codding, 111 Vaca Creek Way P39 Hai Olsen, President,Alhambra Valley Improvement Assocation, 22 Wanda Way Pot} James Hartney, 5101 Alhambra Valley Road P41 Jan/Herb Hewitt/Goldblum, 31 Wanda Way P42 Silvia&William Scheuber, 190 Rolling Ridge Way P43 Leslie& Gary Ries, 21 Pyrmont Court P44 Alda&frena Rocca, 312 Castle Creek Court P45 Tree#4 Petition and List of Signatures P46 Dorothy Plummer, 110 Hill Girt Ranch Road 2.3 Master Responses to Comments The County has prepared Master Responses regarding issues that are repeated in several comment letters. These responses are organized by environmental topics, including Aesthetics, Transportation and Traffic,Hydrology and Water Quality, Sanitary Sewer Service (Utilities and Service Systems), and Biological Resources. A. AESTHETICS The topics below all are related to issues discussed in Section 3.1 (Aesthetics) of the Draft EIR (DEIR). 1. Parcel A (Gateway) Several commenters requested that Parcel A at the gateway to the subdivision be larger and be landscaped with native plant materials, and that the stone fence be eliminated. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5 on page 3-23(and ES-7)of the DEIR requires the submittal of a revised Gateway design plan, including the use of plant materials native to the area. The use of low stone wails, the size of the Parcel A, and landscaping will be discussed further in the staff report for the project. The proposed size of Lot A is 633 square feet. This lot could not be increased substantially without impacting the feasibility of lots 5, 6 and 7,which are all slightly above the 20,000 square foot minimum. The gateway plan will be further reviewed most appropriately in the staff report for the project forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. 2. Setbacks from Alhambra Valley Road Some commenters suggested that house setbacks from Alhambra Valley Road should be increased to 100 feet, rather than the minimum 25 feet from the property line, in order to better protect the scenic views from the roadway (as well as for noise purposes). Implementation of this suggestion, however, would effectively eliminate at least two of the proposed lots (6 and 22) and would severely impact four or five others, so that the project as proposed could not be developed. The building setback (25 feet) plus the widened Alhambra Valley right-of-way would result in homes set back at feast 45-50 feet from the pavement edge. The DEER has addressed the visual impact by limiting homes along Alhambra Valley Road to single-story in height(see response below). A related concern was that the homes should front on Alhambra Valley Road, similar to others on the street. This would then require driveways entering the road for each lot, contrary to provisions of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan to limit access to Alhambra Valley Road, and to the City of Martinez's comments to require those lots to relinquish access rights to Alhambra Valley Road. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files##SD028634& RZ023112 2-3 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3. Single-story to protect views Commenters suggested limiting all of the homes to single-story to protect views and to preserve a more rural character of the area, The.views of concern documented in the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan are from the adjacent roadways, and the DEIR (p. 3-13) emphasizes that views from Alhambra Valley Road are impacted primarily by the area immediately adjacent to that road. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.1-4, requiring that all of the lots bordering Alhambra Valley Road (lots 1, 3 though 6, 22, and 23) shall be limited to one-story and a maximum height of 27 feet. The visual simulations provided in Figures 3.1-2 through 3,1-6 indicate a substantial reduction in the visual impacts of these homes along Alhambra Valley Road when reduced in height and with landscaping mitigation in place. There was also concern that the height restrictions remain in place in the future. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the Conditions of approval will appropriately address the timing and details of implementation of the recommended restrictions. These documents will be appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The other homes on the site, even if built as two-story structures, are set considerably further back from the road and at lower elevations, since the land gradually slopes away and down from Alhambra Valley Road. The determination of whether a two-story home (or a certain size home) maintains the"rural character"of the area is most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. It is noted that there are at least 3 two-story homes directly across Alhambra Valley Road from the proposed subdivision. 4. Flag lots Another concern expressed about the project's aesthetic impacts relates to the proposed flag lots(lots 11 and 23), which are portrayed by commenters as houses behind houses with tall board fenced alleys between them. The flag lots are two of the larger lots in the subdivision (24,221 and 36,885 square feet; respectively) and would therefore allow for separation from neighboring homes equal to or greater than for other lots in the project. Fencing, if proposed, would be similar to fencing along other lots, at a maximum of 6 feet in height(4 feet of shiplap with 18 inches of wire mesh and a wood cap). The flag lots would not have any greater impact visually than other lots in the subdivision, and no evidence has been presented to support the condition presented that flag lots will create a significant impact. The project design will be further addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. 5. Tree preservation Many commenters expressed concern with the loss of trees#4 (Valley Oak), #5 (California Black Walnut) and#6(Camphor)along Alhambra Valley Road. Tree#4, the 43-inch diameter oak, is of particular concern and a petition with 202 signatures has been submitted to the County objecting to the removal of the tree. These three trees were proposed for removal to accommodate the roadway alignment of Alhambra Valley Road, consistent with the 80-foot right-of-way outlined in the Alhambra Valley Specific Flan. The oak conflicts with the proposed location for the primary entry to the subdivision, opposite Quail Hollow. While the Oak tree at the project entry (#4) is viewed by many as a beneficial tree, its removal is not a significant adverse impact, as discussed on page 3-19 of the Draft EIR. Community Development and Public Works staff will review the street alignment and subdivision access design, in accordance with preservation of trees along Alhambra Valley Road and will address the topic further in the staff report. The paragraph above Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 on page 3-19 of the DEIR is revised to add the following sentence: Community Development-and Public Works staff will review the street alignment and subdivision access design along with oreservation of trees alone Alhambra Valley Road 2-4 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#S©028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES and will address the to is further in the staff re ort forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Mitigation pleasure 3.1-3 on page 3-20(and ES-7) has been modified and no longer refers to elimination of the entry island that contains tree#4: Mitigation Measure 3.1-3. Prior to Vesting-Tentative Map approval, revisions to the proposed road alignment and entry shad re wire agoroval of the Community Development-and Public Works Departments to verify safe sight distance and turning movements. 6. Solid walls along Alhambra Valley Road Several commenters expressed concerns about the potential for solid walls along Alhambra Valley Road (for noise protection or privacy)and the adverse impacts on views and the rural appearance of the area. The applicant objects to the statement on page 3-83; Noise, that the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan prohibits"any solid fencing"along Alhambra Valley Road. _ Policy 7 of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan (p. 3-7 of the DEIR) indicates that the County should "Prohibit the installation of any solid board fences along Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads. Allow only open rail fencing within the front yard setback on all properties fronting these roadways."The subject of solid fences (other than solid board fends) and fencing of rear yards is not directly addressed in the Specific Plan. The following language will be added to page 3-21 of the DEIR after Mitigation Measure 3.1-4: Fencing AIon_Alhambra Valle- Road Fencin-q along Alhambra Vallev Road also has the ootential to im air views of scenic vistas from the Road. The ffectiveness cif the reduction in h i ht of the homes along the road in coniunction with the spacing between homes to orotect views could be im aired by the construction of solid fencing or walls in proximity to the road The determination of fencing types will be gopropriatefy discussed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing B. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The topics below all are related to issues discussed in Section 3.12 (Transportation and Traffic) of the Draft EIR (DEIR). 1. Traffic counts Some commenters questioned the traffic counts on Alhambra Valley Road. In particular, there is concern that the counts were conducted on a Friday and are not consistent with counts from studies several years ago. Figure 3.12-1 is incorrect. The traffic counts for Alhambra Valley Road at Alhambra Ave. were conducted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 and the counts at Reliez Valley Road were conducted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003. Figure 3.12-1 (see section 3.2 Revisions to Figures) is modified to indicate the correct dates. Traffic studies for EIR purposes must be based on counts within the past year. Reference to earlier counts would not be adequate for the analysis, as traffic conditions change over time. The reasons for the differences could be several, including the use of alternative routes, reduced cut-through trips, or the loss of a significant trip generator. The DEIR did not analyze the cause of discrepancies between historic traffic counts. The resulting conclusions, however, would not change with those counts, as the Level of Service would still be well above Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& R.Z023112 2-5 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES thresholds of significance and the contributing trips from the site would remain insignificant compared to the existing traffic. 2. Total estimated trips Some commenters stated that the estimate of total trips generated from the project appeared to be low. Table 3.12-2 of the DEIR (p. 3-93)indicates that the trip estimate was based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual `Grip Generation, 6f�* Edition (1997). The ITE manual estimates 9.57 daily trips per unit for single-family residential development. Peak hour rates were also estimated based on the manual. 3. Traffic safety around John Swett Elementary School Several commenters expressed concern that the trip impacts did not include trips to the school and/or that the congestion at the school would be exacerbated by the project.The project trip generation listed in the DEIR reflects all trips, including trips tolfrom schools. The project would add minimally (estimated at 1-2%)to the current school enrollment and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the school would not be measurably affected. 4. Recreational traffic Several commenters suggested that recreational traffic on weekends could conflict with the increased subdivision traffic. The DEIR addresses both peak hour intersection operation and hazardous traffic conditions (see pages 3-92 through 3-94), and concludes that a 1-1.5% increase would not be measurable within typical daily fluctuations in traffic flows. This minimal increase is anticipated for weekends as well as weekdays. A paragraph addressing the project's impacts on recreational traffic is added to page 3-95(prior to the Internal Circulation discussion) as follows: Recreational Traffle.Alhambra Valley Road also rovides a recreational route for automobiles bicycles. motorcycles. and occasionallY 2edestrians and equestrians. Pro`ect impacts durin recreational eriodsprimarily,weekends will be similar to those during the weekdays,and will not be measurable within typical daily fluctuations. No significant imacts re ardin recreational traffic are antici aced. 5. Trail along Alhambra "Valley Road A few commenters expressed concern that trails are to be provided off-road, along Alhambra Valley Road, for equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian users, but that there are currently no links for the trail adjacent to the site, and that safety problems may result. The readers acknowledge existing recreational use of the road. The new segment of trail is not expected to cause an increase in trail usage, but will provide some refuge of safety for this segment of the road. The DEIR notes, on page 3-95, that these elements are consistent with provisions of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. The DEIR is not intended to address gaps in the trail. The timing of project trail implementation is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. S. Relocate subdivision entrance Many commenters suggested relocating the subdivision entrance from opposite Quail Hollow to opposite Monteira or elsewhere, in order to preserve the 43-inch Valley Oak(tree #4). The issue of realignment of the project entry, in relation to saving trees is further addressed above in"5. Tree Preservation." 7. Traffic slowing measures along Alhambra Valley Read A few commenters asked that traffic slowing measures such as stop signs, speed bumps, or other techniques be utilized. This comment relates to current perceived traffic concerns and 2-6 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES is not a significant subdivision impact, since the minimal number of added trips will have no significant impact on the need to slow traffic. These concerns will be further addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. C. HYDROL GY The topics below all are related to issues discussed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the Graft EIR (DEIR), 1. Development and fill in I00-year floodplain Several commenters suggested that no fill or development should occur in the 100-year floodplain, as directed by the Alhambra Valley Specific flan. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan states the following: Goal 2, Policy 1.Avoid conventional development in flood inundation zones, prohibit development in FEMA 100-year flood zones. The relevant impact assessed in the DEIR, pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, is whether development(in this case on Lots 15 and 16)would expose structures to i 00-year flood hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.8-5 requires compliance with the County's Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Both Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)regulations and provisions of the County's floodplain ordinance allow construction within the floodplain if the lowest habitable floors of all buildings are above the 100-year flood level. This is generally achieved through the placement of fill on the lot to raise the ground level of the house, or through the use of piers to support the house. Hydrologic studies are required to assure that fill or other displacement of flood flows would not impact upstream or downstream properties. Determination of Specific flan policy compliance is not a CEQA issue, but is appropriately_ addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Also, as noted in comment P18-5, Mitigation Measure 3.8-9 does not exist, This is a typographical error and should read Mitigation Measure 3.8-8. The text on page 3-74 will be changed as follows: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 3.8-8 would reduce impacts associated with the 100-year flood hazards to less than significant levels. 2. iRelocation of 48-inch drainage pipe Several comments suggested relocating the 48-inch drainage pipe from the east side of Alhambra Valley road to the west side and discharging upstream of the culvert to avoid potential impacts to adjacent properties and erosion of the creek bank at the discharge paint. The project drainage plan, described beginning on page 3-66 of the DEIR, includes improvements to the point of discharge of the 48-inch storm drain pipe. Proposed drainage infrastructure at this location includes a discharge headwall, energy dissipation structures, and reinforcement and stabilization of erosion problems on the opposite bank. This would result in a significant improvement to the current condition. The 48-inch storm drain pipe along Alhambra Valley Road will convey flows from the project site to Alhambra Creek. The pipe will not increase flows in the existing drainage ditches along Alhambra Valley Road, In fact, two proposed drop inlets in front of the Williams Trust and Mora Trust homes on Alhambra Valley Road will actually decrease flows in the drainage ditch along the west side of Alhambra Valley Road. A project applicant is not typically required to mitigate existing drainage problems from other existing development, and the DEIR is not required to provide an evaluation of such off-site impacts. The 48-inch storm drain pipe has been sized to safely convey flows from the project site and the watershed above the project site to Alhambra Valley Creek. The Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-7 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES possibility of including a drop inlet on the east side of Alhambra Valley Road to decrease runoff in the roadside drainage ditch along the east side of the road may be considered by the project engineer and the County's Public Works Department in final project design. Discharging at the upstream end of the culvert is unfavorable because it would require obtaining an easement across private property, which is difficult and not likely.Also, discharging upstream of the culvert would likely require reinforcement of the stream bank immediately across from the discharge to prevent erosion where there is currently not an erosion problem. 3. Capacity for 104-year storm flow through site A few commenters questioned the capacity of the storm drain system, to adequately provide for the 100-year storm flow through the site. Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 (page 3-72 of the DEIR) requires that the applicant design the project and provide the County with information that shows the relationship between peak discharge from the project site and peak discharge from the upper watershed to ensure that post-development discharge is equal to or less than the peak discharge under existing conditions. This mitigation measure also requires that the design of any in-line detention structures ensure post-development discharge is equal to or less than existing discharge. Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 requires that the applicant design the project to be able to demonstrate that 100-year flows can be safety conveyed through the project site. This measure also requires that if necessary, the project drainage plan be revised so that this standard can be met. D. SANITARY SEWER (UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS) The topics below all are related to issues discussed in Section 3.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the Draft EIR (DEIR). 1. Gravity flow alternative The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has noted its preference for a gravity sewer line to service the subdivision and a few other commenters also supported such a system. The Alternatives Section 5.5(pages 5.3-5.4 of the DEIR) outlines and discusses the potential for a gravity system and the likely location of such a line. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 (page 3-07 of the DEIR)requires that the applicant apply to and receive approval for annexation to the District prior to Final Map approval. 2. Self-contained community septic system A few commenters suggested that a community septic system is preferred rather than connection to the Sanitary District. Alternative 5.5 discusses this option and concludes that, given the site's soil conditions and ongoing operation and maintenance issues, this is not a preferred approach. 3. Force main protection _. One of the commenters suggested that, if a force main is used, an 8-inch sleeve should be required outside of the line for added protection. Annexation to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and approval of the force main will require compliance with all District engineering requirements, including any protective measures to prevent leakage or discharge. Additional mitigation is not required. 2-8 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The topics below all are related to issues discussed in Section 3.1 (Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR (DEIR). 1. Creek setback Several commenters suggested expansion of the creek setback from the Arroyo del Hambre from 50 feet to 100-300 feet to protect the riparian habitat and potential special status species such as the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle. The Alhambra'Valley Specific Plan requires a minimum of 50-foot setback from the creek. According to biological surveys and recommendations by Moore Biological Consultants (2001)and LSA(2003), no breeding habitat is present on site but potential migration or dispersal habitat exists for the California red-legged frog. Neither survey reported any sensitive species or evidence of such species on the project site. The Moore survey assessed the suitability of the project site for presence of California red-legged frogs and western pond turtle as low due to grazing, tree farm operations, and development on adjacent parcels that has altered the natural habitats. The project site is not within any Critical Habitat area for the rad-legged frog that would require a 300-foot setback. Given the low likelihood of frog or turtle presence and no suitable breeding habitat, the 50- foot setback should be sufficient to protect the arroyo's existing habitat. Mitigation measure 3.4-1 does require that if any sensitive species were found during surveys before construction, the USFWS and CDFG would be contacted and their recommendations carried out. The agency recommendations could include a 100-300 foot setback, which would be required at that time if the species were found on site. Mitigation measure 3.4-3 requires deed restrictions that do not allow any land modifications within the 50-foot setback to protect all existing plant and animal species. 2. Mitigation for protected species Some commenters requested that if special status species are discovered during surveys, appropriate measures should be taken to protect these species. Concern was raised about potential relocation of individuals in the event listed species are found. No listed species were found on the project site during the two biological surveys and the site reconnaissance conducted for the preparation of the DEIR. If listed species are found during the required pre-construction surveys, mitigation measure 3.4-1 requires consultation with USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate measures for implementation for protection of species. These recommendations could include changing construction schedules to accommodate the breeding/traveling seasons of these species. The mitigation measure would require evaluation by qualified agency specialists and required implementation of recommendations to protect species. Relocation of species is a potential mitigation but is usually considered a"last resort" option after less invasive measures such as construction restrictions or avoidance are considered. Relocation would require evaluation of suitable relocation habitat subject to approval by USFWS or CDFG and handing of species only by licensed professionals. F. NOISE 1. 100-foot setback for noise Several commenters suggested that structures should be located at least 100 feet from Alhambra Valley Road and/or that the homes should face Alhambra Valley Road (so that noise sensitive backyards are farther from the road), to reduce impacts from roadway traffic noise. Mitigation measure 3.10-2 on page 3-83 of the DEIR requires that outdoor areas shall not be exposed to noise levels above 60 decibels. The measure recommends either: Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 &RZ023112 2-9 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AMC} RESPONSES a) Locating outdoor areas (defined as backyards on page 3-82) at least 100 feet from the centerline of Alhambra Valley Road, b) Enclosing those areas within a courtyard, or c) Using some other design to shield exterior spaces from noise. The EIR does not suggest moving houses closer to Alhambra Valley Road as a noise barrier as the only solution to noise problems. The mitigation defined is adequate to attenuate noise levels to acceptable levels in backyards. Please refer to'Master Response A2 (Aesthetics) for additional response regarding the setback of homes by at least 100 feet along Alhambra Valley Road and revising the layout to have homes facing Alhambra Valley Road. 2,4 Comments and Responses This section presents responses to all of the comments received on the DEIR during the review period. Each comment letter received is numbered according to the numbering system identified previously (A, AP, P, and PH). Each comment in each letter received has a number(A-1, P-1). Responses are provided to each written or oral comment. Where a response is provided in a Master Response or other prior response, the reader is referred to that response. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the Final EIR should identify and provide responses to comments on the DEIR. This section presents the comments received and responses to comments on environmental issues raised regarding the environmental effects of the proposed project. Responses are generally not provided ("Comment acknowledged") to comments that state opinions about the overall merit of the project or comments about the project description, unless a specific environmental issue is raised within the context of the specific comment. Those comments are most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. All changes to the DEIR are described in the response and refer to the page number or mitigation measure in which the original text appears in the DEIR. Added text is underlined; and deleted text is etfis�. The revised EIR text is also presented in Chapter 3, Revisions and Errata, of this Final EIR. 2-14 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634&RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Mate of California--The Resources Agency ARNOLD SO!!WAR7.ENECGFR Goyerror 1 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND CAME I http;��wwW.dfa.ca,,cloy a" 4 POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUN VILLE,CALIFORNIA 84599 (707)944-5500 March 29, 2004 Ms. Christine Gregory Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Ming Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. 'Gregory: Alhambra Valley Estates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Martinez, Contra Costa County SCH # 2003032026 The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the docuunent �( for the subject project. Please be advised this project may f result in Chang es .to fish and wildlife resources and therefore a I de minimus finding* is not appropriate. The environmental filing A11-1 fee required under Fish and Came Code Section 71.1.4 (d) of $850 for an Environmental Impact Report should be paid to the Contra Costa County Clerk on or before filing of the Notice of Determination for this project. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584. u-ince--ely, Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central. Coast Region Robn ec: State Clearinghouse Conserving Calc(ornica's WifdC fe Since.1870 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-11 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Al Robert W. Floerke Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 47 Yountville, California 94599 Al-1 The agency's comment is acknowledged that a de minimus finding is not appropriate for the proposed project's biological impacts. The required filing fee- under Fish and Game Cade Section 711.4 (d)- is collected from the applicant and forwarded to the Department of Fish and Game. 2-12 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E!R- County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Central Contra Cosh Sanitary District MAO April 19, 2004 FAX:(925)2284624 CHARLES n!MM Christine General Manager Ms. Christine Gregory KENTONL.AL14 Contra Costa County Coiwvfforthe Diitrlct 000 Community Development Department tEE. aUVH 551 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Sem°�ofthe�' . Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Gregory: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE ALHAMBRA VALLEY ESTATES (23 UNITS; APN 307-130-033; SCF€ NO. 2003032025) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEiR). Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD) is the proposed wastewater service provider for this project. As such, the following comments are offered: 1. Pages ES-4,2-4, and 2-8. The Project Description for the proposed wastewater system needs to include a second pumping station about halfway A 2-1 down ,Rellez Valley Road. The distance and elevation difference between the project site and Sage Drive ars;too great for one pumping station. 2. Page 3-98. Paragraph 4. CCCSD's treatment,plant now has a permitted effluent discharge limit of 53.3 million gallons per day of average dry weather flow(ADWF). This discharge limit is expected to accornmodate.a planned A 2-2 population of about 629,000 and worst-case groundwater infiltration through the year 2035. The project.site and the rest of t,1ho Alhambra Valley$peciflc Plan area were included in that planning. 3. Pace 3-101,Wastewater{Regulator r�Setting). As the proposed wastewater service provider, CCCSD's regulatory policies with regard to sewer facility design and construction also would apply. Most notably, where possible, CCCSD requires sewers to be designed to operate underrg,avity flow to CCCSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Approval of a sewage pumping system to serve more than one individual lot requires a discretionary decision by A 2-3 CCCSD's Board of Directors. Such systems are considered temporary'until a gravity system can be constructed. Also, CCCSD requires that sewage facilities connected to its collection system "be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with service to the ultimate tributary service area." That is, a pumping system or gravity sewer would need to be designed to handle connection of projected development upslope from these facilities. T:nahningiLeavfit?l hambra ValleyPdhambra Valley MIRA= . _ Raayded Npe, Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-13 September 2004 2, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Ms, Christine Gregory Page 2 April 10, 2004 4. Pace 3-102. Potential Impact 3:93.-2. Only the project site wouId need to be annexed to CCCSD, not the proposed pipeline alignment along Reliez Vallev j Road. A 2--4 Also, given the even greater papulation that can be accommodated by CCCSD's current effluent discharge limit of 53.8 mgd, the proposed project would have an j even smaller percentage impact on treatment capacity. ; The biggest wastewater serviceconcern regarding the-project is not the capacity I of CCCSD's system, but the proJect`s compliance with CCCSD policy of providing a gravity flow connection to CCCSD's collection system. The proposed proiect A 2--5 does not comply with this policy, and that is why the DEIR also discusses wastewater disposal alternatives in Chapter 5. Furthermore, under this impact, the DEIR should have summarized the "l construction-related impacts of the project's proposed wastevvater system. Although gene rally'identified elsewhere in the EIR,often as part of the overall project construction Impacts, it should be noted that construction of the proposed wastewater system (pumping stations and forcernain)would have off-site traffic .A 2-- impacts, interference with access, noise and dust generation, potential exposure to hazards, removal of vegetation, disruption of biological resources, potential creek-area disruption, erosion, and potential for exposure of cultural resources, These construction-related effects,which are only short-term in nature, are analyzed in their respective technical section in the DEIR and,where appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified for each potentially 1 significant impact. 5. PaQe -104, Mitigation_Measure 3.93-1. As stated in Comment 4, only the project site would need to be annexed to CCCSD, not the-proposed pipeline i alignment along Reliez Valley Road; therefore,the reference to annexing the A 2-7 alignment can be deleted from this mitigation measure. Also; please add that that project's wastewater system roust comply with CCCSD's sewer design and construction requirements. 6. Paste ES-16, Mitigation Measure 3.93-1. The Executive Summary:able �I reiterates the mitigation measure from page 3-104. See Comment 5. �1 A 2-8 7. Pa e 5-4 Gravity Flow Connection to the CCCSD. A discussion of the r' environmental impacts of a gravity flow pipeline running north along Alhambra Road,Wanda Way, across Alhambra Creek, and other local streets to Gilbert Lane is riot beyond the scope of the Draft EIR. In fact, should the gravity ! A 2-� flow alternative be implemented, it is Intended that this project's EIR would fulfill the CEQA requirements for such an alternative since there might not be any 'MPlanningtiLeavit Aihambra Vallay)Alhembra Valley DE;R.doo 2-14 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 20034 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Ms. Christine Gregory Page 3 April 19, 2004 further discretionary decisions required. The Draft EIR is required to describe alternatives and identify how they would lessen environmental impacts. A gravity flow pipeline would lessen the project's impacts by complying with CCCSD policy without increasing other impacts. The effects of constructing a gravity flow pipeline would be sim€lar to the impacts identified with the proposed wastewater A 2_9 system (with the exception of the need to construct pumping stations) and noted in Comment 4. In CCCSD's experience with numerous sewer construction projects of this nature,these projects have less-than-significant impacts, . particularly considering the mitigating effects of GCCSD's design and construction specifications that would be required of the project. Additionally,neighborhood gravity flow pipelines are not normally a project undertaken by CCCSD after annexation. They are the responsibility of the property owners who would benefit from their availability. 1f the project developer A 2---10 and neighboring property owners propose building such a gravity flow pipeline, this project's EIR would be the intended CEQA document. Another temporary alternative to the proposed temporary forcem;ain alignment along Reliez Valley Road would be a force mai /gravity line combination from tate project site north, along Alhambra Valley Roast, to Gilbert .ane. Although about as long as the proposed forcemain, this alignment is not as steep, and a portion A 2-11 could flaw by gravity. This alternative would require only one pumping station, whereas the proposed alignment along Rellez Valley Road would require a second pumping station about halfway along the Rellez Valley Road alignment. This EIR should also be the intended CEQA document for this alternative. Please provide CCCSD with a copy of the Final EiR. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at(510)229-7255. Sincerely, Russell S. Leavitt,AICD Management Analyst RBL/cn cc: G. Chesler, CCCSD A. Farrell, CCCSD C. Swanson, CCCSD TAPlanningNLeavlMAlhambra Valfey�Alhambra Valley MRA= Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-15 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A2 Russell B. Leavitt, AICD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 A2-1 A sentence will be added to the discussion on paces ES-4 (end of paragraph on Wastewater Pipeline) and 2-6 (add to first paragraph) stating the following: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has determined that a second pump station will also be required about halfway down Reliez Road Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2004 . An area of about 10 feet by 20 feet in size will be required. similar to the area reuired for the on- site puMp station. A2-2 The fourth paragraph on page 3-98 of the DEIR is revised as follows: The Sanitary District's wastewater treatment plant is located at the intersection of Route 4 and Interstate 680. The treated wastewater is piped north and discharged into Suisun Bay (Contra Costa County 2002). The plant has a current *permitted discharge limit of 45 83.8 million gallons of wastewater per day of average dry weather flow fADWF1{Ge m 24034. This eapasity discharge limit is expected to accommodate a planned-population of about 529,000 and worst-case groundwater infiltration through the year 2035. The project site and the rest of the Alhambra Vaile S ecific Plan area were included int. hat planning{Central Contra Costa Sanitary,District 4;eut#y 2G0 2-G92}. Currently, the Sanitary District serves over 428,000 customers (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2003). A2-3 A new third paragraph will be added to the Wastewater section on page 3-101 of the DEIR as follows: The Cenral Contra Costa,San itar District(CCCSDLLequJres that where possible, sewers should be deal ned to operate under gravily flow to CCCSD's existing sanitau sewers stem. Apgroval of a urnging system to serve more than one individual lot re uires a discretionary decision by CCCSUs Board of Directors. Such systems are considered tern cera until a ravit system can be c nstructed. CCCSD also re wires that sewage facilities connected to its collection system"be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with service to the ultimate tributary area."That is, a 2umping system or gravitsewer would need to be designed to handle connection of Pnoiected development u-slope from these facilities Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2004 . The Central Contra Costa Sanitary, District"Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utility Service to Alhambra Valley". October 2 2003 further discusses potential wastewater collection system locations and design. A2-4 The first paragraph under Potential Impact 3.13-2 on page 3-162 of the DMR is revised as follows: The applicant has proposed the installation of a force main from the project site to a CCCSD connection point at Reliez Valley Road and Sage Drive (Figure 3.13-2). This would require annexation of the project site to the District. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's wastewater collection system has a capacity of 83.8 46 million gallons of wastewater per day, which can serve approximately 529,000 460,000 customers. Currently the District serves 428,000 customers. The proposed development would add 0.012%to the existing customer population, and would accordingly add no more than approximately 0.012%to the wastewater stream. The addition of no more than the 0.012%fl to the existing wastewater flows to the CCCSD system is not considered significant. A2-5 Comment is acknowledged. Annexation to the District is required, and the District will then determine the appropriate method of wastewater service. A2-6 Additional text is added at the top of page 3-104 of the DEIR as follows: 2.16 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Construction of the proposed wastewater system including the pumping stations and force main would have temporary short-term impacts on traffic and access noise and dust generation potential exposure to hazards, removal of vegetation. and potential for exposure of cultural resources. These construction-related effects, which are generally short-term in nature are analyzed in their respective technical sections in the DEIR and where appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for each potentially significant impact. CCCSD construction specifications further assure that construction does not undulyinterfere with access to effected s3respe-dies and limits the impacts of noise dust and runoff; The CCCSD has determined that a second pumpingstation tation is required along Reliez Valley Read for the force main. This added construction would require a small area (1 tl feet by 20 feet) similar to that required for the on-site pump station and should not result in any si nificant imoacts, given the availability of flat open land immediately ad€scent to the road. The pump stations are required to meet Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's standards,which would also require back-up power in the event of electrical failure. Additional CCCSD requirements address noise and visual impacts so that the puma stations are unobtrusive, both visually and acoustically. A2-7 The sentence prior to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is revised on page 3-104 and Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is revised on page 3-104 and on page ES-16 as follows: To ensure the provision of adequate wastewater disposal ap , the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall apply to and receive approval from the Contra Costa County LAFCO for annexation of the project site and the alignment of the off site wastawateF pipeline to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary DistrictCt CCSD). A2-8 Please see response to A2-7. A2-9 Project alternatives in an EIR do not need to provide an equal level of impact analysis as was prepared for the proposed project. The first paragraph of the Gravity Flow discussion on page 5-4 of the DEIR is, however, revised as follows: Another alternative method of wastewater disposal would be construction of a gravity flow pipeline from the project site to Gilbert Lane, approximately 1 mile north along Alhambra Valley Road, Wanda Way, and Sheridan. Once constructed, this alternative would be virtually maintenance free when compared to the proposed force main to Sage Road, or several of the on-site alternatives. This alternative alignment would have similar impacts as constructing the proposed wastewater system. Detailed analysis of the Oconstruction of such a gravity flow line is beyond the scope of this environmental document and need to be further addressed by the applicantrip for to annexation of Alhambra Valley Estates to the District, A2-10 Please see response to A2-9. A2-11 The last sentence of the first paragraph under Section 5.5 (Wastewater Disposal Alternatives) on page 5-3 of the DEIR is revised to read: #Three other options to ftt the proposal are possible: A third bullet is added under the first paragraph of Section 5.5 on page 5-3 of the DEIR to add a third alternative as follows: • Combination rump and gravity system to CCCSD's system at Alhambra Valley Road and Gilbert Lane, Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-17 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A new paragraph has been added at the top of gage 5-5 of the CEfR.to discuss the third alternative wastewater route, as follows: COMBINATION PUMP AND GRAVITY FLOW CONNECTION TO THE CCCSD The CCCSD report dated October 2 2003, entitled Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utifity Service to Alhambra Valle indicatesthat another tern ora alternative to the ro osed tem ora farce main alignment along R iiez Valle load would be a force main/gravity line combination from the proiect site north-along Alhambra Vailey Road.to Gilbert lane:This proposed method may not require an additional urn station other than the-pump station that is oro used on the P.roiect's arse€"C". The impacts of this a€t rnative alicinment would be similar to the effects of constructing the line identified with the groposed wastewater system. 2-1 g Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023 i 12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MUM, HE&ITAGE AND Tim UST April 19,2004 _ P.O.Bax 2452. A^.ttn: Christine Gregory arYns� 4 545x3 Contra Costa County (925)22Be54,5o Community Development Department PX,4,0925)572-5�60 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th floor E-n aJ. Martinez,CA 94553 iFtfv{e�i t✓.vlrbrritzgelendtrntt.arg [w sbil{ac .run•.muirbaritagsrrtpdtrust.erg Re:Draft EIR for the Proposed Alhambra Valley Estates project BOARD nr 31e2cMU County File 4SD028634 and 481.023112 Chair: Nor LATA41 On chmr: I Dear Christine Gregory: - Nat:sy Sahasfir saaratary: - The Muir Heritage Land'frust is a nonprofit land trust organization ' Iviary.4nn Gatira , Trcararrar:' established to protect open space,preserve natural'resources and provide for ' rld'k tE iitarr a public benefit through land acquisitions and conservation easements. We Ditk gwdias are a regional organization with a rnembership of over 2700 individuals and r°rrpa arras businesses in Contra Costa,County and the San Francisco Bay Area. Laser calhy R°gar DaJaa As property owners, environmental stewards and land'conserva"tionists,we Il`dt3 1,'"iraltar SJraila c..iui have a strong interest in protecting the ecological, scenic and productive std:ra P41-duakvalue of the land in and around the Eriones Agricultural Preserve Area and �furj Rors SX 7fisaer in ensuring envifonmentalimpacts of proposed projects are clearly identified and thoroughly addressed to meet CEQA and the Contra Costa .BOARD r,�gas County planning requirements. Huiat F3'orstiask Hal cede,$ .We have concern that some long- environmental impacts of this fork ratjzr . proposed project have not been adecluately addressed to protect the natural ave'''r :nor resources and character of the Eriones Hills/PrAnklin Ridge/A:lliambra Valley area. This tetter with the fuilowing comments addresses these { L a rd � concerns: jr"rii Cuedsr ' The creek setback recommended in the Alhambra Valley Specific flan is a Sr ars 50-foot iriirr uir:We are recommending that the setback from Arroyo del �tiva DJrattar: Hambre Creek for this project be increased to at least 100 feet to protect Tina Batt � .Extanrsive.rrratiata: sensitive species and habitat.. . Mag.°Mite Stadam Stewardship Afsa.iatan The riparian habitat is rich, dvnamic.area that supports many plant,and A 3-1 BatJr 1'ardlark animal species.Riparian are are adversely affected by development on or near the creek bank.This includes the California red-legged frog arpd the Western pond turtle this are known to inhabit this creek.However,the setback should be 100 feet regardless if the listed animals are found on site on the day of the surveys. We believe that the habitat should be protected • Alhambra Valley Estates Final EER County fries#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-19 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES from development to protect all plant and animal species that depend on'the habitat for I A.3-1 survival. Lf the listed species known in the area(California red-legged frog,Westerr.pond turtle and Alameda whipsnake)are found during the surveys we trust that appropriate measures i w.11 be takers to avoid all impact on their habitat.We' recommend that the construction be � A g-2 timed in such a way that the listed species will not be adversely affected,This could mean changing the construction schedule to acoomrnodate the breeding/traveling seasons of these species —� it is the policy and the responsibility of the Land'Trust to take an ecosystem approach to � land conservation,preservation of open space, contiguous animal corridors and watershed 1 protection. We request the,County Cornmun ity Deve oprnent Department address this A 3-3 project and all future proposed projects in this geographic area to ensure permanent, piecemeal fragmentation will not destroy the area's beauty,conservation values and public benefit. �i Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this troposed prosect: Sincerely, Beth Pardieck Stewardship Associate 2-20 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A3 Beth Pardiek Mair Heritage Land Trust Pd Box 2452 Martinez, CA 94553 A3-1 Please refer to Master Response E1 regarding the response to increasing the setback around the Arroyo del Hambre to protect listed species and habitat. A3-2 Please refer to Master response E2 regarding the response to mitigation for sensitive species if they are identified. A3-3 Comment regarding Muir Heritage Land Trust's approach and request of the County's careful review of the project is acknowledged. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-21 September 2004 2;COMMENTS AND RESPONSES y �� Py of Martinez �b 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez,0, 94553.2394 78 March 16,2004 Rose Marie Pietxas Contra Costa Planning 651 Pine Street,4`r f?oorsl~lorth Wing Ma-t:nez, CA 94553 Re: Comments in Response to the Draft Environmentai linpact Report for Subdivision 8634(Alhambra Valley Estates) Dear Rose Marie: Thank you for your project referral notice for the proposed Alharnbra 'Valley Estates subdivision, please note that this project is within City ofMartin.cz sphere of influence A4-1 and also within the City y of Martinez Water District service area. -he following are carnrner?ts on the subject project: 1. The developer should be required to relinquish abutter's rights on lots '_, 3,4, 5, 6, 7 22,and 23 to Alhambra.Valley Road(AVR.), vI A4-2 2. Street frontage improvement along AVR should be regifted of this development, We recommend undergraunding of existing utilities along the frontage of the � A4—� property(on AVR)due to the scenic road designation ander the Alhambra Valley Soecitic Plan. All new utility distributions shall also be urdergrounded. 3. the policies of the City's Scenic Roadways Element require fUl landscapin along AVR. Landscaping should be in accordance with the established charagcter of the area. Landscaping in the public right of way should be maintained by A4---4 entity other than public agency(such as homeowners association or landsca3aing and lighting district).Additionally,homes shall be placed at a sufficient disance from AVR to xetain the scenic attributes of the roadway. J 4. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD)should be the agency responsible -I for operating and maintaining the sewer system,including the pump station. Annexation to the City is required prior to annexation to CCCSD;the City A4--5 Council may allow this to be satisfied with a deferred annexation agreement. J 5. tWater Supply to the Subdivision: a) The property should be annexed into the City of"Martinez or a Deferred � Annexation Agreement must be recorded against each lot as a condition of the City providing water service, b) "l'lie water system should be designed and constructed(at the developer A4-6 expense)in accordance with the City of Martinez standards in a matmer acceptable to the City Engineer. The plans should be reviewed and dpproved by the City prior to construction. A111 water line construction shall be done under a permit issued by the City of Martinez. The developer shad provide 1 2-22 Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES insuurance and bonding(100%P'aitliftil Performance; 100%Labor and Materials)satisfactory to the City of Martinez. c) The City of Martinez will inspect the water system during constniction. The developer shall reimburse the City of Martinez for all plan check and inspection fees. d) The water mains and water service laterals should be dedicated to the City of i Martinez, The developer to provide the City with all access rights on private roads and/or easements as necessary for maintaining the water system. ! e) The developer will be required to verify the adequacy of the existing crater it '4-6 system to provide domestic and Ere flows for this qubdivision. The developer will be responsible for all necessary upgrades'to the water system,as re,aired, to serve this project with water. fj T he developer shall pay applicable water service fees in affect at the time water service is provided for each lot,including City Park Dedication and Traffic impact fees,and any rather applicable impact fees in accordance with existing City/Couunty agreements, g) if the developer receives water through existing lines that are subject to a. reimbursement agreement,the developer shall pay their share in accordance with that agreement. The City of.Martinez will make the determination based on the approved water system design. Sil Zerely, Tim Tuckcer,P.E. City Engineer cc: Secmity Owners Corporation Corey Simon:.,Senior Plamner 2 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County files#SD028634&RZO23112 2-23 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A4 Tim Tucker; P.E., City Engineer City of Martinez 525 Henrietta Street Martinez, CA 94553 A4-1 Comments are acknowledged regarding the jurisdiction of the City of Martinez. A4-2 All lots other than lot 6 would have access from the internal roadway system. Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 on page 3-95 requires that lot 6 be revised to take its access from the internal roadway rather than from Alhambra Valley Road. Relinquishment of abutter's rights is not a CEQA matter and will be a subdivision concern appropriately addressed in the project staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. A4-3 The project description on page 2-10 indicates that the project applicant intends to install utilities on the site underground. County ordinance requires the undergrounding of utility lines along the project frontage, and within the project. This topic will be further addressed in the project staff report. A4-4 Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 requires an extensive landscape plan and Mitigation Measure 3.1-5 requires a landscape plan for the gateway area. Maintenance of landscaping will be further addressed in the project staff report. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setback of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. A4-5 Comments are acknowledged. Please see discussion in Section 3.12 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the DEIR regarding intent to annex to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Annexation to the City of Martinez will be further addressed in the project staff report. A4-6 Comments are acknowledged regarding the water system design. Water system details and dedications will be further addressed in the project staff report. 2-24 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZO23112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES SECURITY OWNERS CORPORATION P.O.BOX 430 555ESCOBAR5'TR = MARTMTEZ.CALSP'CYRNIA94553 FAX(925)228-5884 TELEPgONE(925)228-5872 w+{. April 16, 2004 W MS. CHIt.ISTINT GREGORY Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 pine Street—4's Floor Martinez, Ca 94553 Re: County File No.: SD028634 Rezoning 3'z Vesting Tentative Map—Subdn. 8634 "Alhambra Valley Estates" Resl2onge-to Draft EIR dated March 2004 Dear Christine: This letter contains our comments to the"Draft EHU'dated March,2004 that has been circulated by your Department to other agencies and the public for comment. We understand that the 45 day comment period will terminate on April 19,2004. Our comments are as follows: 1. Fade 3.28: Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 is unreasonable given the physical character and history of the proposed site,the facts regarding its designation as"unique farmland" and the fact that the entire site is designated for s=ingle family residential use under the Alhambra Valley Specific Man. The site has not been profitably farmed for many years and certainly not within AP1-1 the last two update cycles prior to the mapping date by the State Department of Conservation. This site has never been irrigated in the true farming sense and irrigation water is not available and never has been available. 2. Page 3-42: Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 is too narrow in scope because it does not allow us to remove the old barb wired fence and other debris from the creek as contemplated under our AP1-2 "Arroyo Del Hombre Creek preservation and Enhancement Plan" dated.July 30, 2002 (a copy of which is enclosed for your review and use). 3. Page 3-81: Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 precludes work on Saturdays. Given the high cost of construction work and interest accrual on large sums of money, not to allow work on AP1—3 Saturdays is over-restrictive. Perhaps Saturday work could have limited hours such as 9:00 a.m. to.4:30 p.m. 4. Pa eg 3-97: Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 is too general and overboard. Does it mean the right of way or the paved surface or both? We.call your attention to the first paragraph on page API—4 22 of the"Alhambra Valley Specific Plan°'which reads in part: Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR-County files#SD028634 &RZ023112 2-25 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES In areas which are already developed,it may not be feasible to acquire an 80 foot right of way. In these instances,the right of way may be as narrow as 60 feet and provide those improvements which are shown on Figure 6". In our view, our design of Alhambra Valley Road meets the requirements of the Alhambra Valley Species c Pian. 5, Paze 3-74: The paragraph under"Impact 3.8-5"refers to mfivigation Measure 3.8-9 1 AP1 5 eawas does not east. We think the reference as intended to be Nlitigatwn Measure 3.8-8. 6. Pau 3-76 and Paue 3-79: relative to the discussion of"Potential impact 39-1" (Conflict with adopted policies of the General Plan or Specific Plan);itis our belief and understanding that the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian clearly designates the entire project site uniformly as Single Family Residential,Low Density"with emphasis on neva parcel sizes to be � Apt—6 at least 20,000 square feet or larger. The last sentence in the first paragraph on page 16 of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan further says"This designation has been applied to lands on the valley floor along Rellez Valley Road and along either side of the northern leg of Alhambra Valley Road". The entire 15 acre site should be zoned R-20. 7. PagQ 3-83: The first sentence in the second paragraph reads"The Alhambra Valley Specific Pian specifically prohibits construction of any solid fencing along Alhambra Valley Road"which is not accurate. Policy 7 on page io ofthe Alhambra Valley Specific Plan reads as follows: "Prohibit the installation of any solid board fences along Alhambra Valley.and Reliez Valley Roads. Allow only open rail fencing within the front yard setback on all properties fronting these roadways." - 1 C The fact is that the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan Advisory Committee assumed&-rcughj Apl_y the whole Speck Plan planning process that any homes built along Alhambra Valley Road E would face(and have direct access)off of Alhambra Valley Road, Mr.Hal Olson,president of the Alhambra Valley Homeowners Association testified to this fact on April 5,2004 at the public hearing regarding the adeauateness of the Draft BIR. The Alhambra Valley Speck Plan does not specifically address the fence design or treatment.along Alhambra Valley Road regarding homes backing up to Alhambra Valley Road "'solid board fencing'. Therefore, an attractive stone or masonry fence along except to exclude Alhambra Valley Road would be acceptable under the Alhambra Walley Specific Plan because only"solid board fences"are not permitted. Such a stone or masonry fence coupled with appropriate landscaping would also salve the noise issue. -J Should you have any questions,please call. Sincerely Tames J.Du�'—President cc: Mr. Scott Busby Mr.and Mrs.John Plummer 2-26 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County fibs#SD028634& RZO23112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES AN James J. Busby PO Box 430 555 Escobar Street Martinez, CA 94553 AP1-1 The site is designated as"Unique Farmland" on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 20012 Map, prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires that an agricultural conservation easement be dedicated offsite or that the applicant demonstrate that the impact of the agricultural conversion is not significant, using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model, developed by the Department of Conservation. if the LESA modeling shows a less than significant impact, the conservation easement would not be required. AP1-2 Mitigation Measure 3-4.2 on page 3-42 (and page ES-9) of the DEIR is modified to allow for activities approved by the County as part of a creek preservation and enhancement plan, as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. No alterations of Vaca Creek within the creek setback along the project site shall be allowed except for activities approved as part of a creek preservation and enhancement plan. AP1-3 The General Plan requires that construction activities are restricted to the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive to adjacent uses such as the evening and early morning period. Limited Saturday construction hours would not violate any existing plans or ordinances, however the matter of allowing weekend work will be appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. API-4 Mitigation measure 3.12-3 on page 3-97 (and page ES-16) requires widening consistent with the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian. The discussion above that describes the pavement width at two I2-foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders and the right-of-way at 80 feet. The measure will be modified to provide for deviations only where the Community Development and Public Works Department finds the widening is not feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit Improvement Plans to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department that illustrate the widening of Alhambra Valley Road per the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, unless the Community Deve€opment and Public Works Departments determine that the widening or right- of-way i ht- ofway provisions are not feasible. API-5 The comment is correct that the reference to Mitigation Measure 3.8-9 on page 3-74 of the DEIR is incorrect and should refer to Mitigation Measure 3.8-8. There is no Mitigation Measure 3.8-9. The text is revised under Impact 3.8-5 on page 3-74 of the DEIR as follows: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.84 3.8-8 would reduce impacts associated with the 100-year flood hazards to less than significant levels. API-6 Comment acknowledged. The first paragraph of page 3-79 of the DEIR states that the entire site is designated in the Specific Plan for"Single Family Residential, Low Density." That paragraph also notes that the Plan indicates that other lower intensity zoning categories would be consistent as well. The conclusion of the discussion is that"the rezoning as proposed would be compatible with the Plan's direction for use of the site," so no significant impact would result. The determination of whether the R-20 zoning is consistent with the Specific Plan is most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-27 September 20104 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES API-7 Comments are acknowledged. Please refer to Master Reponse A6 regarding Aesthetics and fencing. The Plan appears to mandate open fencing along Alhambra Valley Read, unless certain findings are made by the Zoning Administrator or other decision makers, 2-28 Alhambra Valley Estates Find EiR-County files#510028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 ZA: The 3:30 session of the Zoning Administrator for Contra Costa County for April 5''r'2004 is in session. ZA: Item number 13 is a public hearing on a draft environmental impact report.Security Owners Corporation is the applicant,John Plummer the owner. This is County Files SD028634 and RZ023I 12. This is a public hearing to consider the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report prepared for the proposed Alhambra Valley Estates project, State Clearinghouse'Number 2003032026.The environmental impact report was prepared in connection with the proposed request to subdivide a 1.5.02 acre parcel,the project site,into 23 lots for the subsequent development of single family detached residential units and rezone four and a half acres of the project site from A2 general agricultural district to R20 single family residential districts: Fourteen trees are planned to be removed.The triangularly shaped project site is located south of the city of Martinez at the northwest corner of the intersection of Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley.Road in the unincorporated Contra Costa County. The purpose of this hearing today isnot to let me know whether you're in favor of the project.There will be separate hearings before the County Planning Commission to let them know why if you think the project should not be approved or if you think it should be approved,to let the Planning Commission know why you think the subdivision should be approved or why it should be denied. That's not.the purpose of the hearing today,and I'm going to be very strict in terms of keeping the hearing to the subject,which is the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report that was submitted on this project, prepared by Staff and circulated.It would be most helpful,if you have comments,that you don't feel that a particular area is adequately covered or if there is an area that should have been covered that wasn't or that there were alternatives that should have been included that were not,or that otherwise the environmental impact report is not adequate under the California and the County guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact reports.I will note that this is not a hearing that is required by the state law. The county goes further than state law in that no hearing is required for an environmental impact under CEQA.The county does that as a convenience to the public. There are a lot of people who don't want to put things into writing,that feel more comfortable speaking it,so we take it down and there will be a transcript of environmental comments that are made that are germane to the environmental analysis. And following the close of the comment period,a response to comments document will be prepared responding to the significant impacts and the germane continents that are made about the environmental impact report.The draft EIR,this document,together with that response to comments document,will be the final environmental impact report that will be considered by the County Planning Commission before they make any judgment about the project.Atter that response to comments document is completed,I will come back into the setting of the Zoning Administrator's hearing to make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether they should or should not find the document adequate for decision-making purposes. t Alhambra Valley Estates Final EaIR-County tiles#SD028634& RZ023112 2-29 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 So the purpose,again,really is to let you have an opportunity to tell me and the staff whether you feel the document is adequate and,if not,how it could be improved, l do have a number of comments myself that I'll be masking at the end of the public testimony, so that that's in the record and can be addressees by the Staff the consultants that are working on it. So with that as an introduction,I'd like to open the period of... I also wanted to mention just briefly that the cogent period for this draft environmental impact report comment period is through 5 p.m.on Monday,Apel l9ffi,2004,and written comments will continue to be received by the County Community Development Department through that date and time at 651 Pirie Street,Fourth Floor,North Wing, Martinez,California,.Attention Christine Gregory.That's information that was included on the?Notice of Completion anal"Availability of the draft EM If you have any questions, as well,if you weren't able to write all that down as quickly as I said it,certainly you're encouraged to cop-tact Staff at any time and to ask them.,Christine Gregory is the Planner who is sitting in the middle of the Stag table there.So you can ask her any questions you may-rave about the process,as well. So with that,T encourage anyone who has any comments on the drttii EIR to please step forward.I don't.Irave any green speaker slips.Generally speaking,we ask that if you want to make a comment,that you fill out a green speaker slip and I would use those to call you to the podium to make your comments.So if you haven't filled out a slip and you would like to speak,please come up and be sure to fill out a green speaker slip.before you leave. I'mgoing to try and call the speakers in the order I receive these.And please forgive ane if I got thein mixed up.The first speaker is.slit Busby. Busby:Mr.Administrator,my name is James Busby.I'm the President of Security Owners Corporation,the applicant with respect to this project.We have reviewed the draft ETR and we idnd it to be very comprehensive and in our view it's raised all the issues.I can't ! PH1-1 l say that we agree totally with a lot of the mitigations suggested,and we'll be addressing those in due tune through your public hearing process,and we will be submitting a written response to this draft.But in our view at this time;it's very comprehensive and it does identify all the issues. j ZA: Thank you.Rrext speaker is Hal Olson. Olson: I'm Hal Olson,President of the Alhambra Valley mprovernerit Association.I was Vice � Chairman of the Specific Plan.Committee when it was created.Jim.Smith,the Chairman, has since passed away.We worked for over three years on the Specific flan and I'm PH 2-1 shocked and disappointed to see so many of its directives and suggestions and mach of its very intent only partly followed.The draft EIR is inadequate iii every one of the . following important environmental categories.The first category is aesthetics.I'd like to start with Parcel A.Parcel A is the vent small piece of ground right on the comer of 2-30 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County files#SDO28634 & RZ023 1 12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Valley Road.All the lands west of this point are R40. We call that one acre. So the transition stands right there on the corner.between R20,half acre,and R40. So this little parcel is right at the apex and it's the arst scenic impression: f one receives,which is referred to on page 10 of the Specific Plan.,when coming into the valley. So we would like that transition to be better than it is,a little larger than it is.It Pti2—� enhances the view from the valley gateways,and this is at the very aper of'he gateway, and the gateway is a significant terra that is used in the Specific flan. The draft EIR here should refer to page 24,that its intent is to preserve views from the gateways. Parcel A should be larger, The next thing under the category of aesthetics is trees.Trees 4, 5 and 6 are slated to be removed, and they are also part of aesthetics.The aesthetic appearance has to be preserved,especially tree number 4.The Specific Plan on page 14 states that existing trees along the roads,Alhambra Valley Road,significantly contribute to scenic corridors and all efforts should be made to preserve them..Tree number 4 is a 43 inch valley oak.It has a majestic canopy and with a very slight amount of trimming would look just beauti T{, and it blends in with the scenic ridge line right behind.If it were removed, passersby would notice it immediately.If it were removed it would create a drastic scenic PH2-2 loss for the residents on Quail Hollow,There never was any effort to save,to preserve tree number 4,in spite of the Specific Plan directive that all efforts should be made to save the trees along the road.The entry to the subdivision has always been planned to be opposite Quail Hollow,in spite of the Specific Plan directive about saving trees. We should snake all efforts to save those trees in particular along the road.The entrance to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Montera to save tree number 4. The Montera location is acceptable to Public Works.They have always wanted the entry to be directly opposite another existing road.Montera serves exactly the same purpose as Quail Hollow and there would be no tree jeopardized in that position.Montera,I am told by Public Works,is far enough from the T so no traffic problem would exist. We should further protect the scenic view by keeping all houses fronting on Alhambra Valley Road at least one hundred feet back from the road center.The Specific Flan states that structures should be located to minimize the obstruction of ridge silhouettes as PH2_3 viewed from scenic roads,scenic routes.Alhambra Valley.Road is designated as a scenic route. Setti,-gig houses back solves both the aesthetics problem as well as the noise problem.There's a 60 decibel noise problem that has to be met,which I'll get to when I get to the noise element of the plarf. The next thing that I'd like to discuss is the size Lof the homes.The developer wants homes from three thousand to four thousand five hundred square feet in size,not counting three-car garages.And these are on half acre lots. These massive homes are way P!12-4 out of character with the much smaller homes on half acre lots.From Wanda Way to the T there is only one three-car garage on homes facing or adjacent to the road.Yet the developer wants three-car garages in every single home in the development. ti Alhambra Malley Estates Final EER-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-31 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration fleeting April 5,2004 Exceptionally'_arge garages should be eliminated since they add even more mass to the ( PH2-4 homes already far too'huge. �[ ZA: Excuse me,NL;.Olson..I'm going to ask you a question_about how this relates to the environmental impact report versus the project itself.I understand that you have concerns about the size of the hones hat are proposed as part of the project,and that certainly is a valid point of view to put forward to the decision-snaking body.I'm wondering how that ties iln with the environmental analysis. Olson: it ties into the environmental analysis because the larger they are and he closer they are to the road,the more they obstruct the view of the scenic ridge lines. ZA: So it's the view analysis? Olson: Absolutely. ZA: Okay,thank you. Olson: The Specific Plan guidelines has two goals on page 34,to reduce the bulk of the development and to reduce the environmental impact of the development,which you just had me point out.All houses on the road,that are on the road,should face the road.The new development should.compliment the environment in terms of form,scale and physical-appearance.]hat comes from the Specific Plan page 27.From Wanda Way to the T the front elevations are all the same.They're all facing the road.,and if you change S those houses so that they're facing with their backs away from.,their backs to the road, we'll have a solid wall of rear views of houses,which is the opposite intent of the Specific Plan.Environmental intrusion night further be mir imized by requiring most homes to be one story.Spacious appearance on all existing half acre lots gives the valley its rural character.Excessively large structures side by side in:half acre zoning will create Pli2-5 starlt urban congested appearance.The Specific Plan says the massing of dwellings should be compatible-with the natural setting.An overwhelming majority of homes on Wanda'Way to the T are single story,The same ratio of single-story to two-story hoines should be applied to the project.Two-story homes should be separated and kept to the rear of the property to protect the scenic view.The Specific Plan says to minimize 1 obstruction of the silhouette view from the scenic road.That's on page 36.Were requesting that a deed restriction be put on so that one-story houses stay one-story in the future so that they blend in with the rural setting.One might say"what about the existing one-story homes?Couldn't they be turned into two-story homes?"Not on septic tanks ! you can't.The restrictions are so tight that you can't build anything if you're on a septic j tarp in ex stence bow. So all the homes around it... _J ZA: Okay,we're getting a little far afield from the environmental impact report now.I'm going to have to ask you to get back to the EIR. 2-32 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 Olson: Okay.Three flag lots and appearance and bulk,1 hope pertains to the Specific Plan. Houses behind houses with tall board fenced alleys between them are not what was in keeping with the Specific Plan when it said the houses should compliment the FH2_6 environment in terms of form,scale and physical appearance. The Specific Plan has two goals to reduce the bulls and the environmental impact.Flag lots violate these goals. Street lights should be shielded do,-award so that they minimize the glare to outside of PH2_7 the subdivision.Under agricultural resources the Specific Plan and the General Pian speak about unique farmland should be preserved to avoid significant effect on the environment.The draft EIR on page 327 says unique farmlands may include non- irrigated orchards or farmlands.71 site has historically been a vineyard,and a non- irrigated vineyard,I believe.'she site has historically been in agriculture and should P H2-8 remain_in agriculture.So we would request that the 4.5 acre part of it should remain 4.5 acre since it is in the agriculture area and it was set up and historically has always been there.Changing the zoning is aiding,needlessly aiding and abetting the loss of unique farmland. Under biological resources,the California red-legged frog is in question here.Two consulting firms have reported and indicated that there is a habitat in the.Arroyo del Hombre Creek.Monk and Associates and Moore Biological say that there's a California PH2-9 red-legged dog habitat in the creek.Sarah Lynch of Monk and Associates says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires a setback of 300 feet in a case like that. Under cultural resources,Native America California Catherine Perez has requested a 100 to 200 foot buffer zone in that creek area during grading acrd construction.'That again 1�H2-1 0 would point to the idea that it would be much better to retain it as a five-acre parcel. Geology,soils and seismicity is the next category.We would request that all utilities, pipelines,storm water and waste water pipelines be designed to resist anticipated seismic PH2-11 ground shaking in this geographical area. Hydrology and water quality.Mitigation Measure 3.89 is missing in the draft EIR.It's simply not there.We would require that tine Mitigation Measure 3.89 states that there should be no fill or development of any kind in the 100 year flood zone.The Specific Plan prohibits development in the 100 year flood zone.Specifically,we reauire flood PH2_12 control to regularly oversee the maintenance of storm water facilities on low infiltration structures by the Homeowners Association.A11 of us know that Homeowners Associations are notorious for not getting that kind of}ob done,and we would like to see some oversight there.We would request that the CC&Rs see that there are adequate assessments of homeowners for hydrology maintenance. We would like to keep the 48 inch water retention drainpipe on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road.It's now slated.to go down Alhambra Valley Road.and cross the 1H2-13 road over onto Wanda Way.And we would like to place the outfall of the pipe also on Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-33 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 the west side of A1harnbra Road just upstream of the culvert there.There are four advantages for this.One of them is so it—;d1l not threaten the seriously eroded hank which is en Wanda Way where there's a home in danger there and the outfall there would be threatennig Haat horse;It would also create less damage to the road by not having to cross ; it.It would avoid tearingup Wanda Way.It would avoid serious damage to the property i PH2_13 on the southeast corner of Alhambra Valley Road and Wanda Way and avoid possible li damage to the garage there YWhich might be taken by such an outfall with the pipe. The west side outfall threatens no homes.We would like to make sure that the peak flow from the surface water is no greater than that before development,and I believe those are the regulations,and that the peaak does not coincide with the creep low peak. Land use and planning is the next one.There's a map error in the dray.-,EIR.It's very important that all:and west of the site is zoned'R-40:not R.-20 as indicated or,that map. This is important because this is the only place in the whole Alhambra Valley where R- PH2-14 20 and R-40 are adjacent to one another,and we certainly need the map to be straightened out. I ZA: Which diagram number is that? Olson: It's un the draft ETR:I don't.have the page number here,but in my letter it will be referred to exactly page by page. ZA: Thank you. Olson: The 4.5 acre part of this property should.remain A-2.One spacious residence should be built there and would be a great asset,with the remainder possibly a horse setup or a min' vineyard.And there are several advantages to#this.It would save several beautiful.mature trees.It would accommodate creek setbac>;.s,wildlife setbacks and 100 year setbacks. And the barn on this property could possibly be saved by keeping this a Eve acre or 4.5 acre parcel.This barn has historical heritage.This barn was built well before 1900 and the floor of the bam was created out of wood from the World's Fair in 1905 in San Francisco,the Palace of Fine Arts location there.The flooring for this barn came from PH2--15 that World's Fair,so this barn has great historical heritage and it would be a good idea to ! save it,and keeping the parcel five acre would more than likely make it possible. Everyone on the Specific Flan.Cornnuttee agreed that the zoning should stay exactly as it � was.with no changes,and I don't think anybody can contradict that because it was very specific and there was quite a discussion about it.So the Specific Plan Committee certainly intended for the zoning to remain as it is. t Next element is the noise element,The EIR currently suggests moving houses closer to Alhambra Valley Roast as noise barriers.This is absolutely unacceptable because the. houses would then be restricting the scenic view,The draft EIII,the General Plan dge PH2—j lines and waterways map identifies nearby visible hills as scenic ridge lines.General Plan 6 2-34 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files##SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 on page 536 says scenic views from scenic routes shall be conserved,enhanced and protected.Notice the word"shall."Clearly the scenic view should be protected.Even if the houses are moved closer to the road so that the 60 decibel noise restriction is met for PH2-16 the yard that's on the other side,this still leaves part of the yard between the house and the road which would clearly be in violation of the 60 decibel rale.The only way to meet the 60 decibel rule is to keep the houses back 100 feet as the noise element in the draft EIR suggests,and that would solve the problem of the noise. Trak and transportation.I've already mentioned we'd like the road entrance relocated to Montera.Public Works has no objection and it's far enough from the T. There's no Pti2-1 problem,and it would preserve most of the trees along the road.The Specific Plan says that all efforts should be made to preserve those trees,and all efforts have not been made. Utility and service systems.I'll be.finally getting to the end of this.The facilities plan for waste water and utilities service for Alhambra Valley has been published by Central Sanitary District.It describes a pumping station which would pump sewage over a mile, 5,600 feet up A€harnbra Valley Road and ReHez Valley Road to,Sage Drive.There's also some effort in the valley to try to get regular gravity flow sewers,butI don't think that's going to materialize.The plan states a force main could be constructed within an,eight inch diarr:eter line for spill containment and then be reused for gravity service by simply PH2_18 removing the pressurized line later.Notice it says"could be."We would like to have it required that the force main be constructed within the eight inch spill containment line because it passes tl_rough a very unstable landslide area on R:eliez Valley Road.The potential damage could occur in this liquefaction prone landslide area.There is a liquefaction potential map,Figure 3 in the county file on Alhambra Estates.This map shows R.eliez Valley Road,the area in question,as having moderate to high liquefaction potential.Even the geological map suggests extra precaution here.This tn:tire area is subject to seismic activity and it is very important to have this added protection.We would like to required that the farce main be installed inside an eight inch pipe.The environment needs protection here. The Alhambra Valley Estates project is going to be built in a primarily:ural landscape. The surrounding homes blend in with the scenic hills in the background.The Specific Plan on page 31 states new home designs shall blend in with the semi-rural character of PH2-19 the area.Any development here must continue the open rural atmosphere in keeping with the overall intent of the Specific Plan,Before April 19'h I'll submit a much more detailed letter replete with many specific requirements in the Specific flan which have been scarcely followed in the draft EIR.'Thank you. ZA: Thank.you.Our next speaker is Nick Jackalone.Reasonably close pro-runciation7 Jackalone: I have a couple of pictures here that I'd like you to be able to take a look at while I'm speaking so you know what I'in kind of talking about.My mase is Nick Jacka.ione and I'm a resident at 101 Quail Hollow.Good afternoon,Mr.Administrator,Ms.Gregory 7 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-35 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5,2004 and Staff`.The comma-Tits that I'm going,to he talking on are 3.1,the aesthetics of the draft EIR.We're concerned about the removal of the trees on the said propel;,especially tree number 4,the 43 inch valley oak;tree number 5,the California black walnut;and tree number 6,the camphor.Two of the tree trees can be seen from the inside of our home and,if removed,would let us see the homes on lots 1,2,21 and 22,Right now, 1 with the size of the valley oak,most of the property across the street from us is obscured 1 so we dor't see a lot of the property itself.When exiting our street we have a sturnir_g view of the tee,tree number 4,and it would be a shame to lose"such an old majestic tree. ` Pti3-1 Tree number 5 covers up the telephone pole from almost any angle and the view of lot 23 from inside of our home and outside.According to the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian Section 2E,Policy 6 on page 10 states existing trees along Alhambra Valley.Road and Reliez Valley Road significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and all efforts should be made to preserve thein.Tire entry of the subdivision,I believe,could be relocated opposite Mcntera,as Mr.Hat Olson had stated,in order to save tree m_ bet 4. The scenic view from Quail Hollow would be drastically reduced if tree number 4 was � removed.Thank you. ZA: Thank you.The next speaker is Veronica Maida. Maida:I would like to begin by reiterating that there are a number of us that I speak for whd are very grateful and respect Mr.Hai Olson's research as it very.specifically refers to the Alhambra Specific Plan that was developed to protect this designated gateway to the Alhambra Valley.We would also like to express concern over the fact that there are 19 specific issues that are addressed by the Alhambra,Specific Plan that are ant being met by 1 P H4-1 this inadequate EIR draft,and we will provide those in written form unless you want me to read them,but they are very specifically what Mr.Hal Olson has identified very carefully and refer to the.different page sin the Alhambra Specific Plan.So we would lire to say that,yes,we reiterate the concerns that have been set by guidelines and the rules in , a plan that was given a great deal of consideration and time and accepted by the community, � ZA: Thank you.The choice is yours,by the way.If you'd Eke to put them in verbally,you're welcome to.I you'd like to put them in in writing,it's up to you.In other words,it's not what I want,it's what you want that's important here. Maida:Is it necessary that I repeat them"? ZA: No. Maida:Okay. ZA: It's not necessary,but it's your choice.We try to encourage,you know,if people want to speak,please do.It will be in the record if you submit it in writing. R 2-36 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration?vieeting April 5 =00= Maida:All right. Some of our concerns,tae, are that some of'he particularly sensitive issues address in the Specific Plan,the ereekside environmental sensitivity. How the developer could be requesting a breakdown of that established four and a half acre parcel that would without a doubt impose on the creekside sensitivity, is absolu3ely an atrocious request,and we are appalled at that kind at"request. ZA: hat's really a comment on the project rather than the EIR. Maida:Well,in the plan it specifically... ZA: It's the same thing I did with Hal.I'm going to ask how does that relate specifically to the { analysis in the FIR:'? Pti4-2 Maida:Okay,on page 13 it specifically addresses the sensitivity of the environment,the unique; { environmental characteristics of a parcel,which in this ease is its creekside position,may warrant larger minimum sized Pots. So that is where that specifically addressed. -- Z.A: In the EIR? Maida:In the Alhambra Specific.plan.It's not in... ZA. I understand,and you're suggesting that,what,is should be included n the EIR as an � analysis of a policy? { Maida:The EIR draft should maintain that that parcel remain a four and a half acre parcel. ZA: Okay. Maida:Thank you. ZA: Thank you. Lucia Jaekalone. Jackalone. Good afternoon, Thanks for letting me speak.I'm Lucia 7ackaione and I live at 101 Quail Hollow.And I would like to speak today about our concerns on the traffic in the area. I read the report thoroughly and there wasn't anywhere in it that talked about, excuse me a minute,Tin a little nervous... ZA: Take your time. You should not feel nervous.There's only tire. PH5-1 Jackalone: Recently,further out in the valley,there were,there was approved a 120 acre site for a cemetery.That in itself is going to add traffic to the valley floor from people going either along Reliez Valley Road or Alhambra Malley Road to the destination of the cemetery. When they did the report on the stop signs and the stop light,the stop signs on Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Valley Road,there wasn't taken into any 9 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-37 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zoning Administration Meeting April 5.2004 consideration on.hat trafirc that will be going out to the cemetery some day. 120 acres is 1 a very large parcel that is at one-pint is jolts,to be full of peorle and visitors and funeral processions going through that valley floor. We already 'lave f urcral processions I PN 5_3 that go out to )akmont which is at Grayson aid'Re!iez Valley Road,and when They are going by i'I°s almost irnpossilile to getout of our street until everybody is passed.So now I we're going to have two cemeteries in-he area with traffic, it was sated in the,report that they think there's going to he about 20 trips a day coiling out of that subdnv sion,the Alhambra Estates. I personally think Laat that's totally underestirnated. It'there ars stfay- homt morns living in these subdivisions with;they estimated 63 people living in iliese hon us_there most likely will be more than;that'f there's full families living in these homes.Arid myself.as a woman,I don't have any children but I have tiffany friends who PH5-2 have children,and if.hey stay hone,they are coining;and going the entire day,from l taking the rids to school to coining home,grocery shopping,errands,and then the Rids have to go to all their sports,and they're constantly leaving the house.Going hone,in � and out and in and out.tiobody stays home any more.The kids don't play home a:ry more file kids are always gorse somewhere.So I think that amount.of 220 is Just totally underestimated. � II I also am concerned about they did the. test studics on Alhambra Avenue and Alhambra Valley Road,at the stop,light,but they did it during peat commute hours.But they didn't take into consideration the John Swett Elementary School that is right oefiore the stop light,and the times of&o'clock and 8:30 when the children are being dropped off„and it the afternoon between 2:30 and 3:30 when everybody is getting out of school,you cant PHS-3 bet to Alhambra Avenue. if I have to Neave,nay home at that time,I check thy watch and I go the long way around.I go down Blue Ridge to hit Alhambra Avenue, 1 don't-even attempt to go down at that part of Alhambra Valley Road,Its impossible to gest through, r So adding another,you know,however many trips during the day that this subdivision is going to cause,there's going to be quite a bottleneck,I think, in more than one area than � what at stated. So those are rnv concerns. ZA: Thank you very much. Jackaione: Thank you. LA: The next speaker is Kathleen Robinson. Robishaw: People make that mistake all the time 7 nn Kathleen Roaishaw eaid t dont have a lot of new ideas to add from what has been said.I primarily would hire,this development. I think it's very,very important that the houses built are compatible with the existing 1 PH6-1 surroundings,Which goes into what everybody else has pointed out as far as the setbacks. leaving the trees. I'm particularly against the rezoning of those 4.5 acres to change them into one half acres parcels Just because of the impact it would have on the creek and he entire area.i have one more comment to add as far as traffic. When she was mentioning, 'j the former speaker was talking about John Swett School,I know exactly what she's PH0-2 10 2-38 Alhambra Valley Estate Final EIR - County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Zonir_g Administration Meeting, April 5,20114 talking about.I do the carne thing.I take the long way if it's that time,but I have,in the past when I have come through and there either picking up or dropping off kids,what a lot of people do to avoid it is they will drive in the wrong lane,against,going the wrong FSH"6-2 way,just to get past the traffic with the existing;conditions that we have now,which would only worsen with this added increase in population in that area.That's about ail I have'o add.Thank you. ZA: Thank you very much,Next speaker is Frederick Maida. Maida:Thank you very much.My name is Frederick Maida.I wanted to make some short continents,specifically regarding the EIR report.,Realizing that,although development is not desirable in this location for probably,any of the residents of Alhambra.Valley,it's obvious that the developer has certain en„itlernents and that his job in this case is.o perfect these entitlements.In order to do that,it's obvious that he needs to meet or exceed the standards of the zoning ordinance.He needs to meet or exceed the standards of the PH7-1 Alhambra Valley Specific Plan which apply here. He needs to meet or exceed all the environmental standards that pertain to tl,,is,And he or they need to meet or exceed the directives of all the involved regulatory groups.Now what I see as a challenge here is that this EIR draft falls short of the intent of both the spirit,the law that applies here,and as a result is incomplete,inconclusive,and relatively uzsensitive to the spirit and the law that apply here.Thank you. ZA: Thank you.That was the last green speaker card that I have submitted.Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment on the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report for the Alhambra Valley Estates project at this point?I see no one rising,so I'm going to take all those comments under submission,direct Staff to prepare a transcript for use in the response to comments document,and that would be included in the final environmental impact report.All of the relevant environmental impact report comments oto need to be responded to in that document. So I'm going to close the hearing on the EIR at this point and indicate if you were not here when we started the hearing, that written comments may be submitted to the Community Development Department through 5 p.m. on Monday,April 19'',2004,and that's at the.Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street,Fourth Flour,North Wing, Martinez,California 94553,attention.Christine Gregory.Thank you very much.And I will note that the next meeting of the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator will be on Monday,April the 19``',Db04.This meeting is now adjourned. tt . Alhambra Valley Estates final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-39 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PHI James Busby Public Hearing Zoning Administrator !Meeting April 5, 2004 PH1-1 Comments are acknowledged. Written letter API addressed several specific concerns by Mr. Busby regarding mitigation measures in the DEIR. Responses to Mr. Busby's concerns are included in the response to written letter API above. 2-40- Alhambra Valley Estates final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH2 Hal Olson Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April 5, 2004 PH2-1 'Opinion is acknowledged regarding adequacy of the DEIR. Please refer to Mester Response Al regarding the entrance size and appearance of the gateway parcel. PH2-2 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal. Please refer to Master Response B6 regarding the relocation of the entrance to accommodate Tree#4. PH2-3 Please refer to Master Response A2 for response regarding the setback of homes by at least 100 feet along Alhambra Valley Road PH2-4 Comments are acknowledged regarding the size of homes and three-car garages. The comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwardedto the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please also refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size of homes. PH2-5 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding homes fronting Alhambra Valley Road, and Master Response A3 regarding single-story and two-story homes. Comments are acknowledged regarding rural character and compatibility. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. PH2-6' Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding flag lets. PH2-7 !'Mitigation measure 3.1-8 on page 3-25 of the DEIR requires a revised street light fixture plan that includes shielded fixtures that direct light downward and have an incandescent light color. PH2-8' As discussed on pages 3-27 and 3-28 of the DEIR, the site is not listed as "Important Agricultural lands"in the General Plan, is within the County's Urban Limit Line, and is designated on the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan as "Single Family Residential, Low Density."The property is also not subject to a Williamson Act contract and has not been used for row crops. Mitigation Measure 3-2.1 requires that, if Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(!ESA) monitoring identifies the site as significant farmland, then a conservation easement on nearby agricultural lands must be purchased by the applicant and dedicated to the County. PH2"9' Please refer to Master Response El regarding increasing the setback around the Arroyo del Hambre to protect listed biological species. PH2-10 A 100-200 foot buffer zone around Vaca Greek may help mitigate potential effects to buried or undiscovered cultural resources, but would severely impact development of lots in those areas and is not considered necessary due to several other adequate measures identified in Section 3.5 (Cultural Resources) of the DEIR. These measures require specific actions to be undertaken in the event of resource discovery during excavation, including halting work within 50 feet of the discovery, inspection by an archaeologist, and evaluation under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. If human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage Association would be contacted for appropriate measures. !Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 would mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels with the proposed 50-foot buffer, The comment is acknowledged regarding retaining the A-2 parcel zoning. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-41 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH2-11 Utility systems would be built to resist anticipated seismic ground shaking. Seismic impacts on utilities are discussed on page 3-55 of the DEIR, in Section 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, under Potential Impact 3.6-2. The last sentence in this paragraph states, "All on-site utility systems will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code, established County standards and regulations, accepted engineering practice, and the governing utility agencies." PH2-12 Please refer to Masten Response C1 regarding development in the 1003-year flood zone, and Master Response C3 regarding safe conveyance of flows through the project site. The comments regarding homeowners association and maintenance are acknowledged. These comments are related to the merits of the project and will be most appropriately addressed in the project staff report for the project forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. PH2-13 Please refer to Master Response C2 for the response regarding relocation of the 48-inch drainpipe. Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 requires that the post-development discharge be no greater than the pre-development peak discharge to the creek. PH2-14 There is an error in the zoning designation on Figure 3.9-2 on page-3-78 of the DEIR. The land west of the project site is zoned R-403, not R-20 as shown. The revised map is located in section 3.2 Revisions to Figures. PH2.15 The comment is acknowledged regarding the preferred use of the 4.5-acre parcel, retention of the barn on-site, and the Specific Plan Committee's discussions. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are most appropriately addressed in the project staff report for the project forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. PH2-16 Please refer to Master Response A2regarding setbacks for houses along Alhambra Valley Road and to Master Response F1 regarding noise mitigation. Moving homes closer to the road to buffer noise levels is not specifically suggested by Mitigation Measure 3.10- 2, which outlines three options for noise reduction. PH2-17 Please refer to Masten Response B6 regarding relocation of the entrance to accommodate Tree#4. PH2-18 Please refer to Master Response D3 regarding force-main protection for the sewer system. PH2-19 Comments are acknowledged regarding compatibility of the development with the rural character and scenic views of the area. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are most appropriately addressed in the project staff report for the project forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. 2-42 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 u RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH3 Nick Jackalone Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April 5, 2004 PI-13-1 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZO23112 2-43 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH4 Veronica Maida Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April 5, 2004 PI-14-1 Opinion is acknowledged regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Responses to the speaker's written comments are addressed in Response to Comments P35. PI-14-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding retaining the 4.5-acre parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the project staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. 2-44 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#S©028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH5 Lucia Jackalone Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April 5, 2004 PI-15-1 Please refer to Master Responses B1 and 62 regarding traffic counts and trip generation estimates. The background traffic estimates include estimates of all approved development and factors for future traffic growth. Significance criteria for traffic impacts related primarily to peak hour traffic and cemetery traffic is generally not coincident with peak Dour trips. P1-15-2 Please refer to Master Response 82 regarding traffic trip generation estimates. PI-15-3 Please refer to Master Response B3 regarding traffic congestion around John Swett Elementary School. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & R2023112 2-48 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PH5 Kathleen Robishaw Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April 5, 2004 PH6-1 Comments are acknowledged regarding compatibility with the surroundings and trees. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Impacts to the creek and creek habitat are addressed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to identified sensitive species and sensitive habitats, including riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of mitigation measures 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 would minimize impacts associated with the subdivision and development of the 4.5-acre parcel to less than significant levels. PH6-2 Please refer to Master Response B3 regarding traffic congestion around John Swett Elementary School, 2-46 Alhambra Valley Estates l=inatl EiR- County flies#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENT'S AND RESPONSES PH7 Frederick Maida Public Hearing Zoning Administrator Meeting April a, 2004 PI-17-1 'Comment is acknowledged regarding the need to comply with all pertinent standards and regarding the adequacy of the environmental document. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-47 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES March 28, 2401 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 8E; Draft EIR, Alhambra Valley Estates Ms Christine Gregory, This communication concerns my reservations about some of thy;. features of the development plan for the former "Swett Ranch'' adjacent to Alhambra Valley road. The valley is a rural_ setting in which two story houses, par ticul.arly along Alhambra Valley Road, would create a startling visual impact detracting from the character and ambience of the area. Pi-1 Accordingly, single story houses should be set back 100 feet 1 from Alhimbra Valley Road, Two story houses should only be considered farther into the develeopmen-G along Alhambra. Creek in order to avoid a congested appearance similar to the Pleasant Hill development on Grayson Road, Consideration must be givento the 48 inch ,storms drain ter- minating point on Alhambra Creek. I can tell you.after living on Wanda Way for 49 years that the creek is much deeper and wider than it was in 1955 My house abuts the creek. and I have 121-2 f lost bank but the :Loss of'f'ers no immediate concern. However, there are several house= along the creek that cannot sustain j much more bank erosion if the storm drain increased winter water flow. Alhambra Valley has a. pleasant landscape providing a wholesome place to lure. I stron ly object to development features that would degrade its quality of life.. Yours truly, p C - / 248 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZO231 12 September 2004 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P1 Louis A. Moncher 12 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P1-1 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding the setback for homes along Alhambra Valley Road and Master Response A3 regarding the size of the proposed homes and their compatibility with the rural character.of the area. P1-2 Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding the relocation of the 48-inch drainpipe. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files# D028634& RZ023112 2-49 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 4Floor North Wing ,, ;; 3 ! 2: 3 Martinez CA 9455-3 Attn:Christine Gregory 31 March 2004 Comments RE:Draft EIR,Alhambra Valley,Estates The County's Craft EIR for proposed Subdivision 8634 acknowledges that the 15.42 acre parcel of land at the intersection of Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads which is proposed for subdivision and rezoning is situated in a"primarily rural"landscape, with"scattered rural-residential development visible"In the surrounding areas,composed of residencesthat"blend somewhat with the natural setting of the surrounding mills".The EIR groes on to state that"the area retains a rural ambiance...and generally love density of development". The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan was designed to protect the rural ambiance and low density of development in this rural and agricultural environment,as exhibited by the followina sections tarsen directlyfrorn the Specific Plan: 1} Page 6, Goal 1, Policy 4 states: Require development proposels'to Include an � environmentally-superior design alternative as part of the environmental review process. i The applicant's proposal reduces the existing environment to a cook#e- � 102_1 cutter type development by maximizing the number of lots on the property and maximizing the impact of the proposed development upon the environment. An environmentally-superior design a€ternative has not been proposed. 2) Page 6,Goal'I, Policy 1 states:"The massing of neer dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting'and Page 9,Gaal 1,Policy 1 states:"Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi-rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley" The overall subdivision of the parcel, although techrdcally allowable, is too congested for the proposed site and does not conform to the surrounding low- density,rural-res€dentlal environment.The area proposed for rezoning would blend with the natural setting, rather than stand out against it as proposed by the applicant, if the 4.5 acres remains zoned as A2 and a custom home with P2-2 space for horses or a vineyard 1s bullt there,The property was formerly a I vineyard, so this would be an appropriate use of the land, aesthetically and agriculturally.The current A2 zoning also protects the rfparlan environment along the Vaca Creek side of the property, as well as preserving the existing wildlife corridor through that area. 2-50 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SDO28634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2) Rage 11, Community Design, Goal 2, Policy 1 states."develop and adapt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the rural-residential atmosphere in Alhambra Valley". Page 34,Design Guidelines states that the intent of the Specific flan is to"provide the County and the existing Valley community with necessary assurances that the future residential development will attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community"and that the design guideline goals are to"reduce the effective v#sual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development". The number of kits requested In the subdivision and rezoning requests will P2-3 Increase the effective visual bulk and will Increase the environmental impact, therefore the number of allowable lots should be reduced, especially along the Alhambra Valley Road scenic corridor,to minimize the visual Irrmpactof a mass of new housing.The three flag lots should be eliminated to reduce visual bulk. The 4.5 acres bordering the creek should remain intact for one custom home. Additionally,the harries on lots along Alhambra Valley Road speed to be set back away from that designated scenic corridor to further reduce the effects of visual J bulk. 3) Page 6,Goal 2 restricts development in environmentally sensitive areas and speclflcally"prohibits development in FEMA 100-year flood zones",where lots 15 and 16 are presently located. P2-4 Lots 16 and 16 must be eliminated)from the proposed development to conform to the FEMA 100-year flood zone prohibition. 4j Page 12; Coale, Policy 8 states:"New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible" Existing residences built off Alhambra Valley Road on current side streets are not easily seen from the Valley Road.It will be Inappropriate to allow a 132-5 subdivision that has numerous two-story homes visible from Alhambra Valley � Road. Therefore, the total square'footage of the homes and their height, especially along the scenic corridor of Alhambra Valley Road,should be limited to coincide with the size of existing homes along that corridor. 5) Page 10, Goal 1, policy 6 states:"Acknowledge that the existing trees along Alhambra Valley and Rellez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridor andlall efforts shall be made to preserve thein. 132--6 The heritage Valley Maks along Alhambra Valley Road must be retained, as well as the Black Walnut and Camphor trees at Hill Girt Ranch Road. 6? Fuge 8, Goal 3, Policy 4 states:"Require all new development to be served by a � 132-7 Alhambra Valley Estates F=inal EIR-County files#S€ 028634& RZO23112 2-51 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES public suer service or to provide an adequate and safe septic system which meets the # standards of the County Health Department", In podalic: County meetings,we have been Informed about an alternative=to the proposed "temporary" pressurized ed suer line that would meet County standards,which consists of a modern technology community septic system s P2--7 that would be located on the subdivlslon site and would be maintained by the homeowners association. The Stonehurst development contains such a community sewage disposal site. Since our semi-regal community prides itself � can the self'-maintenance of our properties, a self-contained,sewage disposal I system would be a more appropriate solution for this proposed subdivision, as well as less costly for the County. 7) Rage 10, Goal 1, Policy 2 states.`To the extent possible,improve and maintain the] aesth etc views from and(to)natural features which occur along scenic routes"and Policy 3 ; states:"To the extent practical,enhance public access from scenic routes to parks,trails and other public attractions". The existing row of blackberry bushes along the western sine of Alhambra Valley Road which borders the property has long been a local source of fancily = P2-8 entertainment during the blackberry harvest season. Mather than new landscaping using non-natural flora for that corridor;the County should consider - requiring the applicant to retain the natural visual barrier already provided by the E berry bushes and toprovide minimal off-road parking during the short berry harvest season for easier access to this annual family outing event. Finally,page 27 states."California State Planning laser requires no tentative -, subdivision map may be approved and no zoning ordinance may be adopted unless it is consistent with this Specific Plan." € P2-9 It Is our opinion that the County must require the applicant to provide a proposal which conforms to the Alhambra Valley Specific Man before any County approvals for subdivision and/or rezoning can be considered. I vino eiy, ry an, inda Ott 25 Wanda Way Martinez CA 94553 2-52 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#$0028834 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P2 Jerry and Linda Cott 25 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P2-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding the design of the proposed development. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Regarding the environmentally-superior alternative, the County has concluded that the project with the proposed mitigation measures (single-story along Alhambra Valley Road, creek setback, etc.) would represent the environmentally-superior alternative, based on the analyses conducted for preparation of the DEIR and Final EIR. There would be no significant unavoidable impacts under this alternative. Please refer to the revised wording of Section 5.6 on page 5-5 in Chapter 3 (Revisions and Errata) of this document. P2-2 Comments are acknowledged regarding the project's compatibility with the surrounding rural-residential environment and the preference to retain the A2 zoning for the 4.5-acre parcel. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Impacts to the creek and creek habitat are addressed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to identified sensitive species and sensitive habitats including riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of mitigation measures 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 would minimize impacts associated with rezoning from A2 to R20 to less than significant levels. P2-3 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road and Master Response A3 regarding the size of the proposed homes and their compatibility with the rural character of the area. Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. See response P2-2 above regarding retaining the 4.5-acre parcel as A2 zoning. P2-4 Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development within the 100-year flood zone. P2-5 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of the proposed homes along Alhambra Valley Road. P2-6 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal. P2-7 Please refer to Master Response D2 regarding creation of a self-contained community septic system. P2-8 The comment to maintain the blackberry bushes along the west side of Alhambra Valley Road is acknowledged, but is outside the scope of this EIR. The EIR addresses the use of non-native plants in Section 3,1 (Aesthetics) on page 3-19. Mitigation measure 3.1.1 includes greater use of native plants and planting in a non-linear, natural fashion in the required landscape plan. P2-9 Opinion is acknowledged regarding conformance to the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-53 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES r sv"7ttli�h W'v�Ts'�E"ti��l'�?i 44 4 d Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-54 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES r - _ .-�- . Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-55 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P3 Jacqueline Heath 127 Gordon Way Martinez, CA 94553 P3-1 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size of the proposed homes and their compatibility with the rural character and scenic views of the area. P3-2 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal, P3-3 The comment is acknowledged regarding house design, the size of the houses and 3-car garages. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision matters for consideration at a public hearing. P3-4 Opinion is acknowledged regarding John Muir's ideas, P3-5 Comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P3-5 Comment is acknowledged, The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision matters for consideration at a public hearing. 2-58 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Attention: Christine Gregory RE: Draft EIR, Alhambra Valley Estates It hes recently come to our attention that there is a plan underway to develope the property at the "T" that is the Swett-Plummer pf6O#y:Mi'l 81, 02 have resided here in Alhambra VAlley for the past 32 years and we have enjoyed the rural setting, however, we have done so at the expense of others. The owners of that property have dealt with the liabilities, as well as maintenance, not to mention the taxes for as long as-we've lived here and before. It is very unfair for those of us who live in the Valley to expect these people to continue leaving their land vacant indefinitely. There are P4_1 many of us who support the Piummers in their effort to sell their property. It must be very difficult for them to have others inserting themselves into f what actually belongs to them. We do however believe that should this developement go forward a sewer system should be installed from Hill girt Ranch Rd. to Gilbert Lane. We realize that there have been objections of sewers coming in throughout the years duetothe fear that so much development would come in, but P4-2 we've seen development continually and the lack of sewers hasn't prevented it. There are many among us who would life to see sewers °came in, the county also has been pushing the resident in that direction. It would seem then that this is a goad opportunity. We support the Plummer family in their effort to sell their land and we support a sewer system being installed. Thank you.., Jahn and Anita Guadarrama 5108 Alhambra Valley Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 372-6104 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County files#S©028634& RZ023112 2-57 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P4 John and Anita Guadarrarna 5108 Alhambra Valley Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 P4-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding support of the Plummer's efforts to sell the property. P4-2 Comment regarding support of a sanitary sewer system is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response DI regarding gravity flow sewer.service and to Alternative 5.5 for a discussion of wastewater service alternatives. 2-58 Alhambra`/alley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 4.2004 Contra Costa County Co=. unity Deveioprnent Departtr_ie-nt 04 651 Pine Street,4ti,.Floor North Wing.Martinez. CA. 94553 At ention: Christine Gregory RE:Draft E,IR,Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Christine Gregory, S ,� } P6'1 C.v4-J t:-t.'c.,.S i.X.."-tii.-�.,,_l,5 v�jP •� �'3 t�--�.�o..Lwr_-._�_, C ...rv_. `C�° .a=tsSs- iL✓t ...�F tai-rr+a� C� c Kz ti t r� P5_4 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ECR -County files# D028634& RZ023112 2-59 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P5 Diane Martin 340 Summerhill Lane Martinez, CA 94553 P5-1 Please refer to Master Response 136 for the response regarding relocation of the entrance to accommodate Tree#4. P5-2 The comment is acknowledged. The R20 zoning would not allow a new lot to be created that is smaller than 20,000 square feet. P5-3 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the size and landscaping of the gateway parcel. P5-4 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the height of the proposed homes. Mitigation Measure 3.1.4 requires homes bordering Alhambra Valley Road to be limited to no more than a single story. 2-60 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634& RZ0231 12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 4,1004, _oatra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 0 Floor NorLh Wing,Martinez,CA.94553 Attention.: Christine Gregory RE Draft EIR.,Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Christine Gregory, I do feel compelled to write and voice some sincere concerns I have regarding the Proposed development at the"T"of Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road. The Gateway to the Development should certainly warrant a larger lot P6_1 than the adjacent parcels.It should be landscaped in plants native to the environ- ment.This new proiect should be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as mach as possible. Certainly this precludes any two story homes at the entrance or on those bordering Alhambra Valley Road, The homes bordering on Alhambra Maley Road should be kept back 100 feet from the center of the road,and no more than one story to protect the"gateway" P6-2 scenic views of the ridgelines. To amass many home in the 3000 to 4500 Square foot size certainly ruins the rural feeling of the Valley. I feel the developer shwald be required to peep the two story homes in the rear of the development and separated as much as possible from the other two story homes and also as much as possible from their neighboring one-story homes. As Public`works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road,and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the"T°not to present a traffic P6-3 .Problem. It seem logical that the Entry should be relocated opposite Ntonteira Alhambra Malley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-61 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P6 James D. Martin 340 Summerhill Lane Martinez, CA 94553 P6-1 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway parcel size and appearance. P6-2 Please refer to Master Response A2 for response regarding the setback of homes along Alhambra Valley Road and Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of homes. P6-3 Please refer to Master Response B6 regarding relocation of the entrance to Monteira. 2-62 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JOBN AND NANCY Dari KONICS 926 DEER.CREEK DRIVEi` _F R ;3 F;r - 2 81 IvIA.RTI114EZ,CA 94553 April I,2004 C.C.C. Comm.Development Dept. 651 Pine Street 4m"Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention:Christine Gregory RE:Draft EIR,Alhambra,Valley Estates After hearing of the proposed subdivision at Reliez Vly.and.Alhambra Valley Rds'.,I would bike to address some of issues that I feel will allow the developer and the people already ling in the Alhambra Valley can agree upon. The Alhambra'Valley Specific Plan— P.6a 772e massing of new dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting. The over derma and overlarge two-story home size is not compatible with the P7— natural setting. Flag lots and reducing the five-acre zoning should not be allowed. P.11 Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the rural/residential atmosphere in Alhambra Valley. The proposed P7-2 development should be in beeping with the ino stly one-story homes that exist in the valley ares.. P.12 New projects shall be designed to Mend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible. Homes should be facing Alhambra Valley P7-3 to avoid a row of backyard fencing. A subdivision of two-story homes with flip-, flop floor plans will surely talo away the uniqueness of the Alhambra Valley. P.13 Unique Environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger minimum lot sixes. With the proposed removal of large trees,requests to P,7_4 disregard the 100 year flood zone I believe a better plan could be designed for this proposed development plan. It truly should NOT be all about money for the developer. P. 24 The plan designates Alhambra Valley Rd and Reliez Valley Rd. as scenic routes, Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding P7-5 area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley,gateway is an Alhambra Valley Estates Pinar EIR-County files##SD028634& RZ023112 2-63 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES area which will help frame the driver's perception of the area as the car passes I through the area. AZha?nbra Valley.Rug at Feliez Valley Rd is a "Designated Gateway' The intent of the specific plan is ro preserve existing vie; Sjfii•om these P7-6 gateways. The homes fronting Alhambra Valley should be rept back 1,00 feet from the street to protect scenic views of he hillsides. We would targe you to consider the above mentioned items and make good decisions to keep the Alhambra Valley a"unique place of scenic beauty"unlake most other areas in the county that have built on every square inch possible, Sincerely, e,/"Nanuf Donk o cs 2_6s4 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023:12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES P7 Nancy DonKonics 925 Deer geek Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P7-1 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size of homes and their compatibility with the rural qualities of the area. Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. Comment is acknowledged regarding reducing the five-acre zoning. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P7-2 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size of homes and their compatibility with the rural qualities of the area. P7-3 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding homes facing Alhambra Valley Road. P74 The comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressedin the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P7-5 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding the setback of homes along Alhambra Valley Road. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-65 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Christine Gregory Christine Gregory REE:Orae Ery,Alhambra Valley Estates Contra Costa Coupt-y ConnmuniLy D velop,,nent Depa-t hent 651 Pine Street,4th Floor lvorth Wing, Martinez CA 94573 To Whom It May Concern I am opposed to the rezoning of the property at Alhambra.Valley Rd.and Reliez Valley Rd. The proposed rezoning of the current A2 parcel is detrim.ental to our con unity and against the County general plan and Alhambra Valley Specific plan. ('.Aesthetics)for the followiiag reasons: I: Parcel A at the corner should be enlarged to enhance the scenic gateway view. This parcel is separated from the 23 lots to announce the entrance to the entire valley. The P€1-1 first view of the valley should be open to keep the rural effect.(5-36)County gererai plan.(p.l0)Alhambra Valley Specific plan., - 2. Trees 4.5.6, Should be saved,i'hey blend in to the scenic ridgeline behind them, x,8_2 (P.10,PI 1,)A.V.S.P. J 3, Mouses should be smaller than the massive 3060 to 4500 sq=:zare feet. Most existing homes on half-acre lots are,2000 square feet, These huge Homes will give the valley 7 e8-3 an urban appearance. (P,l2,P.24,P.27,P.31,P.�4,P.36) 4. The 4.5-acre parcel should remain five acre zoning. It is the most environmentally # sensitive area of subdivision and includes set backs for creels,flood,and wildfire l P8-4 it should stay a five acre parcel.x.13 land use and planning)(P,5 Aesthetics) J 5. There should be no development ire the IGC-year flood zone. Lots 15 and 165 violate P8-5 this at present. This is against Specific plan rules. (P,6) j 6. The 48-inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Pd. and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert,a much i'8-6 less dangerous location than the present proposed location.There are no homes near this outfall that would be threatened. I think it is incredibly arrogant of the developer to expect uv(home owners in the 1 valley)to gay eighty percent or any of this unneeded sewer so Chat they may make # trillion on their subdivision. The county needs to be very careful here. Allowing this P8-7 development in our scenic valley could cause major problems supervisors and their consrtuent& We valley residents will rot just permit this to happen. Sincerely, T on Atherstone 5069 Alhambra Valley R& ,Martinez CA 94553 2-66 Alhambra Valley Estates Pinel EIR-County fifes##SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS ANO RESPONSES P8 Tom Atherstone 6069 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez, CA 94563 P8-1 Blease refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway parcel size and appearance. P8-2 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal. P8-3 The comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P8-4 The comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P8-5 Please refer to Master Response Cl regarding development and fill within the 100-year flood zone. P8-6 Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding relocation of the 48-inch drainpipe. P8-7 Opinion is acknowledged regarding the sanitary sewer system. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#5 028634& RZ023112 2-67 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 131, 2004 2 9, Contra Costa County Community Development Department 641 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Alhanbra Valley Estates, ESR Dear Christine Gregory: Mv husband and I have lived In our present home for 4- thirty-nline years. . T Tn that time we have seen many new homes built in Alhambra Valley. Al_; or these new homes t have been compatible with the zoning a4he homes around and the them. Our home is on a half-acre. We understand that the twenty-three homes that are proposed on the property at Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Valley Road will also be on ha1f-a6re' pai-6els'­.'- rrom= iahat'we `hear 't hese homes' Grill - :6ariige fr8m�--3j 000 t6, 4, 500 scrdare feet. - We ­coilld possibly fit ,such &_--large','home 'on c 3-1r -p-toperty mithcut adding a second stdry-'whicih wodld be ,cor]pIetibly but of P9-1 , character in our.n'eighborhodd. -We 'think that you should requ.Lre the developer to build homes consistent with the other homes surrounding' the pr6pertty.. It is really a auestion of aesthetics. When viewing the subdivision from the corner of Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Val-ley Road, the enormous twc-st6ry homes will stand out and be totally oul of character with the existing homes ph half-acre. We are also concerned with the so called 'flag lots.- Please don't allow the developer, to squeeze in the three flag lots. They, t-bo, are aesthetically undesirable. They will look terrible from—the south6rn portion of i IP 9-2. Alhambra Valleiy Rbad and from the western pottli-oh. 6Jff* Alhambra Valley Road: " Right-now .the vdiew": -l'.8-beautiful 1"r6m this .66rner,"and' we reali-Le that, the -ok6rerty will evehE y 4-uall '�be- a6Ve' lcp6d,-- how :V. 6 k,1­,1Et'-­s"hoUd be developed' 2-68 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES in .the same way as the rest of the houses have been built around it.. The existing homes do not have houses stacked behind other houses. The developer should keep his houses 139-2 in the same scale and the same physical appearance as i those existing homes surrounding the property. 1 Another concern of ours is the lass cf the Valley Oak � opposite wail Hollow. This tree is beautiful and is hundreds of years old. We understand that it is protected P9-3 by the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. Help the developer do whatever is necessary to preserve this landmark tree. in summary, all of our concerns have to do with the aesthetic views of the proposed development. It is our hope that the. developer .will. listen to the concerns of Vallev residents and that you, the County, will help him X ulfill the intentions of the Specific Plan. We look forward to a Final EIk that will satisfy the developer and the wishes of Valley residents.' Sincerely, �,7r Carol and Fre .Albright 24 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 Alhambra Malley Estates Find EIR County tiles#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-69 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P9 Carol and Fred Albright 24 Wanda Way Martinez. CA 94653 P9-1 Please refer to pilaster Response A3 for the response regarding the size of the proposed homes and their compatibility with the rural character of the area. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P9-2 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P9-3 Please refer to Master Response A5 for the response regarding tree removal. 2-70 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 14, 2004 Dear Christine Gregory; I am a retired architect and am very familiar with both commercial and residential reel estate projects. I have looked at the reaps for Alhambra Valley Estates In the EIR and find that the developer is aver-building for the area in which he plans to build. 1. This serene piece of property is going to be aver-run with houses. The developer doesn't have enough room to have the driveways for all houses facing the street, so he has long alleys leading to three of the lets. This does not make for a beautiful Pi 0--1 subdivision and should not be permitted. Specifically, the Views from Alhambra Valley Road will be spoiled by the buildings on these three lots. 2. The houses are much larger than the houses around Cher n In the R20 zon'lni . They are not only but of character with the neighborhood, they are out of chracter'with whet will be P1 0-2 developed on the one acre zoning Immediately adjacent to the subject property. From a viewing standpoint, the'larger homes should be moderated In size. 3. The lots in the rear of the property should be increased in size. The four lots on Arroyo del Hambre are impacted by too many setbacks. It appears from viewing the maps that a small P10-s _ portion of one house Is actually In the one-hundred year flood zone. No portion of any physical property can be In the flood zone; therefore these lots should be increased in size. 4. I see that many trees are going to be removed from Alhambra Valley load in front of the subdivision. These trees contribute to P10-4 the beauty of the Valley and should be saved, particularly tree 4, a beautiful valley oak. S. I am concerned about a gravity flow sewer plan for the P1 0-5 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-71 September 2004 2, COMMENT S AND RESPONSES k property. I have lived in the Valley for over forty years and I know that a majority of residents are opposed to sewers because septic systems have done more to protect the rural nature of the = n10-5 Valley than any other factor. Again, sewers adversely affectthe environment because they allow larger structures to be built and # therefore urbanize the Valley. I hope that you look over the plans very carefully and see fit to make alterations to preserve the beauty cif our_Valley, Sincerely, ElvI n C o�metta 37 Wanda Way Martinez, Cdr 2-72 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SID028634&Rz023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P10 Elvin Cornetta 37 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94563 P10-1 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size of the proposed homes and their compatibility with the rural character and scenic views of the area. Theses comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P10-2 Comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P10-3 'Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development within the 100-year flood zone. P10-4 'Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal. P10-5 'Comment is acknowledged regarding opposition to sewer service. The comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please refer to Master Response Q1 regarding gravity flow sewers and to Alternative 5.5 on page 5-3 of the DEER for a discussion of wastewater service alternatives. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#S©028834& RZ023112 2-73 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Iver,anis Mrs.€aterAilen 20A t+.lands Way Martinez,CA 94553 tt, April 18;2004 Contra Gusts County Department of Commun€ty Development RE: Alhambra Valley Estates Draft EIR o whom it may concern: As longtime residents of Alhambra Valley we are deeply concerned about the proposed development of the 15 acres along Nharnbra Valley Road In the vicinity of Rellez Valley Road. For people who have chasers to live here,the subject acreage has long served as the cornerstone of Alhambra Valley, It defines the unique,rural character of what many feel to is a very specie;place. The reality is,however,that economic gain ail too often tastes precedence quer the preservation of such precious resources. The issue at hand,thea,is to attempt to mnlmize the negative Impact of the proposed development on Alhambra Valley. Based on our review of the Draft E€R,we would like to address the following: AESTELETICS 1. MMgationMenuro3.1-IJL;andscapeMateiiaQ We support this midgatian with the following added comments: P11-1 1. Trees sizes along Alhambra Vailpy Road shale be mi,umurn 36"box. if. No solid sound wall"shall be built along.Ather76.a Valley Road. I Mitigation Measure 3.1-2(Access to Lot 6) P71-2 We support this rn tigatlon. 3. Mitigation Measure 3.1-3(Entryway) We support this rtrltlgaticn with the folioWng added comments: ' 1— Existing mature frees shall be protected and,crr rserled 4, Mitigation,Measure 3.1-4(Single story structures at tote 1,3,4,5,G,22&23) We support this rnitigatinn P11-4 2-74 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ECR-County files##SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 13;2004 6. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5(Gatemy) VVe support this mitigation with the following added comments. i. Given the prominence of the Gateway area,the proposed design is woefully P1.1-5 inadequate. The area devoted to this portion of flys project is•minimai and the treatment is far below what is called for. This is N07 acceptable. S. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6(Collor Schemes) We support this mitigation. 7. Mitigation Measure 3.1-7(CC&Rs) P11-7 We support this rriffigaticn. 8. Mitigation Measure 3.1-8(Lighting) x'11�g We support this mifugation. AGRiCULTURE 1. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 through 3.2-2 We support these mitfgations. t'11-9 rY AIR QUALiiY ' 1. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 P11--10 We support these mitigations. BIOLOGICAL RESQUg 1. Mitigation Measures 3A-1 through 3.4-3 P1,1-11 . We support these rr ligations. CULTURAL fiat}URGES 1. Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 through 3.5-2) P1 1-12 We support these mitigations. _GE3L0!QY,SOILS AND SEiSMiSITY 1. Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 through 3.5-2 P11-13 We support these mitigations. RAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATg A 1. Mitigation Measures 3>74 through 3.7.6 Pl l—14 We support these trlltigatians. 2 Alhambra galley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-75 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 18,2004 HWRQLOGYAND WATER QLLALITY 1. Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-8 P11--1 5 We support these mitlgatbns. 1. Mitigation Measures 3.10-1 through 3.1.0-3 We support this mitigation with the failowfng added comments: l P11-1fi I. Under no circumstances wffl we vttppord the c0nemictton of solid sound walls"along Alhambra Valley Woad. VEHtCLiLA t RCCES�-ALHAMBRA VII,LLisY RQAE 1. Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 through 3.12 We support this mitigation with the following added cnmments; 1 Any proposed widening of Alhambra Valley Road must ineluca previsions for P11--3; the protection and preservation of existing mature tnv. s 1. Mitigation Measures 3.13A We support this miiigation with the following added comments: � i, The annexation of the proposed development by contra costa County P11-18 L,AR00 shell be for the Alhambra Valley estates alone and shall not Include ad ocent properties not currently annexed Thank you for your attentions to these concerns. Sincerely, testAlen tviarrarsn ert 2-76 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I'll Peter and Marian Allen 20A Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P11-1 Comment is acknowledged. Mitigation measure 3.1-1 requires a landscape plan, but was not revised to include a minimum allowable tree size for planting. The landscape plan, subject to review and approval of the zoning Administer, would include tree sizes and maintenance. The size of the tree to be planted may depend on a number of factors including but not limited to location, type of species and hardiness of species, and maintenance requirements of species, which may allow for a smaller box size than 36 inch diameter. Please refer to Master Response A6 for the response regarding prohibition of sound walls or other solid wall structures. P11-2 Comment is acknowledged. PI 1-3 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal and preservation. P11-4 Comment is acknowledged. P1 l-5 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway entrance size and appearance. P11-6 Comment is acknowledged. P11-7 Comment is acknowledged. P11-8 Comment is acknowledged. PI 1-9 Comment is acknowledged. Pl1-10 Comment is acknowledged. P11-11Comment is acknowledged. P11-12 Comment is acknowledged.. Pl 1-13' Comment is acknowledged. P1.1-14 Comment is acknowledged, P11-15' Comment is acknowledged. Pl 1-16 Please refer to Master Response A6 regarding prohibition of sound walls or other solid wall structures. Pl 1-17 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree removal and preservation. Pl 1-18 Comment is acknowledged. The comment is related to the annexation process and is appropriately addressed by the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) upon review of the annexation. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-77 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Ron and Lynn Sadusky 23 Wanda Way U Pr.. Mart nez,CA 94553 Aprfl l8,2004 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street O'Floor North Wing ,Martinez,CA 94553 Attention-, Christine Gregory RE.,Draft EI:R,_Alhambra Valley Estates Bear Christine, Attached are questions and comnents we came across while reviewing the dcafEIP- Some of the answers may be housed elsewhere within the report wh ie other may not have been addressed.We appreciate your office's efforts in reviewing and responding to our comments on this matter.It will help its gain a greater understanding on tae issues and the report. Thank you For the time and effort to review this matter, 8i erely Ron and Lynn aadus ;j .0 61 IL"41 110 2-78 _ Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR- County tiles#SDO28634& RZO23112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Page 1 of 3 QUESTIONS REGARDING"ENVIR01MEN"TAL AN_ YSIS!. __. Page 3-65 of the Drift EIR During storm season(less than 10year/3hour)the drainage from the project site and surrounding areas is already at a maximum along Alhambra Valley Road(actual flooding will occur regularly in front of Vaqueros over the street).According to the Draft EIR,the project site is not in a,oundwater basin so no mitigation is required from the developer to allow the reduction in impervious surface to provide the current drainage.This means more run off with increased impervious surfaces It also states that the drainage from the site is designed to be taken to a 48"diameter pipe leading to the very same side of the road where this flooding occurs. 1. Has the 48"pipe beea designed to handle the drainage not only as it is channeled through the site but also sized to handle the run off that will occur due to the lack of impervious surface that will undoubtedly occur?Plow can groundwater recharge not be significant ifwater is already running away from the site and into the road during heavy rains(rains not in the I0year/3hour range)? P12-1 2. Where aloes the sing of the 48"pipe come from?I could not fined reference as to how this size is determined.Where do the calculations come from to ascertain this pipe size? 3. Are storm drains into this pipe going to be located along Alhambra Malley Road to handle the current drainage problem that also occur and cause flooding and erosion leading into creek?Shouldn't this improvement to iuYiastracture be designed to accomodate the problems currently in existence as well as accommodate neve construction if the development is allowed to proceed? 4. What effect does the implementation of the headwall have on the residences on Wanda way for access into and out of the property during construction?It does not appear to be addressed. 5. What effect dries the implementation of the headwall l have on the residences property located adjacent to the entrance at Wanda Way?It is not addressed. 6. At what point is the pipe and headwall actually installed during the project?In the beginning?In the end?If in the end=what steps and procedures will be taken to reduce the erosion and additional sediment caused as mentioned in Potential Impact 3.8-2. Since there is no ECA,this appears incomplete and could hose potential environmental hazards as well as property damage to current residences. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-79 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Page 2 of 3 C UESTIONS REGARDING"110 NOISE" J 9 s Page 3-79 of the Draft EIR Table 3.I0-I indicates"Typical Residential/Commercial Noise uoarces and.Levels"but --' unfortunately this report fails to take into account that this areas a recreational area not only for bicycles,horses and hikers but also for motorcycle riders,sports cars and muscle cars.The report indicates that due to the nature of the road's design the cars potentially drive faster than normal but it does not accurately depict the level of noise that is emitted P12--2 when -five to fifteen. motorcycles ride down Alhambra Valley Road and over to-Rel%z ,'alley Road.This is also true to"muscle"type cars and sports cars that see these mads as weekend(and,weekday)recreational drives.The noise levels are clearly higher than the report is considering. ine report stated that the sensors were*here over a 48 hour period but it did not state � when that period was.The weekend is a very high traffic and high noise time that should � be considered further for this activity.Also,was this time period during;the winter or P12_8 during rain.?The max noise will occur during the spring and summer when the recreational drivers are most likely to be out,especially on Saturdays and Sundays. The project developer is proposing two story houses along this road.There is not one house in that development that will not be effected by this noise and traffic from occurrences as described above.There is no sound wall(even if ever allowed),that will provide a barrier for a residence in a two story horse even within a '100 font distance. 9 P12-4 Further study of the noise needs to be considered if not for the sake of the current 1 residences on the road,then for the people who will spend good money for a 3000-4000 square foot house only to find that they will have to deal with the effects of having a house so close to this activity. Further study of this area and how it is Maly used needs to occur. I question if the developer understands this.Dees he;plan to provide a disclosure to the new residents regarding the type of noise that will occur during the weekends.Ask the P12_S current neighbors living on Alhambra"Valley and on 12elim Valley Roads. 2-80 Alhambra Malley Estates Final EiR-County files#SD028634& RZ02 112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Page 3 of 3 QUESTIONS REGARDING"3.12 TRAFFIC" Pie 3.88 of the Draft E�2 The draft EER reviewed traffic based on commute tunes and did notreview the fact that this is not a typical residential area.I"he commute past John Swett Elementary is extremely congested-without doubt and will see negatively affected but attention still needs to be paid to the serious traffic difficulty on Tteliez valley and on Alhambra Valley Road that occurs dung the flow of recreational traffic.luring this-time there is increased bicycle,pedestrian,and motor traffic.This occurs from a large number of bicycles traveling in a group(ern;the roads and not on bike paths),It also occurs from P12-6 park visitors entering and exiting the park in more than two locations and traveling to and from the perk past where the proposed site is.That added to the noel residential traffic on a Saturday,the situation is already getting dartgerous.As the EIR report mentioned, the traffic does travel at higher speeds then posted.The bicycles create instances where cars are forced into oncoming lanes.Easter cars literally will pass on no passing areas on a regular basis on the very section of road in front of the proposed ent=ce can a regular basis. The roads are constructed for rural trafficxeatistically;it is not currently constructed for, safe recreational travel.This report looks at the traffic as if this is a residential area..More review as to the nature of the area as a recreational destination needs to be considered P12-7 here. Bike paths in front of the site cannot mitigate increased traf8,c since the bicycle riders do not use the paths that area currently provided hear the main entr=ance to Briones now. Alhambra Valley estates Final EIR a County files#SD02 634 & R 023112 ---- - . 2-81 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P12 Ron and Lynn Sadusky 23 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P12-1 As stated on page 3-71 of the DEIR, the proj 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES considered daily or routine noise sources. Such noise, due to its limited occurrence, is considered a less than significant source of noise and requires no additional mitigation. P12-3 Noise measurements were taken continuously over a 48-hour period from Wednesday through Friday on January 9-11, 2004. The weather conditions over that period ranged from clear to partly cloudy, winds were light, and temperatures were moderate and typical of winter in the area. The only significant noise source was vehicular traffic on Alhambra Valley Road. Alhambra Valley Road is a collector street that serves local access and provides connections to Alhambra Avenue and Reliez Valley Roan. Traffic studios were performed according to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA) technical procedures and peak traffic periods were determined to be between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-8:00 PM on weekdays. Noise from motorcycles and loud cars, as stated in Response P12-2, is considered a less than significant source of noise. P12-4 'Please refer to Master Response F1 regarding the response to noise setbacks for houses long Alhambra Valley Road. P12-5 The comment is acknowledged, but is not relevant to the environmental analysis. P12-6 'Please refer to Master Response B4 regarding recreational traffic. Comments about bicyclist and driver behavior are acknowledged. P12-7 Please refer to Master Responses B4 regarding recreational traffic and B5 regarding the trail along Alhambra Valley Road. Comments about bicyclist behavior are acknowledged. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-83 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ]dear Contra Costa County Community Development Department In response to the Drift E'1R docurnent we feel the proposed subdivision�b�s nod in any way conform to the natural beauty and general feeling of the Alhambra"'V l<ey � . P1 —i Ey cutting down trees and developing large parcels of rugal land,*.hese developers are destroying one of the most unique agricultural settings in the greater Bay>Area, Page 27,of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan states that neve development should complement the existing environment in teras or forth,scale,and physicai appearance.Cutting down old.oak,black walnut,and camphor trees does not at all fall 1 �'�3—� within the confines of these guidelines.Nor does building 23,two story,3 ear garage homes on a rural piece of land. Page 31 of the Alhambra Valley Spamfic Plan states that new houses designed shall blend in with the semi-rural character of'the area.Page.34 of the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan states that new development shall reduce theeffective visual bulk of P1 —3 development and reduce the environmental impact of development I ask how 23 half i acre lots will accomplish the spirit of these guidelines? The proposedAiharnbra Valley Estates is located near the crossroads ofReliez and Alhambra Valley Roads,easily visible from either road.Please refer to page 24 in the Alhambra Valley Specific Flan section E.This section states that Alhambra Valley and. Reliez Valley Roads"as scenic routes as shown in Figure 7.Scenic routes provide a i dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and these traveling through the valley. As part of this Scenic Routes Element this Specific Plan designates f "Valley Gateways','at 3 locations along these scenic routes.A"Valley Gateway"is an area which will help.frame the"drivers"perception of the area as the car,passes through P13--4 the area.."The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve the existing views of these F gateways. It is difficult to envision how 23"cookie cutter"homes will preserve anything but the developer's bottom.line. 3 points have been selected because they are located at the"entrances"or ! "gateways"to Alhambra Valley and are indentified as follows and shown on Figure 7. A.Alhambra Avenue at Alhambra Valley Road; 13.Alhambra Walley at Reliez Valley Road C.Alhambra Valley at Vaca Creek Road. 2-84 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR- County files#5[7{325634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The Alhambra.Waley Specie plan was drawn asp and approved by the Board of Supervisors only 14 years agcy. We are not dealing with a dinosaur document.Why would P13-5 anyone think it is now irrelevant? Respectfully<Siubnutt4 The Filson.Family 5354 Stonehusst Dr. Martinez CA,94553 Alhambra:Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-35 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P13 The Wilson Family 5354 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P13-1 Comments and opinions are acknowledged. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P13-2 Comments and opinions are acknowledged. Please refer to Master response A3 regarding the size of homes and A5 regarding tree protection. P13-3 Comments are acknowledged regarding rural character.These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P13-4 Comments are acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway parcel. P13-5 Comment is acknowledged regarding the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. 2-86 Alhambra Valley Estates Final I IR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 19, 2€ 04 a 3 Contra Costa Count'Community.S Development Department 651 Pine Street. 4th:Floor North'Win!g Martinez, CA 94553 RE. Review and Comments on the Draft EIR for Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Christine: I am very unhappy after having read the Draft EIR. As you know, I have read the file on this subdivision periodically. i have read what various consultants have wanted and 1 have read what actually went into the Draft EIR. 1 will reflect on some of that as I handle some issues later in this letter. Look at some of the positive portions of the'Draft Elul As far as 1 can see almost all of the positive things about the Draft are mandated by the Alhambra Malley Specific Flan and the county's General Man The Draft EIR does little'toprotect the rural atmosphere of the`Valley, although the Specific Plan and the General Plan dictate,that the environment be protected, The Specific plan's main goal is to protect the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The Plan is replete with mandates to have"new, development complement the environment in terms of farm, scale, and physical appearance." Also, the Flan assures that"residential development'attain the level of quality desired by the valley community." As a member of the valley community, l find the Draft EIR inadequate. Many changes are necessary to fulfill the latent of the Alhambra Valley P14-1 Specific Plan. Let's start with parcel A at the "Designated Gateway"to the Valley at the darner of the "scenic roadway." This is a parcel that should be greatly increased In size. It is at the most important corner in the entire Valley.. Parcel A has to be a buffer between the corner and the proposed 23 loft subdivision behind it, and it has to frame the vista beyond it, At the pre- application meetin In 2001, the developer presented a conceptual reap that showed.parcel A being much larger than the one being presented P14-2 now. You told me that public Works wanted the parcel much smaller because the county would`have to maintain it. Them Public Works demanded that the Homeowners'Association take care of it. Now the parcel is in Its smaller state and Public Works does not have to maintain It, sot it should be back to its urea-app. condition and probably made larger. It has to tit In with the"scale Of what is around' it, and what Is around it will. e many large homes with a grand vista in tate background. The larger Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR- County fibs#SD028634& RZ023112 2-87 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES pareal A has to fit in with the "physical appearance" of the environment, Remember ,also that the eight acre parcel next to it on west is zoned one acre. parcel A not only has to introduce the subdivision, it also has to P14-2 blend with the future homes being built in the adjacent one acre zonlrrg. Clearly, Parcel A has to be'Increased in size. The thought of removing tree#4 is ludicrous. It is a signature of.the Valley. The developer never suggested having the entrance to the subdivision anywhere,else but opposite Quail Hollow because it provides the most lot , yield. Yet the Specific Plan states that"all efforts"must be made to n1 4-3 preserve the trees along Alhambra Valley Road. Where were the EIR consultants on this? By moving the entrance to opposite Monteira, tree #4 can be saved. it's OK with Public Works. Demand that the entrance be moved and fulfill the mandate of the Specific Plan. In order to see the "ridgeline silhouette"beyond the subdivision from the scenic roadway," the Douses along Alhambra Valley Road have to be i P14_4 moved back from the road. A perfect solution would be 100 feet because that would fulfill the noise requirement as wall. More about that later. The houses along Alhambra Valley Road should face the road.- if the "form, scale, and physical appearance" mandate is upheld, then the subdivision Douses should "appear"the same as all the ether houses ;P1 4-5 along Alhambra Valley Road, which are set back from the road and, landscaped 3n front. The Specific Plan is very clear on this. It belongs in a mitigation in the Aesthetics element, ., The square footage of the proposed houses is also ludicrous. Their -1 massiveness is totall out of keeping with the surrounding area. Where is the €lR on this issueThe massiveness affects the environment aesthetically. Isn't this supposed to be ars Environmental'Impact Report? l n14"6 The county has an obligation to pull the reins on this erre because the Specific Plan is very clear on the matter of"form, scale, and physical appearance." Most homes in R20 are approximately 2000 square feet The proposed massiveness'is totally out of keeping with the surrounding homes. Eliminate three-car garages. They contribute to the"bulk"of the project and again affect the Aesthetics element. There are basically no three-car lit 4-7 garages along Alhambra Valley Read In the R20 zoning except one. Again, the county has to put the brakes on here and do its job. We all know that Mr. Busby wants two-story biomes because we asked what he wanted to build when we were at the pre-app. meeting. He said, "We'll build what the market wants. The market wants two-story homes.,* P14-8 There are hardly'any two-story homes in R20.''What is going on here? All 2-88 Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR-County fibs#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES of this relates to aesthetics. What happened to "fora, scale, and physical appearance"? Again, the county is going to have to do its job and enforce 1 P14-8 the Specific Man. The three flag lots are atrocious. They really demean the entire area. Who in the Valley wants houses behind houses? Oriveby Grayson Woods and see what a house behind:a horse looks like. Of course, the P1 4-9 three flag lots add to the total lot yield of the property. Enforce the Specific Plan that prohibits the"massing of dwellings. In order to maintain the "physical appearance"of the Valley, most of the proposed houses shoul be one-nary. One-story will conform to the contour of the land which Is basically fiat and spacious. The broad' space P14-10 of land doesn't need many tyro-story houses looming up in the middle of the most ppri rninent place in the Valley, indeed, in the place that defines the Valley. The county will have to enforce the Specific Plan here. I am very concerned about the "Designated Gateway." The eight acre parcel owned by the Catholic Church to the west adjoins the 15.02 acre parcel to the east owned by the Plummer/Knolls, The eight acre parcel is zoned one acre, whir; the 15.02 acres is zoned halfracre and five acres, Let us suppose that the one acre arcels are developed similarly to the custom houses on Castle Creek ourt which is a beautiful street. Imagine P14-11 what that would look lice next to what the developer proposes. This is the only place In the Valley where the*two zonings adjoin, and they are'at the "Designated Gateway" with. a"scenic roadway" going by. What was MICA thinking when they looked at the developer's'plans' It was MHA's jamb to i have environmentally superior mitigations to ensure that the rural nature of � the Valley be protected. instead the developer is gain to urbanize the property,'completely contrary to the stipulations in the 8pecific Plan. Why chance the A2 zoning to increase the lot yfield? It's zoned A2 because it s part of a parcel that wr s''up the bill and because its use has always been agricultural, Tree p�iecii'c Plan says that the flat land in the Valley should primarily be zoned R20 and Rol. It says."primaril . Primarily does riot mean "all." The Plan stags that agrrpuiturs siould be maintained in the Valley, Clearly environmental concerns dominate the �P14-12 zoning here. When the Specific Plan gent into the General Plan; the ! Part's zoningwent In intact. it should stay intact, and the county should enforce thepecific Plan. After all, when Mr. Rusb was asked b Rose Marie Pietras at the Pte-app. Meeting why he wasn�subrriitting a XUD, he said, "We'll follow the Specific Plan to the letter." It's time that the c ovnty help him do that. There is an argument for changing the A2 to R40. generally the R20 and R40 zonings are on the flat laude in the galley. R40 would sore all the P14-13 Alhambra Valley Estates Final Eire-County ries#SD028634& RZ023112 2-89 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES impacts on the lots along the creek and would give the develoer more lots than if the A2 zoning remained. So much of this zoning refates to aesthetics as much as to land use because it increases the "bulk" of the ���-�� proposed project. What happened to the 100 foot setback recommended by the County's � consultant (Monk and Associates) on the matter of the Red-Legged Frog � habitat, l read Sarah Lynch's letter defending the 100 foot setback. The P14--14 setback was in, now it's out. Ultimately USM S,will make a decision on this matter, and what will happen if they stipulate a 100 foot setback, or larger? It might be back to the drawing board again. The Specific Manpprohibits,development in the 100 year Flood Zone. Now a toe of a building is in the erne. This has to be changed. The x'14-1 RVSP mandates that no portion of any building can be in the .zone. The hydrology of the site is under discussion right now. Public Works sees the present plan as actually increasln the flow of water from the subdivision to the creek. They are dernan ng that the h}drolc�g plans be revised. In the same manner the,;pipes carrying the water from e subdivision should be located on the west side of Alhambra Valley Fload. P14--16 There are two neighbors who oppose the present east side entrance. One neighbor, Mr, artne�yr,� has written that no pipes can go through his property and another neighlbor, Mr. Green, has written that he will sue if i the presently planned outfall erodes his property. Both of their letters are in the file. The west side plan is far,superior to the east side plan and should be mandated by the county. �= The noise element of the Draft EIR has beengneatly compromised. The houses along Alhambra Valle Road have tote set bac from the road in order to follow the mandate of the Specific Plan to protect the view from the scenic roadway. Since a horse has to be away from the road, there Will be an area between the house and the road. ?`he 60 dB required by P14--17 the General Plan has to be applied to this outdoor area.. No other solution is credible. Illingham, the developer's own consultant, wanted e i 100 foot setback from the edge of Alhambra Valleys Road in order to fulfill the 66 dB noise requirement. I read a letter from the developer asking for , 100 feet from the center of the road.. Now I see the recommendation is no longer there. Again, require the 100 foot setback as the General Plan requires it. w There is great controversy;<about the wastewater solations for the subdivision. Originally the developer wanted a force main pressurized line) to Sage Drive because a gravity flow sewer line woW not be T14-18 s approved by the homeowners in a Local Improvement District (LID). He also has the alternative of a pressurized line along Alhambra Malley Read 2-90 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR W County files#SDO28634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENT'S AND RESPONSES to Gilbert Dane.. I do know that a majority of homeowners do not want a LID because everyone is forced to join the Sanitary District and pay a huge construction cost if 51% of the people Grote for it. Protecting the P1 4-18 rural atmosphere of the Valley and costs are the principal reasons homeowners are against a M. As you can see, Christine, the Draft EIR is fundamentally inadequate, and I hope that you will use your influence to improve it. Sincerely, Marie Olson, Resident of Alhambra Valley 22 Wanda Way Martinez, CA M55 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files##51028634 & RZ023112 2-91 September 2004 2; COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES P14 Marie Olson 22 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P14-1 Opinion is acknowledged. P14-2 Comments are acknowledged regarding Parcel A. Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway parcel. P14-3 Please refer to Master;Response A5 regarding tree protection and Master Response 136 regarding relocation of the subdivision entrance. P14-4 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding the setback of homes from Alhambra Valley Road, P14-5 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding homes facing Alhambra Valley Road. P14-6 Comments are acknowledged regarding the size of the homes. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of homes. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P14-7 Comments are acknowledged regarding 3-car garages. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P14-8 Comments are acknowledged, These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff:report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P14-9 Comments are acknowledged regarding flag lots. Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding flag lots. P14-10 Comments are acknowledged regarding the height of homes. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding house size and height. P14-11 Comments acknowledged regarding lot sizes. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P14-12 Comments are acknowledged regarding the proposed zoning change. As indicated on page 3-79 of the DEIR, the entire project site is designated for low density residential uses by the Specific Plan and R-20 zoning is included as a compatible zoning for the site. P14-13 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning the A-2 parcel to R-40 zoning, This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P14-14 Please refer to Master Response E1 regarding the response to increasing the setback around the Arroyo del Hambre to protect listed species and habitat. P14-15 Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development in the 100- year floodptain. 2-92 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P14-16Comments acknowledged regarding the desirability of placing the 48-inch drainage pipe on the west side of the road. Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding the relocation of the pipe. P14-17 Please refer to Master Response F1 regarding noise setbacks for houses along Alhambra Valley Road. P14-18 Comments acknowledged regarding the sewer alternatives and formation of an Improvement District. Please refer to Master Response D1 and Alternative 5.5 in the DEIR regarding sanitary sewer service options. The author's comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files# D028634& RZ023112 2-53 September 2004 2: COMM1=N7'S AND RESPONSES 4A.,414- 1c34A ;4 Pi 5-1 P15-2 r,Ft ��d.L 17J4 14 e44" Ally 1 r €P15-3 7-d , .4r' 51 ia.l f.#� ,,:^~ �" J �„�°.tom •� .., 3 ' 1.4 d . sem r ' wren at5-d,,�L 4A/ IP15-4 2-94 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E[R -County files#SD028634& R 023112 September 2004 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PIS Unsigned Comment P15-1 Opinion is acknowledged regarding house sizes. P15-2 Opinion is acknowledged regarding garages. P15-3 Opinion is acknowledged regarding creek setback. P15-4 Opinion is acknowledged. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County fibs#SD028634& RZ023112 2-95V September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES John Sala 546.5 Stonehurst Tar. Martinez,Ca.94553 r w t� To Whom.It May Concern; The draft EER for he Alhambra Valley Estates floes not adequately address many issues. This area roust be preserved as the"scenic gateway"to the A lx bra Valley.This means ? that the houses must be built an adequate distance from the wain streets of Alhambra P16--1 Valley and Reliez Valley Roach. The hooses must few enough to allow adequate space between the homes as the rest in the area are spaced. The entry to the suladivision needs to be relocated so no major trees are removed.Trees 4, x'16-2 5,and 6 must be saved. The area of land near the creel:should remain zoned allowing one house per 5 acres. P 1,6—3 This ,6-- This area includes creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks and wild life setbacks.These �P1 --4 setbacks need to be preserved. I also think traffic would be impacted more then this report suggests. P16-5 Sincerely, John Sala 2.96 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& R 023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P16 John Sala 5425 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P16-1 'comments are acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding housing setbacks from Alhambra Valley Road. P16-2 'Please refer to Master Responses A5 regarding tree preservation and B6 regarding relocation of the subdivision entrance. P16-3 'Comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P16-4 Comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fitl and development in the 100-year floodplain, Master Response E1 regarding creek setbacks, and Master Response E2 regarding protection of special status wildlife species. P16-5 Comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response 82 regarding trip generation estimates. Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-97 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Kathleen Robishaw 5425 Stonehurst Dr. Martinez,Ca.94553 To Whom ItMay Concern. I am very disappointed in the draft EIR on the"Alhambra Valley Estates"at the comer of Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley roads. The homes built need to ft in with the current rural atmosphere of the area. This means the homes must have adequate spacing P1 7--1 between one another,and should not have the backs of the homes facing the street.They should also be appropriately set back from the street as are other homes in the area. I think the impact that a development like this would have on the traff c has been underestimated. There is already a problem with traffic during school drop off and pick P17---2 up at John Swett Elensentry school.This report suggests that each,home will average 2 trips a day. If it is a family with kids heeding to get to and from,school and activities,it will be far more then 2 trips a day. Furthemore,I am very concerned that it is even being considered to rezone the 4,5 acre parcel of land next to the creek to allow one house per half acre instead of maintaining { the current I house for 5 acres. This is an environmentally sensitive area which is why it P17-3 was zoned differently from the rest of the property. I hope you will consider these concerns. ThFk you, F Kathy Robishaw 2-98 Alhambra Valley Estates !Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P17 Kathleen Robishaw 5425 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P17-1 Comments are acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. P17-2 Please refer to Master Response @3 regarding traffic safety and trips around John Swett Elementary School. P17-3 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning of the A-2 parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan designates the entire project area as low- density residential, and identifies the proposed R-20 zoning as being consistent with the Plan. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#S€ 028634& RZ023112 2-99 September 2004 ................... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 19,2004 Contra Costa County Community Developrinent Department 651 Pine Street,4t?'Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94563 At'ention:Christine Gregory Re; Draft EIR for Alh err,bra Val'iey Estates Dear Ms.Gregory, My comments regarding the draft EIR for Alhambra Vailey Estates follow: Pages 3-11 and 13-13 'Substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista'Is discussed or 3-11.3-13 discusses the proposed size of homes(square feet and storlas/haightt).Most houses along Alhambra and Rellez Valley Roads are single story,and substantially less than 3000-4500 square feet in size.Allowing the construction of these massive,multi-story homes,visible from Pi 8-1 Alhambra Valley Road would have a severe,adverse effect on the scanicvista.Limiting the number of two-story homes built to those tome sites farthest from Ali embra Valley Road would mitigate this impact. Page 3-13 Footnote 1 states that the Developer has not'pro.posed specific architectural designs for the future residential units'.Given the consideration given to environmental,aesthetic and related'quality of life'issues in the Contra Costa County General Plan and Alhambra j P18-2 Valley Specific Plan,approval of the draft EIR should not be made until after the designs have been submitted and reviewed as part of the draft.Elk Page 3-29 Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 is inadequate,1M that it does not require Purchasers to agree to accept the agricultural area condition and forfeit their ability to bring legal action to p18-3 prevent activities associated with living in an agricultural area,The statement should be amended to require their acceptance. Page 3-4 Scenic Routes Policy 5-34 refers to'protecting attractive natural quaiiflas adjacent to various roads throughout the county'. Removal of trees along Alhambra Valley Road violates this Policy and would degrade the visual Impact an p6opie driving along the road, ]118-4 `his is supported by section E,Goal 1;Policy 6 referred to an page 3-7,as well as section F,Coal 2, Policy 4(second sentence). Page 3-65 The following issue is Ignored or missing in the plan: Page 3-65,Coal 2,Policy 11: 'prohibit development In FEMA 100-year flood zones'. I P1 8-5 Page 3-74 makes reference to this in impact 3.8=3. However this item makes reference to a non-existent mitigation measure,3.8-9. if'his is meant to be 3.8-8,which appears in this section,It violates the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan Coal 2,Policy 1. Page 3-74 2-100 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SDO28634 &RZ023112 September 2004 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 is related to the 100-year flood zone issue,bu:dols riot adequately address this possibility that a`159-year storm event cannot be safety conveyed through the project site',T he mitigation measure only requires the submittal of e new drainage plan, but doss not,limit the impact that anew dralnaga p€an may have on Pi 8-6 the overall project.It seems appropriate that if it is necessary to prepare a new drainage pian,it should have no impact nor cause e change to any other County goats or policies, or othar mitigation efforts proposed in the Elk. Traffic The traffic flow data presented in section 3.12 appears to be inadequate,The study was performed on a Friday which is arguably a lighter-than-normal traffic day;the data collected for point 2(intersection of Alhambra and Reliez Valley Roads)is Inconsistent P18-7 with earlier data from studies dome on 912911993,812111996,.8/312000 anti 8J8/2ooO,The volumes presented in the FIR appear to be about 40%lower than the volumes from the earlier studies. The data does not appear to consider trips made to John Swett.Elementary School. 'I'M assuming that sortie parents will be driving the children to this school).Congestion at the P18-8 school caused by parents dropping their children off"already presents a driving hazard In the mornings. Thee homes will have three-car garages.The study presented dries not appear to take ������ this into account. Page 6-2 Notably missing from those contacted are the Alhambra Watershed Action Group and Muir Heritage Land Trust.Given their involvement in environmental as well as historical Pi 8-10 issues related to the project area,their exclusion leaves a major source of information untapped.Approval of the draft Elk with hese groups`input should not be made. Mage 5-3 Section 5.5 discusses Wastewater disposal.The Deveiopees proposed solution satisfies its need In tents of cost and profit,rather than the interests of new and existing homeowners and the CC SD.Relevant governmental policies that affect this project are P18-11 not concerned with mating a Developer's profit expectations,Assuming the project moves forward,It shouid do so using the CCCSD's Favored gravity flow solution. Regards, G' Jahn Johnston 41 Wands Way Martinez,GA 54553 Phone.22943152 Email:uptoome yahoo.eorn Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-101 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P18 John Johnston 41 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94583 P18-1 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of homes. P18-2 Comment is acknowledged. The EIR addresses the envelope of potential environmental and visual impacts for houses of the allowable size under the proposed zoning, but is not a design document. P18-3 Comment is acknowledged. Contra Costa County's "right to farm" ordinance requires"notification of purchasers and users of property adjacent to or near agricultural operations of the inherent potential problems associated with such purchase or residential use."The ordinance does not require purchasers to enter into any kind of contractual agreement to forfeit their right to litigate future grievances related to the agricultural operations. P18-4 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P18-5 Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development in the 100- year floodplain. Comment is acknowledged regarding the adequacy of Mitigation Measure 3.8-8. P18-6 Please refer to Master Response C3"regarding the capacity of the storm drain system to accommodate 100-year flow through the site. P18-7 Please refer to Master Response t31 regarding traffic counts. P18-8 Please refer to Master Response 133 regarding project traffic impacts associated with Join Swett Elementary School. Comment is acknowledged regarding the present driving hazard near the school. P18-9 Comment is acknowledged regarding 3-car garages. The size of garages is not relevant to trip generation rates that are based on criteria from the institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Please refer to Master Response 132 regarding trip generation estimates for the project, P18-10 The Muir Heritage Land Trust provided comments on the dEIR„ please see comment letter A3 and responses. Comment is acknowledged regarding Alhambra Watershed Action Group for future notice. P18-11 Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response a1 regarding the gravity flow alternative and to the response to comment letter AA2 from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The District must approve the sanitary sewer approach and annexation prior to the Final Map approval for the project. 2-102 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES �vA-RY LOU JOHNSON 5151 ALHAMBRA VALLEY. RD. ,MARTINEZ, CA94553 Re: Alhambra Valley Estates SDO28634&#Rz023 1 12 A m4 Christine Gregory Dear Christine, I'm writing to express our concerns regarding the Alhambra Valley Estates. We live on the straight away from Wanda Way to the T. The purposed development Will definitely have a greater impact on as who live on this section of the road. We.live on the east side of A.V.R.a Quoting from the Alhambra Valley Speck Plan,( the massing of new dwellings � should be compatible with natural selfings) County General Plan,(Scenic views observablefrom scenic.rotates shall be consetwd,en atreed and pita cted. In regards to these quotes I hope you will consider to enlarged Parcel A at the corner ofthe T to enhance the"Scenic Gateway"view.. Native plants should be used here. This comer parcel is separated from the 23'lots and is supposed to announce the entrance to the entire P19_1. valley: This first perception oft is Valley when approached from the east or west should have an open-space appearance in keeping with the rural atmosphere, If this project aides go through I would like if they would start planting redwv od trees on the property line inside of the split rail fence as soon a possible.This will give the trees a head start and I feel would hide the possible of this development from encroaching onto A.V.R.and keeping with the natural setting as quoted above plus A.V, ,P.(P-36) "Site building to avoidprominence„ Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, (the massive to new dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting. Banes next to A:.V.R.should be keit back 100 feet from the center of the road to.protect the"gateway"scenic views of the ridgelines. (SP I1) Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which mal ntains the ruralfresidential atmosphere In AV We.have great concerns on the height of"the homes. We fee it is best to comply with(SP)to avoid having two stories homes especially along P19-2. AVP. With two stories they will encroach the views of ridgeli es and will not comply with the overall valley atmosphere and meet the standards of the(aP27)new development should complement the existing environment in terms c f form, scale and physical appearance. We want to make sure we do not end asp with the type of homes that were built on the PPL Golf Course property. Mr.Busby,you promised that would not happen, Entrance to the Estates: I strongly recommend that you reconsider the entrance into the development. Wewould like you to keep the Malley Oak Tree right across from Quail Hollow,to do this we suggest that youu consider moving the entrance amass frogs Pi 9--3 Montiera. Will maps a deal:with you,you can have the Black Walnut and the Comphor Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R -County files#S€ 028634 RZ023112 2-103 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES trees in exchange for the Valley Oak. This purposed change will also help with the �P1 9-3 water runoff explained later in the letter. FLAG LOTS- The three flag lots 6,11,23,should be eliminated to avoid a congested � appearance within the development. I believe in the beginning there were only going to be 20 homes,now you have thrown in these flag lots to bring the total.up to 23.You had :P1 —4 stated that this development will include all custom homes and not create acorgestive look that these flag lots will create. Water Runaff: Now,Tin highly emotional on this subject.We live on the east side of AN.R.between Wanda Way and the T. We have lived here for'almost 20 years and the last several years waxer running along our side the A.V.R had increased. Apparently when a home was built along the creek off of Reliez V.R.they managed to divert the E water runoff from their property and diverted it towards Reliez and not into the'creek j which it should have(Alhambra Creek). Several residences on Releiz have their diverted water to run between two homes on Monteria 9 5&#6. The water then runs down. P19--6 Monteria and down the east side of A.V.R. The seater travels north towards Wanda Way,crosses the road in dont of the Russo home and fall into the creek,wrest side of the culvert. I don't know if this problem can be corrected but I'm trying to encourage you to beep the 48 inch retention pipe on the west side of A.V.R..and empty upstream,from the culvert. There areno homes close enough to this outfall to be immediately threatened. Please consider looking at the possibility of the water entering the Vly,Road from Monteria be connected to the 48inoh pipe your proposing. 'flus wuald elevate the erosion of the road on the east side and make travelling north safer.There are no culverts � on the east side to handle this run off as there is on the west side. ! TRAFFIC:IC: Traffic is always an issue especially on the straightaway. I only wish their was someway you can coxae up with a way to slow traffic. With these additional homes I F 1 9-6 there will definitely be some increase of road traffic. Please take this in consideration. We have tried to come up with.solutions. Stop Signs,Speed Bumps,put a curve in the road,I know the latter is impossible but lei's think about this. We appreciate you listening to our concerns on the proposed.wall. This is our neighborhood and we will be here for years to come and have to look at this development and it's ixnrsact it will have in t tis i m6di:ate area. We welcome new neighbors and know the new residents will help preserve the beautiful Alhambra Malley rural arca that it is now when they are designing their homes. Respectfully, Nary Lou Johnson 2-104 Alhambra Valley Estates Final t IR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P19 Mary Lou Johnson 5131 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez, CA 94553 P19-1 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. Comment is acknowledged regarding early planting of trees. P19-2 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding the setback of homes from Alhambra Valley Roan and Master Response A3 regarding the size of homes. Comment is acknowledged regarding reference to the type of homes built on the P.H. Golf Course property. P19-3 Please refer to Master Response B6 regarding the location of the entrance road to Alhambra Valley Estates and Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P19-4 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P19-5 Comments are acknowledged regarding existing drainage problems. Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding relocation of the 48-inch drainage pipe. As noted, a project applicant is not typically required to mitigate existing drainage problems from other existing development, and the DEIR is not required to provide an evaluation of such oft'-site impacts. The possibility of including a drop inlet on the east side of Alhambra Valley Road to decrease runoff in the roadside drainage ditch along the east side of the road may be considered by the project engineer and the County's Public Works Department in final project design. P19-6 Comment is acknowledged regarding speeding traffic along Alhambra Valley Road. Please refer to Mester Response B7 regarding traffic slowing measures along the road. Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R-County files#SC1025634& RZ023112 2-105 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Aprih 15,2004 Contra Costa County Commianity Development Department �k 651 Pine St.,4�_Floor North Wi ig Mzztmez,CA 94553 Attention, Christine Gregory Re: Alhambra Valley Estates County Files#SDO25634 and#R,023112 Drfr EJ Dear Ms.Gregory: in reference to the proposed subdivision acrd the Draft EIR,here are_Fray continents, Section 2:Project3DescAption Alhambra-Valley Gateway(Parcel A).This provides,for a 633 squaw feat parcel,which would be improved. Comment; This parcel is too small and should be enlarged. Itis the valley,gateway areal as sncli er aces �P��_t the first impremion.and entrance.w the entire valley. `st should not bz e a stonewall Bence and: pcanLs should be used to preserve the rural atmosphere; Project Site Access and Cri-Site Circuiabon.'Two(2)of the proposed•lots(Lots 11.and 23)are a flag-lot de5ig ri", Coxrmaentw This files-lot desigi,should not be allowed. 7t creates arGatdaanfsuburbau appeararice,which is 7 contrary to the Alhambra Valley Spesnf"ic Flan to"preserve and enhance both the natural and man-made P20-2 eavirrinment zn Alhambra.Valley". However,the EtR does not address this.I would'.i T to see an alternative expressed in the Final EM that does not mclnde a flatg-lot.design. Section 3:tavironmental Impact Analyses rotendal-impact 3.1-I,Substcoticl aerre effect on a scenic vista � T,ee Removal: "Widening of the roadwey will reiiult in the removal of 3 tress..: The proposed removal of i these trees would be highly visible... Removal of the ax sting roadside trees would result in a substantial reductio:of Visual quality along Alhambra Valley Road,and thus,the,generation of a significant visual impact" �P20--3 Comment: No.mitigation measure teas been suggested Haat world preventsemovarl of the ixees. Tile Alhambra Valley Specific flan states that"+e-asting trees along Alhambra Valley and Patter Dalley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and all clouts shall be made to preserve theme"� A '. mitigation measure should be identified and included in the Final BIR that would avoid removal of these trees. . Landscape Improvements. 'The visibility of this landscaping would In time re-astablish some cr`,the vegetated character along Alhambra Valley Road and the project ste, aithough this landscaping could also contribute to a more suburban--style appearenra.than what currently wrists and could detract from the rural character of the Valley.This could be regarded as a potentiai€y significant v£suai impact, P20-4 I+ Mitigation Measure 3.1-1. Use a,greater Mgt of".plam species that are native to the area and include non- linear plantings of all landscape materials. ,Comment: Thus mitigation measure does+cat address the issue of creating a more suburban-style appearance the what currently exists. The mitigation measure is not sufficient and is contrary to the Alhambra Valley Speei is plan. 2-1076 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD0728634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMEWS AND RESPONSES Site design -i Residential Structures. `although the proposed residences would block some views to the hilts,the removal of existing trees along Alhambra V6ey Road would open up similar views.As a result no net loss of hillside views is expected,although as the proposed edge landscaping matures those views may incrementally diminish" P20-5 Comments 'fills is in effect saying that the residences will block some of the existing views but that is acceptable because we will,cut down trees to retain access to the views,but also that in time the proposed landscaping will diminish the views. Therefore,the mitigation measure is insufficient, It allows for replacing trees with residences knowing that fixture landscaping will again Obscure the hillside views. "Two-story residences would have a greater effect on the visual character of the site and its setting than single-story residences. This could be regarded as a potentially significant impact on a scenic vista. Wi tigation Measure 3,1-4. Limit hots 1,3 and 6,22,and 23 to one-story. Comment: This mitigation measure is insufficient.The Circulation Element of the General flan states that "Controls should be applied to retain and enhance scenic qualities...control height of structures..." !P20-6 Additional lots should be designated as one-story,ensuring that two-story residences are allowed only at the rear of the subdivision. Sp=&tally..Lots 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,17,18,20,and 21 should be limited to one-story. In effect,this solution allows for two-story residences to be erected on only Lots 12,13, 14, 15,16,and 19. Since these are at minimum one-half acre lots;it would seem that t4ey are large enough to build 3,000 to 4,500 square feet homes. Also consider that five of the 7 homes along the site's Alhambra Valley Road frontage are single story. Two-story homes near Alhambra Valley Road would disrupt the scenic value of the valley. Potential Impact 3.1-2:Substantial damage to scenic resources,including trees,rock outcroppings,and historic&uildings. "After full development of the project site, horticultural practices could lead to the premature demise of trees proposed for retention orto be installed as part of'the project Demise of these �2�-7 trees could be considered a significant impact on scanic resources;however,implementation.of fAltigation Measure 3.1-1 would reduce these?mpacts to less than significant levels. Comment: lulitigation 3.1-1 floes not do enough to mitigate the potential demise of trees on the site. In effect;it allows for homeowners to cut down trees as they install their own landscaping. Additional mitigation is requested. Potential Impact 3.1-3:Substantially degrade the erivang visual character or quality gfthe site and its � surrounding's. i Gateway.Tate proposed Gateway design includes elements that would appear more comparable with those # found in a typical urbanisuburban setting,rather than with the rural character that is favored by the Specific Elan.Those elements include Ornamental landscape materials and the stone.wail. This could he a P20-8 considered a potentially significant impact on the area's visual character. Mitigation Measure 3,1-5 requires the revised plait shall illustrate the exclusive use of plant species that are native to the area. Comment: This mitigation is insufficient, There are no specifics on what the stonewall would lock Like or whether there would be lettering on the wall. I request further mitigation be investigated to include the denial for a stonewall. A stonewall would be contrary to the Alhambra Valley Specific Flan, Potential Impact 3.1-4.Creation of a new source af'light and glare. "The proposed installation of streetlights throughout the project site's interior would represent a potentleily significant nsw source of light and glare." Mitigation Measure 3.1-8. 'Tho revised plan shall include the use of shielded fixtures/globes that direct P20-9 light downward,and have an incandescent light color. Comment; Tnxis mitigation measure is insufficient This mitigation measure does not ga far enough.A better.mitigation measure would be to have no streetlights at all. In the Alhambra Valley,there are no other streetlights in the residential areas. To allow them in this subdivision would create a more urban appearance and therefore be contrary to the Alhambra Valley Specific flan. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SDO28634& RZO23112 2-1037 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Environmental Analvsis/Areas of Potential Environmental Conceruf1mi)acts anti?litigation 1 Irl:pact 3.2-L. Conversion ofPri`nie Farnslard, Unique F,,irrnland o,"Fanulanas ofslarelvide Importance. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 provides for a conservation easement for a minimum of 15 acres of existing _ agricultural laud...as closely a possible to-the project area. 1 0 Comment: More detail is required in the Final Eft.as to exactly where this I3-acre offsetting easement i5 located. Potentiallrrtpact 3. -1. Tak,ng ar harassrnant nfsensitive plant c sc?anirnal,pecies cr damage to their habitats, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 provides for construction restrictions,avoidance of species,and of-site relocation or reola.cement. Comment: This is in reference to the whipsnake,California red legged,frog ardlor the western pond turtle. �P20-11 I Tire:final EIR should be more specific as to the mitigation measure and require construction restrictions and avoidance of species,out IN&off'-site relocations or replacement. Accepted environmental theory 1 holds L'hat o5-site relocation or replacement is nct at all effective for the contissx.;ed viability of the species in question. Potential Impact 3.12-1.Suhstannali i increase t-rajc on.area roads beyor d their existing or planneat --t design mics operating capacity. "Predicted traffic flow.conditions,.bdsed.on the expected 63 residents and 220.dally trips,,.' F}2{l-1� Comment-, The nu nberr of expected residents seems low for this type of subdivision and is based on the assumption of less than dime residents pet hamee. Given that these Domes will be 3,000 to 4,530 square feet,one might assume that an average would be at least four per home. The Final EIR should re-exaMilse the assumption and adjust the projected daily trips. Potential Impact 3.12-3 Trak conditions that could be considered hazardous or dangerous Project re Access:"The app;icant has proposed removal of the mature trees along the project site`s Alhambra Malley Road frontage—widening Alhambra Valley Road—would place the Rcad's travel lanes too close to those trees and could result in a potentially slgnificanttraffic safety impact if not removed." Comment: The EIR fails to address a mitigation nneasr¢e to avoid the removal of these trees. it is P20-13 conceivable that a different plan for the widening of the road could prevent removal of these trees. ;iowever,the EIR simply accepts that the trees should be removed without requirng investigation of alternatives in the widening of the road and installation of.a bicycle and equestrian trails. Z,a Is could be moved.farther to the west. The widening of the road could be designed such that one lane is to dee west of the trees. I would life to see the Huai EIR include this potential mitigation. Potential Impact 3.12-3 ConjVct with established transportation Policies PedestrianlEicycle and.Enuestriars.tigcess.."The projec.~twould include construction of an 8-foot wide paved pedestrian/bicycle path and a 6-foot wide wood chip equestrian trail within a proposed dedication cf 22 feet of add Handl ogbt-of-way. T"ne path and trail would extend along,the entire projeci frontage of AJharnbra Valley Road Comment While the BIR states that the proposed ficilides.are consistent with provisions of the Alhambra 1 Valley Specific Plan's vision for trails,the Ea fails to address the logic and appropriate-cess of placing an 1� 2f}-14 equestrian trail adorsg.the project frontage.Ctmu on sense would ask what the value is of this short trail that begins nowhere and leads nowhere. In essence,the equestrian trail would extend for only a short deagtls along Alhambra Valley Road,.beginniag and ending with no trail... Horses and riders would need to travel along Alhambra Valley Road where this is no trail and where a great deal of traffic flows.This would create a hazardous acid dangerous mad condition,yet nowhere in the EIR is this addressed. We already s have very dangerous conditions when bicyclists travel along A3 umbra Va31ey Road. It is difficult for cars to get around them. If we add-to that horses and curers,it would magnify the already-existing problem we have. 2-108 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County fees#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ;section 4:Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts Biological Resources.'Cumuietiveiy,in combination with other projects in the area,the proposed project would continue a trend of removing foraging habitat which could ultimately have an impact on the future of a varety of projected species, and i7 particular, raptors. The impact at this time is not cumulative considerable or significant." Comment: The Eft does not state what`other projects in the area'are. I would like the mal EI:R.to identify and state the other projects and re-examine cumulative impact. If other projects are in process or P20-15 approved,they shociid be included in this analysis so that we may deten ine whether approval of this l project would then contribute to an impact. Specifically,I would like the Final EI.tc state ownership of the triangular parcel south of the project site and whether there is any planned development on that site. Finally, Section 3.4 Biological Resources,Wildlife states that"Several large stick nests were ooserved in the trees along Vaca Greek.These rxsts could potentially become raptor nests in the future." Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, T Androms 14 Cxordon Way Martinez,CA 94553 (925)228-1883 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-109 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P20 Janet Andronis 148 Gordon Way Martinez, SCA 94553 P20-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding enlarging Parcel A. Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. P20-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding allowing flag lots. Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P20-3 Comment is acknowledged regarding removal of trees. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P20-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding the adequacy of landscape mitigation. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is intended to avoid a suburban appearance by requiring more native and less formal appearance. P20-5 Comment is acknowledged. Mitigation measure 3.1-4 is proposed to reduce the height of homes fronting Alhambra Valley Road to one-story, resulting in a less than significant impact on views. The statement in the DEIR recognizes that over time vegetation will grow tall enough to diminish some views, but would not comprise a significant impact. P20-6 Comment is acknowledged regarding two-story homes. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding single-story homes to protect views. leo homes along Alhambra Valley Road are proposed to be two stories in height, after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-4. P20-7 Comment is acknowledged. The future actions of property owners in addressing site landscaping is beyond the scope of the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 will, however, address substantial areas within the road right-of-way and the entryway to the project. These areas will be maintained by the project's homeowners association, rather than by individual owners. P20-8 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. P20-9 Comment is acknowledged requesting no street lights. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P20-10 Comment is acknowledged. The exact location of the agricultural easement (if required) cannot be determined at this time. Mitigation Measure 3-2.1 requires that the easement property be "available as close as possible to the project area, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." The location of the easement will depend on the availability of property for such easements at the time of final project approval. P20-11 Please refer to Master Response E2 regarding the response to mitigation of impacts to sensitive species if they are identified. P20-12 Please refer to Master Response B2 regarding project trip generation estimates. P20-13 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation and to Master Response B6 regarding relocation of the entry to the subdivision. P20-14 Comments are acknowledged regarding existing traffic hazards for bicyclists and others. Please refer to Master Response B5 regarding the trail along Alhambra Valley Road. 24110 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR - County files#SD028634& RZ02311.2 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P20-15 The discussion on page 3-89 of the DEIR states that other projects in the area were identified to include only 3 small infill projects totaling 26 units, located in Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Lafayette. Rather than rely on these specific projects to define future trip estimates, however, the traffic analysis used traffic ,growth estimates from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority {OCTA} to identify future volumes for Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road. None of the three projects is close enough to impact any of the other environmental factors addressed in the DEIR. There is currently no planned development on the triangular parcel south of the project site. Comment is acknowledged regarding the stick nests along Vaca Greek. Those trees would be within the creek setback required for the property, and would be protected during and after construction. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ0231 fit 2-111 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO Whom It May c . The dry,EER.fbr the Alhambra Valley Estates does mot adequately a ddreas many issues, This area=vA be pmwrved as the"WxWc gateway"to the AU=ibm Valley,This Mean-- P 21 � that the houses must be built an urate £row the main streets of.Alh=bm VWl;rcy UA Rellez Valley Roads. The bouses must few enough to allow adequate betweez the Mmes as the zest in the arcs are Mmed. The entry to the subdivision rne>e&to be relocated 3o no n*or trees=rftnove&Frees 4, P21-2 5,aW 6 must be saves The am of land mean the creek shmild remain 2=d allowing one house per 5 acres. Ibis ares,irrludes cretk setbacks, 100 yew flood setbacks and wild lid satlaclo.Then P21-3 Wbacks need to be preserved, I also tbh*trek WnpWd be impacted mom then this report suggests. P21-4 Dawn Roth 5330 Stonehurst Drive Uartlner, C811fcrnle 94633 2-112 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P21 Dawn Roth 5334 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P21-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding the DEIR. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. P21-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding saving trees. Please refer to Master Response D6 regarding the relocation of the entrance driveway to Alhambra Valley Estates and Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P21-3 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning. Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding development in the floodplain, Master Response E1 regarding the creek setback; and Master Response E2 regarding protection of wildlife species. P21-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding trips. Please refer to Master Response 82 regarding trip generation estimates for the project. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-113 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES John 5425 5tonehurst I5r.. INfartine ,Ca.94553 y ZN To Whom It May Concern: The draft EIR for the Alhambra Valley Estates does not adequately address many issues. This area must be preserved as the"scenic gateway"to the Alhambra Valley.This paeans E P2 – that the houses must be built an adequate distance from the main streets of Alhambra � 'Walley and Reliez Valley Roads. The houses must few enough to allow adequate space ' between,the Homes as the rest in the area are spaced. Tlae entry to the subdivision needs to be relocated so no major trees are removed.Trees 4, ,P22-2 5.and 5 must be saved. 3 The area of land near the creek should remain zoned allowing one house per 5 acres. 22-3 This area includes creek setbacks,100 year flood setbacks and wild life setbacks.These ,t setbacks need to be preserved, I also think traffic would be impacted more then this report suggests. f / I P22-4 1 Sincerely, Yf bn Sara } / i ISr _ z ki- ! (j 022-8 Cad C 2-114 — Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028034 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P22 Julie and Steve Weiss 4950 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez, CA 94553 P22-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding the DEIR. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. P22-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding saving trees. Please refer to Master Response B6 regarding the relocation of the entrance driveway to Alhambra Valley Estates and Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P22-3 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning. Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding development in the floodplain, Master Response E1 regarding the creek setback, and Master Response E2 regarding protection of wildlife species. P22-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding trips. Please refer to Master Response B2 regarding trip generation estimates for the project. P22-5 The proposed development would be served by a sanitary sewer line connected to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District sewer system. Please refer to Section 3.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the DEIR for a discussion of the proposed sewer system and to Section 5.5 for a discussion of alternative approaches to sewer service. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-115 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .# IDII To Whom It May Canacern. I arra very disappointed in the initial Ems.on the"Albamhra Valley Estates"at the corner of Roliez Vsllep,raid Alhambra Valley roads. The homes built need to fit is withlira cruxent rural atmosphere of the area, This anew;the homes must have radcquate spacing P23-1 between one another,and abould trot have the backs oft the homes facing the street They J should also be app mpriately act back,from the street as are otber;homes in the area, T think the impact that a development like this would Itim on the tater+has bean ' undma timated. 'There is already a problems with trafns daring Wwoi drop aff and pick �P23-2 up at John Swan Eienaentry school,This rquxt suggests that each home will average 2 trips a day. If it is a fianily with kids me-ding to got to and from school and activities,it will be:E'er more theca 2 trips a day. Furthcnz m,I errs very emxoned that it is even being considered.to rextte dw 4.5 wre ,pal oflattd rpt to the eek to allow one house per Iralf acre instew ofmaintait ng j P23-3 the ewrent I house far 5 ate. This is an catvirouxuraatally sMEWve area which is way it was armed differently ftm the rest of the property. I Dope you will consider tbew concerns. you, ED AND DAWN ROTH 53301 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94683 Ck 2-116 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 ....................... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P23 Ed and Dawn Rath 5330 Stonehurst Drive Martinez, CA 94553 P23-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding the DEIR. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. P23-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding traffic estimates. Please refer to Master Response 82 regarding trip generation estimates and to Master Response B3 regarding traffic impacts related to John Swett Elementary School, P23-3 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning the 4.5-acre parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan designates the entire project area as low-density residential and R-20 zoning is consistent with that designation. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-117 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES t q April 19, 2004 Dear Christine Gregory, Contra costa County Community Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising our community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, healthy environments. Cour particular concern is the sgr3iously, inadeauate Draft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, {the T, . It is apparent that the developer has not given enough regard rior respect to the carefully documented Alharrbra Valley Spe,chfLic Plan which identifies Resiez Valle} !P24-1 and Alhambra Valley Roads` as "scenic routes" page 24 and E a "Designated Gateway.' p �-4, Nor has the developer made j adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply � to this land. 1 One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to pres. rve the rural atmosphere. of the Valley. she following is a hist of some ways that we fees the EIR and the application should be improved, based on. guidelines quoted from the GC County General Plan and. the Alhambra Valley Specific .Pian. *1. Parcel j� at the corner of the T should be enlarged ! to enhance the "Scenic Gateway"' view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the ,entire valley. This first perception of the 'Valley when .appros.ched from the east or west should have an open-space appearance in keeping with the rural atmosphere. The Al.haxabra Valley S ecifi.c Plan on p,10 states, P24-2 '•Enhance vie�ts f`r= des grated Valley Gateways, szrecifiaa 1v Alhambra Valley Road at Relie2 Valley Road." AND, do page 24, the Specific Pian states, The plan. "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez valley ,Road as scenic routes: . Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area which will help frame the visitor's perception of the area 2-118 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra 'v=alley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these x,24-2 gateways." The CpNTRA CCrsTsJL? ?'Y G7ERAt, 73A1+7 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be s � e*+hanc€rd,anid pr�rto ec;ed to the extent possible. *2. 'It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic' views of .the, ridgel.ines. Again, the CONTRA CQS�A CCS Y 92T RA b RLM 5-35 states, "`,scenic views observable from s 11J u ebutea shall be .cgnserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible.„ Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The A&WgdS� VA Y.$2=11= R on p.10 states, "enhance views from designated volley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Relie-z Valley Road P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra Valley Read and, P24_..3 Reliez ,Talley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the. surrouridinq .ar•ea.fow residents and those traveling through the Valley. A Valley gateway is aft area which will help framethe visitor,.' perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Vg1ley Road is a "ue$lrnated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan 43 to presetJe existing views from the gateways." 2.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of developmpnt and reduce the environmental impact of leveldpment." ii P.36 "Sate building to avoid prominenee." i These concepts were created in ,order to rewire any developer to ccznply accordingly. *3. gouses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000- 50 1 square fest since �no,st exigtibg hones on half-acre lots are approximately 2rCQC' square feet. The P24-4 massive hordes are the precip=inata feature re that will give J the Valley an urban appearance. _1 *4. The majority of the homes. should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing Morse.: it mightbe, that it be necessary, to require otly'one='stDry homes at the roadway perimeter. Tile exJ s4,1 q opekt spade .a�;nggphs e wila. X24-5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 1�i story homes. The few remaining two-story homes shbeul'dd be Xept' in the rear of the property and separatiii as much as popsible. *5. Three car garages should, be'elininat:ed because the vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda tray to the `I` have two car garages. Three car garages are totally otat of P24- character With the neighl=haod. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County fins#SD028634 & RZO23112 September 2004 2-119 2.- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra. Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The P.LRA.MMRA 'VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p. 12 states, "New projects shall be designed t>p blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as mach asposs,ible." P.36 "site b tilding to mold promj,nen e." P. 6 "The massing of new dwel.li.11gs should be compatible �P24-7 with the natural setting." P.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs shall bend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." P.11 "Adopt design standarcJs to regulate new residential developme ;t and which maintains the SUP,L/RES,7,DENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Va11e y fl P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of ,development and reduce the environmental impact of development. P.36 "Site building to svoiLJ prominence." *7. Trees 4 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and thq Camphor at dill: Girt Ranch Road) SHGULD BE SA I . The forty-three inch diameter Valley iP 4-$ Oak has a majestic canopy that 1.1.ends in with the ".51 is ridgeline`" behind it, Any mature trees must remain in order i to comply with the Specific Plan. *S. did entry to ;the subdivision shay d be relocated opposite,MQnteira to save ,tree 4, trine ,Valley Oak. RubIie Works want's any 'entry to• he opposite an:.existing =road; and we are assured that Monte .ra istar enough from the T n.ot . to present a traffic problem. i The ALEANBRA , ALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p,iQ states, P24-9 'Existing treew alone Alhambra Valley and. Reliez Val;loy Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE 'TH-tM.f=' { p.10 "Enhance sews from designated valley gateways, specifically Al.hainbra Valley Read At Reliez Valley load." P.2.4 ""The intent of the Specific Plan is tores,erve existiij`q 7iet4s froze these ,gateways." *9. The 4,.5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivisian and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. 2-124 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County flies#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of 5 The AL At3SRAyALLEY SgECI IC PLAN on p.13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may currant lamer : jiLjnimun lot sizes. " P. o "The county shall encourage agriculture to co.xitinue IP24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." P.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the Semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses .in Alhambra valley; *10. There should be no development within the 1.00 year flood zone. Lots. 15, a4d 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan. ru'les. : P24-11 The A1; -RA SLAY SREPIXIC,_PL on p..� stat"es, "Prohibit' developnent in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones.." *11. There should be a 100 root setback from the tQp of the creek ,bank .tc protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged grog and the .Western Pond 'hurtle. Preserving IP24-12 balance in our ecosys.tere is critical to .a healthy enviran nt. The AI R 'STA.T,Y SPECIFIL:4 d CN' P.34 states, „reduce the envircrmental ix^pact o€ develdpment." ...i *12. The 48 inch surface--water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek .upstx°6am from the culvert, a much less sgnsjtive ani darsger©us Ation than the present proposed outfall..' There are no haMes close enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately threatened. The A4V 3jLkt�Y SgEngid PL 7 on L1.34. states,,. "Future residential development wx.. attain the iev4 or quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized .sewer line) up Alhambra P24-14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage ,Drive. The of qt alternative -is a .pressurized line from'Hill Girt Ranch Road. to Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County fifes#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 —2-121 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 5 of 5 The Draft ESR is so inadequate, if approved as written, threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of Contra Costa county. It is truly our responsibility to revere the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. E Outdoor enthusiasts from a1' over the county and surrounding areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning districts ; and any other plan.hing measures effectinq such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SiN £+RELY, . 3 �GkCCN'V'� 2-122 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (' At ' April 19, 2004 ':,pear Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Development * Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising our community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, wealthy environments. Our particular concern is the sericusIy i.nadeauate ,Draft .EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at ,Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . It is apparent that the developer has not given naugh regard nor respect to the carefully documented lhambra Valley Soeci.fic Plan which identifies Reliez Valley sand Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and j "adequate Gateway p 29. Nor has the developer mads; P24-'1 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning }. ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply ' �to this land. tE, One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list ;'., ,. v,'caf some ways that we feel the E.IR and- the application should be improved, bused on guidelines quoted from the C^ Courity :General plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific flan. " *1. Parcel EA at the corner of the T should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gateway„ view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 n>r lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire ,�val Ley; This first perception of the Valley when approached from the east or west should have an open-space appearance x . din keeping with the rural atmosphere. The Alhambra Valley AReaific Plan on p.10 states, P24-2 "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan "designates Alhambra galley Road and Reliez Valley Road as . scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing xperience of the surrounding area for residents and those ; traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area .Y hich will help frame the visitor's perception of the area Alhambra Valley Estates Final Elf;-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-123 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Pian is to preserve existing views for these jP2 -2 gateways." The CONT-RA COSTA COK.NTY GE ERAL PLM 5-36 states, „Scenic views observable from scenic rotes shall be crserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible, J *2. It :night be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the .a:idgelines. Again, the C07Tr'kA C41SIA COt7Z3TY GENERAL PLAN 5-36 states, t "scenic views observable from scenic .routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very ,possible. The ALA RA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, „enhance views from, designated valley gateways, specifically f Alhambra galley Road at Reliez Vallev Road, I P.24 "the plan designates Aiharu ra Valley Road and, P24 3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area nor residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors' perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Alhanbra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve ; existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." i 2.:36 "Site building to avoid prominence. " ; These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed. 7 3,000-4, 5001 square feet since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,000 square feet. The IP24-4 massive homes are the predominate fea=ture that will give; the Valley an urban appearance. 3 *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes. It might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space atmosphere will .P24-5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 11-� story homes. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as possible, *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the � vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda Way to the have two car garages. Three car garages are totally out of ;x'24-6 character with the neighborhood. 2-124 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EPR--County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 - 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES z b 5 *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested. appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from. Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. 1 The ALEAbMRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.12 states, „New I projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as ressible." P.36 "site building to avoid prominence." 2. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24-'7 With the natural setting." P.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. 2.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and w:-:ich maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley, " P.34 "Reduce the effective visual__bulk of development and reduce the environmental imnact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and. the Camphor at Hill. Girt Ranch Road) SHOULD BE SAVE13. The forty-three inch diameter Valley P24-$ Oak has a majestic canopy that kends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Pian. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Menteira to save tree 4, theValley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T .not to present a traffic problem. The ALRAMI RAVALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, P24- "Existing trees 'along Alhainbra' Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO RRESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhahce views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.2.4 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways." *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setback;, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. � Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County fifes#S©028634& RZ023112 2-125 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. S of 5 The ALARA VAL-LES SPECIFIC PLAN on p. 13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant }a.raer ,minimum lot sizes. " 2.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue jP24-90 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." P.9 "Agriculture Shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley." � *10. 'There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots is and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. P24-1i The ALg�RA VALLEYSPECIFIC PLAN on p. 6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal ,emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones." *„ There should be a 1Q0 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red--Legged Frog and the .Western Pond Turtle. Preserving IP24 92 balance in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The ALAAMHRA VALLEY SPB9_1F:ECPLM ON P.34 states, "reduce ! the environmental impact of development. " *12. The 78 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Read and empty into the creak upstream from the culvert, a much less sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed outfall. There are no homes close enough to thi,: out: all to 1P24-13 be immediately threatened. The AT.HAMBRA VALLEY SPEC..7FIC PLA2d on P.34 states, 3 "Future residential development will attain the level of j quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor 1 a gravity flow sewer system. if that is not attainable, they t are proposing a force :Hain (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra1P24-i4 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage Drive. The other 1 alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. 2-926 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ0239 92 September 2004 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES , P. 5 of 5 r The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of Contra Costa County. It is, truly our responsibility to revere he environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. utdoor enthusiasts from, all over the county and surrounding reas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural P24-15 tmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the "lhambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning districts end any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, 74e7- 5, hJ 2' t ,t Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-127 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ti L IN n P26 April 19, 2004 ear Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising Our community on issues that affect peaceful, beautiful, ealthy environments. (Jur particular concern is the serious:LY inadequate s: raft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at 2liez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, {the T} _ a It is apparent that ; . gar: Yae developer has not Given 1 enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented hairbra Valley Soecifzc Plan which identifies Reliez VaIIey and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and 3 „ iia "Designated Gateway„ p 24. Nor has the developer made P24-1 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning rdinanc:es as well as the CC County General. Plan that apply 'o this land. One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve -r the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list cif some ways that we .feel the EZR and the application shov,ld e improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County ;general Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. � kl. Parcel A at the corner of the T shoed be enlarged' `"o enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should e used here. This corner pazce=, is separated From the 23 io>Ls and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire yfy `ralley. This first perception of the `1a:''.ley when approached a. from the east or west should have an open-space appearance fn keeping with the rural atmosphere. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan ort p.10 states, P24-2 ,0 "Enhance views from designate Valley Gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Toad." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, "The plan � iesigrnates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as ` scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing {' experience of the surrounding area for residents and those 2 traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area hitch will help frame the visitor's perception of the area F As 2-128 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County fins#SD028634 & R 0023112 September 2004 ENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra 'Dalley road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these P24 2 gateways." The COnPUt. COSTA COUNTY OT?MPUX4 PI,AQT 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be _qonserved enhanced,and priptegt to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CCSMTTRA COSTA CQUNTY G L 9L_AN 5-36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,ard protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. f The ALHA BRA VALUX SEXCIrIC RLL, on p.10 states, i „enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically ! Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra Valley Road and. P24-3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will helm frame the visitors' perception: ref the area ,as they pars through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. douses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000-4, 500 square feet since most existing homes on half--acre lots are approximately 2,0070 square feet. The P24_4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes: It might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story horses at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space atmosphere will. P24-5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 1� story homes. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as possible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing homer from Wanda ray to the T, have two car garages. Three car garages are totally out ref �P24--6 character with the neighborhood. Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#S#�028634& RZ023112 SePtember 2004 2-129 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of thea w ll be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west, douses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALSAMERA VALLEYSPECIFIC PLAN on p.12 states, "New projects shall be designed 4o _blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as..possible." P.36 "site building to vo;d nromirk n " E1. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible IP24--7 with the natural setting." P.27 "New development should2 lemtent the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical-, appearance. ! P.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the j SEMI--RURAL CHARACTER of the area.r° !I E1. 11 "Adept design standards to regulate new residential i development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL �! ATMOSPHERE in Alhainbra Malley. " P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and red ce the environmental impact of development." 2.36 "Site building to avoid crominence." *7 . Trees 4, 5, and 6 ache Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch P24_8 Road) SHOULD BE SAVED. The forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees m,4st remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Vallev Oak. PYubl`.c works wants any entry to be opposite an 'existing road, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem:. The ALHAkMRh NMLLEY SP CIFic PLAN on p.1Q states, P24-9 "Existing trees along Alhambra' Valley and Reliez Valley 3 Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and j ALL EF'F'ORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM. p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." l 2.214 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways.'" *9. the 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes; creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. s 2-130 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P, 4 of 3 The AT,E 32A VALLZY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.13 skates, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger MInIMIM lot sizes. " P.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." 2.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of Land usesin � Alhambra Valley.„ *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Dots 15 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. P24-11 The AIEAMBg. VAL1EY SPSCIIC PLAN on p.:6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones.'' *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the . Red--Legged Frog and the Mestern Pond Turtle. Preserving i'24--12 balance in our ecosystem, is critical to a healthy environment. The AL fti WIL:'EY_SPECIPIP PLAN ON 2.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development. " *12. The 48 inch surface--water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, a much less sjnsitQg and dangerous location than the present proposed outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately threatened. The AURA VALLEY 0PECIFIC PLAN on P.34 states, "Future residential development wi l attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flaw sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line; up Alhambra P24--14 Valley Read and Reliez Valley Toad to Sage ,Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Dane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final Elft -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2-131 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES � 3 a,r is 4 r 4.� The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of ,Contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. ,outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding .areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural P24-15. ,atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the j :,Alhambra Valley Specific plan., the overriding zoning district,i and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive ,locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, A�} T� - z 2-132 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 _--.............................................. 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5 ,r fsivy vs t� *„� Y Y"p � ^`"y z'-,"yo-• ig �N a�'�er ,,4F�Eap , � ��" B` a. P27 % Aril 19, 2004 t � ' Pear Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising cur community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, ealthy environments. ' p Our particular concern is the seriously inadequate r ,raft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at liez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . It is apparent that the developer has not given hough regard nor respect to the carefully documented :1hambra Val1g y Specific Plan which identifies Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes page 24 and "Designated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made. P24-1 cequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning rdinarces as well as the CC County General Plan that apply o this land. ._j One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve � � E he rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list f some ways that we feel the EIR and the application should e improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County eneral Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. *l. Parcel A at the cornea of the T should be enlarged o enhance the "Scenic Gateway„ view, Native plants should � # e used here. This corner parcel. is separated from the 23 ots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire alley. This first perception of the Valley when approached rom the east or west should have an open-space appearance � , b, < n keeping with the rural atmosphere. The Alhambra Valley Spcific Plan on p.10 states, P24 2 ff Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, specifically Zlhambra Valley Read at Reliez Valley Road." 4; AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, "The pian tesignates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing xperience of the surrounding area for residents and those �1, raveling through the valley, A Valley Gateway i.s an area ? ich will help frame the visitor's perception of the area Y�B�x'��2 r4&• .,�� �� ftp B = w xr.:. �. :n=r �: � r Y Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SDO28634 & RZO23112 2-133 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES -------------------- P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway", The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these �l'24-2 gateways." The CONTRA COSTA GUL7NTY GENERAL PLAN 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be t conserved, enhanc d,=4 rrotec ed to the extent possible. *2. it might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CONT i COSTA COMY GENE +L PLAN 5--36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes stall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The ALHAMB to VA'C,LEY SPECJPIC QAN on p.IC states, "enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez valley :Road. P.24 "the plan. designates Alhambra Valley Road and. P24--3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley # gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors' 3 perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. { Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a. "Designated { Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways.'' 2.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development:" � P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence. " f These concepts were created in order to require any � developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000--4, 500 square feet since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,00Q square feet. The �P24�4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley in urban appearance. Q. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes. it :light be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space at.mosp.here will P24_ 5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 10 story homes. The .few remaining two-story :tomes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as passible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing horses from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages. 'Three car garages are totally out of P24--6 character with the neighborhood, 2034 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EER -County files#51 028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3 d 5 *6. The three flag lots, 6, . 11, and 23 should. be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flac lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision, The ALHAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN' on p.12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend_ in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much ,as possible.,, 2.36 "site building to avQid, pr minence." P.6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24--7 with the natural setting." P.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New hone designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area.„ P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL j ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley. " 2.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.35 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7 "Tees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black walnut, and the Camphor at Hill. Girt Ranch P24-$ Road) SHOULD BE, SThe forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order JI to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to- be opposite an existing road, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The AL AAMR}1 VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, P24-9 "Existing trees 'alcng Alhambra' Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHCULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhanp views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 "The intent of the Specific Plar, is to ,preserve existing views from these gateways." *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. I Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-117 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR- County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-135 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P, 4 of 5 The ALAAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLA14 on p.13 states, "Un .que 1 environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larrc i minimum lot sizes." I P. 9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." 2. 9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi-- j rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in AlhamLbra Valley,,, *10. There should be no development within the 100 year i flood zone. Lots 1_. and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. �P24-11 The ALHANBRA VALL&Y SPECIFIC PLAN on p.6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act s 100--year flood zones." w *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the ' Red-Legged Frog an; the .Western Pond Turtle. Preserving �P24 12 12 nce in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The AI,I EtA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN ON 2.34 states, „reduce the environmental irmoact of development." *12. The 48 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe -' should stay on the west side of Alhambra Llailey Rad and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, a much less sen_ stive and dangerous location than the present proposed 1P2 -1 outfall.. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to be immediately threatened. The ALRAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC Pon P.34 states; ' "Future residential development will attain the bevel of quality desired by the Valley community." J *13. Central. Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flora sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up AlhambraIP24-14 Valley Road and Rtliea Valley Road to Sage ,Drive. The other alternative -i' s a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert ,Lane. 2-136 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 5 of i `sx The Draft ElR is so inadequate, if approved as written, threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley—a jewel of Contra Costa County. it is truly our responsibility to revere tithe environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. , Outdoor enthusiasts from alr over the county and surrounding areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful,rura' ;,: atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the P24-15 ' Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning district s and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, a �a is J 5. c5 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-137 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 1-9, 20004 Dear Christine Gregory, �.. Contra Costa County Community Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advisingil� i; our corm-.unit on issues that effect beautiful, f " y peaceful, healthy environments. Our particular concern is the seriously inadeauate Draft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . it is apparent that the developer has not given enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented Alhambra Valley Srerific Plan which identifies Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 ani a "Designated Gateway, p 24. Nor has the developer made 14 � adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply, to this land. L j .o One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a lis_ c -r of some ways that we feel the EIR and the application should.., be improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County c�, General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. *l. Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 III+ lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire j valley. This first perception of the Valley when approached from the east or west should have an open-space appearance in keeping with the rural atmosphere. The klham2ara Valley SpecsP24-2� , "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Ret ez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area which will help frame the visitor's perception of the area 2-138 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County tiles#SD028634 & RZ0 32 12 September 2004 ------- . 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra 'Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific plan is to preserve existing views for these P24--2 gateways. The CONTRA, COSTA COUNTY CRAL PLAN 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be crnserryed, enhanced,a=id. PrQteoted to the extent possible, *2. It might be prurient to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway„ scenic views of the ridgelines. .Again, the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GWERAL P� 5-36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The ALgA.2�8�t VAI,L.EY .SMCIFIC PL� AX on p.10 states, enhance =views :from designated galley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra Valley Read and. Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for ; residents and those traveling through the valley. A val.lev � gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors' perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley road at Reliez Valley ;Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." {j These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than: the proposed. 3,0010-4, 500 square feet since most existing hoes on hall--acre lata are approximately 2, 00 square feet. The P24-4 massive homes are the predominate feature that wi 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, *6. The three flag lots, 6, !l, and 23 should be f eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the :lag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and conzribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALgiA RA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on o. 12 states, „New projects shall be designed 20 blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as ossible.'' P.36 "site building to avoid prominence.,, 2. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24-7 with the natural setting.'' y P.27 "New development should camplement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. 1.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area.". P.1:1 ''Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which ma.intaina the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley," P.34 "Reduoe the effective visual. bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." J *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch IP24-8 Road; SHOULD BE SAVED. The forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" 'behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with. the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road; and we are assured: that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The ALF.AMBRA VALLZY SPACZFIC PLAN on p.10 states, 'P24-9 "Existing trees along Alhambra-Alley and Ali& Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ? ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO ?RESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Rc�ad at Reliez Valley Road. '' P.24 "The intent of the Specific Flan is to preserve existing views from these gateways.'" *9. The 4.5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should ' -� remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum 3 vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. 2040 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E!R -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 -- 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of 5 The AL4AkPR_A VAZS,EY SPECIFIC PI" on P.13 states, "U n?que environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger ! nimum lot sizes. " P.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development, " P.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural, atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses .in Alhambra valley." *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 15 and 16 violate this at present, againvt Specific Plan rules. P24-11 The ALZA RA VALL&Y SPZ_C1jI PIAN on p.6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones." *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red--Legged Frog and the .Western Pond Turtle. Preserving P24-12 balance in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The ALHAZ 1VA.I4&Y SPECIFIC PLAN ON P.34 states, „reduce the environmental impact of developmaent." *12. The 48 inch •surface-water run-off re ention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek 'upstream from the culvert, Ea much less senaitive and dangerous location than: the present proposed outfall.. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately threatened. The ALrgAM$RA "JR4 $PEC1rTC PLAN on P.34 states, "Future residential development will attain. the level of � quality desired by the Valley community." J *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra P24-14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert ?.ane. .J Alhambra Valley Estates Pinar ElR -County files#50028634 & RZi 231 12 September 2004 2-141 2: COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES i u - 11 'p. 3 + 4 } 3 tF The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written; tens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel o Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to reve f environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. Outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounds °'fo IItirecognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural P24-15 f The developer must strictly adhere to the raValley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning distric%�, fig nd any other planning measures effect-ng such sensitive iocat7ons. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. ti apt Thank you for your consideration and assistance, SINCERELY, tL h ,x k, w ` �m ~�L,• ,�ty� 2•-142 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County tiles#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 10s V V C- r S April 19, 2004 i} t Dear Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising our community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, healthy environments. Our particular concern is the seriously inadequate Draft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T}, It is apparent that the developer has not given enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented Alha.*nbra Valley Soecifiq Plan which identifies Reliez Valley I and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and a "Designated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made P24-1 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply to this land. - One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list of some ways that we feel the EIR and the application should be improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. *1. Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gateway„ view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire valley. This first perception of the Valley when approached from the east or west should have an open-space appearance in keeping with the rural atmosphere. P24-2 The j-1h;" Valigy Specific Plga on p.10 states, "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, soe_cifical_ly Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, "The plan designates Alhambra Valley :Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area which will help frame the visitor's perception of the area Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-143 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AN� p�PONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Vallev Road is a "designated Gatewav". The intent of t the Specific Pian is to preserve existing views for these P24-2 gateways." The CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-GENERAL FIS 5-35 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be servedi,, enhanaed,and prottsGttec�' to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CC3NTRA COSTA COUNTY gENERAL PLAN 5-36 stares, scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,ard protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The AZ,H.AMEA YALLEY SPECIFIC PLM on p.10 states, "enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra valley Road and. P24-3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through •the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors` perception of the area .as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra. Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways. " 2.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Sate building to avoid prominence." These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed �! 3,000 .4, 500 square feet since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,000 square feet. The P24-4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. she majority of the hones should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes. It might be, f that it be necessary, to require only one -story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space atmosphere will P24--5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or l'-� story homes. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as possible. x5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda stay tothe T have two car garages. Three par garages ars: totally out of P24-6 character with the neighborhood. 2-144 _ Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR •County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES �1. 3 b 5 *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra :Malley Roar west. Houses behind ?souses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALRAMBPA 'GALLEY SPECIFIC 'PLAN or, p. 12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible." P.36 "site building to avoid n:_aiinence." P.6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24--7 with the natural setting." 2.2' "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley." P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site budding to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black 'Walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch P24-8 Road) SHOULD BE SAVED, The forty-three inch.diameter Valley Cak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing mad, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the '^ not to present a traffic problem. The ALHAMBRj VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, P24-g "Existing trees along Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhance views from designated -Talley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." 2.24 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to mreserve existing views from these gateways." -1 *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five--acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum ! vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area, i( But zoning must be adhered to. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-145 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P, U of S The ALHAM RA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger Minimum 'lot sizes. " i P.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit. development. " 2.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley." *10. There should be no development within the 100 year � flood zone. Lots 1S and 16 violate this at present,, against Specific Plan rules. ?P24 11 The ALRWBR& VALLEY SPECIFIC PIsAN on n.6 States, "Prohibit development: in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones." *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank. to protect potential habitat for the £ted-Legged. Frog and the .eastern Fond Turtle. Preserving €P24-12 balance in our ecosystem. is critical to a healthy environment. The ALRAMEgA. VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN ON 2.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development." *13. The 48 incl surface-coater run--off retention pipe '3 should stay on the rest side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek upstream fror; the culvert, a much less sensitive and dangerous location than the present propcsod outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to iP24-13 be immediately threatened. i The AURA VALLEY SPEC2;FjC 2ZAN on P.34 states, "Future residential development will attain the Level of quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. if that 's not attainable, they, are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra P24_14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage .Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. 2-146 Alhambra Valley Estates Fina! E!R -County hies#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES q P. 5 of 5 The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, wthreatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley--a jewel of Contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. utdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural P24-15 atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the lhambra Valley Specific Flan, the overriding zoning district and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. 4 Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, ,) �c � ou c ,r � i Sr �te iaur v { NEW, k S 1 2, 4, Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-147 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Y 7 r P30 April 19, 2004 ,!lea,,, Christine Gregory, a- C°antra Costa County Community Development Thunk you for your dedication to assisting and advising 'pu 'r�'coiimunity on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, �ttaea'_Fthy� environments. ca OLr particular concern is the seriously inadequate Draft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) , It is apparent that the developer has not given enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented I Alhambra Valley Specific Plan which identifies Reliez Valley I and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and a "Designated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made P24-1 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply to this land.. One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list of some ways that we feel the EIR and the application, should be improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County Genera_ Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. *1, Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gatewav" view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 I lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire valley. This first perception of the Valley when approached ; from the east or west should have an open--space appearance in keeping with the rural atmosphere. P24^2 The .Alhambra ValleySpecific Plan on p.10 states, "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, snecifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area which will help frame the visitor's perception of the area 2-148 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: CC)Mt0ENTS AND RESPONSES 2.2 as one passes through the area . Alhambra Malley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of � the Specific plan is to preserve existing views for these gateways,'' 1P24-2 The QOjTRA COS%h COQKTY GZ99RXL PLAY 5-36 states, ; "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be ensr�rd. r�aancad, 3srtected to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 1.00 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CONT9N COSTA. COUNTY GQZNbMXRAA2. MAR 5-36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very ,possible. + The ALHAMBPA_VAIZZY SPECIFIg pJAN on p. 20 states, j „enhance views from designated: valley gateways, specifically f Alhambra valley Road at Reliez Valley road. P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra valley Road and. IJ24--3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of th" surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors' perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Read at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence. '' These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposers 3,000-4, 500 square fee:: since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,000, square feet. The P24-44 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. U. The ma;ority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes; at might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space atmosphere will P24_5 be retaine6 by utilizing predominantly single or 11 story homes. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as passible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages. Three car garages are totally out of P24-6 character with the neighborhood. Alhambra Valley Estates Find EIR -County fibs#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 0149 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the ' subdivision.. The ALHAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC, PLAN on p.12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible." P.36 "site building to avoid -Prominence." 2. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible 1P24-7 with the natural setting.'' i P.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance, 2.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area. y P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which =aintaine the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley." P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development.'' P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch Road; SHOULD BE SAVED. The forty-three inch diameter Valley �F'24-8 Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic � ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. the entry to the subdivision should be relocated � opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road; and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The ALHAM.BRA VALLEY SPECIFIC Pon p.10 states, A,p24-9 "Existing trees along Alhambra' Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD Bre MADE TO PRESERVE THEM. - p.10; THEM. "p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 ;'The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways.'' *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. ] Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the #` subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should ;P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious hone with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. 2-150 Alhambra Valley Estates Pinar EAR -County files#SD028634 & RZ0231 e2 September 2004 AND RESPONSES P 4 c f :, The LFzARA YA!LMY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger mini-mum lot sizes. " - P.9 "'The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-1,0 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." f 2.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- f rural atmosphere and retain a balance of lead uses .in Alhambra Valley." *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 16 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. . P24-11 The ALgAkMBA 1Wi44Y SPECIFIC PLAIT on p;6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones." *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek ,dank to protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog and the .Western Ford Turtle. preserving P24--12 balance in Our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The ALHANBRA_1J2L=Y SPTBC11'3:C PLAN -ON 2.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development." *12. The 46 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe �1 should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, a much le*s sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to t'24-13 be immediately :threatened. The_ ALMAI VALLEY S1�ECIT:'IC PLAN on 2.34 states, 1 "Future residential development will attain the level of j quality desired by the Valley community.,, � *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. If that is not attainable, they I are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up AlhambraIP24--14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Saxe Drive. The other j alternative ,is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EER -County September 2004 files#SD02$,34& 8 023112 2-151 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 5 of 5 The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of Contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. Outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding P2415 areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful,rural atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning districts and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, 2052 , Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files##SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 _............................................................................................................................................................__........_........... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES '�`i tom;. ��(;.i..t,[s4,.v.✓t. "'`'� '4 5{ x 1 `3 April 1 2GC4 P31 fear Christine Gregory, ` Contra Costa County Community Development. ti ,-Thank you for your dedication to assisting and ad,7ising 7£4 mmunity on :issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, h&filthy environments. Y� ur particular concern is the seriously i.nad�a.zatp t RIR completed on the proposed subdivxs,".on at 1� Refiez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . 1 It is apparent that the developer has not given nough regard nor respect to the carefully document ed I:. braValley She^ific Pian which identifies Rrlicz Valley a Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and nated Gateway„ p 24. Nor has the developer made 124-1 ti attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning i :ances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply his lana. One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following .is a lay ur some ways that we feel the e,IR and the application shoo e improved, fused or guidelines quoted from the CC County eneral Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. �. s *1 . Parcel A at the corner of the T' should be enlarged t enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should � f used 'dere. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 Q' ��and. is intended to announce the entrance to the entire y. This first perception of the Valley when apprwiiched a � m the east or west should have an open-space} appearance f' :.n keeping with the rural atmosphere, The on p,10 states, =P24-2 !"mance views from designated Valley Gateways, s ec.i!, a ` A.1hambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Re?iez Valley Roan as C 52,'c routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing �ience of the surrounding area for residents and those tiling th h the valley. A Valepteway " Bch will he ra hA, visitor's perception o ; t, }z"'1 u Jut Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-153 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valiev Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these jP24_2 gateways." The CONT_rA COSTA COUNTY GENEPAL PLAN 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be cc served enhanced, And nxote tecl to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the read in i order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgPlines. j Again, the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GMRAL PLAN 5-36 states, "scenic views observable .from, scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. Thi 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES D *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag , ots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALHAMERA "VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible." P.36 "site building to avo{d =�!_nenc�." P.6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible 1P24--7 with the natural setting." 2.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, ,scale and physical appearance. 2.31 "New hone designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARAC"ER of the area. " P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the RURALIRESIPENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley. P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and educe the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch I Road) SHOULD BE SAVED. The. forty-three inch diameter Valley P24-$ Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira' to sage tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The ALRANBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, P24-9 "Existing trees along Alhambra'Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 "The intent of the Specific Man is to preserve existing views from these gateways.'" f *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes. creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-155 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of 5 The ALEAHBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLA.p7 on p, 13 states, "Unique � environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger minimum lot sizes. " P.° "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue V24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned &nit development." P. 9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley.'' *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 15 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. The WHAMBPA VALLEY" SPEgIgIC PLA39 on p.1 states, T24-11 i "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones.'' *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog and the Jestern Pond Turtles. Preserving IP24-12 balance in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The ALQ3 NQ VA NY SPECIFIC PLAYS ON P.34 states, "reduce ! the environmental imact of development. '' *12. The 48 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the .west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creep upstleam from the culvert, <a much less lensitive and dangerous location than the present prOPOSCd ? outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to IP24-13 be immediately threatened. The ALHAMBRA VALIZY SPECIFSC PLAY3 on x'.34 states, "Future residential development will"attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community." *I3. central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity `low seer system. if that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main {pressurized sewer .Zine} up Alhambra P24-14 Valley Road and Reliez galley Road to Sage ,Drive. The other alternative 4s a pressurized line from Hill Girt, Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. 2456 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ER -Cdunty fibs#SD028634& RZO231 12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, tens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley--a jewel, of - Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to rev tf environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. Outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surroundin rcognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural P24 f heere, The developer must strictly adhere to the \! �vAl. ambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning distric � nd any ether planning measures effecting such sensitive ovations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. 1 hank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, e ,zsr I tti k Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-157 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES �y^y-32 ry/ f 4 April 10, 2004 1t mar Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Development ("D Thank you for your dedication to assisting, and advising ur community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, ealthy environments. Our particular concern is the seriousiv inadequate ,raft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at eliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the Tj' !; Zt is apparent that the developer has riot given Hough regard nor respect to the carefully documented hambra Valley Specific Plan which identifies Reliez Valley = nd .Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and `Designated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made P241 dequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ' dinances as well as the CC County General Plain that apply c this land. One main purpose of the Specific Flan is to preserve he rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list. 'f some ways haat we feel the EIR and the application shou'd improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC Co!.nty. eneral Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. A *l. Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged -o enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should "a used here. :This corner parcel is separated from the 23 k} gots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire £ r" alley. This first perception of the Valley when approached the east or west should have an open-space appearance .� �n keeping with the rural -patmosphere. The Alhambra Valleyecific Plass on p. -10 states, P24-2 , "`Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, s,peczfacally t lhambra. Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." 3 ` AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan j ;designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as j Genic routes, Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing xperience of the surrounding area for residents and those raveling through the valley, aA Valley Gateway is an area "i ch will help frame the visitor's perception of the area y 2-158 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County flies#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 _ 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these P24-2 gateways. " The CONTE Cf.7S2A CC?C Y GLNERAL PLAID 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be servers, gnI:a iced,gn,d potecNe to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the Cot 1 Co. TA Cot3IL GEIS M 5-36 states, "scenic views observable .from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent passible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very .possible. The ALx; l � 5M Y SPTCI ' C p +P. on p.iG states, „enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically 3 Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. 1 P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra valley Road and. :P24-3 Reliez valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors` perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Aihazabra Valley Road at Reliez valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." `these concepts were created ij order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3_ Houses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000-4, 500 square feet since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,000 square feet. The P24 -4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story 'gin keeping with the surrounding existing homes; It might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story 'homes at the roadway perimeter, The existing raper space atmosphere will �F'2e�-� be retained by utilizing predominantly single ar Ili story homes. The few remaining two-story ,homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as passible, *5. 'three car garages should be' eliminated because the vast majority of the existing hones from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages. Three car garages are totally out of IP'24-6 character with the neighborhood. Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028534& RZ023192 September 2004 2-159 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of thein will be seen from Alhambra Val'ev road west , Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the ;subdivision. The AT-aAMERA VALLEY SPECIFIC PIAN on p. 12 states, "New j projects shall be designedoltnd in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as_oossible." 2.36 "site building to avoid orotnjn n e." � P. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible jP24--7 with the natura'L setting." 2.27 "New development should con,ple:nent the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance, 2.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley.. " P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the enrironmenta_'-- im-pact of development. 2.36 "Site building to avoid pLo inence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at Hili Girt Ranch 3P24_8 Road) ,SHOULD BE SAVED. The :forty-three inch. diameter Valley j Oak has a maestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. PablLc Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road, and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T rot to present a traffic problem. The ALHAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, "Existing trees along Alhambra' V alley and Reliez Vailey P24-9 Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MAGE TO PRESERVE THEM." ! P.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 "The .intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways." *a The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVTRONMEN ALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 reattain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental :solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. 2-160 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E#R-County files##SD028634& RZ0231`#2 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of 5 The Ai. RA VALLEY SPEC-1C Pl,M on p. 13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcal may warrant larger minimum lot sizes. " P. 9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue x'24--10 operating adjacent to areas of Manned unit development." P.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley.„ *10. .here should be no development within the 100 year flood. zone. Lots 15 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. P24-11 The ALM%hQRA DjL_=' SPRgITIC PLAN on p.6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones. " *ii. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog and the .Western Fond Turtle. Preserving P24-12 balance in our ecosystem is criticalto a healthy environment. The ALHAMBRA 1M1tg SPEC:[F1C PLUM ON 2.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development. " *13. The 48 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley :load and empty into the creep upstream from the culvert, a much less sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately .threatened. The ALRAtdIRA . A L Y SPECIFIC PLAi1 on 2.34 suites, "Future residential development will attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra P24-14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final Elly-County tiles#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2-161 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P, 5 of S'' A. The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, E ,*threatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-e jewel of ,Contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere he environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. j utdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding reas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful,rural P24-15 tmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the lhambra Valley Specific Flan, the overriding zoning districts and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive ;locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, , C—\ �se j j, is y 'R1Mi 4 i•� 2-162 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2604 ............................... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 44' A i 7tP.33 t ! � i.. 1 ; A,,ri 19, 2004 ,; J1 3cdr CInri_stine Gregory, f -a Contra Costa County Community Development "',Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising . E? �hrrr.:unity on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, y environments. £ Jur particular concern is the seriougl.y i.nade -.ag_at EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at \� Re -�ez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . r `` ^� It: is apparent that the developer has not given 'r ncugh regard nor respect to the carefully documented lhambra valley Specific, Plan which identifies Rei.Jl.ez. Valley a '' Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page, :. 4 and p nat'.ed Gateway" p 24 , Nor has the developer made P24-1 f 'a1ye "attempt t(; meet the constraints of- the zoning. trances as w�11 as the CC County General Dian t'tat p ;I has land. One main purpose of the ;specific Plan is to preserve rural atmosphere of the Valley. The followlnq is a i, some ways that we feel the EIR and the application shou. .�` e improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County ` eneral Plan and the Alhambra Val=ley Specific Plan. *1. Parcel A at the corner of the `P should be enlarged r. enhance the "Scenic_ Gateway" view. Native plants should � ti bEK'_,gsed here. This corner parcel is separated from the 2:3 a• and is iritencied to announce the entrance to the entire �. �� y. This first perception of the Valley when approached ° h" txm the east or west should have an open-space appE>.arancE= `n kecp.i.ng with the rural atmosphere. Thee Alhambra Valley Specific Plan on p, 10 s t:t�s, P24-2 "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, ecifi• aI ' .Alhambra Valley Road at Rel.iez Valley Road. " "AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan. states, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road a ce•r ,I c routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing ; fence of the surrounding area for residents and those y s i` C lirlCf th s qgh the valley. A Valley Gateway is,r ' ch will h frame the visitor's perception ot" fik sa, . .. Alhambra Valley Estates Final f=li=t-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-163 September 2004 2, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for these 4-2 gateways. " The CONiLRA COSTA COUNTY Q=RAL P;LA-N 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable fror scenic routes shall be gar�sgrvgd, era. d and grotect.ed to the extent possible. � *2. It might be prudent to site :homes next to Alhambra " Valley Road Haack 100 feet from the center of the road in order) to protect the "gateway" scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY GENERAL _PLAN 3--36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible.'. Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The A'LRAMBRA YAM= SPECIFIC PCADI on p.10 states, "enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Al hai,abra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. 2.24 "``he plan designates Alhambra Valley Road and. X24 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway ie an area which will help frame the visitors' perception of the area .as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Read at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development. " 2.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000-4, 500 square feet since most existing homes on hale;-acre lots are approximately 2,000 square feet. "'he !F'24-4 :passive horses are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes It might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open 'space atmosphere will 1P24- be retained by utilizing predominantly single or li-j story hones. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as passible. J *5. Three ear garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing homes from Ganda Way to the L have two car garages. Three car garages are totally out of P24-6 character with the neighborhood, 2-164 Alhambra Valley Estates F€nai €E R -County files*SL428 634& R2023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5 *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALEAMBRA. VALLEY SPECIFIC Pon p. 12 states, "New Projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as_aossible." 2.36 "site building to avoid DroM ." P. 6 "'she massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24-7 with the natural setting." 2.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." 2.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley." P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut,,, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch �P24-$ Road) SHOULD BE SAVER. The forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees _must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an `existing road; and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The ALARA IMLLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.1D states, P2�-9 "Existing trees 'along Alhambra" Talley acid Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM." P.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways." *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRCNMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24--10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R -County files #SD028634& RZ023112 2-165 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The ALRAIMRA VALLEY SPECIFSC PLAN on p.:3 states, "Unique I environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger_ minimum lot sizes. ,t P.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue iP24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." 2.9 "Agri culture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in ; Alhambra Valley.,t # *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 15 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. IP24-11 The AIiFWABEtA. VALLEY SPEC11'ZC PLM on p.6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100-year flood zones." *11. There should be a IOC foot setback from the tori of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog ani the .Western Pond Turtle. Preserving :'P24-12 balance in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy enviro77Inent. The AURA VALLEY SPECIBic PLAN ON P.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development. " *12. The 48 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley ? cad and # empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, a much less sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed 11 outfall. There are no homes dose enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately threatened. The AI,gAXL3RA VALLEY SPECIFIC Pon P.34 states, "Future residential develobmert will attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor � a gravity flow sewer System. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra P24-14 Valley goad and Reliez Valley ;toad to Sage .Drive. The other (((( alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. 2-166 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E►R -County f #ser SD028634& R Z02 2113113 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. .- n s The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, tens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of t Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to reve environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. Outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounoin recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful,rural P4 15 mere. The developer must strictly adhere to the \i Al cobra Valley Specific Elan, the overriding zoning distric and any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No,other approach is necessary or acceptable. hank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, 'nl t • • Y Alhambra Valley Estates Find ElR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-167 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 17 { Fy S t a ��"''` Vii'-{w�i}}r r���� ��"��`� � Y.t�,t& � '� � 4:::• �q.^/T � April 10, 2004 sr` : ear Christine Gregory, a 4; N Contra Costa County CoRimunity Development Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising our community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, ea?thy environments. Our particular concern is the seriously inade uar:e Draft ETR completed on the proposed subd4v7sion at t eliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) , _ Tt is apparent that the developer has not ;even enough regard nor respect to the carefully dccrme-nted x rlhem6ra Vazley Scecific Plan which dentities Reliez Valle k w y t sand Ait�ambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" page 24 and "Designated Gateway„ p 24. Nor has the developer made P24 1a. adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning � ordinances as well as the CC County General Plan that apply ' o this land. one main purpose of the Specific Flan is tc. preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a I t Z some ways that we feel the ETR and the application should lye improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County general Plan and the Alhambra ValleySpecific Plan. � r *I. Parcel A at the corner of the `I` should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gateway„ view. Native plants should e used here. This corner parcel, is separated from the 23 lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire ,valley. This first perception of the Valley when approached from the east or west should have an open-space appearance � 'in keeping with the rural atmosphere. P24 2 The Alhambra Valley ftecif,ic Plan on p.10 states; Enhance views from designated: Valley Gateways, necifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan States, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing texperience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A Valley Gateway is an area hich will help frame the visitor's perception of the area 2-168 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County files##SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the. area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views for :,hese P24-2 gateways.„ The CONTA, COSTA. COUNTY %MMRAL PLAN 5-36 states, � "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, erxhasz ed,and zarotegted to the extent possible. *2. it might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra -] Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in l order to protect the ""gateway" "scenic Views of the ridgelines. Again, the CONTRA COSTA COUNTSZ_NE XL_AN 5-36 states, „scenic views observable carom scenic routes shall, be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. "chis is very possible. The AL �A -__SPECIFIC PLAN on p.1-0 states, „enhance views From designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. i P.24 "thy: clan designates Alhambra Valley Road and. (P24--3 Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide J a dramatic viewing experience of the' surrounding area for i residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors' perception of the area •as they pass through the gateway. } Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated �] Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve j existing views from the gateways." ) P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.35 "Site building to avoid prop-inence." These concepts were created is order to require any j developer to comply accordingly. ! *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed 3,000--4,500 square feet since.most existing homes on half acre Tots are approximately 2, 07 square feet. The IP24-4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes. It might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story hones at the roadway perimeter, The existing open space atmosphere will P24- be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 1'�'story hones. The few remaining two-story homes, should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as :ouch as possible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages. Three car garages are totally cut of IP24-6 character with the neighborhood. � Alhambra Valley Estates Fina! E(R - September 2004 County tries#SC}028834 & R2023112 2-189 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES *6. The three flag lots, 6, !1, and 23 should he eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of there will be seen from Alhambra Valley Road west. Houses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALBA RA VALLEY SPECIFIC ELAN on p. 12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural setting of Alhambra Vallev as much as possible." E P.36 "site building to avoid proinence." P. 6 "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24-7 with the natural setting." P.27 "New development should coMR!ement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential � development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL � ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley.. " P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental irpact of development. P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence. " *? . "Tees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail. Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch IP24--8 Road) SHOULD BE SAVED. The forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the a"scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road, and i we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not � to present a traffic problem. The ALEAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, x'24-� "Existing trees along Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EF'F'ORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE 'THEM. " p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. " 2.24 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways. *9. The 4..5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. f Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must be adhered to. 2-170 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of S The AURA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p. 13 states, :'Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger minimum lot sizes. " 2.9 "The county shallencourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." P.9 "Aariculture shall be protected to maintain the sem;.-- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley.,, *10. There should be no development within the 100 year (load zone. Lots 1w5 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. IP24-11 The ALFS}1Lr RX VALLEY SP CUIC PLAN on p.6 states, "Prohibit development in FederalEmergency Management Act 100 -year flood zones. " J *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top of the creek bank to protect potential habitat for the Red--,Legged Frog and. the ,Western mond Turtle. Preserving jP24-12 b ance in our ecosystem isCritiCa to a healthy environment. 1( The AURA VARY SPECIFIC PLAN ON P.34 states, `reduce the environmental impact of development." *12. The 48 inch surface-water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, oa much less sensitive and dangerous ,location Chari the present proposed outfall. There are no homes Close enough to this outfall to P24-13 be immediately threatened. The A&NAN]gRA -JALLZY" S1,ECSE'2C PSaALJ on P.34 states, "Future residential development will attain the level of quality desired by the Valley community." f *13. Central. Sanitary District and the developer favor � a gravity flow sewer system. If that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer lime) up Alhambra `x'24--14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage .Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill. Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR `County flies#SD028634 & RZO23112 September 2004 2-171 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES w. P. 5 of 5 n The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, * hreatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of Contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere E he environment which nourishes and enriches our lives, utdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding yeas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful,rurai P24-15 tmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the , lharnbra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning districts end any other planning measures effecting such sensitive ' locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. "'hank you fqr your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, all t ry 2-172 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR- County files#SD028634&RZ023112 September 2004 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES f P VSE ,3 o 't L. 1;..,�t W April 19, 2004 Par" :Dear Christine Christine Gregory, Contra Costa County Community Develop-ment ^, Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising our community on issues that effect, peaceful, beautiful, 4,, healthy environments. Our particular concern is the seriously inadequate Draft E1R completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T} . It is apparent that the developer has not given enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented Alhambra Vallpy 5pecif ,q Plan which identifies Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads as "scenic routes" pave 24 and =, -.a "Designated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made P241 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning } , ordinances as well as the CC County General Pian that apply to this land. One main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a list of some ways that we feel the ETR and the application should ``. be improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County k General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific. Plan, �F *i. Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged to enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire k` valley.. This first perception of the Valley when approached A from the east or west should have an open-space appearance ,' '' in keeping with the rural atmosphere, P24 The A.Ih�ra Va11ey Sped is Pian on p,1C states, "Enhance views from designated Valley Gateways, sciecificaallrr Alhambra Malley Road at Reliez Valley Road." AND, on page 24, the Specific Plan states, The plan "designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of the surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley, A Valley Gateway is an area c. which will help frame the visitor's perception of the area � d 5 F Alhambra Valley Estates Final l�►a-Ct�unt;�files#SD028r�34� September 2004 RZ023112 2-173 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P.2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated.. Gateway". The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing -mews for these 1024_2 gateways." The CONTRA COSTA CMYTY. GE09RAL PLAN 5-36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, anhanced,and 1,octed to the extent possible. *2. It might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway„ scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the CONTRA COSTA. CO=X G�RAL PIAN 5-36 states, "scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possible." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very possible. The AL FiA Ft3 'VALLEY SPECIFIC ,PLAX_ on p- 10 states, � "enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road. P.24 "the plan designates Alhambra Valley Road and. ;x'24- Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide 1 a dramatic viewing experience of the' surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the valley. A valley gateway is an area which will help frame the visitors` l perception of the area ,as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway," The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways." 2.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposes: ? 3,500-4, 50'J square feet since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,00C square feet. The 71024--4 .passive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. J *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story � in keeping with the surrounding existing homes: it might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter. The existing open space atmosphere will. P24- be retained by utilizing predominantly single or A story hordes. The few remaining two-story homes should be kept in the rear of the property and separated as :such as possible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the -1 vast majority of the existing homes from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages, ,'hree car garages are totally out of 11024-6 character: with the neighborhood. 0174 - Alhambra Valley Estates Finn E#R -County#ices#S ------4& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES v b� 5 *6. The three flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be 1 eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag Lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seen f rom Alhambra Valley Roaci west. Mouses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the massive nature of the subdivision. The ALHAMERA V.7;�LEY SPE'CIF'IC PI" on p. 12 states, „New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural � setting of Alhambra Valley as muchas possible." 2.36 "site building to avoid oromine~t.ce," 2.6 "'The massing of new dwellings should be compatible P24-7 with the natural setting." 2.27 "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs shall blend in with the St-,mi-RURAL CHARACTER of the area. P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential i development and which maintains the RURAL/RESIDENTIAL ATMOSPHERE in Alhambra Valley." P.34 "Reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphc r at Hill Girt Ranch P24-8 Road} SHOULD BE SAVED. The forty-three inch diameter Valley Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgelne" behind it. Any mature trees must remain in order to comply with the Specific Plan. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated ' opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an 'exi,sting road; and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. The ALEiaM' AA VA.LLZY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.10 states, �P24-9 "Existing trees 'along Alhambra• VAlley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PRESERVE THEM." p.10 "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road." P.24 "The .:,tent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways." *9. The 4.,5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning. Since it is in the MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes: creek setbacks, 1.00 year flood setbacks,ard potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimum vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning must, be adhered to. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-175 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES i The ALHAMBRA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on p.l3 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a Marcel may warrant la mer zininum lot sizes. " 2.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue IP24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development," € P.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- j rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley.'' *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 15 and 16 violate this at present, against Specific Flan rules. P24-11 The ALARA 'VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN on a.6 staves, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 1.00-year flood zones. '' *11. There should be a 100 foot setback from the top o the creek ;bank to protect potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog an! the Jestern Pond Turtle. Preserving 024-12 QjjQLe in our ecosystem is critical to a healthy environment. The ALY SPECT 'IC PL Y+7 GN 2.34 states, "reduce ; the environmental impact of development." *12. The 48 inch surface--water run-of'` retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road and empty into the creek upstleam from the culvert, a much less sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed outfall. There are no homes close enough to this outfall to 124-13 be immediately threatened. Ts e VALLXY SPECIFIC PIAAN on P 34 states,. "Future residential development will''attwin the level of quality desired by the Valley community.'' *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor i j a gravity flow, sewer system. :f that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra W14-14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to 'Sage ,Drive. The other alternative is a pressurized gine from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. 2076 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County files#5x028634 & RZ023112 SePternber 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .Ilii i P. 5 of 5 The Draft EIR is so inadequate, if approved as written, e hreatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra Valley-a jewel of contra Costa County. It is truly our responsibility to revere the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. utdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding Teas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peaceful, rural tmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the P24-16 lhambra Valley Specific Flan, the overriding zoning districts nd any other planning measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, 4.. 4* �4 r Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County fibs#50028634 & RZ023112 2-177 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES IT I ) t L April 1.9, 2004 P36 v; Dear Christine Gregory, s Contra Costa County Community Development ti Thank you for your dedication to assisting and advising r our community on issues that effect peaceful, beautiful, healthy environments. Our particular concern is the seriously inade� ate , Draft EIR completed on the proposed subdivision at Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Roads, (the T) . it is apparent that the developer has not given ,4 enough regard nor respect to the carefully documented Alhambra Valley Specifl.c Plan which identifies Reliez Vallei. "r Valley Roads as "scenic routes"' page 2 and Alhambra and a "Desianated Gateway" p 24. Nor has the developer made P24 1 adequate attempt to meet the constraints of the zoning ordinances as well as the CC County General clan that apply to this land. 9 one main purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley. The following is a 1.;131 1 of some ways than we feel the EIR and the appiicatio . should 4'. be improved, based on guidelines quoted from the CC County General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. *1. Parcel A at the corner of the T should be enlarged s; to enhance the "Scenic Gateway" view. Native plants should be used here. This corner parcel is separated from the 23 lots and is intended to announce the entrance to the entire ",; valley. This first perception of the Valley when approached y°°y >. from the east or west should have an cpenwspace appearance in keening with the aural atmosphere. The Alhambra Valley Specific kl n on P.10 states, 2 4-2 "Enhance views from designated 'Valley Gateways, spge ificai y Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road," AND, on page; 24, the Specific Plan states, "The Alar: � designates Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road as scenic routes. scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing „ - experience of the surrounding area for residents and those ' traveling through the valley, A Valley Gateway is an area which will helm frame the visitor's perception of the area R 2-178 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County dies#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESP SES P»2 as one passes through the area. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "designated Gateway". "'he intent of the Specific Paan is to preserve existing views for these 124-2 gateways." The CONTSLA COSTA COUAtT RAC, %,PEAT 5--36 states, "Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be rsr�r e�xlaracecl,aha Ptctd to the extent possible, i *2. it might be prudent to site homes next to Alhambra Valley Road back 100 feet from the center of the road in order to protect the "gateway„ scenic views of the ridgelines. Again, the C0NTRA. COSTA. C9t_W_TY GENE 5-36 states, „scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced,and protected to the extent possibl6." Conserve, Enhance, Protect. This is very.possible. The AAkd" ='Y SZE-Crl'ZC R_xti on p.10 states, "enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez valley Road.len designates Alhambra P.24 "thee # y P g ambra valley Road and. IP24-3 Reliez Valle Road as scenic routes. Scenic routes provide a dramatic viewing experience of th.- surrounding area for residents and those traveling through the 'vall.ey. A valley gateway is an area which will hep frame tate visitors' perception of the area .as they pass through the gateway. Alhambra Valley Road at Reliez Valley Road is a "Designated Gateway." The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from the gateways. " P.34 "reduce the effective visual bulk of development and reduce the environmental: impact of development." P.36 "Site building to avoid prom:-nence," These concepts were created in order to require any developer to comply accordingly. *3. Houses should be less massive than the proposed. 3,000-4, 500 square feet ;since most existing homes on half-acre lots are approximately 2,QOG' square feet. The P24-4 massive homes are the predominate feature that will give the Valley an urban appearance. *4. The majority of the homes should be single-story in keeping with the surrounding existing homes. it might be, that it be necessary, to require only one-story homes at the roadway perimeter, The existing open space atmosphere will P24-5 be retained by utilizing predominantly single or 11� story homes. The few remaining two-story ,homes should be Kept in the rear of the property and separated as much as pgpsible. *5. Three car garages should be eliminated because the vast majority of the existing names from Wanda Way to the T have two car garages. Three car garages are totally Out of P24-6 character with the neighborhood. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -CoInty files#SD028634&RZO23112 September 2004 2-179 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES T :3a 5 -6. The three Flag lots, 6, 11, and 23 should be 7 eliminated to avoid a congested appearance. Two of the flag lots are on Alhambra Valley Road and one of them will be seer; from Alhambra Malley Road west. douses behind houses are unacceptable and contribute to the -passive nature of the subdivision, f Tie ALEAi` RA VA-LLEY SPEgIF7C PLAN on p. 12 states, "New projects shall be designed to blend in with the natural # setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible." P.36 "site building to ay:K giros nan l'', 2. 6 "The grassing of new dwellings should be combati.ble P24-7 with the natural. seting." P.27 "New development should conplement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance. P.31 "New home designs .shall b�in with the SEMI.-RURAL CHARACTER of the area." P.11 "Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which MgIgIgIng the RURAWRESIDENTIAL z ATMOSPHERE in .Alhambra Valley." P.34 "EldqQa the effective vjaual bulk of development and reduce the environmental ig2act of development." P.36 „Site building to avoid prominence." *7. Trees 4, 5, and 6 the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at Hill Girt Ranch �P24 g Road} SHOULD. EE SAVED. The forty-three •-three inch diameter.' Valley ! Oak has a majestic canopy that blends in with the "scenic ridgeline" behind it. Any mature trees must remain .in order to comply with the Specific Pian. *8. The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira to save tree 4, the Valley Oak. Public Works wants any entry to be opposite an existing road; and we are assured that Monteira is far enough from the T not to present a traffic problem. j The Ai,HA1,E3M VALLEY SRECI 'SC P on p rt 0 states, �P2�-� "Existing trees along Alhambra"4J l,ley and R613 iez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PR SERV THEM.- p- 10 "Enhanqe views From designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at 8el.iez Valley Road." P.24 "The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve existing views from these gateways." *9. The 4.5 acre parcel should be kept five-acre zoning.' Since it Is in the MUST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA of the subdivision and this area includes. creek setbacks, 1.00 year flood setbacks,and potential wildlife setbacks, it should P24-10 remain a larger parcel. A spacious home with a minimums vineyard would be an environmental solution for this area. But zoning :oust be adhered to. W80 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E!R-County files#SDO28634& RZ023112 September 2004 _ 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 4 of 5 The ALHAMBPA VALLEY sPECI'FIC PTAH on p.13 states, "Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel nay warrant lamer 'Mini. e lot sizes. P.9 "The county shall encourage agriculture to continue P24-10 operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development." P.9 "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley." *10. There should be no development within the 100 year flood zone. Lots 15 and i.6 violate this at present, against Specific Plan rules. P24--11 The AURA VALE _SPEC i1c PLATY on p:6 states, "Prohibit development in Federal Emergency Management Act 100--vear flood zones." *11. There should be a 100 foot setback f.zom the top of the creek bank to prote-ct potential habitat for the Red-Legged Frog and the .Western Pond Turtle. Preserving P24-12 balance in our ecosystem is critica- to a healthy environment. The ALEA]MVALI,L�`Y SPE IFIC PLAN ON 2.34 states, "reduce the environmental impact of development." *12. The 48 inch surface--water run-off retention pipe should stay on the west side of Alhambra Valley Read and empty into the creek upstream from the culvert, a muoh 'Less ;sensitive and dangerous location than the present proposed F'24-13 outfall.. There are no hones close enough to this outfall to be immediately threatened. TheY spEGITIC PLM on P. 34 states, "Future residential, development will'attain. the level of quality desired by the Valley community." *13. Central Sanitary District and the developer favor a gravity flow sewer system. if that is not attainable, they are proposing a force main (,pressurized sewer line) up Alhambra P24--14 Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage .Drive. The other alternative -is a pressurized line from Hill Girt Ranch Road to Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final Ell; -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2-181 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P. 5 of The Draft ETR is so inadequate, if approved as written, Ott reatens the rural atmosphere of Alhambra valley-a jewel of � Contra Costa County. it is truly our responsibility to revere :the environment which nourishes and enriches our lives. ,outdoor enthusiasts from all over the county and surrounding { areas recognize Alhambra Valley for its peacefui, rural i ,atmosphere. The developer must strictly adhere to the P24--15 Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, the overriding zoning district and any other planning Measures effecting such sensitive locations. No other approach is necessary or acceptable. J Thank you for your consideration and assistance. SINCERELY, . Mme ` 21 2-982 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P24 Thirteen copies of letters identical: to Letter P24 were received from the following residents (all live within the project vicinity): P24 Harry and Lee Anne Cisterman, 6710 Corte Segunda P25 Bryan & Dawn Cisterman, 6709 Corte Segunda P26 Marcia & Tom GordfGard, 932 Corte Diablo P27 Juanella & David Nichols, 15 Corte De La Canada P28 Paola &Joe Quilia, 5278 Alhambra Valley Read P29 David & Josephine Schelhorn, 15 Corte De La Canada P30 Sal & Mark Rangel, 208 Vista Way P31 Lidamo & Diane Del Seco, 5286 Alhambra Valley Road P32 Dave & Barbara Singh; 5272 Alhambra Valley Road P33 Mary Waltz, 5262 Alhambra Valley Road P34 Dan & Debbie Caccavo, 5276 Alhambra Valley Road P35 Rick &Veronica Maida, 5260 Alhambra Valley Road P36 Carina & Mark 1=raschieri, 950 Tavan Estates Drive The following responses address the comments in letters P24 through P36: P24-1 Comments are acknowledged regarding the consistency of the project with the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P24-2 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. P24-3 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding home setbacks from Alhambra Valley Road. P24-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding house size. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please see Master Response A3 regarding house size and heights. P24-5 Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding height limits to protect views. P24-6 Comment is acknowledged regarding three-car garages. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P24-7 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P24-8 Comment is acknowledged regarding tree protection. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P24-9 Please refer to Master Response B6 regarding relocation of the entryway to the subdivision. P24-10 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning of the A-2 parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please refer to Master Responses C1 regarding development in the 100-year floodplain, E1 regarding the creek setback, and E2 regarding protection of special status wildlife species. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SDQ28634& RZ023112 2-183 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P24-11 Comment is acknowledged regarding development in the 100-year floodplain. Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development within the 100-year floodplain. P24-12 Please refer to Master Response E1 regarding increasing the setback around the Arroyo del Hambre to protect listed species and habitat. P24-13 Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding relocation of the 48-inch storm drainage pipe. Comments are acknowledged regarding proximity of homes to the outfall P24-14 Comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response D1 regarding the gravity flow option and to DEiR Section 5.5 (Alternatives) for a discussion of sewer service alternatives. Please also refer to the responses to comment letter A2 from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. P24-15 Comments and opinions are acknowledged regarding inadequacy of the DEIR and need to adhere to Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. 2-184 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County files#SD028634&RZ023112 September 2004 ................. ........... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April , 2004 _ �'7 {sfiV L 'i `1. 02 RE: Draft EIR Dear Christine Gregory: 1 live on the south side of Alhambra Valley Road which is directly across the street from the proposed subdivision. Since I live on a hill, 1 overlook both properties that are adjacent to each other at the corner of Alhambra and Reliez Valley Roads. 1 understand that , the corner of Alhambra and Reliez Valley Road is a7-, Designated Gateway and that bath roads aro Scenic Roadways. As such, special care roust be taken to ensure' that the environment is protected. 1 don't think that the EIR protects the environment at all. 1 will see everything. that relates to Alhambra Valley Estates, and I am very upset at the prospect. 1 cannot believe.that the EIR is allowing such large homes to be P37_2 built on half-acre lots. Large homes, such as are proposed, are in direct conflict with the surrounding heroes. 1 sincerely ask that the flag lots be eliminated. They do not belong in the valley. That congestion belongs in an P37-3 urban setting, not. the rural setting of Alhambra Valley. lam horrified that the huge Valley Oak as well as the Black Walnut and the Camphor on Alhambra Valley Road are slated for extinction. They are ghat gives the P37_4 valley its pastoral setting. Those trees roust be preserved. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028584& RZ023112 2-185 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I am particularly concerned about the traffic problem because my property is at the stop sign on the corner. 1 aim Very aware that traffic has increased in the past several years. luny drivers go through the Valley to avoid Alhambra Avenue daring the morning and evening P37-5 rush hours, Twenty-three houses are going to cien rate Much more traffic to the already heavily burdened roads. I know that my neighbors are concerned_ about the traffic problems as well. -� I was looking forward to the EIR, but now I am confused. by it. I thought it was supposed to protect the Valley. I don't think that it does that at all. P37-6 I ask you to, take whatever measures are necessary to give Valley residents a subdivision that we can be proud of. Sincerely, Laverne Young 5201 Alhambra V1ley Road Martinez, CA 94553 2-186 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P37 Laverne Young 5201 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez, CA 94553 P37-1 Comment is acknowledged. P37-2 Comments are acknowledged. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P37-3 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P37-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding tree removal. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P37-5 Comments are acknowledged regarding traffic concerns. Please refer to Master Response B regarding Transportation and Traffic issues. P37-6 Comment acknowledged. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County tiles#SD028634& RZ023112 2-187 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Apr„ 12, 2004 Ms. Christine Gregory Contra Costa Ccunty Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4ti"Floor North{Hing Martinez, CA 94553 Re. Draft EIR, Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Ms, Gregory: My wife and 1 live in Alhambra Valley, and we are very concerned about the draft EIR for Alhambra Valley Estates (EIR), because it contravenes key provision, of theP38-1 Alhambra Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan). We are most concerned about the following conflicts: 1. Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, .page 10 - "Enhance views from designated valley gateways, specifically Alhambra Valley Road at Rel;ez Valley Road.' Draft EIR—The first sight of Alhambra Valley when approached from the west or P38-2 east should have the "feel"of open space in keeping with the rural atmosphere that the , Specific Plan was adopted to preserve. Accordingly, Parcel A at the corner of the "T" should be enlarged to enhance the"Scenic Gateway„view. The homes along Alhambra Valley Road should be required to be set back at�P38-3 least 100 feet from the center. of the road to preserve the"Scenic Gateway"view. 2. Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, page 10 — "Existing trees along Alhambra Valley and Rellez Valley roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and all efforts should be matte to preserve them." [Emphasis added.] Draft EIR —We find it very troubling, in view of this directive in the Specific Plan, P38-4 that the Draft EIR approves of the removal of Trees 4, 5 & 6 (the Valley Oak opposite Quail Hollow, the Black Walnut, and the Camphor at�Hill Girt Ranch Road,) These trees should be saved, especially Tree#4 - the Valley Oak, so vire suggest that the entry to the subdivision be relocated opposite from Monteira. 2-188 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 ............... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Ms. Christine Gregory Agri!9, 9004 Page 2of2 3. Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, page 1"I —"Adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the rural/residential atmosphere in Alhambra Valley.! Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, ,page 27 — "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance," Alhambra Valley Specific Plea, Page 32 — "New homes design shall blend in with the semi-rural charabter of the area." Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, page 36-"Site building"to avoid prominence." Drat Elly — The proposed 3,000 to 4,5010 square foot houses are way tan massive for the site,and they will destroy the Valley's"rurallresidential atmosphere"that the Specific Plan protects. The proposed three-car garages should be reduced to two- car garages to comply with the Specific flan, because the vast majority of homes in the area have only two-car garages. Also, the homes should be single story and not two Sones. The three "flag" lots [6, 11 & 23] create congestion and contribute to the unacceptably massive nature of the subdivision that is not in compliance with the P38--6 Specific Plan, and they should be eliminated. Finally, the zoning for the 4.5 acre parcel should remain at five-acres. It is the most environmentally sensitive are of the subdivision, it should include creek setbacks, P38-7 1000 year flood setbacks, and potential wildlife setbacks. In short, we ask that the Community Development Department require that Alhambra Valley Estates comply with the express provisions and the spirit of the Specific Pian. \\\ { Sincerely, i••.J#1_.."'L John Ricca . Christine Codding P.O. Bax 1306 r1'l1 Vaca Creek Way] Martinez,CA 94553 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-189 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P38 John Ricca/Christine Coddling 11'1 Vaca Creek Way Martinez, CA 94553 P38-1 Comments are acknowledged. P38-2 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. P38-3 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. _ P38-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding saving trees. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation and Master Response A6 regarding relocation of the entry to the subdivision. P38-5 Comments are acknowledged regarding the size of homes and garages. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of homes. P38-6 Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding the flag lots. P38-7 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning of the 4.5-acre parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan designates the entire project area as low-density residential, and R-20 zoning is consistent with the Plan. 2-190 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E1R -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ALHAMBRA VALLEY IMPROVEMENTASSOCLUMN PRESIDENT.-HAS. OLSON, 22 WA DA WAY, MART fQ3q rT4 a April 19, 2-004 ,,"OMM?hITY rT-V: iii Y?r Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street. 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Review and Comments on the Draft ElR for Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Christine Gregory: Please understand that every suggestion l make here is supported with one or more direct references from the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan and/or the County General Plan. 3.1 AESTHETICS, The parcel located at the ccorno of Reliez Malley Road anal Alhambra Valley load should be larger 8 there is a significant t3taffer between this scenic gateway and the the development, and native plants hould be included Dere. Parcel A should be a natural trarslti n between R2t and the adjacent R40 to the west. People entering Alhambra Valley from bath east and gest have their first scenic impression of the valley at this corner gateway. if houses are allowed to present their massive bulk close to this corner, it would have a significant n at€ve effect on the I scenic beauty of the entire valley. We would like�e enlargement to be in the deed restriction for the parcel. (AVSD Section Vii, E, Policy 4, pA0 states, "Enhance views from designated valleyggateways which include...Alhambra Valley Read at Reliez Malley Cad.' AVSP Section 111, Plan Elements E,p.24 states, "its intent is to preserve the existing views from these gateways.") Trees 4, 5, and 6 should not be removed. if trees 4, 5, and 6 are removed there would be an immediate awareness of the degrading of the natural environment. The loss of tree 4, a 43 Inch diameter,Valley Oak, would be especially unwarranted since it has a majestic canopy which naturally blends in with the scenic view of the hills behind it. Also, tree 4 is the P39-2 predominant natural feature of the subject prey erty alone the road. Tree 4 Is seven feet off the pavement of the road an therefore would not interfere with the widening of the road, and there is ample room for both the bike trail and the horse trail behind it. (AVSP Section It, E, Policy a, Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR -County fins#SD028634& RZ023112 2199 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES p.10"_existing trees along Alhambra Malley and Reliez Valley Rods i significantly contribute to hese scenic corridors and all efforts Should be P39-2 made to preserve then.") The entry to the subdivision should be relocated opposite Monteira, in order to Save tree 4, estimated by a Valley Oak tree specialist to be 1 So to 250 years old. The scenic view from residences on wail hollow, as wail as the scenic view from: the scenic Alhambra Valley roadway would be drastically impaired if that tree were to be removed. All passers-by would P39-3 immediately notice the lass of this beautiful, natural oak. (AVSF Section Is, E, Policy S, p.10 stated above.) The entrance read placed opposite Mont+eira is acceptable by the Publlc VVOrks Department and would be environmentally superior. We have been advised by Public Works that the , Monteira location is far enough from the Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley road T so as not to present a traffic problem. The gateway scenic view can further be protected by making sure that every residence on Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, S, 22, and 23 shall be no closer than . 100 feet from the center of the pavement of Alhambra Valley Road. This coupled with the houses being one story on these lots minimizes the intrusion into the scenic view. (AVSP Section V, Goal 2, 'Principal 10, Protection of Ridge fire View, p.36 states, "Design of new residential P39-4 structures should be located and designed so as to minimize the obstruction of any ridge silhouette as viewed from scenic routes on the valley floor." AVSD IV, A, p.27 states"...new development should complement the existing environment in terms of form,scale, and .physical apppearcance ") As one travels through the valley one sees predominately single story I homes set back from the road and landscaped in front. dearly all of these homes are approximately 1800 to 2,000 square feet with two-car garages. The developer proposes to build mostly two-story homes from 3,003 to j 4,500 square feet not counting the three-car garages. The amassing of an unnecessary number of such excessively large; structures on half-acre bats would create a stark, urban, congested appearance. These massive I homes are out of character with the surrounding environment of much s P39-5 smaller homes on half acre lots. (AVSP IV,A, p.27"...new development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale, and physical appearance." AVSP V Design Guidelines, p.34 "The Design Guidelines have two principal goals: to reduce the effective bulk of the development and to reduce the environmental imact of the development, AVSD Il, A. Gaal 1, Policy 1, p.6 "The massing o new dwellings should be i compatible with the natural setting.") Three-car aarages should be eliminated on any half-acre parcels. From Wanda 'flay to the T there is only one three-car garage out of twenty-two �P39-6 1 2-192 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ESR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES homes facing or adjacent to Alhambra Valley load. The three car garages proposed on the project site significantly increase the massive appearance of the residences and are not in keeping with the character P39-6 and environment of the area.. (AVSD A, p.27 states, "...new development should complement this existing environment in form, scale, and physical appearance.") J All structures on Alhambra Valley load, lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, and 23, shouid face the road to blend in with all of the existing homes surrounding P39-7 the development. (RVSP $V, A, p,27 as stated above.) The intrusion into the scenic view must be further minimized by requiring most of the residences to be one-story. The spacious appearance on all the existing half-acre lots (R20) on Alhambra Valley Road is what gives the Valley its rural character. Between Wanda Way and Deliez Valley load there are twenty-two homes facing Alhambra.Valley Toad or adjacent to it, ' five of which are two-story homes. These five two-story homes constitute p39-8 23%of the total number. 23% of the twenty-three proposed homes in this subdivision amounts to five two-story homes that should be allowed on this property. Restricting the number of two-story homes to 23%, or five homes, would be in keeping with the following Specific Plan policies. (AVSP,IV band Use Regulations. A, p.27 states, "New development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale and physical appearance," The five allowed two-story homes should be separated as much as ,possible and kept back from .Alhambra Valley Road as far as possible to protect the scenic view. (AVSD Section V Design Guidelines, Goal 2, Principle 10, p.36 states, "Design of new residential structures should be pas-s located and resigned so as to minimize the obstruction of any ridge silhouette as viewed from .scenic routes on the valley floor." RVSP Section 1€, A,, Policy 1, 0.6 "Structures shall be designed to blend into rather than dominate the natural setting ..: The massing of new dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting.") There should be a Gleed restriction and/or a mitigation measure limiting the subdivision to five two-story hurries, separated as much as possible and P39-1 o kept toward the rear of the subdivision. Require a Geed Restriction on :all the one-:story houses so that they remain ogre-story houses in the future. All existing homes in the Valley are can septic systems. Environmental Health department's current, stringent P39-11 restrictions prevent additions to most existing homes can half-acre lots because additional leachline area is-not mailable. (AVSD, F, Goal 2, Policy 8, p.12 "New projects.shall be designed to blend In with the rural setting of Alhambra Valley as much as possible.") Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-193 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The three flag lots, 23, 11, and 6, should be eiirninated because they are going to further maximize the congested, urban appearance. Two of the lots are on the scenic Alhambra Valley roadway. (AVSP Section IV, A, P.27 states "...new development should complement the existing environment in terms of form, scale, and physical appearance," AVSD 11, A, P39-12 Coal 1, Policy 1, p.6 states, "The massing of new dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting," AVSP V Design Guidelines, p.34 "The � Desian Guidelines have two principal goals: to reduce the effective bulk of the development and to reduce the environmental impact of the development." AVSD E', Coni 2, Policy B, p.12 same as above.) The view from outside the subdivision should be protected from street lighting as much as possible. Street lights should be at the lowest level iP39-13 consistent with public safety and should be shielded downward to' minimize the Aare to people outside the development. Lighting within two-story houses should be situated internally to minimize P39-14 glare to outside the development. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The AVSP under Threshold of Significance, Draft EIR, p.3-27 states, "The following Threshold of Significance is used to determine the level of impact for areas of potential environmental concern. The project would have a i significant effect on the environment if it would irreversibly convert prime farrnland, or"unique farmland"or farmland of statewide importance to non- agricultural use." This parcel meets the"unique farmland"qualification as f described on p,3-27 of the Draft EIR. "Unique farmland is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards." This parcel has i been historically used as a vineyard. Since; this parcel is presentljr unique �P39-15 farmland, and since this 4.15 acre parcel is zoned agriculturally A2, it seems i appropriate that the A2 zoning should remain, and that one large house l should be built on this A2 segment and that the parcel should be kept as a mini-vineyard. The AVSD Section 11 Goals and Policies, D, p.9 suggests "that agricultural uses should be viable economic pursuits." Such a. mini- r vineyard is a viable economic pursuit. This usage W6uld also enhance the 1 rural character and the historic character of the entire area. (RVSP Goal 1, Policy 1, p.3 states, "Agriculture shall be protected to maintain the semi- rural atmosphere and retain a balance of land uses in Alhambra Valley." AVSD Goal 1, policy 2, p.9 states, "The County shall encourage agriculture to continue operating adjacent to areas of planned unit development.") This parcel should be kept zoned A2. 2.194 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 &RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES he Draft EIR states that prier to commencement of any site ;pork, surveys for specified plant and animal species or damage to their habitats must be conducted. The mitigation *measure 3.4-1, p.3-42 dues not specify a time frame for the surveys. Surveys must be completed within a reasonably short period of time before grading begins. If"goo much time elapses �P39--16 between the survey and gradin the survey could be invalid and ! endangered species could bet reatened.. Perhaps no more than 30 days prior to grading would be appropriate, In any case federally endangered species' habitat are present on the site and the Army Corps of Engineers must be notified and appropriate measures takers. Potential impact 3.4-3 can page 3-42 states "construction of the proposed project does not have the potential to interfere with the movement of CRLF and Western Pond Turtles within Arrovo del Harnbre Creep if construction were to occur within proximity to the Creek during periods of movement P39-17 or if project developments were to modify elements of the creek." What is the justification for this statement? Isn't the,opposite true➢ that construction will interfere with the movement of the species' It is imperative that a biological study at the correct time of the year be conducted and reviewed by USFWS in formal ccnsijltation with the US Army Corps of Engineers. lw#etfuire a 300 foot setback from;the creek per USFWS to protect the �1 California fled-Legged Frog habitat. The Draft EIR, Section 3.4-2, p.3-42 states, "no bandy of evidence suggests that biological resources would benefit from a greater than 50 foot setback exists." This is not true. Two consulting firms have established that Arroyo del Hatrmbre on the project P39-1 a site supports the:CRLF. The county file on this subdivision contains fetters from Monk and Associates and Moore Biological that attest to the fact that CRLF habitat exists in Arroyo del Harnbre Creek at the project site. Sarah Lynch in the Monk and Associates letter states that USFWS could require a setback of 300 feet. The est r f m the con ul ant M nk and Associates is in the file hag bggn I ft out o f the DraftlR. Require a mitigation measure protecting the Alameda ylfhipanzike, a �P39-19 Federally endangered species. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Require a mitigation to create a buffer zone of 200 feet between the building sites and Arroyo del Hambre Creek in order to, minimize the P39-20 probability of project activities impacting buried archaeological sites. Alhambra Malley Estates Final Elft -county files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-195 September 2004 2: COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES Native American contact Katherine Perez., Draft EIR, p.3-45, has requested a 1001 to 200 foot buffer zone between the subdivision development and P39-21 Arroyo del Hambre during the construction phase of each lot. 3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Require the mitigation that all utilities and pipelines, as well as.cuff site storm water and waste water pipelines shall be designed to resist potentia; P39--22 effects of anticipated strong seismic ground shaking in the area. There is an error on 3-66 on the bottom two lines of the page. Substitute Arroyo del Hambre for Vaca Creek in hath cases. Also on 3-67, top line, P9--23 as well as paragraph six, substitute Arroyo del Hambre for Vaca Creek. 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND`MATER QUALITY The Draft EIR on p. 3-74, states, `:mitigation measure 3.3-9 would reduce impacts associated with 100 year flood hazards to less than significant P39-24 levels." MITIGATION MEASURE 3.8-9 IS MISSING IN THE DRAFT FIR. It should be provided and a hydraulic analysis should be provided concerning fill anywhere near the flood plain. The AVSP prohibits development within flood inundation zones (Coal 2, Policy 1, p.6) Lets 14, 15, 16, and 19 are located within the 16 yea;flood P39-25 zone, (Draft EIR, Impact .6.5 p.3-74). Require that mitigation measure 3.6-9 states: there should be no fill or development of any kind located within the 100 year flood zone. (AVSP, II Goals and Policies, Goal 2, Policy 1, p.6 states, "avoid conventional P39-26 development in flood inundation zones, PROHIBIT development in Federal Emergency Management;Act 100-year flood zones.") On page 3-63 the Draft EIR map shows the adjacent creek as Arroyo Ciel Hambre. On the next page 3-64 the reap shows the same creek as Vaca Creep. It is not Vaca Creek, it is Arroyo del Hambre. There are many 1339-27 incorrect references to Vaca Creek in the Draft EIR.I No mention of Vaca Creek should appear in the Draft EIR anywhere, since this site borders Arroyo del. Harnbre Creek, not Vaca Creek. Add the following to Mitigation Measure 3.3-6, p.3-73: Require the mitigation that county Flood Control regularly oversee the Homeowners' . ]139-2s Association to make sure that maintenance of the storm water facilities and maintenance of the low infiltration structures are properly carried out. � 2-196 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ0231;2 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Require that adequate assessments of the homeowners be placed in the CCPR s so that maintenance of these facilities is properly financed. P39�29 Add the following mitigation to mitigation measure S.S-i: install filter �P39-30 systems at storm drain outlets as a means of sediment control. Require the fic Mowing mitigation to avoid unnecessary property damage to residential property on both sides of Wanda Way: that the outfall of the groundwater runoff from the site be relocated. Place the 48 inch drainpipe on the west side of Alhambra Valley Plead, and place the outfall also on the west side of Alhambra Valley Road just upstream from the large, rectangular culvert under Alhambra Malley Road. There are several advantages fear this location. The relocation would avoid tearing 'up P39-31 Wanda'Way. The relocation would remove the outfall from the area where the banks are already seriously eroded and where serious property damage could occur, The relocation would not be in ars area in the immediate proximity of, any dwelling. There would be'leas damage and obstruction to Alhambra Malley road during construction. Serious damage to the property on the southeast corner of Wanda Way and i Alhambra Valley Road would be avoided. -1 Require a mitigation that the applicant demonstrate to County Flood Control that groundwater outflow from the site is detained to assure peak P39-32 flow is no greater than existing flow before development and that the peak outflow from the site does not coincide with the normal Arroyo del Hambre :peak flow. 3.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING There is an error on the map on p.3-78 in the Graft EIR. The land immediately southwest of the proposed site is zoned 840, not R20 as the P39-33 map indicates. R20 goes south to Rellez Valley Road'T and no further. There is a 4.5 acre parcel located on the site designated A2. We are -{ proposing two possible alternatives for the use of this property which are P39-34 both environmentally superior to the proposed zoning change. � Our first suggestion is as follows: This parcel should be kept in semi-agricultural use. This 4,5 acre parcel should be kept intact and one spacious residence built there with the rest replanted in its historic vineyard state. This would save a number of P39--35 beautiful mature trees and accommodate all the creek setbacks, wildlife setbacks, and hundred year flood setbacks which are so-necessary. This Alhambra Malley Estates Final E1R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-197 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES would clearly satisfy the Specific Plan mandate protecting agricultural use. €'39-35 Keeping this 4.5 acre parcel intact would make it easier to -save the historic barn o,�� the property. The A2 portion on this site was zoned agricultural as the agricultural part of land that extended across the creek and along the hillside as part of the � historic Swett Manch. Its agricultural intent was further demonstrated by ' the erection of the original kd still existing historic barn on this exact l parcel. This barn was built well before the turn of the century. Lumber (x`39-36 was obtained for the floor of this barn frorn the World's Fair at the Palace { of Pine Arts location in San Francisco, approximately its 1944. Retaining I the barn would help preserve the historical heritage of the area.. (AVSD; Goal 5, p.7 states,'protect historic and archaeological resources." ) This bare{ is a historical resource. During the creation of the AVSP there was wide spread agreement that the � zoning should remain exactly as it was with no changes. Everyone on i the committee understood and desired that the zoning would stay as it ;P39-37 was in the General Plan at the time. (Hal Olson, Vice Chairman of the j AVSD Committee. The Chairman, ,Jinn Smyth, has since passed away.) i If A2 zoning cannot be kept can this parcel then it should be zoned R40. - P39-38 The RVSP, 3}b, Via. 29 mandates that a buffer must occur on this parcel. It states, "Where a discretionary development permit is sought within or adjacent to areas designated for agricultural use, reduce potential conflicts I1�39 39 by the creation of a natural or constructed buffers between the agricultural and urban use. Such buffers must occur on the parcel for which the ' discretionary permit is sought." This 4.5 acre parcel should be rezoned to R40. As such it would become an excellent natural duffer between urban and agricultural use. =Since all the land to the gest is zoned 140, changing this 4.5 acre parcel to 140 x'39-40 would complete the R40 buffer between R20 and agricultural land A2. In the immediate vicinity all of the flat land west of this site is zoned R40 northerly to the sloping hillsides. (AVSP.. .111 Plan Elements, l5), p.13 Single Family Low density (SL) states, "This Specific Plan restricts new parcel sizes to 20,000 square feet or larger. Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may warrant larger minimum lot sizes.") There are a number of unique environmental characteristics involving this 4.5 P9-41 acre parcel. Changing this 4,5 acre panel to R40 would save a number 1 of beautiful, mature trees, and make it much easier to accommodate the ' creek setbacks,wildlife setbacks, 100 year flood setbacks, and archaeologically requested setbacks. The R40 rezoning would clearly satisfy the AVSP mandate for the required buffer. Community Development have been given the authority to require larger lot sizes in 2-198 Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 _. 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES the Specific Plan on p.13. The environmental reasons certainly support P39-41 doing so. 3.10 NOISE The sugestion has been made to orient the houses closer to Alhambra � Malley goad to utilize the homes as noise barriers. This is absolutely unacceptable because it would drastically violate the scenic views of the hillsides behind the development. (Contra Costa County General Plan, i Open Space Element, Draft E1R p.3-3, The General Piaci Scenic P39-42 Ridgelines and Waterways Map identifies hills visible from the project site a "scenic ridgplinds.") General Plan Scenic Route Policies. 5-36 states, "Scenic Views observable from scenic mutes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. The General Plan Circulation Element, graft EIR -3 states that Alhambra Malley and Reliez /alley Roads are identified as scenic routes.) The scenic views absolutely. must be "conserved." If the houses are moved closer to the read and used as noise barriers, there will still be some remaining outdoor space between the house and P39-43 the road. This open space is clearly violating the outdoor 60 dB, noise level restriction. It should not be allowed. Require a mitigation measure that the CC&Rs state that all residential units constructed on dots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, and 23 shall be 100 feet from the P39-44 center of the pavement and shall have the front of the houses face Alhambra. Valley load. Elirriinate mitigation measure 3.10-3, p.3a33. The AVSP discourages obstruction of the ridgeline silhouette. Bringing houses closer than 100 feet from the center of.the road would increase obstruction of the rib eline view from the scenic gateway react. (AVSP Section V, Gaal 2, Princ ple P39-45 10, p.36 "Design of new residential structures should be located and designed so as to minimize the obstruction cif any ridge silhouette as viewed from scenic routes on the valley floor.") 3.12 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The entrance to the ssubdivision should be relocated to a point opposite Monteira instead of opposite wail Hollow, thus saving tree # . We discussed the relocation of the entry read with Public Torics and they P39-46 want the entrance to be apposite an existing read. They have no objection to having the entry opposite Monteira. We have been advised that the Monteira location is far enough away from the intersection of Alhambra Valley Estates Find EiR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-198 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra. Valley Road that it presents no traffic problem. The preservation of most of the trees alone Alhambra Valley p39-46 Road would be possible with this solution. l AVSP Section Il, E, Policy 6, p.1O "...existing trees along Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads significantly contribute to these scenic corridors and all efforts should be made to preserve them.") Preserving the tree 4, the 4,3 inch Valley Oaf', would not obstruct traffic �I because it is seven feet away from the pavement of Alhambra.Valley . P39-47 Road; therefore widening the road should not threaten it. (RVSP Section ll, E, Policy 6, p.1 0 same as above paragraph.). 3.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Draft EIR states on p.3-96 that the Central Contra-Costa Sanitary a report entitled, "Facilities Flan for Wastewater utility Service to Alhambra Valley" in 2003. Wage 13 of that report describes a temporary pumping station that would pump sewage through a farce main (pressurized suer line) up Alhambra `Jall6y Road and Reliez Valley Road to Sage Drive. It states, "the farce IP38-48 main COULD be constructed within an eight inch diameter line used for spill containment which could then be reused for gravity service—by simply removing the farce main later." Due to the fact that the force main would be passing through a very unstable landslide area.on Reliez Valley Ahad, it should be REQUIRED that the farce rnain be constructed within an eight inch diameter line for spill containment � In the Alhambra Valley Estates file there is a Liquefaction Potential Map, figure 3, which shows the Reliez Valley Road landslide area to have MODERATE TO HIGH LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, The potential environmental damage which could occur in this liq 'efactitan prom; P39-49 landslide area makes it imperative that the force rnaln be within tl e eight i inch diameter line used for spill containment. In fact this liquefaction � potential_makes it a very dad route for a pressurized sever line at all. Making matters worse this general area,has seismic activity with some j regularity. In such a later event that gravity sewer lines are introduced into Alhambra 1 Valley, having the eight inch line already installed from the site to Sage ;s Drive would avoid the necessity of farther damaging the environment lay iP39 5C� digging tip the entire 56003 feet of roadway anew since the force main could merely be extracted at that time: and the outer eight inch pipe would 2-200 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR - County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES be intact and ready for later use as a gravity flow sewer line. (Facilities P39-50 Plan, p.13 indicates that the Force Mair would be 5600 feet lona.) We certainly hope that all of the Specific Plan and Genera! Plan directives wil! be followed, and that mitigations be included in the Final Elly. Sincerely, C Hal Olsen, President, AVIA cc: Dennis Barry, Zoning Administrator Gayle Uilkema, County Supervisor Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County fifes#SD028634& RZ023112 2201 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P39 Hai Olson, President, Alhambra Valley Improvement Association 22 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P39-1 Please refer to Master Response Al regarding the gateway Parcel A. Parcel A would be reflected on the Final Map. P39-2 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P39-3 Please refer to Master Response 66 regarding the relocation of the entrance road to Alhambra Valley Estates and Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P39-4 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding the setback of homes along Alhambra Valley Road. P39-5 Comments are acknowledged regarding the appearance of large homes. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and heights of homes. It is noted that there are three two-story homes on Alhambra Valley Road immediately across the road from the site. P39-6 Comment is acknowledged regarding three-car garages. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-7 Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding homes facing Alhambra Valley Road. P39-8 Comments are acknowledged regarding the appearance of two-story homes. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding single-story height limitations. It is noted that of the five existing two-story homes mentioned, three are directly across Alhambra Valley Road from the site. P39-9 Comment is acknowledged regarding limiting the number of two-story homes. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-10 Comment is acknowledged regarding deed restrictions. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-11 Comment is acknowledged regarding deed restrictions for single-story homes. Deed restrictions are part of implementation and will be included as verification and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring program and Conditions of approval for the project P39-12 Comment is acknowledged regarding the appearance of flag lots. Please refer to Master Response A4 regarding flag lots. P39-13 Mitigation Measure 3.1-8 (page 3-25) requires that light fixtures direct light downward and have an incandescent light color. P39-14 Comment is acknowledged regarding internal light illumination. The discussion on page 3-23 of the DEIR indicates that internal lighting is not expected to be a significant impact because it is similar to residential lighting already in use 2-202 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 .................................................................... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES throughout the Valley. No two-story houses would be located along Alhambra Valley Road, so second-story lighting would not be a significant impact. P39-15 Comment is acknowledged regarding the agricultural use of the land. The Alhambra Valley Specific Pian, however, designates the entire project area as low-density residential and indicates that R-20 zoning is compatible with that designation. The site is designated as "Unique Farmland" in the State classification based on its historical use, but is not categorized as "Important Agricultural Lands" in the General Plan. The site has not been used recently for row crops or vineyard purposes. P39-16 Comments are acknowledged regarding the timing of biological surveys. Please refer to Master Response E2 regarding surveys and mitigation for protected species. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 on page 3-42 (and page ES-9) of the DEIR requires that such surveys be carried out prior to any site work and that consultations with responsible agencies be addressed prior to the work as well, including following the standardized protocols of those responsible agencies. P39-17 The intent of the statement is that construction will not occur within the creek corridor. Construction will be set back at least 50 feet, so that there is no interference with movements of the species within the creek. Please see the response above to P39-16 regarding the timing of biological surveys. P39-18 Please refer to Master Response E1 regarding the creek setback for biological protection and Master Response E2 regarding mitigation for protected species. The Monk and Associates letter was included as a reference in the DEIR. P39-19 Mitigation Measure 3-4.1 includes preconstruction surveys and protection for the Alameda whipsnake. Please refer to Master Response E2 regarding mitigation for protected species. P39-20 A 100-200 foot buffer zone around Vaca Creek may help mitigate potential effects to buried or undiscovered cultural resources, but would severely impact development of lots in those areas. The increased buffer is not considered necessary. Several other measures are identified in Section 3.5 (Cultural Resources) of the DEIR. These measures require specific actions to be undertaken in the event of resource discovery during excavation, including halting work within 50 feet of the discovery, inspection by an archaeologist, and evaluation under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. If human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage Association would be contacted for appropriate measures. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 would mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels with the proposed 50-foot buffer. P39-21 See response above to P39-20. P39-22 Utility systems would be built to resist anticipated seismic ground shaking. Seismic impacts on utilities are discussed on page 3-55 of the DEIR, in Section 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Potential Impact 3.6-2. The last sentence in this paragraph states "All on-site utility systems will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code, established County standards and regulations, and accepted engineering practice." Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-203 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P39-23 The DEIR shows both Vaca Creek and Arroyo del Hambre to represent the creek corridor to the west and north of the site. This reference is noted in the Project Description on page 2-2. P39-24 Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development in the 100- year floodplain.'This response also notes that the reference to Mitigation Measure 3.8-9 is incorrect and will be changed to Mitigation Measure 3.8-8. P39-25 Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development in the 100- year floodplain. P39-26 Comment is acknowledged regarding prohibiting development in the floodplain. Please refer to Master Response C1 regarding fill and development in the 100- year floodplain. P39-27 Comment is acknowledged regarding the name Arroyo del Hambre Creek. The discussion on page 2-2 of the Project Description indicates that either name is used to describe the creek. P39-28 Implementation of mitigation measures will be included as verification in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval for the project P39-29 Comment is acknowledged regarding assessments for maintenance. This is not an EIR issue, however, and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-30 Comment is acknowledged. Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 require submittal of erosion control plans to the Department of Public Works and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of any grading permits. P39-31 Comment is acknowledged regarding preference for the location of the drainage pipe on the west side of the road. Please refer to Master Response C2 regarding the relocation of the 48-inch drainage pipe. P39-32 Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 requires that the in-line detention structures be redesigned, if necessary, to ensure post-development discharge is equal to or less than the existing discharge. Impacts on groundwater recharge were found to be less than significant in the discussion on page 3-71 of the DEIR. P39-33 There is an error in the zoning designation on Figure 3.9-2 on page 3-78 of the DEIR. The land west of the project site should be zoned R-40, not R-20 as shown. The map has been revised to reflect the change (please refer to response to comment P2-14). P39-34 Comment is acknowledged regarding suggested zoning for the 4.5-acre parcel. P39-35 Comment is acknowledged regarding retention of the agricultural use of the 4.5-acre parcel. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-36 Comment is acknowledged regarding retention of the barn on-site, and the Specific Plan policies. These comments are related to the merits of the project and are appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The barn is not identified as a structure of historical significance. 2-204 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 _....................................................................................................................................................... 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P39-37 Comment is acknowledged regarding Alhambra Valley Specific Plan discussions. P39-38 Comment is acknowledged regarding the zoning of the 4.5-acre parcel to R-40. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan designates the entire project area as low density residential, which is consistent with the proposed R- 20 zoning. P39-39 Comment is acknowledged regarding agricultural buffers. Adjacent sites (including the property to the south), however, are not actively used for agricultural purposes. The sites are designated in the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan for urban, not agricultural, uses. P39-40 Comment is acknowledged. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-41 Comment is acknowledged regarding rezoning the 4.5-acre parcel to R-40. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P39-42 Comment is acknowledged regarding moving homes closer to the road to minimize noise impact. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks for houses along Alhambra Valley Road and to Master Response F1 regarding noise mitigation. Moving homes closer to the road to buffer noise levels is not specifically suggested by Mitigation Measure 3.10-2, which outlines three options for noise reduction. P39-43 See response above to P39-42. P39-44 Comment is acknowledged regarding increasing setbacks to 100 feet and requiring homes to face Alhambra Valley Road. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks for houses along Alhambra Valley Road and houses facing the road. P39-45 Comment is acknowledged regarding removal of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3. Please refer to Master Response A2 regarding setbacks of homes from Alhambra Valley Road. P39-46 Comment is acknowledged regarding discussions with Public Works. Please refer to Master Response S6 regarding the relocation of the entrance driveway to Alhambra Valley Estates and to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P39-47 Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P39-48. Comment is acknowledged regarding protection for the proposed force-main. Please refer to Master Response D3 regarding force-main protection for the sewer system. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) will be required to approve the system design prior to Final Map approval. P39-49. Comment is acknowledged regarding stability issues along the sewer line route. Please refer to Master Response D3 regarding measures to address safety of the force-main line. Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZO23112 2-205 September 2004 2: COMMENT'S AND RESPONSES P39-50. Comment is acknowledged regarding the subsequent use of the force main for a gravity sewer. It is noted, however, that the CCCSD's preferred gravity sewer line route is north up Alhambra Valley Road to Gilbert Lane, not along the force main route to Sage Drive. 2-206 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1 April 2004 Contra Costs County Community Development Department 651 l-ne St 4'Floor North`vying Martinez,CA 94553 Attention: Christine Gregory. Subj:Draft EIR, Alhambra Valley Estates Dear its.Gr'tgory, Attached you will find a copy of my earlier comments listing my concerns with the development planned for the comer of Alhambra Valley Road and Releiz Valley Road, P40-1 As of yet,these comments have not been addressed.My concerns are mostly directed at the increase to traffic on AVR and the failure to implement past policies concerning the control of traffic on this road. The proposal to build a"sound wall"along AVR for the new development is proof that traffic noise is a major concern bf the deveiopers,.as it alwvays has been for the standing residents.Ironically,the sound wail is intendedd to protect these new.residents from a P40-2 problem to which their residency will contribute.Additionally,this type of fencing is contrary to existing points in the AVR.specific plan. The traffic problems on AVR must be addressed and past regulations/proposals implemented before venturing ahead and increasing the existing problems. P40--3 Regards, r t Mr. es7artncy 5161 hambra Valley Rd. Marti ez,CA 94553 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -.County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-207 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.9 Marcn 2003 As Rose Marie Pietras Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, north Wing Martinez, CA 54553-0095 Sub;: Proposed development at intersection of Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads. Ms Pietras, I would like to make several remarks concerning the proposed residential development at the corner of AVR and RVR.Basically I want to stand up for the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian and to encourage adherence to its intent,goals,and constraints. I was present in room 107 at 651 Pine St.in 1991 when the plan was voted and approved. I remember clearly a statement being made by a board member that this plan { would have"the effect of law"and would be a valuable tool In reaching the desired goals as 1 specified in section Il of that document.There are great concerns by the residents in the 11 P40-4 valley,and especially along AVIS that this proposed development is contrary to these goals of the Specific Pian.There is a need to insure that this plan is enforced as"law"when acting on any development proposals for the valley. The onus is on the board to maintain the intent of the AVSD as regards the"designated Gateway"aspects of the intersection of AVR and RVR. This gateway must fully maintain l P44-5 the rural-residential intent of the plan and not greet visitors with a swath of crowded, suburban,cookie cutter mansionettes.Additionally,the pian calls for fences along AVR to be of the"open rail fencing"type. You will probably hear of many specific worries of valley inhabitants regarding the Goals and Policies laid down in section li of the AVSP-for me, one of the prime problems is the l traffic situation along AVR. Despite having 8 policies stipulated In the RVSP concerned with traffic control,there has been no action whatsoever In the past in implementing these points.AVR has become a speed straightway and rush;hour shortcut for many P40-6 nonresidents.The more development done along Alhambra Avenue, and its accompanying traffic stops/slowdowns, the more drivers opt to speed alono AVR and avoid the inconvenience of obeying traffic signs and regulations. Residents,their children, and pets,now literally lay their safety on the line Just to walk,cycle,or even work aiong i AVR.In the last 13 years, I have had to call County Animal Control 3 times to remove the l carcassses of dead deer from my 112 acre lot all had been hit by speeding,automobiles. I spoke with the Schoolmaster at John Swett Elementary several years back concerning � the traffic in front of his school. His concern was evident at that time and I am sure has grown since.Nothing,has been done to reduce the traffic congestion as stipulated in E. Goal 2, 1P40-7 policy 3. Ad tonally.the 3 ton truck limit set on AVR in the vicinity of the school Is routinely ignored by all trucks but especially,It seems,by huge tandem semis in the 40-60 ton range.This borders on being criminal. About 6 years ago I wrote the county asking why no road signage to discourage through traffic and maintain safe travel speeds had been placed as required in E.Goal 2,policy 6 of ,4 _6 the AVSP. My letter,was passed around rand.finally.answered by some underling in the 2-208 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES county works department--his answer was that in his experience signs asking that drivers not use a particular road were ineffectivel I was flabbergasted--the AVS:P designates this as a policy to be implemented,not as an option to be considered!Additionally, his P40-8 interpretation of"signage to discourage through traffic"is very limited as there are other ways to use signs to this purpose. Overall,this goes to show the sad state of. Implementation and the poiite lip service paid in the past to the Coals of the AV Sr. Finaiiy, l would like to address a problem specific to my property in Alhambra Valley. Attached.you will find copies of corres ndence between myself and the County Piood Control District concerning Alhambra reek as it flows through my property at 5101 P tl-9 Alhambra Valley Road.Please mote that my concerns go back to 1991 when the creek flow was altered to permit building of a residence immediately upstream from my property. Despite their assurances to the contrary, I have experienced slariificant erosion at critical areas of the creek and in the rear future will be forced to take action to avoid a catastrophic situation. It is my understanding that a 48 inch drainage line emptying into.Alhambra Creek on my property in the vicinity of the Wanda Way culvert is under consideration as a possible P40-18 solution to the drainage problems of the proposed development. I,want to state now,so that there is no confusion on this point tater,that I abject to this further strain on the creek limitations, and that l will not allow any use of my land for Installation or aces;for this drainage systern. Regards, t Mr,la s R.hantney x101 A rxtbra Valley Rd. Martini . , CA 94553 Tel: 925-228-0850 Email: }hartney@earthlink.net Alhambra Valley Estates Final EiR-County flies#SD028634& RZ023112 2-209 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P40 James Hartney 5101 Alhambra Valley Read Martinez, CA 94553 P40-1 Comments are acknowledged regarding the prior letter. P40-2 Comment is acknowledged regarding a sound wall. Please refer to Master Response A6 regarding solid walls or fends along Alhambra Valley Coad. P40-3 Comment acknowledged regarding traffic problems. P40-4 Comment is acknowledged regarding project adherence to the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. P40-5 Comments are acknowledged regarding the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. P40-6 Comment is acknowledged regarding historic traffic problems. P40-7 Comment is acknowledged regarding traffic problems at John Swett Elementary School. P40-8 Comment is acknowledged regarding road signage and speeds. P40-9 Comment is acknowledged regarding past drainage concerns at his property. P40-10 Comment is acknowledged regarding access through his property for installation of drainage system. 2-210 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 .pine Street,4'h Floor North Wing 1 � � � Martinez,CA 94553 w a + Aun:Christine Gregory Re:Draft EIR,Alhambra Valley Estates We are wrung to express our concern about the Draft EIR. Our main concern is the ,}Ian to build massive two-story Douses in the valley.This is contradictory to the County P41-1 General Pias,which.states. "Scenic views observable froni scenic routes shall be conserved,enhanced and protected to the extent possible."-(5-36) The pian for two-story homes with 3-car garages is also not compatible with the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan which states"the massing of new dwellings should be compatible with the natural setting."(p.6)"adopt design standards to regulate new residential development and which maintains the rural/residential(emphasis added) atmosphere in Alhambra Valley."(p, 11)"New'development should complement the P41-2 existing environment in terms of form.,scale and physical appearance.(p.27) "New homes.design shall blend in with he serni-rural character(emphasis added)of the area" (p. 31) "reduce the effective visual bua, of development and reduce the environmental impact of development"(p 34)"design of new residential structures should be located and designed so as t6 minimize she obstruction of any ridge silhouette as viewed from ; scenic routes on the valley floor„(p.36)and"site building to avoid prominence"(p.36) We submit that the plan as currently drafted violates all of these provisions and should be revised. Sincere , T an l le .i t and Herb xoldblum C) 31 Wanda Way Martinez,CA 94553 Alhambra galley Estates Find EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-291 September 2001 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES _ P41 .Jan Hewitt and Herb Goldblurn 31 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 94553 P41-1 Comment about two-story hoaxes is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding single-story limits to protect views. P41-2 Comment acknowledged regarding house size and rural character. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding house sizes and heights. 2-212 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Contra Costs.County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St Martinez,Califomia,9455.3 Attention:Christine Gregory Re:Draft EIR for"Alhambra Valley Estates"proposal, We believe that the Draft EIR fails to conform to or respect the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan that was prepared by a Citizens committee with the Contra Costa County Community Development Staff and.adopted by the Contra Costa Doard of P42-1 Supervisors in October,1992. The"Specific Plan"has served as a gentle and productive guide and safeguard for the beautiful ambience of our valley for fourteen years,and we must ask the Development Department to defend it by making the substantial changes in The proposal that have been described by the residents of the valley and expressed to you. The name"Alhambra Valley Estates"is deceptive.The proposals described misrepresent the spirit and nature of our Alhambra'Valley,and the ward"Estates„ attempts to inflate the development's quality by spuriously implying"a sizable piece P42--2 of Huai land,usually with a large.house". The dictionary also characterizes it"ranX a condition of life,wealth or status,display of wealth and power".This is not what the "Speck Plan"describes;or what the residents and taxpayers who studied and prepared it,or the Board of Supervisors had in mind and accomplished in the years the plan has guided them. We are close neighbors of this proposed development,and our neighbors and we Have for years enthusiastically supported the spirit and the requirements ofThe Specific Plan by planting small orchards of fruit trees,olive trees and vineyards brat IP42-3 replace,support and help the old orchards thrive.The proposal will crowd with phony i "Estate homes"a beautiful area once covered with grape vines. i This corner is split by another potential development with a common lot line, and the two parcels make our gateway to the Alhambra Valley.The scenic and architectural quality of this large 4acent development will be surely be duplicated p42-4 by this proposal's,precedent,and diminished by its crowded and opportunistic design. Our neighbors and we ask that this proposal be reconsidered'to achieve consonance with the spirit and ambiance called for and clearly eqn ssed in the Spec Plain,and in the desirable changes already communicated to you by others. Sincerely, .._ 925-228-0344 Sylvia Sch�uber PAX.925-228-7443 William K Sch ber, 190 Rolling Ridge Way MmTinez CA 94553 Alhambra Valley Estates final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 2-213 September 2004 2; COMMENTS AND RESPONSES _ P42 Sylvia and William Scheuber 190 Rolling Ridge Way Martinez, CA 94553 P42-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding conformance with the Specific Plan. P42-2 Comment is acknowledged. P42-3 Comment is acknowledged. P42-4 Comment is acknowledged. 2-214 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County fines#SD028634 & RZO23112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES March 9,2004 04I tr?:t :l it i y`: CountyAdminis non53 651 Pine St 4th Floor,N.Vdmg Martinez,CA 94553-0095 R.E:Alhambra Valley estates Countyfile #SD028634 &R7_023112 To'Whom it May Concern, All homes in this development should be required to be single level in order to provide the least impact to the area. In pard cular the homes along the Alharnbra.Valley roadside.Iftwo,story homes are allowed they will significantly impact the ambiance oflheAlhaznbra VWRIey by distracting from the view P43-1 with towering structures that will close in the area and make it feel like a track subdivision. 'She valley should be;preserved with a;look and feel of the country so that everyone can enjoy it. The general public enjoys hiking,biking,leasure driving,photographing and painting landscapes on a daily basis. Each of the new homes should be custom and serni custom. The Alh bra Valley is the exc usive area of Martinez and should remain that way.Ifthe homes appear to be like a closed in subdivison of same or similar shape and design it�xU significantly detract from �'��— the beauty of this picture perfect landscape that everyone wants to eni oy. For example,the new homes on McMahon Court are single level on latae lots and are best suited for the flat lots(although-the color selection and style ofthose homes appear like rainbow trach homes). ` hecorresponding twostoryhomesonthehillsdeonTravers€7r, were nicely designed!but they looks P43-3 likeaTractofhomes.inextrerneoppositionpleaerefertoBrittany Msdevelopment offi.Creno. Some flat and hilly lots,the subdivision is all towering two story homes that make that valley appearvery small and closed in and distracts from the beauty of"the area.-that everyone wants to enjoy. The only saving grace is the vineyard. Po Sincerely, Leslie and GaryRies 21 Pyrmont Ct Martinez,CA 94553 925 228 0363 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-215 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P43 Leslie and Gary Ries 21 Pyrmont Court Martinez, CA 94553 P43-1 Comment is acknowledged regarding compatibility with the area. This comment is related to the merits of the project and is appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Please refer to Master Response A3 regarding the size and height of homes. P43-2 Comment is acknowledged. P43-3 Comment is acknowledged. 2-216 Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 3,2004 Centra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Fine Street,0 Flour North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Alt: Christine Gregory Re: Alhambra Valley estates Dear Ms.Gregory, What happened to the one-acre minimum in AlhambraValley? We are opposed to the x,44-1 Alhambra Valley Estates proposal for the following reasons- 1. It will exacerbate the already busy traffic problem, ]F'44-2 2. Our property adjoins the proposed development which will undoubtedly F'44-3 impact,the value of our property downward. Respectfully yours,. Aldo and Irena Rocca 12 Castle Creek Court Telephone: 372-6689 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028834 & RZ023112 2-217 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P44 Aldo and Irena Rocca 312 Castle Creek Court Martinez, CA 94553 P44-1 Comment acknowledged regarding opposition to project. The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan designates the entire project area as low-density residential and indicates that R-20 zoning is consistent with that designation. P44-2 Comment acknowledged regarding traffic. P44-3 Comment acknowledged regarding property values. 2-218 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD02,8634& RZ023112 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RE=SPONSES ALHAMBRA VALLEY IMPROVEMENT OC 'ION President "tad Olson, 2.2 Wanda Wry, Martinez, CA 94553 4-� April 19, 2004 Christine Gregory _ Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94653 RE: Draft EIR,Alhambra Valley Estates Dear Christine Gregory: Enclosed are the signatures of 202 Valle residents who have endorsed the fallowing statement, "Tree#4, the Valley Oak with a,43 inch trunk and a majestic canopy opposite Is slated to be destroyed. The Alhambra Valley P45-1 Specific Plan on page 10 states, 'existing roadside trees sinificantly contribute to these scenic corridors, and all efforts should ge made to preserve them.' In response to the Draft EIR, WE GIANT THE COUNT'S TO SAVE TREE#4." The Alhambra Valley Specific Plan on p. 34, under V Design Guidelines, states, "The intent of these design guidelines is to provide the county and the existing Valley community with the necessary assurances that future P'45-2 development will attain the level of quality desired-by the Valley communitv." We have the signatures of 202 Valley residents, all asking that tree#4 be saved. please see that the tree is sawed and validate these Design Guidelines as well as the Specific Plan directive-on p.10. We have made all efforts to save tree#4, and we expect you to mare the P45-3 same effort and see that the wishes of the Valley community are followed _ and that the tree is saved. Sincerely, Hal Olson, President, AVIA c: Gayle Uilkema, Su ervisvr District 2 Dennis Barry, CCC Community Development Department Nathaniel Hoffman, Centra Costa Newspapers Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-219 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P45 Alhambra Valley Improvement Association 22 Wanda Way Martinez, CA 54553 (petition with 202 signatures attached) P45-1 The petition requesting protection of tree#4 is acknowledged. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. P45-2 Comment is acknowledged. - P45-3 Comment is acknowledged. 2-220 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR County files*SD028634 & RZ02311 12 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I would like you to have this background and information from the Plummer's(property owners)regarding the development of the Swett Ranch property. John Plummer's great grandfather,John Swett,purchased this property in 1881. The Swett/Plummer family have had continues ownership and residence on the retraining piece of land. This land was used for vineyards prior to prohibition and converted to orchards during prohibition. Its main crop was Bartlet pears but also had table(Concord) grapes,plums cherries and peaches. John grew up in Alhambra Valley and fanned with his family. During the late 1940s the neighboring farms began selling the land for housing. By the late 60s farming in Alhambra Valley had narrowed to a few. Most of the orchards were dieing or being torn out for homes to be built. The Swett ranch was the last orchard to continue into the 1980s. But it was not a financial productive orchard,John's uncle and I picked pears to P46-1 be shipped by truck to Suisun. The packing sheds for pears were long gone. The ranch was unable to pay for pickers. There was no market for the pears locally. Many of the pear trees had contacted pear blight and needed to be torn out. Margaret Phummer(John's mother)could not bear to have the last remaining land be sold. She felt strongly the need to preserve her heritage. So,some of the land was leased to help offset expenses. But this only managed to pay the taxes and produced no real income. After Margaret passed away in 1988,John and I wished,also,to preserve the heritage. But,as more and more homes came,trespassing became a bigger problem,the inability to produce income because of theft of produce,cutting of the fencing, complaints of the neighbors of toxic spray,dust produced from disking of weeds and if weeds were not disposed of,the noxious pollens in the air and family members not living here desire to sell,the time.has come to sell this property to match the surrounding area of residential homes. Alhambra Valley has become a lovely suburban area in central Contra Costa County. While the SwettlPlumnner family never interfered with the development that was going on around therm,now the very neighbors who came to live and transplanted the orchards with houses are protesting that this rural community should retrain rural. The idea that Alhambra Valley being rural is far from any fact today. This one remaining piece of land has been fallow for the past several years and has not been a viable economic farm since P46-2 the 1950s. It saddens me to.ttiirnk that the very neighbors that came and destroyed the agriculture of Alhambra Valley would now be so adamant to stop an improvement to the community they created by their presence. When the last of the orchards were removed,John left many of the seedling oaks that had sprung up at the base of the fruit trees. Many of the trees are what one would describe as stately or beautiful. But one oak,not stately or beautiful,more of a deformed tree under the electric wires,has become a point of SAVE THE TREE. The SAVE THE TREE p46-3 effort is not for the sake of the tree but to slow the process of the development and increase cost of the development. Trees were removed from most of the lots even whole orchards,throughout Alhambra Valley,to build the homes of the now SAVE THE TREE people. Dorothy Plummer Alhambra Valley Estates Final ElR-County fifes#SD028634 & RZ023112 2-221 September 2004 2: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P46 Dorothy Plummer 110 Hill Girt Ranch Road Martinez, CA 94553 P46-1 Comments acknowledged regarding history of the site. P46-2 Comments acknowledged regarding rural character and neighbors. P46-3 Comment acknowledged regarding trees. Please refer to Master Response A5 regarding tree preservation. 2-222 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 ■ REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.1 Text Revisions and Errata This section summarizes text revisions and errata to the DEIR. Revisions reflect changes identified in the preparation of the responses to comments on the DEIR. Changes are listed below in page order with reference to the relevant sections and pages in the DEIR. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On page ES-4 (end of paragraph on Wastewater Pipeline), a sentence will be added to the discussion stating the following: The Central Contra Costa Sanjtary District has determined that a second pump station will also be required about halfway down Reliez Valley Road Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2004) An area of about 10 feet by 20 feet in size will be required. similar to the area required for the on-site pump station. On page ES-6, the following paragraph is added to the discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (ES-3), pertaining to the Role of Findings in the CEQA process: The California Environmental Quality.Act(CEQA� reauires that a decision-making body snake findings prior to approving-"yroiect subject to environmental review. These findings may take the form of a determination that al there are no significant environmental imt_acts that would result from the project. b)there are potential significant environmental impacts but the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level, or cull feasible mitigation measures have been identified, but there remain significant unavoidable impacts associated with the project. For the Alhambra Valley Estates project all,Potential significant impacts of the project can be reduced to a less than significant lever upon implementation of the specified mitigation measures. These findings should be enumerated lay the decision-makers-prior to final proiect approval Can page ES-7, Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 has been modified and no longer refers to elimination of the entry island that contains tree#4: Mitigation Measure 3.1-3. Prior to Vesting Tentative Map approval, revisions to the proposed road alignment and entry shall require approval of the Community Development and Public Works Departments to verify safe srght distance and turnjng movernents along Alhambra Valley Road.12riew tie Map, the appkaF#shall subi4* Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R-County files#SD028634 &RZ023112 3-1 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA seMeFielat� ` On page ES-9, Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. No alterations of Vaca Creek within the creek setback along the project site shall be allowed, except for activities approved as part of a creek preservation and enhancement plan. On page ES-16, Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.12-3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit Improvement Plans to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department that illustrate the widening of Alhambra Valley Road per the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan,-unless the Community Development and Public Works Departments determine that the widening or right-of-way �rovisions are not feasible. On page ES-16, Mitigation Measure 3.13=1 is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall apply to and receive approval from the Contra Costa County I..AFCO for annexation of the project site and the alignment r,F the nff cite,. as ittewateF pipeline to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary Distric# C( CCSD). CHAPTER I (INTRODUCTION) On page 1-3, under FINAL EIR, the third sentence is modified as follows: The Final EIR will be released for public review prior to certification of the EIR by the decision-making body Zoning AdministizateF, and prior to final decisions on whether to approve or deny the rezoning and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map applications. CHAPTER 2 (PROJECT DESCRIPTION) A sentence is added to the discussion on page 2-6 (add to first paragraph) stating the following; The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has determined that a second pump station will also be required about halfway down Reliez Road (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2004). An area of about 10 feet by 20 feet in size will be required, similar to the area required for the on-site pump station. The pump station is proposed to be underground, except the electrical pedestal,thus no adverse visual or acoustical imoacts are expected. CHAPTER 3 (ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES) On page 3-3, under Contra Costa County General Plan, the first paragraph is modified as follows: The County's Board of Supervisors adopted the General Plan in July 1996. The purpose of the Plan is to"express the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures, which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of natural resources through the year 20108."Among the Plan's relevant direction applicable to the proposed project are the following. On page 3-3, under Circulation Element, the first sentence is modified as follows: estiened above-,Alhambra Valley and Reliez Valley Roads are identified as Scenic Routes. The Circulation Element of the General Plan states that: 3-2 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA On page 3-19, the paragraph above Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is revised as follows: Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 and 3.1-3 would reduce the potential impact associated with the proposed removal of trees along the site's Alhambra Valley Road frontage to a less than significant level. Community development and Public Works staff will review the street alignment and subdivision access design along with preservation of trees along Alhambra Valley Road and will address the tonic further in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. On page 3-20, Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 on page 3-20 has been modified and no longer refers to elimination of the entry island that contains tree#4: Mitigation Measure 3.1-3. Prior to Vesting Tentative Map approval, revisions to the proposed road alignment and entry shall require approval of the Public Works Departments to verify safe sight distance and turning movements along Alhambra Valley Road. P09F to FeGeFdatign of the Final&Aam, _9 AR MiGant shall sub Plane te the GqAtFa On page 3-26, the first paragraph at the top of the page is modified as follows: Lands defined by the County as agriculturally important are identified on Figure 8-2 of the Conservation dement. The project site is not defined as agriculturally important on Figure 8- 2 of the Conservation Element, On page 3-40, bullet 8-21 under Vegetation and Wildlife Policies is modified as follows: 8-21. The planning €a ntin_a of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife; and ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. On page 3-42, Mitigation Measure 3-4.2 is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. No alterations of Vaca Creek within the creek setback along the project.site shall be allowed except for activities approved as cart of a creek preservation and enhancement Plan. On page 3-62, under the Section 1603 paragraph, the second sentence is modified as follows: Based on information contained in the notification form and a possible Aled field inspection, the Department may propose reasonable modifications in the proposed construction as would allow for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. On page 3-74, text will be changed as follows: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 3.8-8 would reduce impacts associated with the 103-year flood hazards to less than significant levels. On page 3-95, the following text is added (prior to the Internal Circulation discussion): Recreational Traffic.Alhambra Valley Road also provides a recreational route for automobiles,bicycles, motorcycles. and occasionally pedestrians and equestrians. Project impacts during recreational periods 2rimarily weekends,will be.similar to those during the weekdays and will not be measurable within tyoical daily fluctuations. No sicLniftcant impacts regarding recreational traffic are anticipated. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 3-3 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA On page 3-97, Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 is modified as follows: Mitigation Measure 3.12-3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit Improvement Plans to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department that illustrate the widening of Alhambra Valley Road per the Alhambra Valley Specific Plan, unless the Community Development and Public Works Departments determine that the wideninq or r€ght-of-wav provisions are not feasible. On page 3-98, the fourth paragraph is modified as follows: The Sanitary District's wastewater treatment plant is located at the intersection of Route 4 and Interstate 680. The treated wastewater is piped north and discharged into Suisun Bay (Contra Costa County 2002). The plant has a current tFeatmen# aity permitted discharge limit of 46 53.8 million gallons of wastewater per day of average dry weather flow(ADWF) (GentFal Sas 2003). This eapasity discharge limit is expected to 460,900 Gu6temws accommodate a planned population of about 529.000 and worst-case groundwater infiltration through the year 2035 The proect site and the rest of the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian area were included in that planning(Central Contra Costa Sanitary District GeuRty 2004 2982). Currently, the Sanitary District serves over 428,000 customers (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2003). On page 3-101, a new third paragraph is added to the Wastewater section as follows: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD) requires that where possible sewers should be designed to operate under gravity flow to CCCSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Approval of a humping system to serve more than one individual lot requires a discretionary decision by CCCSD's Board of Directors. Such systems are considered temporary until a gravity system can be constructed. CCCSD also requires that sewage facilities connected to its collections stem "be designed and constructed in a manner consistent_with service to the ultimate tributary area."That is a pumping system or gravity sewer would need to be designed to handle connection of 1roiected development upslope from these facilities (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2004). The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District"Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utility Service to Alhambra.Vallev" (October 2. 2003)further discusses potential wastewater collection system locations and design On page 3-102, the first paragraph under Potential Impact 3.13-2 is modified as follows: The applicant has proposed the installation of a force main from the project site to a CCCSD connection point at Reliez Valley Road and Sage Drive(Figure 3.13-2). This would require annexation of the project site and the pipeline alignment to the District. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's wastewater collection system has a capacity of 53.8 4a million gallons of wastewater per day,which can serve approximately 529,000 450,990 customers. Currently the District serves 428,000 customers. The proposed development would add 0.012% to the existing customer population, and would accordingly add no more than approximately 0.012% to the wastewater stream. The addition of no more than 0.012% to the existing wastewater flows to the CCCSD system its not considered significant. On page 3-104, additional text is added at the top as follows: Construction of the proposed wastewater system including theum stations and force main would have temporary short-term impacts on traffic and access noise and dust eneration potent€al exposure to hazards, removal of vegetation, and potential for exposure of cultural resources These construction-related effects, which are generally short-term in nature are analyzed in their respective technical sections in the DEIR and,where appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for each potentially significant impact. CCCSD construction specifications further assure that construction does not unduly interfere with access to affected properties and limits the impacts of noise. dust and runoff. 3=4 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files##SD028634& RZ023112 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA The CCCSD has determined that a second pumping station is required alonca Reliez Valley Road for the force main This added construction would rest ire a small area(10 feet by 2Q feet,similar to that required for the on-site pump station and-should-not result in any significant impacts given the availability of flat open land immediately adiacent to the road. The pump stations are required to meet Central Contra Costa Sanitary.District's standards, which would also reguire back-up power in the event of electrical failure Additional CCCSD requirements address noise and visual impacts so that the pump stations are unobtrusive, both visually and acoustically. On pane 3-104, the sentence prior to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is modified and Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is modified as follows: To ensure the provision of adequate wastewater disposal as pFafesed, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall apply to and receive approval from the Contra Costa County LAtwCO for annexation of the project site and the alignment of thee#siteto the Central Contra Costa Sanitary DistrictCom. CHAPTER 4 (CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS) On page 4-2, under Agriculture, the second paragraph is modified as follows: "The County established an Urban Limit Line with the intent of protecting agricultural resources beyond the Line's limit, and allowing urban uses within its boundaries. The County has previously determined that the demarcation provided by the Urban Limit Line represents a balance of uses and needs, and adequately protects agricultural resources within the County. The Urban Limit Line enforces the County's 65/35 Preservation Standard, whi h assures that at least 65°l0 of the Coun 's€and area is reserved fora riculture. open space, wetlands. parks, and other non-urban uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable loss of agricultural resources because the project site is within the boundaries of the Urban Limit-Line and on lands designated for urban use." CHAPTER 5 (ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT) On pages 5-2 and 5-3, under 5.3 Reduced Density, the final two sentences of the first paragraph is modified as follows: Other types of potential impacts, such as those that might affect biological resources,may not be substantially reduced by a reduced density alternative. S2ecific impacts on the creek, trees and views from Alhambra Valloy Road could result without the sua-gested, mitigation measures included in the 2ro2osed roiect. The stated objective could largely be met by a reduced density alternative,with the principal exception of the objective of the applicant's desired lotlunit yield. On page 5-3; the last sentence of the first paragraph under Section 5.5 (Wastewater Disposal Alternatives) is modified to read: eThree other options to*at the proposal are possible: On page 5-3, a third bullet is added under the first paragraph of Section 5.5 of the DE1R to add a third alternative as follows: • Combination pump and gravity system to CCCSD's system at Alhambra Valley Road and Gilbert Lane. Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 3-5 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA On page 5-4, the first paragraph of the Gravity Flow discussion is modified as follows: Another alternative method of wastewater disposal would be construction of a gravity flaw pipeline from the project site to Gilbert Lane, approximately 1 mile north along Alhambra Valley Road, Wanda Way, and Sheridan. Once constructed, this alternative would be virtually maintenance free when compared to the proposed force main to Sage Road, or several of the on-site alternatives. This alternative alignment would have similar impacts as constructing the proposed wastewater system. Detailed analysis of the Gconstruction of such a gravity flow line is beyond the scope of this environmental document and may need to be further addressed by the applicant the �'� Di_st, , a prior to annexation of Alhambra Valley Estates to the District. On page 5-5, a new paragraph is added as follows at the top to discuss the third alternative wastewater route: COMBINATION PUMP AND GRAVITY FLOW CONNECTION TO THE CCCSD The CCCSD report dated October 2, 2043, entitled Facilities Plan for Wastewater Utility Service to Alhambra Valley, indicates that another temporary alternative to the proposed temporary force main all nment along Reliez Valley Road would _.,_.m._.. g be a force main/gravity line combination from the proiect site north, along Alhambra Valley Road, to Gilbert Lane. This proposed method may not require an additional pump station, other than the pump station that is proposed on the project's parcel"C". The impacts of this alternative alignment would be similar to the effects of constructing the-line identified with the proposed wastewater system. On page 5-5, under 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative, the second paragraph is modified as follows: - The proposed project would generate only one no significant and unavoidable impacts. 4n4paet4-.2- . All atheF potentially significant impacts are mitigatable reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in this EIR. On page 5-5, under 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative, the fifth {last} paragraph is modified as follows: Wth the pFesumptien that it It is the County's intent to facilitate the use and development of lands in accordance with the General Plan and the Alhambra Valley Specific Pian, then 4—„a,,.„rinnf„�44— the altemat4es-4he The number and significance of the potential impacts would remain at levels similar to that those of the proposed project for most of the alternatives. The application of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project, however, would best protect specific resources, such as the creek, and the views from Alhambra Valley Road The proposed project, with those mitigation measures incorporated, would therefore comprise the environmentally superior alternative for the site. 3-6 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA 3.2 Revisions to Figures This section includes, in page order, revisions to figures (attached) in the HEIR. CHAPTER 2 (PROJECT'DESCRIPTION) Figure 2.0-1 (Alhambra Valley Estates-Proposed Lot Design) is modified to indicate Parcels A, B and C. CHAPTER 3 ('ENVIRONMENTAL. ANALYSES) Figure 3.1-1 (Key Viewing Areas) is modified'to change "KVA 1A"to "KVA 1 B" and "KVA 1 B"to "WA 1 A." Figure 3.8-1 (Project Area Drainage Subbasins) is modified to add an arrow from "Project Situ to the outline of the site. Figure 3.9-2 (Existing Zoning Districts) is modified to correct the Zoning on the parcel to the south from "R-20 Zoning District"to"R-40 Zoning District." Figure 3.12-2 (Peak Hour Project Trips AM and (PM) (Project Trips Only)) is modified to change the date of the traffic counts from "April 25, 2003"to "April 22 and 23, 2003." Alhambra Valley Estates Final E€R -County files#SD028634 & RZO23112 3-7 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA Figure 2.0-1: Alhambra Valley Estates— Proposed Lot design � a 1 �V nj yy ` gym. I v. I 4 ;k1 I b 1 A �e Y SOURCE: P/A Design Resources, Inc. and MHA 2003 3-8 Alhambra Valley Estates Sinai EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA Figure 3.1-1: Key Viewing Areas 4,1 gxg 4 � r � r rr% i 5fg. �....._ .... d 4 ..� $ tui ' $ Yt '4 , 3 ip dcr 11t y +�J _ RVA ..a St .....,.'"•-.^' �'. l i �F� s E y ` v a 6 � � gas^ •.F� �`-• �:'g� 'g 6 �$ t s � Mw w , rr,�3 w34i X7 4-i SOURCE PIA Design Resources, Inc.and Carr 2003 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634& RZ023112 3-9 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA Figure 3.8-1: Project Area Drainage Subbasins t Kik �, y> "`;{� fid- ,Tp �- � '�» 'fs ",� ^5 � ' kid: ° �e z. � � °q` .,..,, (f s � c�"# �� z•'1 z. V,j,¢ yj 171 '� '""• � ,��" s+,a� #;�� 3 �,�t � �i.� � I Ria jk � �' � Yv: '' '��n.� °"'+�: u F wriks� m £ � 4 a TR Si Ir & a.,� e'raim;wy'y�•,:^4 L.. f .+ � '� � `" _ t� "f 'F d '�Z&�$ A''' ' 'xYE kx i x ks 4 If > p '?a�a %�� •a. "° i e�Fx� �x '�.`TM, '*e a � %a' 2 i 7<� t s k� >x > ,g fy k iW 3X SOURCE:Questa Engineering Corporation, Inc.2003 3-10 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 2 REVISIONS AND ERRATA Figure Existing ZonMg Districts . . . . . V � � . � � �m \ �� � \ « � � � ■� . ° > �^ e« SOURCE mw DesignResources and2§4 2003 Alharhbra Valley kkke Final EIR.County files#SD028634& RZ 23112 11 September 2004 3: REVISIONS AND ERRATA Figure 3.12-2: Peak Hour Project Trips AM and (PM) (Project Trips Only tstA ' : �...,,, Signalized Intersection 1 c� 0 ( ) t 1 i I Step Sign Controlled 416 L"3 C 1 ('3) NORTH� i 1 tez RD, April 22,20033 and April 23,20013 AM Peak-7:15 Alk-8:15 AM - MAP.IV07 70 SCALE PM Peak-4:45 PM-5:45 PM SOURCE:Omni-means,George Nickelson 200 3-12 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 4 :■ PREPARERS A REFERENCES 4.1 Preparers of Response to HEIR Comments This section lists those individuals who either prepared or participated in the preparation of this Final EIR and Response to Comments. LEAD AGENCY Contra Costa County Community Development Department Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director Aruna Bhat Senior Planner Christine Gregory Planner CONSULTANT TEAM This EIR was prepared for and under the direction of the Contra Costa County Community Development department by MMA Environmental Consulting, Inc. of San Mateo, California. The following staff contributed to this report: Laurie McClenahan MHA Project Director Curtis Williams MHA Project Manager Tania Treis MHA Environmental Scientist Andrew Gentile MHA Environmental Analyst Will Hopkins, PhD Senior Engineering Geologist, Questa Engineering Corporation Kelly White Environmental Scientist, Questa Engineering Corporation George Nickelson Traffic Engineer Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR -County files#SD028634& RZ023112 4-1 September 2004 4: PREPARERS AND REFERENCES 4.2 Additional References The following references were used in preparing the Final EIR and Response to Comments. This reference supplements those found in Section 7 of the Draft EIR. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Letter of comment on the Draft EIR for Alhambra Valley Estates, Russell Leavitt; AICD, Management Analyst. April 19, 2004, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Phone conversation with Russell Leavitt,AICP, Management Analysis. June 1, 2004. 4-2 Alhambra Valley Estates Final EIR-County files#SD028634 & RZ023112 September 2004 APPENDIX A Mitigation Monitoring an , d to U- cL C7 its Cl. t 7 7 O d to ct� cll tS K3 D Cry C7 co co t� c co cn n .s C7 cn us tp co 2 c�aoc, CD 12 w c s cs C. c� d ' , v 04 o 0 a �• �, c :'� a c a C sx 51 a C E as ; 21:5 Ezn E a a. E � a co E > � Y a ; E > a � � � its C D w a a s ° a Ca� 0L Ute r3ySCt U � c� 4'Si� I p O 0 - C7 L1 a C CL�-- � a y s a 7ro CLS a > ((D is � c 0 E ° a N dE Nc6 CU > CU> 2 E > UCL a 5 LL (CL a� tsS O to j O CC Qcf7 CJ f a C tCl3 U m a 2as ' aaC it> or. CL IUUCn 0 , M' a G i s 0 O - 3 a) .= C Cl)cs > as ° °cc - (Dala ,. is > Q ? ?� oE m { a C cn Ci. .0 a C taus�' cVai'1 E -a '• C CG� .t75 C C C C4 i= 06 '- C m t i C� C3� a p C "y to 05 ( CG 2 aU (D - 0 �0U oaa IL) W—aaxl � 1UUEoE i U CIO co � Li cL3 +» Gl O I aco � a a "� acni ° opts ° ' lE LM a a. . o f a "> m CII l z� ffi E a3: E d ° ; dam ca a c c .C -a z m (n ': Ec airs, p E a o - o to ro a -c a [3.+� _c Ca U <C us U C: 3tii d I d us 4 . j v d 0d d o as_ c j its > �w , i C O G i CT 4- Q Q (il a O co CN 0. > C7 a + s - � C 4>) O t ; j a C tCI C U) C C71 � 'O Gt3 � ,C .G CD s E , E It '0 CD t� a ca cU cn C c v i > pQ m.a en � o ia ,_ 0Y on0 CL r) a ' ; C- C 'o o vu u 2 ° > < > a Cs j_ - vs F�z imco r > a� oma ; ` > " o a ' > a � y, c �' kms" ro C 1 ' C � ' U ! asnC E2 a6 .c C caLOCaa - isaaC Cd Ct3 ;� a 0 E @ (LS w »� 0 s TS a Q,} r 2 E C o ri x � � �' > ( a x ; Q a "c cu E L Cx C rr# ,a ' c' > cs E i ` E E s c E 0 t- C2 C7 C' ? 5 L CnC nil `� Cy ' ++ s cu } N C co '� 1Y � O ;4 y� G ,- f� L3 Ll. ,t) U•(4 `. p. Q� G Gj OG 4 Os az c O v -0o wou w t` O �� G t0.7 � �' � ill DC7 �•C � ��- tG- C SOS CL b O G 'p O O 3 1 1 y O �5 Cy Us O c.; L3t U G ty 6ti { LtS t7 G ✓ O �' ,✓ " O '�' 'm• SSso -oca ' U Ca U c3 t tt O ' O G C3 U ' O 00 16 'O� to � 0 ° C -t ty- t — a0 Hca cy �'tft� � � � p5 s, t3 ( O i a tci tii cU G Gray s � � � (D 7 ssO'.. t� s,., .... G CCS O G O Ctl d Q cys C C� r e ° d� u t\ em CN A !� j j E ca i o cs c. E ro ' cn tits �- 0 w 11 0 CL ..�. U Itttt '2 76 C 6S U jy i'E Q 4- U p U ! C c ' 1 � c o 0 � n M (D ro� o Lr c 40 0 � c).� a � °ate `( ; .cc E i C cod C > C' N i i d U troj U E < O ' CL M.0 0 C] T3 c: N C� a.. � o v 0 coW Q U Cl^0 U a) _1 {3 r co � rom coo Ero E � ' � U cy E E _ > i--- . 0 y CU U ro N C `- ! v i j p e c -i6 m t { rte ` Uflj o' Q W i:- -Or8. E w "E I w r C3 m 0 itS �' � �S Cl4 C3 ' p .; U " ° `� o f ami o 0 � u E oma' � k o U y ! n oro � LLJ � c E ° ° �- -0 Z ro ro c 'M -0 orae cicu pcn E � cc o d o 11 :2 U coo e._T d ` W m 0O w U C) 'm t6 7 Q q) ca d "p Ui E Q7 W j ! �Q C ZL i -0 �. Cil 1 � i tits" U rm- I 5C cncc � � 3 � eo � •� �.� > ca coo CLQ � o E Uy CL y 0 0 fCS �5 0 I { 1QCS. ULL31 O roCly Nt1 ( t� j a. Z, 0 � E xI 0 � 3 > a. 0 ! z j Ct 0 C c w.. r a = E 0 0 Ems. Ecs ° (= ° U- x M a, _ w c v, CL c a p C s � uM (D cti 2 > .< inz22 o oEE va v� u, c 1 ii �s:t.:� •� � � �,•�:. ' . � o ami EQ � U1Y 11 1 Cc, , c� o x 00v, GL CD >, p M 2 ca m o ry tc E c t5 iL ! _ _ + aJ ay CL �'' Co dam, v- Cir, 0 .. a- CCS 0 C7, � C CC U CD CCS � we- ca co 4 a E = cs,(a cs — as G3 i � CD c `� � �y 0 {� � to . 'C1 C C3'� G} � U1 U ;M M 15, ate`, 2Br G CL ' n C 0u � Co "o Coa) M w > ° t, c°n ren u 2 uj tll =cr Ca 0> 2 C Cn m = = C7 LL vi a E # L OW `` O ° 75 N Ute, ? cp o U'a o E r Z.2 .2 > to CL 0 Q ' d ems- i ! CritV i� � W iE ,, � �? M �, 0 i i cn cL cza L + 00 ID y tk7 C .O r— d + sa=- v C C3 C3C 43 C C 2 G. C CE at r CU C CS GL sla C L7) mC .K I E Ci co E tt5 cll C E j = O Lu j CM j c 6 ! C c y c d d d0 -0 CL _ � O � ( i1. C > cc a C Cil t#yl ° a C = c m C c � 1 c5 *0 0 � �3 � 'CII C CC,." � O 2 l i r L > dcoCCcr E . as L-cr -0 � i C} rsr > +� CL A c E U C3 O C c a_s o = n a Qf tr � r In w O _ O _ d tt7 E p Q d LC3} ts3 D LO L3T CL C -��+ PSS C C 4 C O rn C U fn E C t4S E s� G? CS C C .rr C t3 . 3 L3 0 C t!) C } ft '.` C C O rJ O p}�C d C 2 E tai} t=t1 II O C V U - U C O Cu CII U a "5 •C d � V) co ° > w � cc = 0 E 1 i C , CC3! t1y p L _ U O _ C3 C C C md i i .0 Ed C r © O c*u S^. �C 4t7 Q`? C 0) Uj a> CL i U ` — Gt .0 [0 Q. 4ES fL2 C 3 C � . 0 cst C cn � d E C > sn E v c ae ro E a w e °CL a) w � -, mato a) 'o y � c H ; co C d (n > c en a d G .d U 0 cn T m " . tis �s cr a C cu d E > 0 +- x C C c CD EZ i C j� E c c. 0 c U m c� � � osa � � � o � � � ° c� = 2 � c� Co� 'F) w > `SQEa * ern cs '> 0 a CL � C CLa cn _ O} i m > Uy ct s C i Z F 1 C c s M i4 i � d U } LU; L2. �� ,«% C c E :3C v 0 = C O d OCL C ri C U- " cL E E ol o' E E z c3 4 r- oc o o CLU c[ H kC"L <uE 000m x 0 0 c! > t:+�. T 0 a) o ,j as iCt Co '0 .2-o P 2 c 2 c► . a> CL uim ° E c.°) ° cmac°a ° E .E I CM '�3 to US C G t?f -,= q} CU O m b CD 0 0 0 0 C .2 � � r. � O LE9 r C tL. ;r m a7 0 ID u U M . m E !1 a. Cl c c Lis 2 a= CL id U C 4; O U w Q.. 2 E Q -0 o 0 C:i 0 e � 0 M U ! r ax (D 0 CL Cts CL LY. o L7 t? ,, off$ C 0 a� a) a) �fj (PS 0 0 Ck '15- � �U E - � 0 0 C CD +moo cu a) to { LL iL) ;c ( m �ID2 E W � U vi 0 o M0� a L- -v >,.N U? ° as - U) C U to U sr cO E -" tg ' c 2 0 p IM E .2 0 a> � �yy � t7 � 6L m u— >, 8 al 5 0 � � t�C za 0 !� Esaco CL .`= rou) -t� ccs c = sE � ami tai i- �n m cu wca i ° '� �' c0 i w lE m a-6 = CD o t 9 I#+ 2 S0 tm 0 C c C tFi 4 .0 E ' i 1CL 10 C Cl3 jCN o s c o a E �zs ? ` O cu Cf) CIL E > c> oW > t3 0 o it i —0En 8 `moi L3 a> c + c L om c ,0. : o rs C, L 1.4 ca C as w c $it C .� tL� C 4 C loam cry ooiu. 1 y � 'rc '� _ I c°CD — �c° 0 O ca Om CD a v cu o c © aoi C7 � HE E o aao ! s Up = a) a r� ccoa usa c to a) �" o c c r3 o cs, to C^L C 0 I: i !C �3 a> o c .. v c c a, ro o o t o ; o oLLU cn ca c oa> NN as N . o. <� � . M CL CO 0C1 ro N d CI- e tL' tv co 0,.9 d ° d s- t- 0 C) 0 6 o o i t o a c Baa) "' _ a _ E ocr, c�oaoo � a`x ara -EE o coy c o v, is m rs' W v o c> O . yy arE E 2 1 � o � C� � ° crors o ., so oyoc osy � y '.0 !L c c»° u .a cts i low 'm�'•a o ° as r"n L Co 2 U " O uY "0 C .G 03 nso. O 0 0{ y C {� !z y1 0) x W c .. n Z� Ga ca U � � � � '2 � � as . c � ¢� a i a7 a Ctr as c c �= 0 b s a) o V= u' c ' c o v 'ren � `c � �� �' on � 2 � � iL a� o � � � � � � ,�� � � 1 y cr, tLwocc u� c > c � tg c� c � 1 ID r rzj Y u} y r4 aay.-0 cu W/ 0 Cf C3), QO/a0G ocno 0a .=oi}.l coaro cis c •awoas _ cE -o pC0CD a) ca0 °�. i c aa) = o o c? ca� asa. oar ay izre-s . LL � sr rha) CSI ;?? L o v, � a; t v c »= v '� az o sw • ro a� `c o _ i� •� I • ;t+ w+ (.� " y itS � S 1 s= "L C y L4 O 2 i�7 L '— � } i V �! ,._ a7 a? 5 i w= a> = a) , £ d O L� Cil CCS . > am a; Cs i ril ;� C) r-- •� � c : � �ch ca � ° o L 12o i cau .Uoa> ca �y 00 0 co o piss2tIS -01 1i o '` ciec62 nm 01 2 0 Cj U 0 i v a7 o: ra coa o00 �I c its E ca � �. � 27 0 ca cn -0 c .o i x> i iS7 C7 r y ( i O O O a) j CL uj O N CC7 C7 awl 1 'C. c1 N3 U v7 G co s i V14 1 1 i m '�yt y�rT l Y 1 �+ l to m � 00 �s 9 t t�.' "� {� • , .�y G 10 N zi`tt5 r C5 N C., O G�t i17 tLS e tai N-4 d7 Q3 a t� E > ° o. a. UDC] N:3 N > C G o CD a. c 116E o m a o CL i U3 oozy c ?: Cc � o LU N ! m -0 o QS 0 I E N .;Q d CSN Q •� p p g O C9 w 0 � o E U . CL` Z7 Qy t2 _� G Cly C CCF � �w , r- 0).-C �� Q y-� C6 GU G co 0 o = 'n ` o E co •- sa E 2 -0 ' U) V) ct� ~= ay ayio � tiyCt � � ± ID o ce �`o a0 o- >m o 0 on � o ICJi G ate. C Z3 G U U _ U i L ` �• CS CCf wo , w +G E Gr '[L orlCJ Cyly oCCJC'S -oc 4cCS 6y _ o ° aay 'n CS iU^J dr C4 CL m c enCL T3 u; o ?' �` c� ro o w. �} a) tm °' e c o 275 c ca , d las sem. : uy °' r r� o � � n ° c"'c ny � c o ori � »� c� c� c o I o o c ro o a" I � E E oo o �v 0 o o o o o o � as it ' o 0 o , EE �iwUcuUZ I� c a)0 > y > > � aE`y ° cru } ' O, ; o o r _ ,� ay cn U o � U ` »-. c u: , -,.5 o u_ f - .2 C Cll " " U 0 cz CLS � xl f z ; ! 0- E j 1 � �I � r t E or ' E iE � Oj O - z, I o A w 0> > °c M css.E ACU � � � x( F- B 2DU cu 0. 2 LL Z U d3 O G7 uj' i as a aw o cis � � I t1 ° � ase fn 0 CL " -2 o -0 5 0 ccL E `� —� � t 7 C} a till � C) as c r U Qs 5oEEc U ) Cc C tis v a c w 'caseCU d _ m. p i rn° � _� cs o � N yr i a..2E ` vas � L) a) �s �NQ— as us .S �s ° Q I a c o 0 Ca CL 0 o 42> CO asp v i s}, y 0 N - Faro � o c e � a ase o � ro � r cs e At 2 ` e css o — a 0 M �. a) a r 0w > 4; CL 3 � ° cz o 0 - °wo tea "_ ° �� N cs 0 0 . _ Li cin ° c c a ca bs � 0 � `M � o �` � •� n �a 0 � telt 6 2 U C�7 U s o t73 w 0 0 C i M - 'O O C co cis v, t°'i mss , ams . o + r�n i� as.� '� � `owoC.. � cs �- Docs. a4 coo cn c� ns as o as ca a � E cz w � 0 �m �, cs d an ¢i O .E cn -0 n. �y s � � N � cs cci� � � as r—Cc 0x -csas � � a 0 Ef � m -11� csasasm ! r� asp cam ?? o o E cs a CLQ 5p .- cs " a aes tL' o � ' 0 j Vis`; CL 2 ro = mm � 2 as � oac� � -0ECL [r m ri w �s aID c C`3 VS LL U) CL aS d co .� co �o D •- M 0 — a E tj Cc L ° ' Ua � co'vmac°� caw a ' cn cu E i s a te,, ° a ' ?, Ioma' 0 CD 1 c a C to 0 LL p ` cil C O> Llcn 13, E , N � C .� L L U q7 b ` 455 tCl -- > y, at C1 = ULl c. E Ute- i U U Cf� a ,°cwo a ; c ams o o ° ! Lc a io00 .0a°ic Uc� v� , a� � � � Uua � cs »� E > nro c7eccv. cs � 0 U - 0' tewcs' w° � . Ic�r 0n U a , E n {joo ' tQuscro �acncorncaUc� c or- c � � rL co ! ma j5L) c' 3 0 0) > v1 usm0, aCUiyca �rcu cszsCL oo ` � �,.� _ � c�.•- � � �.. � (n DE co:c Wc us0 -0 a) ° o � 4? 61 co 4)p } L cz i C[ o C� ttI U c` ar = 5 o o oma' a� >i ° _ wN za micas ark gym ` cE z coc a 1 0C: M = s Lm ._ ._ 1q aaao � m � �- a . � cLCL c n ,caj j I �4 ww/' C6 ,sem.+ L {� ✓�+ a) C a tau ° CO cuevazulren ° vii mv, �ur u d a o tn 0S,k. L in i CL woo ° - car Co 0 i C 0 `E E w o cc cs ttl m N +. CL a3 0 b r LLt CL r N i E U CL C i co _ __ o Eo :3 E 0 � E sC Uca E E �' a d 3a m � e� m a a cv d cE E > -0 as E > x ca E > cx >, e c� E > �, tC Os tJ 43 � Q7 0 ? C 0 o tis 0) iSS 0 o tU 0 . tYv- CJS cv � G3 CJ Gk co a U ❑ 0GCtx0Ucn0 on toy i � j 0 _w I co :3«- c �- ° M occ o ccu2 R Fso f m E 0 ' 115, is cs cv us u, CL v cn t2 C� ca C3 zs ca x o ° 0 a f c c `-, m a i • ca o o c � ; o E .� m L !c E E cv= U U C5 o o 0 .2 .2-0 o CCUL m o o o w. _ O _ O? o °r- C �. i 0 � ` w � CC3) S b3 OR "C3 +o- 0 0 N "�' w 0w G cL cn J tUm oC cu cc 0 i coc •E �v rcd � m 'E00Ecsoo t �C o rtt u� r� m cn sn U .v .} t < tr -0 o CD ( pro -EO)o E t70 irso i Uy 0 cy tCt . y +4 7: �y G CS co i o qua ° � cnc ` ro ns o ° � CYS ' cN i CD � U � a�a �' � a � mC3 »' � roU) >, 1cr eE CL vada C oScssr clo � 0 pV . >, C3 -g > I M O " w , cCVa 1 t CO C 00 �, .twa fti L C2 C3, E cm v10 ttx :`, d3 sem. m C' o .— = � CSS M tS3 d3 M w ifl E N = m 0 .2 B G3 i r L) E N f!? U) 0 -0 `. CO � 111 ft! � (� ht U � L7 0 .� Uk C 0 CD c sv � us o E cam . 2 -0 > m W 142 mfn o: cou oc p 4) U- C3 ¢t o co ¢3 cs a cc - « cam a o 2 @ = SSS 0 G7 ,+ C3 ttS f1Y 1 m o a o e»C3 CL G Cl to7 . m m 1 � 3 Ul ' 2c) 0 raC14 tj E E 2 c � i ; C,4 ; O . a �E 0 catsE > CL o 0 0 co ca `o 1 J D t i UCS c4 ; cit C c u) ++ u O 4f t1J 10 :6 A. Cts; !pE 100 tm M 'Ci C i CL C t�"a. C3) .6 p G _ _ w 'C' U p U y C] a) p tea) 4) iC3i t3 s,.. m a cu CL l i p cn CSi v Q C3) 0 ! 1 E O ca En U y'1 U3 at t6 � 6) v c a7 # w• p) ftp •— E n n c ' > C j d No `r� n ° t NSC d rn p y cn 1 p it V, .° _ c ns as cz'U os o o 1 �tS Ctf a) E a) O •p a) p •� p E _ a) U CS) p �, p ., y— E E q ` a) ` N C cn ICI O — p O N y p is to v C3 p Cl 4- . CJ x +. Lf w p rn p `' cc C N C 5 E cn '- q—CL " B CW N E c cCi o ro � ° as ai 0- - 0ca c cu co sa � � vi rsctm "' c3c ro - c # © a vs p C— cr c — es."j tat C3) c () c � `= c 0 4) as � mE 4 we — r c s ct a`en N N " �} C3 EC % t ti in i a> '. M CO "- v r Co Z U U3 p th 0 U p tty w fl f1 Cl! Cas O a7 CL.2 C7) Cs 0 CJ }! ' 0 a) .d7 -p tis i p ` tv = !p!S s., w ' 76 - 7 t 1 i m 0- ac - -say ta ° Ncv "' c� v {sx j as Co _:c a) css — v 0- 0 u 0 ((, 02 c'� to and { � 4 s Q Cl 'o G 156. c m ` `�` �"� � to '� -rs � � � �•� � ► 1 ° Vit° r , °' Us �' Q m o o SS13) o " yt�i c co Ua vim' cv m c�- o CD o ; io o fo �a cYUal) 0 "m 0' Col o " Q C .00 -.0 - ol. � � t 00. 00 S 0 7�00- � �CL N49bE Ll Q 00N I co CD o ° o c c a a a ° E co >, C O G O CO i L- O iSS CTS C> C L aEL E ILas ! to o cd j b `rn i > CCt3 C� m ° Uy m LL > o ` ° two W Ch ! a) m Cc CL it i "� m L 5 b i G ! b } ! bL bd C b C7 O CJ b %'+ C to Q - E w C w .o b w E 5 G7 >+ CCS CSS tSr .C= � E co C U C C� C3 N CS> a 0 b CSS � V L) L C Ctl b u> > 'Cl t CL m a.co a 1 0CD � cru � � a � � � c ° G°] ci � dCL � u w b t aC10 -0by0) bb fir . c asraEL = � ° E °` ' ob ` U) av, � , > a> - r `� ca m ° ry. 4; sa'a ' ea> c' d 0. C0 a `(�D' cu ' cocs vny` y - tz> IM � bvi ¢ �ne06ro00> a) � s aS � C33 ,C CCD ? nay to N "' � m d a> U+ w 1] ur b C5 C '� 3�g r CCS t! C> *N' 1 N CtY CSC C L CJ C3 m 0 c w o = O.. a1 `` N b C} E ttl C � rX CLt a CL CCS � i r j to � CL > a.. p ty, s. sC b 0 : b t3 L7 .� Ot Cll "� O C7�> W b C tls A �` co CD U n7 _ a' 3 b tta C CO t3 > u- iSY b tSz CU U s C b m 0 .0 �_ _• fl 11 O; cLS� .. N ' t C 7- C = L3 I 1.CtC7 t —�✓ q t3 �b-.,«b aLO E O 2CC3} .b s2 C- 0 0Ub'wC Cl-.0 a> ll CC4-�>•CZ 0 �cC�ils tcCbC17 Cc 73Lw :` � j{ 01 CO 0 cm W CL ! 3 rC — ! .. tC> C CL L`3 CTS C.2 Ctl t N N C I t U^ to • 'S3 ffs W t'L> b m ion.. 1_4.. d t � Wil • i2 gm c a o 0 c .� cu -- E tL E45' % o C7 u c fin. as }CL E cn o m > Q3 v, nes �s o02 � � � � � acs . e� ca .� s� a`ns ,s Z o — L civ o r- COL ' L) 0 ° e ! C1Up W m cn Cl IL } ! a. ocn mctY1 C as c Cn cn «• p io to = E ccs ,, c � ES w � ccs s rn c as co cc CL � 05 c� 0 E - . «� G «. cn mG ayEusnz moo °� QsfJ ris c`un1tCl' -- d C1.. ` c3s tU CL +' C3 C37 Q5 O r � Cin U :E � ti- t� r 0 C? CU G G LL sA ca tU r- co CS C7 N Co. m = iS5 �� E d} � p 2 m tCS � � � C1 � � ��` C! t1? w = .0 .. CU SSS 7 uz 113 s. .5 tLS tl3 @ {d) -0 ao 2 j6 b " � `0 .2 s � tTi {� 0 � C l c` 0 W > t7 > vs E C C7 L G d+ C5 > J tit �et' � iJ) EtS CO E c m O CL t3 ya C u3 to i 00 ° *; moo ' i tts � ° cti �w a Q� C.. � . ccs � c� 5 cn oc � e�scatuv, 3cts . c .. CL cs as • "�' ° :n om ,� ' 'q* EocM �' 4) ? is 0 oa0 45 ° vG c oE0) m s 4�a=a E cn rn '-�6 CL as c_ � ~n cn.0C' i= es � 0 C3 � � cni� � d � ,ttc � S o ; 00 ' 101 m c s ern CL ds M � csy � Cfcn9vcnc3 m 4 � y OD to CL {{} 1 E } (t i ;M r ; rt ui LL cr o � c w o •� � U I � i( LU I > C NC di O i � E o E o co o ° � » CsCZ &a � o u; O O a — y G Oi U ` CU CS + m m C N . = a) 'D y wU a cc 4E 0 azro 470E > `� ' u ' a � � � � � +� � Q y o �, E 3 ca cr Q) E a+ c c c�a opo u, i 1 ua a; E >. c c� '• CL ` Ea) yr > m c mcnE CL CWiz' a> c � N { m U 0. � O � v a? ca � tiS O N � ciS < C ?'3 ill r3i O �= c U i O 0 U tc1 O � O Z D o E =' E � . � `~ �� � n U 0 ; M 3: M 0) �7 � m p U .' c w- C N t3 � C -a C � d3 _ fl O cc m CD U u � CD o .a� u_ ' _{ Q� e = .� O � vs rasa • � t1 E E I •cam c o o a — r a vs 0 a) owes as 0. c m ozi Om cat- a� 0 u u CL 0 E � c� zs 3 � ¢ .� 3 � vs � t� ca t- _ m � . 1 z r � I zUI i � CD r CL CL ai Sc sn CL E az -tcof EE (D -- ca 0a E CL Ix vim- C) a 0 Uaa. tJ : a. LLLof)� am 00-0 M)ca"o " � I 0 a w { it 2 tL m Cl. Cl. o m o I U { X w-. uj tl) C� t17 c y C3 jL c 8 > CCS tU C: a} C a_ ,s, C i U3 Cts (DG� > O 4- �y 0 0 C� M c E C c c C7 . 0. C (h aY Uv:3s0csaci Uon CL .5; -c i c as cm c as a j ' s > L IE (t E mc`ti� E c c to cs> CE 0 mc cca C) co 0cra � ti r n c w ro ids iri O :EE C Et? 43 cC1 r7 = c3 ca ' � °�' t c°> sa cru o' er ° c' 1 cs CN cr E CL Em rh ,„., c c • �. c o 0 las cv =0; ` -0 CL s o C a ' o �ci acac cxc� � � ram � ccs .c c; , W cs0 row « I � rii a CU ! rn U) j 0) C1 0 cro I� E ° ° y ur l 0 m aQ C EZac� o, c m CN a7 ° , c ° > � r 22 o cu v0i 4) a) 0 aa)i 5 � c� � 0a 0 o � o. a. ca �- z a. 0 0 j -C rla' Ch CSE Fiimii� � � o � a ° m ai ria 1 ' � t d ° �i. E E > cs CL a } -0 > j O U a) a) ca CL C D i co N 0 Z C` 0 3 ' E }+►- s O CL � 11 isS a >i CS C) icc fj to L i_3 C co 0 CSY w. yC3 t C3 Ck C3 l'1 !C1 p U iI w 0 CL co i CL 11 } Lp- "5 I i p 'iS j i3 C, 0 Co C �tT Cl + r�/S C cc t!T L ! stq {? C C C7 u3 til C2 {SS «+ p i1 O c CS w _ t o w C13 � E 00 U a�> � � 0 a. U C g- N G3 G) tp } O c C v I A 1 a) [ > i w CS Ci) }0 cll CS E r CD a) 10 d) . N if r Ci 0, iw 'Y C +C CG CL CLQ Vs tII G } C C O C 0 C 0) L) O C?)y Q1 C ' > i v cry ' Cn M T� (n > }`� E C� M 0- cn 2 > m E E eC s 0 cc cL iris �C d i` cn i _ n {V w i y Z3 w C} Loo E � c» 0 E ('')+.+ � � � � +. CD C I1-0 0 {,y Z >0 � � t11 Ctf tLS i ca >+ CL c t3 M _,.. = (p 0 = .�-. = o > � .. i C f Cc b 0 � �- � a m c use o `C = > o E c , u> � _ to � � !ri ,� - � o {`f ' »- moi U) L am- to m C U E uS � C) 0" C Cil `' 0 '� � > m �j }, 0.-G 4) � C tD ' a) CSS e- ��( 13 �y w y?+ C tU r L3 . �rj 3 E {U 0 i y} �C /! !3 4 W 4.. ,0 �{ CST CTS L {g L7 D -may' M C % Q7 C y_ � � 0 'D "CS Q V LCS ,+� > O C) O v L ' .0 �"" 0 0 �` .F'�.. r } N U c4 _ tI} C C) C7 Q) C7) w U Z3 C E C+ RS C o s cs {�- � � � E "" SO)c to o ; 0 = 'a M ayCCCC � � `C �C c �, d 0 ram• off= C � — u�i E c a�iZ w ! cn o • ! 0 ° E �s � �, cat > > s > � oesE ccsc`� ' C © p ° -0 is �s N G u e vi O 3y > { ! 0 O — cr - (y .2 µW � �G LS N � � � tU C CS �EL OT E E _ SZ � ` eso fC E C� ti1 gS O .0 Cil � uriC = zs C7 co in C ¢ too i } �N o 10 Cis Ln M i 2 X' I + cT3C } 0 musco a) w i s Cl LL x CL 17 M 31] Cll rn cv f a.a. as a> a v + i Ic�. zce` _ of I M! (Dzi as C d s„ O a a v, C +� CL D I a7 a3 O m te=a tSf N a1 {� t4f fig„ c o ° >Ci i z . a> a as a , w a> [tom," �. `> cats > ism 0).4 S t3 ¢y aJ c� °cra e c p. E o i j ;o n E v � w ra c ao v) so 0 E a ° Usa. Occou � 'incacE 0Eti dacue �� UO W-. t o .LOrc. -0 c o asaa > m �' � tuC) mru a Ein E c E a E o c � CL cacu 'a E Z ca " a c S2 a 0a E I a E > CL CL.0 '� CL •ateca 0 a >, � U ! CL c- UCC�� vistJSr E � � C < ° CL a t aacu c :� � ccU) to 0 cry o p �a .21 u !a ° N L 0 y a — a0 cu f` u, a aM " cs a3 :n a? CO r f N L} C tTf CJ ., cu T C1 J cell b y ri > E tai _o E E c �- 2 i = a< MEAC: a E � � w c CLE (0 as .� � �- 4 x a � aus ( s can aCL—7mi � a)>, > c CL 0 in cn c fn 0- 22 2 h ca ro c=uEcC a 4. 3 d U ❑ a C7 LL IC i N US L"t C a) M C7 tt0 _ t •® N fts U �_ C � I � to C � CD Eco tj Cwt) U N CL w C: E m c4 CN 1 E ; 0 10 i 1 � LL W cu l CL i ry z i 0 z's Oi X z