The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03232004 - D3 PART 2 Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY DECEMBER 16 2003 I. INTRODUCTION GAN_SHALOM INC. (Applicant&Owner),County File 9 LP022068: The applicant and owner request approval of a land use permit for the establishment of a cemetery on a 83- acre property. Cemetery uses would be restricted to approximately 30 acres of the property (the lower and flatter portions of the site). A private open space corridor is proposed along Pinole Creek (100-foot setback from top of creek bank is proposed). Additionally, the surrounding hills are to be retained as private open space. The only use anticipated in the hills is the construction of one or more water storage tanks. The property is located in the south quadrant of the Bear Creek Road/Hampton Road intersection. Additionally, a small portion of the site is on the northeast side of Bear Creek Road immediately south of the Hampton Road intersection, in the Martinez area (A-2) (ZA:J-9 & K-9) (CT3560.02) (Parcel 365-010-008). Il, RECOMMENDATION A. Find that on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and the comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project with mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment; and find that the Mitigated 'negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. B. Find that the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the County Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA, the custodian of the records. C. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with CEQA. D. Approve the land use permit subject to conditions of approval. E. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The property is designated Agricultural Land (AL) in the Land Use Element. This land use designation includes most of the privately-owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that S-2 are located in or near the Delta. Most of the AL lands are in hilly portions of the - County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The category also includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such as outside Oakley, which are planted in orchards and vineyards. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of, and generally used for, the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural, open space or non-urban uses (such as cemeteries). The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land- dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The only Land Use Element policy that is specific to the Briones Hills is Policy 3-135, which is presented below: Policy3-155 This plan strongly supports the intent cif the Briones mills Agricultural Preservation Area compact that was signed by the County and the cities of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda, Richmond, Pinole, and Hercules in 1988. The compact states that the jurisdictions voluntary agree not to annex any lands within the 64 square mile area far the purposes ofallowing urban development (see General Plan Figure 3-4). This rural area includes large properties owned by either the East Bay Municipal Utility District or the East Bay Regional Park .District, which are designated "Watershed" and "Parrs and Recreation" on the General Plan land use map. The remaining properties are used primarily for grazing cattle and are designated "Agricultural Lands. " This plan anticipates that the area will remain in public and agricultural use during the planning period. 1. Urban Limit Line. The property is outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL). The purpose of the ULL is to: 1) enhance preservation of identified non-urban agriculture and open space; and 2) facilitate enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. In effect, the intent of the ULL is to direct residential, commercial/business and industrial uses to sites that are within the designated urban area. 2. Open Space Element. The most appropriate uses in"Open Space"areas involve resource management,such as maintaining oak woodland,natural water courses or habitat for special status species. Table 1 presents selected Open Space S-3 policies. The Open Space Element also identifies officially designated "scenic ridges." According to this map, there are no scenic ridges on-site. 3. Transportation and Circulation Element. This Element of the General Plan indicates that Bear Creek Road is a scenic route (page 5-33). Scenic route policies and implementation measures are presented on page 5-32 (see Policies 5-34 through 5-43). These policies are intended to preserve and enhance attractive natural qualities adjacent to the various scenic roads throughout the County. Selected Scenic Resource policies are presented below. Table 1 SELECTED OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AND SCENIC RESOURCE POLICIES Overall Open Space! npac olicies 9-I Permanent oee shall be provided within the County for a variety of open space uses. 9-2 Historic and scenic features,watersheds,natural waterways,and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife population shall be preserved and enhanced. 9-5 The visual identities of urban communities shall be preserved through the maintenance of existing open space areas between cities and/or communities. ' 9-7 Open space shall be utilized for public safety, resource conservation and appropriate recreation activities for all segments of the community. 9-8 Development project environmental review will consider the effect of the project on the County's open space resources, whenever the project proposes to convert substantial amounts of land from an open space designation to an urban development designation. Scenic Resources Policies 9-10 In areas designated for urban development,the principles outlined below shall be applied in the review of development proposals. 9-11 High quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil erosion, downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative cover,high maintenance costs, property damages,and damages to visual quality. Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided for urban development. Slopes of 25 percent or more shall be protected and are generally not desirable ' for conventional cut-and-fill pad development. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines shall be restricted. 9-12 1n order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County,developers shall generally be required to restore the natural contours and vegetation of the land after grading and other land disturbances. Public and private projects shall be designed to minimize damages to significant trees and other visual landmarks. 9-13 Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use objective in the County,as a method of promoting high scenic quality, for air quality maintenance, and to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities for all residents. 9-14 Extreme topographic modification, such as filling in canyons or removing hilltops, shall be avoided. Clustering and planned unit development approaches to development shall be encouraged. All future development plans,whether large or small scale,shall be based on identifying safe and suitable sites for buildings,roads and driveways. Exemptions to this policy are appropriate for mining,landfill,and public projects in open space areas, 4. Conservation Element. This Element is concerned with issues regarding the identification, preservation and management of natural resources. According to Figure 8-1, the site is not identified as a significant ecological area. In Figure 8-2 of the Conservation Element, the site is within what is identified as important agricultural areas (primary grazing). S-4 The Conservation dement contains implementation measures for rural residential lots. Those measures include documentation of an adequate water source, adequate road access, septic tank leach fields that meet the requirements of the Health Services Department, evidence that the proposed parcels are reasonably free of hazards, adequate fencing to contain domestic animals and other measures (see General Plan, pages 8-42 and 8-43). Although the proposed project is a cemetery, some of these policies are operative. B. Zoning: The property is designated General Agriculture(A-2). Chapter 84-38 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the ordinance code provisions of this district. The permitted uses include: a) all types of agriculture; b) erection of agriculture-related buildings; c) a stand not exceeding 200 square feet for sale of agriculture products grown on the premises; d) a detached single-family residence on each parcel and accessory structures; e) foster Table 2 horns/family care home; and f) family SUMMARY OF ZONING STANDARDS F'OR THE A-2 DISTRICT daycare home. [Uses requiring a land use � y �1 g Min.Standard Lot Area: 5 acres permit are those listed in Section 84- Avg.width(min.): 250 ft. 38.404 of the Ordinance Code. Other Depth(rain.): 200 provisions of the A-2 District are listed in Building Height(max): 35 ft Table 2. Setback Standards Side Yard(min.): 20 ft Cemeteries are a Special use. The Zoning Side yard(Aggregate): 40 ft ;Livestock Structures: 50 ft Ordinance Chapter 88-2, lists the 'LB nt Yard(min.): 25 ft standards applicable to cemeteries. ar Yard(rain.): 15 ft According to Section 88-2.206, a land use 1ildin Hsi ht: 21/Z stories or 35 ft permit can be granted for the establishment of a cemetery in the A-2 Zoning District, with approval of a land use permit. Article 88-2.4 identifies the submittal requirements for an application, along with listing the findings that must be made. Those findings are presented in Table 3. C. CEQA. An Initial Study prepared by staff was posted on November 6, 2003. It identified potential biologic resources, cultural resources and groundwater resources impacts,and identified mitigation measures. The project proponent submitted a letter (dated November 5,2003)agreeing to the mitigation measures,which allowed for the filing of a Notice oflntent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negati ve Declaration. The S-5 period for accepting comments on Table 3 the adequacy of the environmental FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR THE documents extended to 5 p.m. on ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERY December 8, 2003. 1. The establishment or maintenance of the cemetery will not jeopardize or adversely affect the public During the -day comment period, health,safety,comfort,or welfare. written comments were received 2� The establishment,maintenance,or extension will j not reasonably be expected to be a public nuisance. from Governor's Office of Planning 3. The establishment,maintenance,or extension will and Research, agencies and not tend to interfere with the free movement of traffic individuals. Appendix A presents or with the proper protection ofthe public through the Comment letters received during ! interference with the movement of police, ! ambulance,or fire equipment and thus interfere with the period Nov. 6th through Dec. the convenience of the public or the protection of the j 8th. Appendix B presents lives and the property of the public. Comments on the project and 4. Demonstrate adequate financial ability to establish or CEQA documents from the firm of maintain the proposed cemetery so as to prevent the proposed cemetery from becoming a public nuisance; Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & and Armstrong, attorneys; and from the 5. The proposed cemetery is consistent with the General firm of S.S. Papadopulos&Assoc., Plan of the County and will not interfere with the representing the Briones Hills orderly development and growth of the County. Preserve Alliance, Appendix C presents correspondence from the firm of Archer Norris, attorneys that represent that applicant. That letter responds to the issues and concerns identified by the attorney for the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance. Additionally, Appendix C presents a letter from LSA Associates, biologic resource consultants to Gan Shalom, Inc. It responds to a concern of the East Bay ;Regional Park District about the potential occurrence of a special status plant on the site. D. Permit Streamlining. The application was filed on July 25, 2002. On August 21, 2002, the applicant was notified that staff had determined the application to be "incomplete" and specific required items were identified that would be needed prior to further processing of the application. (The staff requested technical studies and data, along with refinements to the VTM.) During the following month,the applicant's representative provided the supplemental information, and shortly thereafter work on the Initial Study commenced. During the preparation of the Initial Study, questions arose on the adequacy of groundwater resources, and the effect of the project's water use on other properties in the vicinity. Mork on the Initial Study was delayed while a 24-hour pump test was performed, and during this time period the project proponent modified the project description to limit use of the well to non-potable uses. Specifically, well water will be used for irrigation and flush toilets. Water for drinking is to be provided by bottled water; in lieu of sinks to wash hands, the applicant has proposed use of wet towels. S-6 E Regulatory Programs. 1. Flood Hazards: This project is designated Flood Zone "C"with the exception of lands adjacent to the channel of Pinole Creek, which are designated Zone "A". (Source: FIRM, Panel 075B; dated July 18, 1987) 2. Active Fault Zone: The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. (Source: CDMG Special Report 42, 1997) 3. Noise Hazards: According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, the site is not within an area experiencing noise levels of 60 dBA or greater. (Source: Noise Element, page 11-24) 4. Grading Ordinance: The County Grading Ordinance, Section 716-4.204 provides thresholds for requiring a grading permit. Grading in excess of 200 cubic yards is one criteria for triggering a grading permit. IV. AREA AND SITE .DESCRIPTION Figure 1, Vicinity Map, shows the location of the site within the Briones Hills, approximately 3'/2 miles southeast of Martinez, 3 miles east of Pinole and 6 miles from Kensington. The Alhambra Valley Road/Bear Creek Road intersection is 1/2-mile north of the site. The property has a frontage along Bear Creek Road of approximately 1,000 feet. Pinole Creek crosses under Bear Creek Road and enters the property 600 feet from the southern boundary of the site (about 200 feet north of the entry road/Bear Creek Road intersection). The creek then runs parallel to and along the side of Bear Creek Road for about 1,200 feet, then leaves the site and crosses under Bear Creek Road again approximately 400 feet south of the Hampton Road/Bear Creek Road intersection. The northern boundary of the site is Hampton Road. Figure 2, Topographic Map, shows the site to be in the upper watershed area of Pinole Creek. Elevations on the property range approximately+400 feet to more than+750 feet, Oursan Ridge, which is located approximately 1 mile west of the site, is a designated "scenic ridge." The site is located in the Briones Hills/Alhambra Valley area. The subject parcel and nearby properties consist of relatively steepsided ridges,with slopes greater than 26 percent representative of broad areas. No development or relative activity (either as part of the initial phase or any subsequent.phase of development) will encroach on Pinole Creek or any of its banks. The Development Plan indicates that Gan Shalom will maintain a 100- foot setback from the top-of-bank along the Pinole Creek corridor. There will be no development (either initially or subsequently) on the hills or on the hillside slopes located on the site (except for a water tank and connecting pipelines, to be built as a part of the initial site improvements, and possibly a second tank at some future time.) S-7 The vegetation on the site consists chiefly of annual grassland (on the valley floor), oak woodland (in the upland portions of the property) and riparian (along the Pinole Creep channel). Agricultural uses in the area are vineyards and grazing (e.g., cattle, goats, llamas). Several nearby parcels have horse stables and some have large arenas). Figure 3, Assessors Parcel Map, shows the site,which has been shaded. It also shows the location of property with respect to roads. Annotations on the map are previous applications filed on nearby properties. Figure 4, Zoning map, indicates that the site is zoned A-2 (General Agriculture). Other Zoning Districts in the site vicinity include A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) and A-80(Exclusive Agriculture). This map also shows prevailing parcel sizes in the vicinity. The relatively small parcels across Bear Creek Road from the site range from 5 to 10 acres each. The parcels that are on the east side of Hampton Road, just west of the Gan Shalom parcel, fall in the sarne range. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Background. Gan Shalom, Inc., a California nonprofit religious corporation ("Gan Shalom"), acquired in September 2001 approximately 83 acres of undeveloped land zoned A-2 (agricultural) fronting Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road in Contra Costa County, APN 365-010-008-8 (the "property"). Gan Shalom is requesting that Contra Costa County issue a land use permit for the development of a Jewish cemetery and related facilities as allowed in the A-2 zone. The property's historic and current use is horse and cattle grazing. There is no dedicated Jewish cemetery in Contra Costa County. Limited space is currently available for Jewish burials at Oakmont Cemetery in Lafayette (almost all ofwhich has been sold on a"pre-need" basis),but it is anticipated that within the next 2-3 years no space will remain at that cemetery in the Jewish section. Gan Shalom (incorporated in 1996) is the formal successor to efforts begun by representatives of each of Contra Costa County's synagogues in the mid-I960s to provide the Jewish community of Contra Costa County with adequate and properly consecrated burial space. Gan Shalom is committed to the property as the optimum site from which to provide these essential services to the East Bay's Jewish population, currently consisting of 16 synagogues representing over 5,000 families. As previously noted, the site is located in a rural area of Contra Costa County, surrounded by open grazing land and horse ranches. It consists of approximately 30.4 acres of gently sloping upland valley bottom land, with the balance (approximately 53 acres) being either tree-covered hills or lands along the Pinole Creek channel. Only the flat (36.5% of the property) will be used for the cemetery (including burial spaces and all related structures and improvements). The remaining 53 acres(63.5% of the property) will be retained in its current natural state. S-8 The property will be developed as a cemetery in phases, on an "as needed" basis. The initial phase will involve only 7.7 acres (9.2% of the property) for development of burial plots,related internal access roads, a chapel and parking lot,mausoleum,office and maintenance facilities. Based upon historical experience at other Jewish cemeteries and currently available data,this should provide adequate burial space for the next 20-25 years. B. Cemetery Operations. It is estimated that there will be approximately 75 to 150 burials during the first year that the cemetery is operating (1-3 per week) and 150 to 200 burials per year (3-4 per week)thereafter. The cemetery will have no burials on Saturdays or during evening and nighttime hours. The cemetery will be open each day from 8:00 AM until sundown. The staff will consist of a cemetery manager, an office secretary, a grounds supervisor and two landscape maintenance personnel. The ground supervisor and the two maintenance personnel will park near the maintenance building and will not park near the chapel; hence they will not use the designated visitor parking space. The following criteria are based on 100 years history of Sinai Memorial chapel operating Jewish cemeteries in the Bay Area,including the current most active Jewish Cemetery in Colma, south of San Francisco. It is estimated by Gan Shalom that 50 percent of the burial services will be conducted on-site in the chapel; 35 percent will be held right at the grave site and 15 percent will have a service off-site and arrive at the cemetery by car procession. It is further estimated by Gan Shalom that on average, there will be between 35 to 70 people in attendance per burial service, arriving in 15 to 25 cars. Each grave site burial service will take approximately one hour. A combined chapel and grave site service will take approximately one and one- half hours. Typically, on-site services are conducted between 10 a.m, and 2:30 p.m. Grave site visitors will depend on the number of burials. Based on their experience with Jewish cemeteries, Gan Shalom Inc. does not expect many daily visitors. According to Jewish tradition, grave site visits are conducted only three times a year. With regard to the actual implementation of the cemetery project, Gan Shalom plans to open burial areas in 1-acre increments. The entire acre will be excavated to a depth of approximately 20 inches in a uniform slope (for drainage); a drainage layer (and water recycling facilities) will be installed; concrete vaults will be placed in the excavation(approximately 1,000 per net acre);gaps between each vault will be filled with drainage material; and then the entire acre will be covered with soil reserved from the excavation. The finished work will raise surface elevations approximately 28 inches, and grading will be balanced on-site. Roads and other improvements will be extended as needed to serve each new 1-acre area. Individual burials will require simply removing and replacing the topsoil above each vault. The applicant anticipates that construction of the initial improvements (e.g., entry road, chapel, landscaping, utilities, maintenance facilities, first acre of burial space) can be completed in less than six months from the date of issuance of construction permits S-9 by the Building Inspection Department. Each future 1-acre area will take 2-3 weeks to perform grading, place the vaults and install the erosion control measures. Gan Shalom estimates that the pace of burials will require a new 1-acre increment approximately once every five years. Additional comments on proposed cemetery operations are as follows: • All caskets will be set in concrete vaults with concrete tops installed. Each grave site will be identified with a marker that will be installed flush to the top of the grass coverage. • Security precautions will be taken to protect the cemetery from. vandalism, A private guard will be hired to visit the cemetery on a regular basis during the night. If this does not provide the necessary protection, a security service will be hired to be on the premises from sunset until employees arrive for work at 8:00 am. • There will be no sale activities, crematory or other procedures preparing a body for burial at the cemetery site. C. Landscaping and Maintenance Plan. The initial phase of development (7,7 acres) requires a grass cover that can be extended as the cemetery is expanded in the future. The proposed grass cover is an all-purpose lawn used commonly in cemeteries and college campuses (Gan Shalom sought a grass cover that is self-sustaining and drought tolerant, will take the pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated during burials,will climatize to this site and is compatible in both sun and shade conditions.) The grass cover selected is the dwarf tall type fescue, "New Century Blend," a 50-50 mixture of Bonsai 2000 and Millennium. This "New Century Blend" seed mix is designed for and typically used at cemeteries as it presents a clean dark green look with minimal water and maintenance. Color, texture, disease resistance, drought tolerance and long-term reliability were important factors in selecting this seed mix. All existing trees are to be retained (unless a recommendation is made by an arborist at some future time to remove a sick or dead tree). Trees at the streetscape and entry portions of the property will be more formal and mid-sized, while throughout the large lawn areas trees will be scattered so as to provide shade and interest. Heavy tree landscaping using the same type of native trees currently on the property (such as Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak)will be used as a buffer fronting on Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road to mimic the existing Pinole Creek riparian corridor. The existing large oak will not be disturbed, and a non-irrigated buffer will be provided around the tree. For contrast and color accent, some Idaho Locust, a tree large in scale with purple plumes, will be planted. The foregoing landscaping is designed for long-term durability and minimal ongoing watering and maintenance. The applicant anticipates that lawns will require mowing S-10 every 7 to 10 days, and watering twice per week at approximately 6,000 to 8,000 gallons per acre per week during the summer months using a water conserving, weather-sensitive irrigation system . Fertilizing will be rates of 4 pounds of nitrogen per year per 1,000 square feet (175 lbs. per acre per year). D. Development Plans. Figure 5 is an aerial photograph that shows the Site Plan and Phasing Map. The following is a summary of the features seen on Figure 5. • Phasing. The project consists of five phases. The acreage of the phases are as follows: Phase 1 7.6 acres Phase 2 5.9 acres Phase 3 5.1 acres Phase 4 5.2 acres Phase 5 6.6 acres • Water Reservoir. A water tank is to be located at an elevation to be determined by Clan Shalom's water consulting engineer and will be appropriately sized to meet the water requirements for the cemetery. (Preliminary plans prepared by the project civil engineer indicate the site, approximate location and elevation of the reservoir.) A second tank may be required in the future. Leach Field. An on-site septic tank and appropriate leach field will be installed to handle the sewage effluent from the Chapel. The location of the septic tank and the leach field are shown on the Civil Engineering plans. • Uses of Well Water. Water from the well will be used solely for irrigation of turf, and for toilets. Bottled water will be used for drinking, and the restrooms will not be equipped with running water in sinks. Instead, wet towels will be used for hand washing. • Existing Well. The existing well that is to be used to provide irrigation water for Phase 1 is setback 1,400 feet from Bear Creek Road(approximately '/4 mile). A 24-hour pump test was used to characterize the adequacy of this agricultural well to serve Phase 1. Figure 6, Phase 1 Development Plan, shows the internal circulation, parking, chapel and mausoleums. It also shows the internment limit and grassy swales. The chapel is indicated to be approximately 4,000 square feet; each mausoleum is to have a footprint of 40 feet x 16 feet(640 square feet) and the maintenance building is a one- story structure that is approximately 40 feet x 25 feet(1,000 square feet). As proposed, a circular road system will loop around the chapel, with parking space for 34 vehicles plus a hearse. The entire area encircled by the road is to be S-11 landscaped with shrubs and trees. A mausoleum and a maintenance building will be located approximately 4010 feet beyond the chapel, partly concealed in the narrow valley in the south portion of the parcel. As proposed,roads within the cemetery will be asphalt concrete, with a rolled cement curb. The entry road and the road around the chapel is to have a paved width of 20 feet; other roads are to have paved width of 16 feet. The areas containing burial plots will be planted with grass and landscaped with native trees. All grave site markers will be flush with the ground. A fence is to be erected to enclose the 7.7-acre first phase so that the undeveloped portion of the property can continue to be used for grazing. Figure 7, Chapel/Office Elevation, presents front and side elevations of the chapel. It indicates the chapel is to have a pitched roof and is less than 25 feet in height. This one-story structure is to be less than 4,000 square feet and it is the applicant's intent that the structure blend into the natural surrounding of the site. The floor plan indicates a lobby,four offices,restroom facilities and a central chapel that is designed to accommodate approximately 90 persons. Figure 8, Landscape Plan — Phase 1, shows the approach to landscaping of the property, identifies existing trees and the relationship of the Pinole Creek channel to the Phase I area. It indicates a formal entry. The property will be fenced and a screen of trees and shrubs is indicated along the Bear Creek Road frontage of the site and along the east property boundary consisting of oaks and native evergreen species. The main entrance will be off of Bear Creek Road. The entry gate will be set back approximately 32 feet from the edge of Bear Creek Road to allow vehicles to safely exit the roadway and enter the property, and to provide queuing space avoiding backups onto the road. A 7-foot high decorative masonry and tubular steel wall/fence with appropriate signage will identify the entrance(see Figure 3). The portion of the property fronting Bear Creek Road is to have a similar tubular steel (with arrowhead verticals) fence. Planted behind the fence, a landscape strip is indicated that is to be planted with drought-tolerant native shrub and tree landscaping. The chapel will be located approximately 200 feet from Bear Creek Road, directly beyond the entrance gate. Figure 10, Mausoleum Elevation, provides insight to the architectural style of the mausoleums. As noted previously, all mausoleums will be in the south valley area, approximately 800 feet from Bear Creek Road, They will be approximately 24 feet high and will be sited adjacent to the hills. S-12 VI. .AGENCY COMMENTS A. Health Services Department. There are several memorandums in the file requesting details of the project, requesting a pump test, and indicating Ordinance Standards for leach fields and domestic water wells. The applicant has modified the project such that well water will be used only for irrigation and flush toilets. Furthermore,the 24- hour pump test was performed in accordance with the expectations of the Health Services Department and the subsequent report was peer reviewed by a hydrogeologist retained by the County. In an e-mail received on November 5, 2003, the Health Services.Department indicated that it had no comments on the Initial Study and no recommended Conditions of Approval. B. Building Inspection Department. In a letter dated November 7, 2002, the Building Inspection Department indicated its requirement for the project,including compliance with applicable provisions of the Grading Ordinance and Building Codes. C. Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In a memorandum dated November 5, 2003, the District indicated its comments had not changed since its September 5, 2002 memorandum. Those comments indicate that the 100-foot setback from the top of the creek bank would be sufficient, and it went on to recommend a Condition of Approval to grant deed development rights on the setback area. D. Public Works Department. In amemorandum dated October 11, 2002, Bob Hendry indicated that the proposed structures were outside of the floodplain and hence not subject to inundation. In a memorandum dated November 25, 2003, Public Works outlines the traffic and drainage consideration. These comments are presented in Table 4. E. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Ina letter dated November 7, 2002,the Fire Protection District outlined California Fire Code Standards applicable to the project: a)water supply, b)hydrants, c) access roads, d) gate width standards, along with provisions for e) addresses, and f) fire sprinkler plans. F. California_Historic Resources Information Systems (CHRIS). In a memorandum dated August 20, 2002, CHRIS noted that the property had the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological sites, and a study was recommended. (In response to this request, the applicant retained William Self Associates Inc. to perform the archaeologic assessment, including contacting the Native American Heritage Commission.' No evidence of cultural resources was found during this survey. ' Filliam Self Associates,Inc.,2002. Archaeological Survey and Assessment of a 83-Acre Parcel Located at Hampton Road and Bear Creek Road,Martinez, Contra Costa County, California S-13 Table 4 TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LP022068 Traffic Considerations. Both roads are public highways and rural in nature. Bear Creek Road in the vicinity of the project site is paved to 24 feet in width and posted for 30 MPH(although prevailing speeds are ! considerably higher). A half-mile or so to the east,Bear Creek Road widens considerably to a higher speed, rural highway all the way into Orinda. I I There are numerous constraints that make widening of the road in this area difficult; Pinole Creek, which parallels the road, mature tress and steep side slopes among them. While it is not realistic not I aesthetically desirable the widen Bear Creek Road along the entire project, some safety improvements in the form of channelization and storage should be required at the main project entrance. Such improvements should be carefully coordinated with both the Public Works and Community Development Departments to provide the desired safety enhancements,while being I sensitive to the terrain and removal of vegetation. Similarly, the County has required large-lot subdivisions to the east to dedicate additional right of way along Bear Creek Road in acknowldgement of past and future erosion adjacent to the road from Pinole Creek. We request the applicant perform a similar alignment study and dedicate additional right of way along Bear Creek Road for that portion of the road upstream of the large �I culvert where the creek parallels the north side of the road.Dote that the County already acquired some right of way in this area for a reconstruction project several years ago. The alignment study may indicate that no additional right of way is necessary. Hampton Road is only about 16 feet wide and in generally poor condition. The applicant proposes to use this road as access for service and maintenance vehicles in latter phases of the project. Ultimate right of way should be dedicated and improvements constructed to Hampton Road from Bear Creek Road to the proposed maintenance entrance. These improvements can be postponed to the third phase of the project, unless the applicant intends to improve the maintenance entrance prior to that time. Drainage Considerations I Compliance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance will require all storm water entering or originating on the subject property to be collected and conveyed to an adequate drainage facility or natural watercourse. For this project, the applicant proposes to "sheet flow" storm water runoff to Pinole Creek which traverses the site. The applicant will be required under County Code to verify the adequacy of the existing culverts and construct improvements to upgrade them, if necessary. The applicant proposes to dedicate development rights over the creek structure setback area as prescribed under the drainage requirements of the County Ordinance Code. In addition,the applicant should be aware that a small portion of the site lies within the "Special Flood Hazard Area" as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA for Contra Costa County. These portions of the site will be required to comply with the requirements of the County Floodplain Management Ordinance. Best Management Practices(BMPs)must be developed for the project to incorporate features and define maintenance practices to minimize potential pollutants from entering the creek. In addition t the usual construction related issues, areas of concern are the application and control of pesticides and herbicides, and maintenance of equipment. S-14 V1, STAFF CON,SI AERATIONS A. Appropriateness of Use, The primary environmental concerns related to groundwater resources (water duality, adequacy of the well to meet the irrigation demand of the project, and potential to effect production of off-site wells). Environmental review of the project has yielded the following data. • Water Quality. The application has been reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and County Health Services Department. Additionally, the CEQA Notice and Initial Study were transmitted to the State Cemetery Board for review and comment. The project design ensures that the concrete vaults containing coffins will be above the groundwater table (i.e., the water table is at 15 feet±; the vaults are buried 20 inches below the surface, and then covered with the excavated soil). A subdrain is to be installed just below the vaults to control elevation of the water table. ► Irri ation Demand. The irrigation Table 5 demand for Phase I is estimated by COMPARISON OF NATER DEMAND the applicant to be approximately FOR POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 1,200 gallons per day per acre during USE OF SITEWater the summer. Even if the water cnnswuptioniUnits demand was 1,500 gallons/acre, the Agricultural Use (gallons day/acre) irrigation demand of the cemetery is Tomatoes,drip irrigation 5,431 i less than 50 percent of the irrigation iTomatoes,furrow irrigated 6,78 vineyard 5,521 requirements of an agricultural operation of similar size. For Alfalfa 3,go1 Irri afed Pasture 6,7f39 example, the site was used for row crops in the 1950s; vineyards are located in the vicinity of the site and there are other potential agricultural uses of the site, including alfalfa and irrigated pasture. Table 5 provides irrigation demand for these agriculture- related uses that are allowed under the prevailing A-2 zoning. By comparison, a 50-horse stable and riding arena, along with two dwellings in the site vicinity uses 6,000 gallons/day during the summer(Bearden, Poplar Stables, 1105 Bear Creek Road, personal communication, 2000.. • Water Supply. The irrigation well itself is more than 1,200 feet from the property line with adjacent private property owners. The pump test data provides documentation that the water supply is adequate for Phase 1, which is expected to have space to accommodate burials for the next 20-25 years (estimate). The Initial Study identifies a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the water usage is fully monitored, and performance criteria are provided to see that Clan Shalom does not create a significant adverse impact on S-15 nearby properties (see Initial Study, pages 28-29). These measures are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COAs 918-22.) A hydrologeologist retained by property owners in the vicinity has raised questions about the pump test and the data analysis that followed . Based on the recommendations of the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department retained Geoconsultants Inc., licensed hydro- geologists, as its peer reviewer. Their scope of work included: a)review ofthe plan for the pump test, b) observation of field procedures during the pump test, c)consultation with staff of the Health Services Department,and d)independent evaluation of the data gathered during the pump test. The letter-report issued by Geoconsultants, Inc. indicates there is evidence of sufficient groundwater for irrigation of Phase 1 and ample aquifer recharge area up-gradient of the well. The neighboring property owners retained S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, who issued a peer review letter that is presented in Appendix B. This letter questions the analysis of the County's peer reviewer(and Engeo, the applicant's hydrogeologist),indicating the well yield may be substantially below the anticipated irrigation demand of Phase 1. He also questions some of the parameters used for the well test. Staff views on the pumping test and review letter of S.S. Papadopulos & Associates are presented below: • There are no County protocols for agricultural well pumping tests. The methods of analysis utilized by the peer reviewer are consistent with the methodology used to analyze other wells in the area. • The applicant has sought to minimize water demand of the project by avoiding use of groundwater for potable water, proposing use of drought- tolerant landscaping and use of an efficient irrigation system. As a result, the water demand for the cemetery is anticipated to be less than the potential agricultural crops listed in Table 5 of the staff report. • The technical data gathered by the applicant's hydrogeologist and peer reviewed by the County's consultant indicates there is ample water for Phase 1, as well as an adequate aquifer recharge area. Nevertheless, a groundwater monitoring and mitigation plan was prepared by Engeo Inc. and refined/modified by Geoconsultants, Inc.,just in case the calculations are not accurate. These precautions are intended to serve as an early warning system,so that cemetery use does not interfere with wells of other property owners in the vicinity. 2 S.S.Papadopulos&Associates,Inc.,November 7,2003. Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by Geoconsultants,Inc.(dated September 2003),Proposed Cemetery Development,Hampton and Bear Creek Roads, Brion"Hills Preserve,Contra Costa County. S-16 • The site is 83 acres and the well is 1,400 feet from Bear Creek Road. Figure 5 of the Staff Report indicates that some of the nearest developed properties are more than'/d mile from the Gan Shalom well. Those parcels are 5 to 10+ acres and those wells are relatively close to one another, suggesting an inherently greater potential for them to affect one another than for the Gan Shalom well to influence their production of groundwater. • S.S. Papadopulos &Associates believes that the groundwater supplies on Gan Shalom may not be adequate to support Phase I of the cemetery. Assuming the premise of this hydrogeologist is correct, the cemetery has the opportunity to trap irrigation water in their subdrains and recirculate this water,reducing demand for groundwater produced by the well. In the worst case, the turf could be allowed to go dry during the summer. • The cemetery is to be developed in five phases. Prior to commencement of each phase,Gan Shalom will be required to demonstrate adequate water (or other procedures) to support expanded cemetery use. • Lack of Groundwater in the Alhambra Valley. Comments to staff from some neighbors as far away as Garcia Ranch Road have complained that their wells are not reliable at the end of the summer/in a drought year. They are concerned that irrigation of a cemetery will impact their wells. Staff discussed the situation with the Health Services Department. As a general rule,the Health Department has observed that wells on the southwest side of Bear Creek Road produce more water than wells to the northeast of Bear Creek Road. This observation can be explained by examining geologic maps of the area. Figure I I presents a geologic cross-section of the site and adjacent area. This section shows the location (and)depth of the Gan Shalom well. It is within the outcrop belt of the Hambre Sandstone. The wells on the northeast side of Bear Creek Road produce water from the Rodeo Shale, a finer-grained, geologic unit that is characterized by the U.S. Geological survey as having generally very low permeability (USES Professional Paper 1357). The engineering geologic characteristics of the bedrock, accounts for general patterns observed by the Health Services Department. B. Compatibility with Re ug latory Programs. The applicant provided biologic resource reports which were peer reviewed by the County's biologist and jurisdictional agencies. Based on these studies and reviews, the Initial Study identifies measures to reduce biologic resource impacts to less-than-significant(see Initial Study, pages 12417). The CEQA Notice and Initial Study have been reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game, and they indicate no objections to the project or to the mitigation measures. Additionally, the CEQA Notice and Initial Study were referred to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and that agency has indicated no S-17 objections to the project or to the mitigation measures in the Initial Study. The East Bay Regional Park District responded to the CEQA Notice with an email questioning the potential for a special status plant to occur on the site. LSA Associates responded with a letter dated December 10,2003. It states that the site provides no potential habitat for this species. C. Site Plan Analysis. • Circulation and Parking. The design of the project is to take its primary access from Bear Creek Road (see Figures 5, 6 and 9 for details of this entry). The primary entry road (which loops the chapel) is 20 feet in width. Other internal roads used to access cemetery facilities are 16 feet in paved width, which appears adequate for low speed two-way to burial areas. Thirty parking spaces are required for chapel visitors based on 90 seat occupancy, and three parking spaces are required for the 600 square foot office space in the chapel building. Thirty-five spaces are indicated along the perimeter of the chapel. Initially, Bear Creek Road will be the sole cemetery access point. However, the Site Plan indicates that in the long-term future, the maintenance structure will be relocated from the Phase 1 area(in the south valley) to Phase 5 (adjacent to Hampton Road), and a driveway will be extended which will be adjacent to the maintenance building and is intended only for maintenance vehicles(see Figure 5). • Grading. The grading will be balanced on-site (volume of earthwork: 65,000 cubic yards anticipated). A legal burial plot is 4 inches wider and 6 inches longer than the concrete vault, to provide for gravel between adjacent vaults. By tradition, the plot are to be oriented exactly in a east-west direction in straight rows with plot markers flush to the grass. The grading procedure will raise the valley floor 28 inches parallel to the existing slope of the valley and will minimize dirt movement. Typically, every four to five years a new burial area is to be improved as follows: approximately I acre is graded to a uniformly sloping pad. The necessary access road is constructed. The pad grades are based on minimizing dirt movement and balancing the cut and fill. • Storm Drainage. No storm drainage piping is proposed. Grassy swales are indicated on the Phase 1 plan that carry runoff from the major hillside areas to Pinole Creek. With regard to the internal roads, they are designed to maintain overland sheet flow. Any increase in runoff and peak flows exiting the site after S-18 full development would be minimal, considering the small percentage increase in impermeable surfaces. • Water Storage Tank. The water storage tank will be sized to meet specifications of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection district. Preliminary plans show the tank on a site approximately 200 feet southeast of the water well at an elevation of+524 feet. The candidate site is just above the valley floor and is completely hidden from view from vantage points along Bear Creek Road. A tank of approximately 30,000 gallons would appear sufficient to meet the needs of Phase 1 irrigation, including fire reserve. A second tank may be needed in the future. • Sanitary Sewage. The applicant will require a permit from the Health Services Department for the septic system. Engeo Inc. performed a percolation test and found that the soils are suitable for the septic system drainfield. • Electrical Power. Overhead electrical power and telephone lines are located in the Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road right-of-way. From these lines, power and telephone can be undergrounded to the chapel. • Buildintzs. The buildings are set back from the road, are relatively small, and are 25 feet (or less) in height. Figures 7 and 10 provide elevations for the chapel and mausoleums, respectively. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR.LAND USE PERMIT 2068-02 FINDINGS A. Cemetery Findings 1. The establishment or maintenance of the cemetery will not jeopardize or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare. The design of the cemetery is in compliance with all provisions of the State law and the County Ordinance Code intended to protect public health, safety and welfare. The cemetery will have a screen of vegetation along the .Bear Creek Road frontage that will soften/screen views of the site. There are no above-ground grave markers so the site will function as visual open space. Over 60 percent of the site is hillside that is densely wooded. These hills, along with the channel of Pinole Creek, are to be retained as private open space, with no cemetery uses. The conditions of approval contain measures that require monitoring of water usage and monitoring of the elevation of water levels in observation wells. These measures will provide an early warning system intended to protect wells of neighboring property owners. Additionally,Gan Shalom must demonstrate an adequate water supply before proceeding with each phase. These and other mitigation measures have been translated into conditions of approval. 2. The establishment, maintenance, or extension will not reasonably be expected to be a public nuisance. The cemetery conditions of approval include provision for an Endowment Care Fund to assure proper maintenance of the cemetery. Additionally, the plans submitted call for the construction of a landscape screen of trees and shrubs along the Bear Creek Road frontage of the site. The setback of structures from the boundaries, the architecture and relatively small size further reduce the visibility of buildings. It should also be recognized that: • All caskets will be set in concrete vaults with concrete tops installed. Each grave site will be identified with a marker that will be installed flush to the top of the grass coverage. • Security precautions will betaken to protect the cemetery from vandalism. A private guard will be hired to visit the cemetery on a regular basis during the night. If this does not provide the necessary protection, a security service will be hired to be on the premises from sunset until employees arrive for work at 8:00 am. • There will be no sale activities, crematory or other procedures preparing a body for burial at the cemetery site. • There will be no burials on Saturday or during evening hours. 2 3. The establishment, maintenance, or extension will not tend to inte7fere with the free movement of traff c or with the proper protection of the public through interference with the movement ofpolice, ambulance, orfrre equipment and thus interfere with the convenience of the public or the protection of the lives and property of the public. The applicant has indicated that services typically occur between 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p. .; that on average there will be 35 to 70 people in attendance per burial service, arriving in 15 to 25 cars, and that the long-term average will be 150 to 200 burials per year(3 to 4 per week, on average). A traffic analysis performed by Abrams Associates indicates that the traffic generated by Gan Shalom will not create traffic-related impacts. The Public Warks Department has recommended Conditions of Approval addressing road dedications, roadway improvements and sight distance, They focus on needed safety improvements at the main entrance to the cemetery, and improvements to Hampton Load, when it carries cemetery (maintenance) traffic. 4. Demonstrate adequate financial ability to establish or maintain the proposed cemetery so as to prevent the proposed cemetery from becoming a public nuisance. Gan Shalom has indicated an intent to fully comply with the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code (letter from Prank Winer, President, Gan Shalom Inc., dated September 9, 2002). That letter prescribes the details of the establishment of an Endowment Care Fund. In addition to the endowment fund assurance, there is the commitment of a faith-based organization to care for its cemetery (COA 924). 5. The proposed cemetery is consistent with the General Plan of the County and will not interfere with the orderly development and growth of the County. The Land Use Element does not specifically speak to the siting of cemeteries in Contra Costa County. However, the Land Use Element contains an Urban Limit Line Map, and General Plan Policies 3-5 through 3-14 pertain to implementation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and Urban Limit Line-related goals. These policies are intended to preclude extension of urban services into agricultural areas, especially growth-inducing infrastructure. A 30-acre cemetery project inside the ULL would be competing for land with the range of land uses that are specifically restricted to the urban area. Establishing cemeteries outside of the ULL allows the vacant land within the ULL to be retained for urban land use. It should also be recognized that the Gan Shalom Cemetery does not require any growth-inducing infrastructure. 3 B. Land Use Permit Findings I. The proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general ive fare of the County. The applicants have not requested exceptions to any health, safety and welfare requirements ofjurisdictional agencies(see COA's 5,6 and 7). 2. The proposed use shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. The project will not create any obstacle to utilization of adjacent lands. The application is consistent with the site's zoning and General Plan land use designation. Further, the establishment of a cemetery outside the ULL allows the vacant land within the ULL to be retained for urban uses. 3. The proposed use will not adversely affect the preservation ofproperty values and the protection of tax base within the County. A properly conditioned project should not have a detrimental effect on property values in the County. In this case, there are 43 conditions of approval that will ensure well-designed project. 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. The General Plan does not preclude cemetery use of the site. The project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies and with the Briones Hills Preserva- tion agreement. The environmentally sensitive lands are the site (wooded hillsides and creek corrodor to be retained as private open space. 5. The proposed use will not create a nuisance an&6r enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. The applicant proposes to provide private security, and no special law enforcement problems are anticipated. COA 41 requires security precautions and COA#24 requires endowment care assurance. 6. The proposed use will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. The site is bounded by permanent open space on the west and by an existing rural residential development and horse stables along the Bear Creek Road frontage of the site. The potential for any future development in the vicinity is not altered or affected by this project. 7. There are special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The property has the size, terrain features and physical setting that meets the applicant's objectives for a Jewish cemetery. _ 4 C. Growth Manazement Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated five additional AM and PM peak hour trips by employees. (This assumes the five employees do not carpool.) In general, visitors are not expected during peak hours. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The Public Works Department's recommended conditions of approval including compliance with the collect and convey requirements of Division 914 of the Ordinance Code; COA's 38-40 address other drainage requirements. No structures are proposed within a special flood zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 3. Water and Waste Disposal. The County Health Services Department has approval authority over septic system leach fields(see Advisory Note G). The project will use groundwater for irrigation and flush toilets. No potable water will be generated from the on-site well. Bottled water will be used by staff and visitors; and restrooms are to be equipped with wet towels for washing hands. 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the State Responsibility Area. The property is subject to the requirements of both California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Protection District (see COA 425). Because the site is not located within either a suburban, urban or central business district area, no special fire protection measures under the County's Growth Management policies are required. 5. Public Protection: The project will not result in an increase in population will have private security(COA 41), and is not expected to create any unusual law enforcement problems. 6. Parks& Recreation: The cemetery will not increase demand for park and recreation facilities, and is not subject to payment of park dedication fees. (Reference Growth Management Element of the General Plan) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General Conditions l. Development is approved as shown on plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on October 10, 2002, subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. This approval is also based upon the project description provided by Gan Shalom on the technical studies 5 provided by the applicant's consultants. Further,the approval includes the following additional limitations/restrictions: • All caskets shall be set in concrete vaults with concrete tops installed. Each grave site shall be identified with a marker that will be installed flush to the top of the ground surface. • Security precautions shall be taken to protect the cemetery from vandalism. A private guard shall be hired to visit the cemetery on a regular basis during the night. If this does not provide the necessary protection, a security service shall be hired to be on the premises from sunset until employees arrive for work at 5:00 am. • There shall be no sale activities, crematory or other procedures preparing a body for burial at the cemetery site. • There will be no burials on Saturdays or during evening hours. 2. The proposed structure(s) shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans received October 10, 2002 by the Community Development Department. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building shall be subject to the final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. 3. At least 60 days prior to requesting grading or building permits or constructing any improvements, submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the conditions of approval may be available on computer disk;to try to obtain, contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The Zoning Administrator may reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$500 which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. _ _ 6 4. Annually for the first five years and at five-year intervals thereafter, submit a compliance report on January 30th for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall address compliance with the conditions of approval, document buildout of the cemetery (including a map showing areas where vaults have been installed and irrigated turf areas created). It shall also report on water usage, performance of the well, electrical power usage of the well, and results of monitoring water levels in observation wells. It shall also document growth/survival of landscape plantings. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and materials charges, with an initial deposit of$1,000 which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. General Provisions 5. Any deviation from or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application shall require the filing and approval of a request for modification of the Land Use Permit. 6. The conditions contained herein shall be accepted by the applicant, his agents, lessees, survivors or successors for continuing obligation. 7. The cemetery shall comply at all times with all applicable State Cemetery Board rules, regulations and standards, and any other applicable federal, State or County law or regulation. Landscaping 8. At least 60 days prior to the issuance of the first building or grading permit or installation of any on-site improvements, submit a landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide details on the species, size, plant spacing, soil preparation, staking, etc. It shall address the Phase 1 Bear Creek Road frontage, the east property line(on valley floor), and the corner of the site at the Hampton Road/Bear Creek Road intersection. The plan shall provide for a 20-foot wide landscape corridor, except at the Hampton Road/Bear Creek Road intersection, where the landscaped corner will provide for a 50-foot maximum depth. Only trees and shrubs native to the Briones Hills shall be used. The irrigation system shall be water- conserving and weather-sensitive. Landscape related improvements shall be installed prior to the final building permit inspection for the chapel. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be 7 certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance, 82-86.. Fencing/Signs/Lighting 9. A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permits, submit a fencing plan program for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. B. The design, color and location of any project sign at the entrance to the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. C. Generally street lighting shall not be allowed. Any proposal to install security lights shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Department for the review and approval. The purpose of this review shall be to assure that lighting is minimal and does not shine on/toward adjoining properties. Construction Conditions 10. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise- generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of initial grading or construction, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,title,phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area, of responsibility. 8 The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each future building permit. (A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed.) D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed internal access road to the building site shall be constructed. This shall include provision for an on- site area in which to park earth moving equipment and commute vehicles of construction workers. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. Archaeology 11. A. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials,or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 100 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24- hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. 9 B. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the "find" or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction anal/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery,monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,catalogued,analyzed,evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. California Red-Legged Frog and 'Western Pond Turtle 12. Prior to issuance of the first building or grading permit, or installation of any improvements on the site, the applicant shall record a deed disclosure against the parcel that encompasses the California red-legged frog mitigation measures presented in Table 1, included herein. 13. Prior to commencement of each phase, provide details on the timing and method implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Table 1, included herein. The Zoning Administrator shall have review and approval authority over this plan, and may reject the plan if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements. The plan shall include reporting proceduresto provide documentation ofcompliance with all components of the mitigation measures. Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak 14. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits in a phase,or construction of improvements, submit a plan showing all protected trees within the area proposed for ground burials and provide evidence of compliance with the mitigation measures listed in Table 2, included herein. The plan shall. include reporting procedures to provide documentation ofcompliance with all components of the mitigation measure . Nesting raptors and Loggerhead Shrike 15. Prior to construction in the southern valley, submit evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Nesting Raptor and Loggerhead Shrike mitigation measure in Table 3, presented herein. The submittal 10 shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include reporting procedures to provide documentation of compliance with all components of the mitigation measure.. r Table I REI)-LEGGED FROG MITIGATION MEASURES a) A 100 foot setback shall be established from Pinole Creek's top-of-bank to the edge of project grading. This 100 foot buffer shall be preserved in perpetuity for biological resources. No grading,ground burials,formal landscaping,or other intrusion shall be allowed within this 100 foot wide buffer zone. A Revised Site Plan for the cemetery shall accurately show(and Iabel)the 100 foot setback tine. r b) The 100 foot buffer zone shall be fenced(permanentfencing), with the fencing plan ' subject to review and approval of the Zoning A din mistrator.It is anticipated that the fence ivill be split-rail or equivalent. The surveyorfor the project shall set stakes at the 100 foot setback line. The fence shall be installed on a phase by phase basis. Construction fencing shall be installed along the portion of setback line within each area that is about to be improved prior to issuance of the construction or grading permit for that area. The permanent fencing in each area must be installed after completion of site improvements,and immediately after removal of the construction A encing. Once installed, the permanentfence shall be maintained over the life of the project. jc) Prior to any grading and construction that affects land adjacent to the 100 foot wide buffer zone, a frog exclusion fence shall be installed near the top-of-bank along the entire length of Pinole Creek on the project site. The fence, constructed of I/,-inch mesh hardware cloth, shall be keyed into the ground all along its base(to prevent frogs from;going under it). It shall be a minimum offour feet high, with the top six inches of the fence bent inward(towards the creek)to prevent frogs firom jumping over the fence. This fence shall be maintained in good condition during the duration of all grading and construction-related activities. d) Preconstruction surveys for the California red-legged frog, consisting of one day and one night survey,shall be conducted within three days of any grading or construction- related activities that affect lands adjacent to the 100 foot wide buffer zone. The survey results shall be submitted to Contra Costa County. If any California red-legged frogs are identified on the project site during the preconstruction surveys, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service shall be contacted by the end of the next business day for directions on how next to proceed,and the contractor shall stop all work Any California red-legged frog sighting shall be reported to California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database. At the time the US.-Fish and Wildlife Service determines that adequate avoidance andlor mitigation has been implemented by the applicant, and proof is provided to Contra Costa County via a letter from the J.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,the project may continue. e), Since a California red-legged frog was sighted by LSA in Pinole Creek just outside the project site boundaries, a biologist shall also survey the 104 foot buffer area and immediately adjacent construction areas each morning prior to construction activities during the winter and spring months(times when frogs may be moving) to ensure that no California red-legged frogs have moved into either the buffer zone or the work area. During the hot summer and early fall months, the morning surveys shall not be i necessary since frogs are not migrating during these periods. _ _. ll Table Z VALLEY OAK AND COAST LIVE OAK MITIGATION MEASURES a) All single oak trees(that is, oaks located in oak savanna or grassland habitat or at the edge of a woodland system)within a phase about to be developed shall be protected during construction by installing orange construction fencing at 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree. This non-disturbance buffer zone jshall be staked in the field by a qualified biologist prior to installation of construction fencing to ensure that the contractor has fenced an adequate buffer area. b) After site improvements are completed in the vicinity of the tree, the construction fencing can be removed. However, no surface or subsurface disturbance,no turf or other plantings shall occur within this buffer zone(1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree)for the life of the project. Therefore,permanent fencing shall be installed on the boundary of the buffer zone of a design approved by the Zoning Administrator. The permanent fencing must be installed after completion of site improvements and immediately after removal of the construction fencing. Furthermore, the grading plan shall identify areas to be fenced and the General Notes shall specify no access or earthwork within the fenced area. Any trees proposed for removal shall be shown on the gradingplans. I C) Although .Gan Shalom's plans do not proposed removal of any of the larger trees; nevertheless, ifremoval was proposed in the future,the following mitigation measure i would become operative. The tree replacement formula presented below is based on standards of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance(Ordinance Code, Chapter 816-6). If it is necessary to remove any native trees on the project site that are 6-1 inches in diameter at breast height or greater, then replacement trees shall be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon tree and one]-gallon seedling for each 6 inches in diameter of the trees removed(i.e., an oak tree 30 inches in diameter 9r/2 feet above ground level would be replaced with five 15-gallon and five 1-gallon trees). Replacement trees shall be the same species as the trees)removed.An automatic drip j irrigation system shall be installed on all replacement trees. This system shall operate for a minimum two-year period to ensure that the trees are successfully established. Annual mitigation reports documenting tree survivorship, and complete with photos, shall be submitted to Contra Costa County by December I of each year for a three-year period. If survivorship falls below 85 percent, replacement trees shall be planted and monitored for an additional three-year period. d) To preserve the species composition of the project site's native oak woodland and j riparian habitats, the landscaping plan prepared for the project shall consist entirely of tree and shrub species native to the Bear Creek/Alhambra Valley area. No non-native, ornamental trees or shrubs shall be planted. Seep 16. Prior to commencing any work in Phase 4, provide evidence of compliance with the seep mitigation measure that is presented in Table 4. The plan and other documents shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 12 Table 3 NESTING RAPTOR AND LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE MITIGATION MEASLRES a) Prior to issuance of construction permits for mausoleums, roads,or water tank in the southern valley portion of the site, a spring nesting survey for raptors and the loggerhead shrike shall be conducted in the oak woodland and bay oakforest. This survey shall be conducted between the months of April and June in the year that construction is planned. The surveys should encompass the area on the project site within approximately'/mile radius of the proposed improvements and follow accepted protocols. If the area to be surveyed extends off-site, and permission for access by the biologic monitor is not allowed, the biologic survey of such areas can be performed by using binoculars at a strategic on-site location as well as other reconnaissance methods. If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum 500 foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with construction fencing. A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. .No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest),and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1'. b) If loggerhead shrikes are nesting on the project site, a 150 foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until the young have fledged, typically by July 1'. Table 4 SEEP MITIGATION MEASURES a) Provide accurate coordinatesfor the seep adjacent to the Phase 4 area prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area, i b) Prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area, a qualified biologist shall re-evaluate the seep to accurately establish its limits and set stakes 20 feet from the seep. I C) Permanent fencing(split rail or equivalent)shall be installed along the boundary between the ground burial area and the seep at the 20 foot line. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to any earthwork in Phase 4 and the permanent fencing shall be installed immediately after removal of the construction fencing. The permanent fencing, once installed,shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Alameda Whipsnake 17. Priorto the commencement of each phase, submit a plan/methodology for compliance with the Alameda Whipsnake mitigation measure in Table 5, 13 presented herein. The materials submitted shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include reporting procedures to provide documentation of compliance with all components of the mitigation measure. Table 5 ALAMEDA WH PSNAKE MITIGATI©N MEASURES According to LSA there is a low probability that whipsnakes would attempt to cross a portio the site while it is being cleared for cemetery use.Nevertheless there remains some risk of harming whipsnakes during grading and construction, that can be avoided by the following mitigation measures, i a) Prior to any grading and construction activity, a qualifted biologist shall survey the intended grading area to determine if a temporary snake exclusion fence is required.If a fence is required, the biologist shall specify the type,height and other details of design and installation. 1 b) The biologist also shall determine if any whipsnake surveys are required in an area for which exclusion fencing has been required,prior to the start of work andlor during work. The biologist shall specify the timing and procedures of any such surveys, following generally accepted protocols_Survey results shall be submitted to the Zoning .Administrator and to any other agencies as may be warranted by the survey results. Water Resources 18. Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the Building Inspection Department, submit"baseline"data on water levels in the production well and monitoring wells to the Zoning Administrator to establish any seasonal fluctuations. 19. Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the Building Inspection Department,establish a new monitoring well approximately 600 feet north of the production well (P4). Continue monitoring wells P3 and P4. Annually submit reports to the Zoning Administrator on or before January 30th, presenting all data collected on water table levels in observation wells and the production well. During the first year of operation the wells should be monitored weekly and monthly thereafter. The annual report shall also provide flow meter data and records of power consumption. 20. Each future phase of the Gan Shalom cemetery shall require a hydro- geology report that provides data on the experience gained during the preceding phase(s) and analyzes the water demand for the next phase, establishing that there is an adequate water source. Furthermore, the report shall verify that production of the water for the next phase is consistent with applicable County, Regional, State and federal regulations in effect at that time, and that increased water usage by the next phase will 14 not compromise then-current needs of adjacent/nearby property owners. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Adminis- trator. Approval of grading and construction permits for each future phase shall be dependent on documentation of an adequate water supply to support the expanded cemetery use, or identification of alternative procedures (e.g., use of recycled water, use of a ground cover requiring less water) as needed to satisfy the requirements of this measure. 21. If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down 10 feet or if P3 is drawn down 6 feet below baseline levels, the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 72 hours and hydrology re-evaluation shall be performed. These levels of drawdown do not constitute an impact, but are considered an early notice that the situation warrants study. The required report shall evaluate the data to determine the relationship of the water levels to pumping, and provide measures to protect water levels from drawdown considered excessive under the circumstances. The cemetery is not required to cease pumping in the interim, but shall attempt to reduce pumping as much as feasible while continuing to maintain irrigated areas. The cemetery shall implement such additional measures as the Zoning Administrator may require after reviewing the report. 22. If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down more than 15 feet below baseline level, all pumping will be suspended until such time as the water table level in P4 rises to 10 feet below baseline level, at which time pumping may resume subject to Condition 21. In addition to the preliminary baseline data submitted under Condition 18 , data shall continue to be collected and submitted to establish a refined baseline using two years of measurement, to more closely reflect seasonal fluctuations. The refined baseline levels for the production well and monitoring wells to be used for future monitoring shall be agreed upon by the Community Development Department and Health Services Department using the two years of measurements. Maintenance Building 23. Prior to construction of the maintenance building in Phase 5, provide a Site Plan/Landscape Plan that shows a)fencing details for the maintenance yard, b)elevations of the maintenance building, c)adequate parking areas for commute vehicles of employees who work at the maintenance building, d) space for all Gan Shalom equipment and supplies, and e) a x landscape plan for the perimeter of the maintenance yard. Endowment Care Fund 15 24. Prior to issuance of the first building or grading permit, submit details of the Endowment Care fund for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The structure of this fund shall fully comply with the laws and regulations of the State of California governing such funds for cemeteries, and shall be sufficient to assure perpetual maintenance of the cemetery. Fite Protection District 25. Prior to issuance of the first building permit and with each subsequent building permit, provide evidence that the project is in compliance with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Application Processing Fees 26. This application is subject to a deposit of$2,813.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan submitted to Community Development on October 10, 2002, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIORTO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE PROPOSED UNDER THIS PERMIT. General Requirements 27. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this land use permit. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. 16 Read Dedications 28. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way along Bear Creek Road (where applicable)to provide a road alignment that will allow for the creek bank north of the road to erode to its natural limits. The applicant shall submit a 60-foot wide right of way alignment to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review. The alignment shall be outside the expected limits of creek bank erosion that, at a minimum, should be assumed to be at a 1 '12:1 slope from the south toe of the creek (wi-th the exception of the vicinity of the 72-inch diameter culvert crossing under Bear Creek Road). Additional right of way to accommodate channelization and transitions at the main project entrance may also be required. 29. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned width of 50 feet along Hampton Road. The ultimate right of way on the west side of Hampton Road was recently dedicated as part of Subdivision MS 02-0004. The subject property's right of way dedication shall conform to the neighbor's dedication, being 50 easterly therefrom. Roadway Improvements 30. Construct pavement widening, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along Bear Creek Road to accommodate left-turn channelization for westbound traffic entering and existing the project site. Said channelization shall include a 60-foot storage lane for westbound vehicles entering the project site. Improvements will also include all safety markings and signage off-site as may be required by the Public Works Department. Public Works and the Zoning Administrator may reduce these requirements if deemed necessary due to topographic constraints that may come to light during the improvement plan review process. 31. Widen and overlay(or reconstruct,if necessary)Hampton Road to provide a minimum 28-foot pavement width with 4-foot shoulders, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage from Bear Creek Road to the proposed driveway entrance near the maintenance facility. These improvements must be completed or otherwise secured prior the issuance of encroachment permits for the Hampton Road driveway connection. 32. All vehicular entrance gates shall be located sufficiently distant from the through traffic travel way to allow a vehicle to queue without obstructing traffic. Sufficient room shall be provided outside the gate to allow a 17 vehicle to turn around and re-enter the through street in a forward direction. Sight Distance 33. Provide sight distance at all driveway intersections with Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road for a through traffic design speed of 44 mph. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 34. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 35. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction activity within the existing right of way of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road Pedestrian Facilities 36. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with. Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Utilities/Undergrounding 37. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 38. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 18 39. Sturm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works. 40. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk and driveway in a concentrated manner. Exceptions 41. Applicant shall be permitted an exception to allow discharge of storm water to roadside ditches provided the applicant verifies the adequacy of the downstream ditch system.. Creek Structure Setback 42. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of the creek traversing the property. The structure setback area shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks" of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. Encroachment of existing structures and routine maintenance thereof will be allowed within the "restricted development area." National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements 43. The applicant shall comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance(Ord. #9C-21)and all rules,regulations and procedure of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A "Best Management Practices" (BMP) plan shall be developed in conjunction with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. BMPs to be considered shall include, but not be limited to: Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces. 19 * Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems, * Stenciling advisory warnings on all catch basins. * Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. * Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities. * All vehicle and equipment maintenance and storage of vehicle fluids shall be within a building, or on a paved surface that is covered to prevent exposure to precipitation and where run-on of storm water has been minimized (elevated pad, berm, etc.). Drips and spills shall be absorbed (grease sweep) with absorbent materials and then disposed of properly. * Provide covered storage for hazardous materials, pesticides, fertilizers, etc, to prevent discharges into the storm drain system. * Vehicle/equipment washing shall occur off-site at an appropriate vehicle wash facility. Develop an employee training and education program to inform employees of the need for the reduction in pollutants leaving the site, and to inform them of appropriate methods of handling potential contaminants. * Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public`Yorks Department. 20 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE MOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE - NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Cade. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. C, This project is subject to compliance with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Briones Area of Benefit, and the WCC Regional Fee Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. D. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance(Ordinance No. 99-35)as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. E. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District or the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. F. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the County Health Services Department. G. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. H. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. _.. .. .. 21 This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 660201 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. DM/ss C:\WINCOWMTemporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\OPWI SNA-MLP022069rpt•FINAL(2).wpd 121:1/3 �J" _ �A�r� }�`��j �'.-..-� ,\�Y 1 `� "+✓"•via J'-„,,!!1 - t �,.(� 1( � _.,i \. .--�-• r 3 rpt _. � r 17 #. ✓` ., ” I AI pli �.._~ ,T'y CJj �� i` 1Y I.�� ,.J �� / �,r�{� r�, ,y�� `"P1 �1`-.`�i �\, �"'�J• ��.t' '�- - -.,, J i'• r ��h r` \ Jam?)"-.1 l t' / l a7 f e iy 1 r73 N 4 -7' '7'?�� t,}I�r�� \\ ``} �i'� �fes,,�� : �. '�✓ „/ ,� �� ""i`_ ..�,�� r �� -,�# 7�x�fi �.-c.. -•�;y i i K= ri ca l 1 •� i� ,� n' _.�'�J� 1'� �'�� '- •-r ✓/// �\ �;n \ r+,�ilk ` \ t 0 \ / Ott{`:\ 1y oft �I +Irc ;f,�'1I� ,V� �a_.a_ I#r��l .fs >1„��{��'' ;'�./ c i r� +# � %l�•� 1�� r /''fir �r�, � � itr / �i�t<,,,�. y111,• �`4. ,> 71 ' / �'� � � ,� J Ii l�l13 i�rJn III \,1 1,� '"./. V.7 / :✓- ,*�I r } 1' ly , t � }I {II `-' r Ili l 11 t ;! 1� � "�L.✓i!L l J ✓/'��.1)I� ��N. :}�!1} 1 r'��'4��'�'� '` t�� ,� r}i,.' �\L;1fJt'.. r� CJ o. e �}� 4 ” _ I I�r u ' �•j��(. _> �1� ;t �``1 �, _,, 1f`��-�-� i'' �7�( fj/) r-�.)}��Ir,�.. r�r J 6$�,,`r-��.��` rr.• .r i ,� r / _ tit -��:�X11#�i�S{�tl.,. � ��ri= r >. t '%° �. T�-=�o t A��--�" tl��} er: t ;ar c _��r`' } t ;D,� j1) 1/�-'�- �' 11� y-�ti/, � �✓�'41�f 1t1 �' ��' l`�= ./'�I�S)��;.,.i\ �.� .'.�' l V .n:\.•. Ott., ,y J�iJ ✓� `j/' \n rr!�0/ i-, {. li lu��# rt- �- \` �� I' �`� r :. ,..-...)�\�--'��"!'p��j'��_�.��''�.,..-.'✓r✓,Frr�00'�r/-' �iJ !�.��(��J t',,�. ;��\� ,.�w.1. �,I.}/'r�I'"v�;.' � `7. y__. ��--r. /y_.w`-•� y �s'-'-' � 1 :'j i �lJ;/v' ' '`tS ��tt�1� f /�1.✓'r� ! , �� (51��`�'��\��t'e.,. t-":-.a�\��.ry "1 "1��` R >��tet_ ti�• r. `�� `}1})r) ��s.,�..)�� r� lr�� rJ i 1 r2� c..,;. , °" �/l��r ��J 1��,,�5. ti �)1ti �+}�� ' .yt��f��r��y 1�1 ��r;_.��'�,:�,.`V�-.��\V�•--.� 1 t t,,��'' i s11 � � ry t,i� F, 11}�)f I�� - �,��(�r f-.•%/ ��^'-..� l� v � is .I �i > J#i '-"7 � `^ ,�1,"' �'1#.�,Ij�,/ l�I'((�—`✓fll��l) ✓iyh 1 "^t /1 ,jr ,` .. `{, ` ... `1�I�� jl\L`j Eli /tC�(> 0'4��-' {�-""`-•l lr_ Jj r v �\�1` ,, Ti `'.�q '\ .'� � '��.,,.�.,..� :.. I C 7 �1� fir,.'=' �' � �/ y`l .j{ y�� 1 � ,"�_r,,t,.4t' �✓ "``,--�.'1� �rf'� gp �" 4r7'"', ,�-� ��t. t'j .�. � x r 1,•d\`-,�,�' r g� r�\� ✓"�:"?'�� +/ �{(y{ �\`' ,jli. I '+^ai i L �I;! I\�.1 'r �-'r r�i� `� ..3 i,�',Z } 1}y -, r c--- •-r rs -/ .-',-'=" .i=`�- � t(r }1 ��;� r II� y�'I ri. i- r ....�._,,.....'*'ll Il� ! r• j�t J,��?}t1 ti t // :. � � � �� _ :� ,r/!��'�tit). '/•' ,JJ.�_`... � r� \ "�rl i 71(t / ,f /:_..,�„� ,-,ar'' Y��(�` tt\ati .� ♦1115 =��—^�.��;� o �� i G7 rY .w Fix OCCZN� gm m 00 39 a 1N3W.A'97`M NJd� cnt_.�._�._____�-=�'-^'-"'•�"_ ,� °'f,,� �� '��«t t*") 'b� kDd N63»S3M 14j}J ` v++tt 4 a t,,. kZ,GI.DIN Q� ; 2 DO 3: as, S #: Jl £a ° C,J ry.# LA r_S crs v try cis aJ I` a M r� tV Q z. Cs CD V Ln C%s C7 �.,4'i:9talN `ZC'!Zi{ u.,A0.8k.4N Sfii'9bZ 1A,40.8I,1S� � � � 71 k k Al } t*e t� i i +►' i A:r4 1 t N4 i t k 't t t� 1 1 �raF'�c 600E M� �2.0b" _ __ _ _ _ lu Cd (j} i'' Y ,fi ems• ,o- dr � +,a�. ' 'VU19 s > ,• + It"R Of F f } w t} ?y�j� P � r rIS __ PNASE i{7f7JP. - —I - - uA1NTEHAHaE AR '` »ti *i'a.;. g` i 'A5'SFpNGFD U INCL 3 PM*ACES) J _ 's v. : •.,,,,,,tom TURNAROUND 9 ?' 1 ! PHASE-1(7EMP) (j Q 1 �• 1 (HUR}AL.AREA) `� uu Drat If At {.w t 'm ♦. .. �, Ak ... y (ORDER 123 LOCR W C yr ( AiN{a fN r 5 (La A71t;7i 1 - ! LANDSCAPE AAAA. ....•.� PROWE FORj 'CHAPEL HUtlLWO A �l�.`) , •1 �� t � ,' '� uAuarENAHc€awo - tY� (+,aao S.F.Esx.O00. stro ��;� s it 1 « I.wt�+. xn i :• � � Y (guwALr:AREA) AREA t�,.})1 �� 1/�} {// _;} r iii �.; � I i I 1P" •, y,>�,. 1 I I I I 1 \ S —Ft ;fat t Le i %i�, ./'!.f rf!f %/ /1 I r.'r/�ijl / � O . �\ •�� tY •� b j t ur larxsscAa€ �xs�p jam,{ �ttti; / GRASS SWALE �S O A SEC, C) � (HLYNaI AREA) no AC P V 7Ei�r O•o,•"'' �. •1i >✓ _ Yinit Y CCA4G Ai A 57FtlP o Yi r� •S'y SECS C le j t ifY '(BURIAL r .' 8UR}AL AREA DETAIL i �,. � 'A - 'lid . I•. "! �,,..�-"(5EE SEC.J} r�, � �f� � L �� (BURIAL AREA) f � +" M/YERNIAENT UAR7' SECU U( FENCE •3X `-. �� BOUNDARY e�y+••_--�'V:-L$`a�-sem ) �_. AMNN 4x t" �. I ' ......._ ... .:...... .. Ct DALY }'r l::.i(REPLACE) i k Figure 6; Graphic Scale: Phase 1 Development Plan a 100, __ i i> 7• � S C C� Y-, JtDO r= - � •'73`.:..x' _��;,�, x a. (yt X19 ff{ '_ _ / ..-. � J - •� �' Lh t ' t � z k ba• l-1 "°-T 3`'c ''}r LU s r*e. ''y finch*'�r� t�"''" >��:�;•t�1� .5 Yrs .ct,`ta. co 1 w z C ' tom, _ _ xv Er'tj f A"ti\ \ V _ / Al, �� r � ` \ ti�`��\ ```.4-��......�-•-�---��, /fes;' r ,L,�rf ---- f n y / I i _ 1 O n n ri a z n a r-...,.-.--•------ is {\fit — .{ f LLI Piz - 1 ��ui .'� �.^.� ��`�� tom. j� � 4 �, i��a��1� � {�,�jy.'j�j � t✓ AV •-r•,�> `�L i ice,� S<f q,{�$}i`i l t 111 { l�S�r l f •... 'r��ry arc �' �✓":n �' ,� ._ ..�>":? `•.�� 'i��+ ,.rte,.•-' ��-�r �-� _ 'c �, , k....�•, � �J�. �`,Y`,v MS' ��atif: r""..-.m:,.��"J1_.S'y �('.�y�`P{�•Y•a. PL,Y�a'.1�K.f 1)"� +Y ..-.J v.✓r. W G'.Y •" C fr' l�C.>�� 1. 1� �Y'CS. y_.4^ per' '; � - i' '..��y -fi. �:�`:✓.+rJ .a- e� }�`�.¢• *,� y(rte.�+ Vit,MC`_ pp'r 1 � �7 t ------------ I FRONT ELEVATION T CONC. Tif Roof v � ,.�c�+:.r`�•-�..�..�s��'�'�c�-z �.�'�. �* sF�'� id.__ i•t� — V GROfiVE DETAIL IN f,ONC "'°e'.'°,;,�L `"w�,ryG-y.r.."...c.✓,-.�� C+ � ��h.: k A+a�,`• .Mv�nr•..t. f.0 tr-�7;,r"" '•+t.-o..T"" -.,.r.,...r->S `t"`"` + !�. -3.,...L�1��—r, ! ----Ct')NC. CO{U1WON ;TRU. URE ,:?rs-gin--, r'v.trF... �..._.-•�-�—�..L.i.,t..i...._..i..` ' 1 SIDE ELEVATION (NICHE) I Figure 10 I Mausoleum Elevation Graphic kale: E 0 12' ....... __......... .._. ._ ............ ......... ......._. ........ ....... _._. _.._. . _ _ _ _ . ..... ........ .......... - -- _ Existing Well - ---- _ (depth 135`) Bear Creek AA'Boundary Road A� coo. } -Oai _ - eco T o Tr- 1�Yy1 - 'o ' "NN \w oat Rt{nTtaataARr Au•uvlRxt �°t>r 7 r rir'-••,•w,.(�{!•J r �d' �,r�,�,y 7;yy�F' ` ��'a� (�_ M !NMSE'5 MHUATIDN nansa 514N.8 ` CL IMMI E.YAND.111M. TWL -- -- - -- APPARENT DMINC ORM TATIO`: \EV t --'--�- c's usn•r8 rroLorlc ruMrnrr '�=. ��}�k�4�� `\ .�.,,,.-'`- ,'�'""- "`_..-'--•x'�� ,.' '�v• 5 ��`� " �� i , --—— APPARENT DERDINC ORESTA ION IT MARKER \ • ''� � ,�rx „ `\fit\ a A��\��S I'is� �..±%- ...•-,'• � � x` S. '� � , '''�� a �"'��, �� c .�, � \\��\��a��>V�`t`��`ia>'�#, r� •.'r �_,�•• �. ''� XPr ,Y� ✓� � 'off -y��`�� ;«, vAv�.;' v� y o,3 .';r . Cx Dg�'�\i ;. `✓! ,Sx L�' ';Y�,�! yr'" -.a "`-�" �.. 'axfi�v ��! �1. !yr �:Il,r •�...--� -� .� -• rt & `v\ C'�i L��'�C v � •� � \ i - v1 mg / J r '� *a'�'.. �""..ti\\ � ,Ta�`g i l�4\ Iu)t ` ..s � F.. �,,�• _ G 116/ �� y(�j „�. S }s �+, �y �\ " l �`•�"`�pW} Y r�.r+ lf,�tit"t. �xn.'^ie-1 ° F� x'i � l t k �r �S�� ' �� 1��i�\ �"'J `•�''� `� k b l Ci Yt y �, 3 � {�'�v,•A re + �,l\ Y\h �`4v �` i i?'::,.i � �,/, ii�.-P" t ti '�:. �f a r., 4, .c°�#-k'` r i 1 r�tt �� •�`v� y 1.._..�''.''' d '#fit Ch Uri F�� r. r S rf xFY • ;o��,1 r 1�ws ^�`a ,� \c 'b '�` Jit. far rr?+:�'�r ua 2 F t�v -sem � 4a Y5 Ali d �t< a sa m � ��4 ��` ��t�K�� U1� ♦�.� /� � - w '��) �j�/w, � � ,i,� v t yN{E k-� ) ,�, .i \+,• l,'h�r��a t? r J 'yv:',, cK :>, �� s 1� > r �sa�a j\�}., }�• �, ^.:.`. �.a `+'r�r t:�'asi,�7`�' 1'a ` ``�s� �► �I �� s ' a' . •. g Y.��Y- Y r� �v„ �, `� �\\ 1}� �� i�'>✓�. ! �' 1�`rysSAulr F t, E \1 n�r, t ``t qt' :u vk y�t� \ } fi+§ 7� .,3 ,sy�' /J s ,., - I�x ✓r/�'h 11fi :-- ? x 7r' �'yd � :l F��\•�`4�� '%1�t , :moi jKhf u1��, \ .� r r{..a� Jf fgrl��.l�/{�l� �� /y �f �fi � a y y��r�s#7j��} xisti bt it l\� Cx- 4�r 2" a Y2'�".k".,�' � F>s.;'�7D& t '•1 1 7tr.'14 3.'it '' ��( ><., t ..!i � i 4�\� ♦�i,, sA$lS s �`4..y 4 x �3`�rt�'t'�'t�s,le, ra t ��\ \ k A '1 fi \V� �I g3u�� 84p� dtiw�lH $ s t �1 4$ t.. <,,,.�., �i111�`��»� y i� �it�ai�taist ;�r�� -��\'r "o-.•'� :-. r .�, f �� Z��IN�.... r r�;t� � a• p t. . � '#-L, s�'�1�,zi ±��; \n�tr' 1�f�s•�.1y(t� ��q�'�ti�ti�4� �,`�� I I` l �a '� a� `�t nk�i' vY,� Y�v� ¢ '�3st`�.fi� 3)A Ifl tl t'' �r'�-aCl �e P +:T � ��' ,v r ��.�y 4�111�t�t d°�.2 t�•�: �r � , ;Kms- �1j �, { t� a �• '� ' �l�u�� a �RIMNr G Figure 11 Graphic Scale: Gari Shalom Geologic Cross-Section RINI Cl 300' 'fr a }f+3•i.'S }Z :°fr" {> s 5- rF'�'ya- +� ik.'� ,�y mx y¢xn{ d7ry, ',k�nr�7{� }c✓j ��* � i °�'R•�xTyy�t}p,,,` � �+� '�s. !\ y��5'^yF E M, U'}3 ft, }TF �)ats Yi T3'�i}S+Slr` �"if h. YH• _ [� � �S R �1'. - +. � i '?E2 � �}7n�x}.*h"'°�atA �jt'd',�*tIE •FF e,� T> °��-.A°r`, ~�f �i 's>'�5 'a 4fx.� '+'#£.�'�n� �' �: �+a ,�. �A� [y�4 ar �Y��;4• - _f..-•"3 e5'� ,s .t .w; ��,`h}'k,� }^�+ ih '-rc,�v 7�'f k -�f t +., �,vgtf �e'�..3t�:a��r. 1'� eq`. �r `^''�"",,v..,.`S ! �y�� w� $9. 1•',1 ,��'•�� hh� -p�,t '� � �` � }�� #, � 3.0`� � ): r �.t lyr k�f fak��e.. i°At i a ° � ♦ �z i eti� - �•"gAi�,��,y,,. } >t� �}''-,. -.r°9{ est ;M t r �3'}{ }+\F"rx' f"E.-K" ;®f�/y'/",A ,3tq,. " i{. '1€ rs c.. ti mes t} t x ,fig}„^•�j } qF-4 pp�q6f1 '•.arupoll .. In -- q+v"'Y 3 ., *\q+r }€„{ s 1t''k of J so r _t z'*„JF• ''`F { k,;.x kr INS z, 1w5� !may - +a•c x i'4, - �.+, Lir -" � t a<J / #- ) - # +� f {r '�' } -:< z F 'f r` %v, 1 .�' k5,,si' '�� < <;�'3�a�t• ,�� r£t } r yds t^r } : > -� 3 S},r wx. � �,s,,.tr ffit e�� 4 r�� .�■t:'}"'iF• ,a r�,.,x'"�� '"x,V�� '�t-_ �# ��y'{>.t �' �,+ y,J#.xt'�a,T ,C,£. s `•vim k x �.� s.''f+�� E # �l £#'Q $J f,: �y{,• k}''�. i ' S :! f '� r k fy �, f�sFi a�n2 w'' v ,,�'�< p h t`f -x fl?i'_ -i; .,,es<' .YfN`it,'L- ■. •y;.: .Y: { Y :y F } 4" .,f• fF}" $. f }4 } 1 fT"5 !} ♦ n.: wle } } s, +,l £K '.Y,+ 5� � .. rt�`'a'Yt' ',fi 3i4;k-k S't r3 r { 2YF .,. �' �. t£t'✓+'Ly t<s, � - Ri y, � 'wy'° ,:_. � �-! � �. 7 i'aw r`•<� bif 51 v o „� n, r $� �� F�s� T (*}.Y;#' 'i,�"4*�a• a x �.g r, r f- f f v 1, .,#es''f.GC ,," '��.��}} �;'�x � 3 h '�,,.x 3�3�`+,d �`w �} ti*st.�yxt., '�'. sx � � c a• t is • �' �„ •�,w+� F.'° c,` -,.t;'#Jt +n>x fi �`r .fi � ? c�`S� c '*rw t 't� u`; S '>r �� `1�+� �IT"rr ��^ � }� �> � J,£` T'fis ^k{.�+- °f.g�;• � e1��*Fs sz, f$ £` �'�p�?a, � r y'# g, qK,- � ''{•S.<•" £ k?."x ��£tt 1 - �,y.,,..- - viq A.k.. r 4..•� f�'f!y`+s;`, { ,?Ic.�'' d 1, 1�°'N r f4a ��. 's! �f•-► 'k,Y'g rr ''�.tU�ts �• € J 4 , v �y.1E�r `�'�t�'Vi�y�-,yq#•� �9Y"'j''�i-s4��' t *. � �!'"yy .� .. � � � s"��. �♦kad y ey �" .! 1,,.-4 7"' � gy„�f �t vl3y� Y` }r _" r �Y ••j#,Sys"' *` ��"' to lfi•tC e5. Y 51 w„ "''^+ tF - f _. _. i i t s C a; 4 f i i 1 i} } i w c • s s � t s • •• a sr e P9k6 f � i'Y� fad g � <` a sr <+* t 4 i e ! A a� E A SEE �J7 MAP 9 4- ISLE: s 44 EBERT` r `q r v Pit; .44t ?��J#�3� � ��N 13-3 YtR��•i� d� .r� ...'' 0 ' �r3j�� `•. a�+.i � r �-- ~� =-'Y..Y. ,.��.}j-, 6",iw> y" t'NMc Z111 J j 4 �AL�a157I1- 0 (/ SMUT+12Hd2 At fn "_ / f �, "13-2 sAl oEaos t , + pitLIS gljr ii.}iltL GIRT �y'. 1.3'2 / a OA` -�.... At� QUAIL 4 Ra .3 t ">\r 4wr� res .S 1� �1 MOLLtNd. � � VALt�/' Lt� �,r � ` ."3. I;�r � Rtptie�di 21 5 t ym•' i ) As M6HYfIAA 13 5 t�� t Nc «- 1 ca ° Y � e o �� .. 2z- ASP �40 __� F,Jrj ��^� 21 19!� \.:.._ .."� VEER 9AIH•,�F„ ,i i �b'.t""'4 21-z8 t,c7�"t,�,. r �\ yC�' {S JU#ts➢tt� �fii` SXYLINE blies t4 og 1 py piPY tsu 3 F ..;`r t"/) S�%/ `•b@ 7J cJ 2�3 hi 'A , p �;r LH U M , i"tiw `+ `.; " iffigt tNxA:. "1 if r i{ -VISTA eryc,\ _ � .axt _ l s £L \f OR "yr t '��' AL 0.1 w �1 2;i s r r j ES ATES TRE5is 4$1 Cylgdggqpx,'/� Pt LA 4 V� I`?e 1 m t t s °��°�6 a PALMAS s• U1 � +l'Iq -"v3' Y autx taEIX i' cx �! ' - -._' " `. dR '`•*/ 1fiAHCREEK PPAL .� esl :.AAHZAN �J .$ Ci r ( g[ �. x dk .' 4 < a i '`�. L IS t' EGAL, wY g r"I ;S" i NY bb` Grp ERLY Ap�7 '. Lqt. •Cy._19 f,.^ __ fit '01 HIDDEN ray tK '� 4`�� 6CJH tonal _ �i9y �.,-� r � � L� ? t �?'srq NPir� � L! �� v �� d„ �gf o�� 1�� j',�• ,off $ tiN S� 5-Vf � �GA1 "� `�'#6 QAKS Oft 3, yYgA Mss •err '" >�, "� � "._Y-; .:�'�� r + '` A #�1 t ' � *e RE�N. � .,.,1`,'"Lei{#."" w,"•v yrLx ,? '!'` y t' 21 14\ •,��,s, 4f.`i513N YAl a„ i!{ IV7 r`k 04 t �iIN@EA61 •'< i { t ��J�3 1'i'�Li��.F rF Sr I ' � � � ,�1 �'3" �f cit , 77�, HAS 1 ISi,�l.� gY�g is SSPEle ` $� LftS V€RDES " racxvalx vl cm44 01,1 i 3 mgr I� I if' J tf 1 / VI •J'� t KIN ' t�y�(' sr�aue d sr>• i A`rf '' 3�W �' S,✓ � P YAG `:. [ A _ � 4pNar a trtpy tY��cr �.� �" �44.au•A � �* rP '�i`' � �, �1; }� cr FE9nE icy,T e r r�: J hk SIHA ssx r� at 'c ri� cr SEE MAP 0 .25 6 mites I in. a 1900 ft. .f m J ${� • _ _ V w x r. • cc CL a t IM CL skr c W a gw 1 S' � Il ( U 1. vy t}r.: "':i 1 ,•;': ,�; ,E,. i,. ., 1.4s..�:� .1.r Ix:�,'. �,Y.�v.7�F., i`M1 i4' x #{ i.r APPENDIX ` A Correspondence froom Agencies & Public During the N. Q.I. Comment Period (Nov. 6`" through Dec. 8th)' row LAND TIS UST 03 DE r, -3 PH 3: 57 December 8, 2003 Darwin Myers P.C7.Box 2452 Martinez,cn 9459 Project Planner (925)228-5460 Community Development Department FAN(925)372-5460 Centra Costa County E-mail: 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th floor tit�Pmttirt;erita �lancltrust.ors Martinez CA 94553 li�E�bsztc: , tivu u=.1FLt4F}lttitaT*,e�andTz'tsz.t�r� Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Gan Shalom Cemetery BOARD OF DIRFCTORS 6')ai,- County File 9LP022068 Peter Langley 3-rice char#-.' Nancy Sdhaefcr seovfrt,y Dear Darwin Myers: Mary Ann Garbe - Tavtsmv;z The Muir Heritage Land Trust is a nonprofit land trust organization Don Manning established to protect open space, preserve natural resources and provide for Dick Av.-enius a public benefit through land acquisitions and conservation easements. We 3t�sephByrne are a regional organization with. a membership of over 27010 individuals and nater Colby Roger Dolanbusinesses in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area. As Ken Fischer property owners, environmental stewards and land conservationists, we have sl�e;la G,-gin; Steve I>Grillt:l a strong interest in protecting the ecological, scenic and productive value of irdie Iviari Ross the land in and around the Briones Agricultural Preserve Area and in Bill```ein`n' ensuring environmental impacts of proposed projects are clearly identified Mark Wilson and thoroughly addressed to meet CEQA and the Contra Costa County EmrRtrus planning requirements. BOARD Mrmmas Holet Hornbeck We have concern that the long term environmental impacts of this proposed Tart)Olson .i.x-1 Crelfcr project have not been adequately addressed to protect the natural resources Everett Turncr and character of the Briones Hills/Franklin .Ridge/Alhambra Valley area. HONORARY This letter with the following comments addresses these concerns: BOARD MEMBER Jin-1 cutler 1_ The proposed project lies within the Briones Hills Agricultural S1 AFT Preservation Area. This agreement, between the surrounding cities, aims to �i cacartzr;c,>t,�G,t„: maintain the historical, agricultural, parkland and grazing uses. We disagree, T;r..t B nt as concluded on page 30 of the environmental checklist, that the proposed project is consistent with natural watershed land or wildlife habitat. In fact, a Mary Alice Sttidum s,-tix7rclsl/.A s<c:itrtt: fenced cemetery, even with grass turf, provides unnatural manmade Belli l':trclsc ck conditions that will not support native plant and animal species, such as the Alameda whipsnake.. In addition, the project design will construct a barrier to the natural animal corridor so valuable in this area. 2. Another concern with the proposed Gan Shalom. Cemetery project is the of water required to sustain a grass covered cemetery for the proposed life span of 1201 years. Experts debated in the initial CEQA study as to the, amount of groundwater available, and if the area could sustain a cemetery. The Briones Agricultural Hills Preserve Alliance and Gordon Thnupp of S.S. Papadopulos and Associates believe and present evidence that this area could not and should not support a cemetery. We request that more hydrogeologic research be done to demonstrate the depletion of groundwater will not negatively alter the natural resources in this area. 3. Additionally, if more water is necessary to support potential future project phases, and if potable water lines were extended to the project site, phases, and water lines were extended out the project site, the entire.Agricultural Preserve would be broken. This would pave the way for mass development to be approved throughout the Briones Hills, Franklin Ridge and surrounding areas. The short and long term cumulative effect on the potential changes to the entire Briones Agricultural Preserve Area needs to be considered in relation to this proposed project. 4. 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 protection. We view projects such as the Gan Shalom Cemetery as having an increasing threat to the natural open space of the area and are very concerned about the resulting cumulative fragmented land use impacts. We request the County Community Development Department address this 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. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Sincerely, Tina Batt Executive Director ° Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed a � P.U. Box 46, Pinole, CA 94564 December 8, 2003 e. Darwin Meyers i a C. Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor, ;;. Martinez, CA 94553 c�:= Dear Darwin Meyers: c - > The Friends of Pinole Creek Waterhsed wants to go on record in opposition to issuance of a Special Land Use Permit (County File #LP022068) to Gan Shalom, Inc. for the construction of a cemetery at the corner of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road. We support the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve residents' group in this regard because of serious concerns about locating a cemetery at that site. We believe it is inappropriate. The issues are complex and require further in depth study. First there would, of necessity, be large amounts of water withdrawn from the aquifer for landscaping. This would have a negative impact on residents of the area who depend on well water. There would be possible impacts on wildlife (including California red-legged frogs and steelhead trout) as well as water quality from runoff and concentrations of landscaping additives, and salts if the water is treated. Second, the very nature of the area would be destroyed. Historically a dry farming area, to add a large area that is formally landscaped would not be fitting to agricultural surroundings. And third, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed supports placing a cemetery in a location where utilities and appropriate access roads already exist, not in a location that would irreversibly change the nature of the surrounding rural area. The Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is a community organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing Pinole Creek and its watershed and to improving the health of San Pablo Bay. The group's members include citizens from Hercules, Pinole, Briones Valley and the surrounding area, local educators and students, EBMUD biologists, and representatives of local government. Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is devoted to the protection and enhancement of the entire Pinole Creek Watershed including the upper watershed --- and the portion that defines the north boundary of the cemetery site. We therefore ask that all possible problems be investigated with a full Environmental Impact Report. Thank you, r. Joe Mario i For Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed 8 December 2003t t'k Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development Department 0 3 0 E C 8 Ptl 4' 3 ! 651 Pine Street North Wing 4th Floor Si14iN! L._'. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Dr. Meyer. In regards to County File#LP022068 The Proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery Just from the Environmental Checklist Form "Less than significant" means that the plan does not "really" change the local scenic vistas. While this would be true in a neighborhood of suburban houses with their flowers, trees and landscaping; that is not the case in an area of dry farming,winter crops, and cattle grazing.And the reason no one has that landscaping surrounding their homes relates to the scarcity of water in the area. Water for their OWN landscaping is an issue. Will a cemetery succeed if they run out of water?Is this a goad business plan?Why permit a business that is going to fail. From their own report, the following chart indicates their lack of the necessary resources to succeed Estimated use for 1 acre for one day is: 6,000 gallons per day If they water only 3 days per week, that is: 18,000 gallons per week per acre. They will need to water more often than that but let`s be conservative. During the 24 hour test the on-site well dropped from 13.95 feet to 41.70 feet.That's 27.75 vertical feet of water because AT NO TIME during the 24-hour test did that level stop drawing down. In other words,there was no magic pool that they suddenly reached This is a well that has not been used.All the water was from that winter's rainfall. When, the next 24 hours; the recharge(or the well refilling)was measured it only returned to 23.35 feet which means in just ONE DAY of pumping water,the well DROPPED 10.4 feet.The closest test well P-1 was only 50 feet away and it started at 14.00 feet,and dropped to 41.05 feet.There was no test run on how the P-1 well recharged.The second test well(100 feet away from the site well)dropped from 1.6.90 to 27.70 feet.That means that the second well 100 feet away from the well the water was being pumped from stili dropped more than 10 feet. Finally, the third test well which was 1700 feet away from the site well dropped as well. In 24 hours that well dropped 0.6 of an inch.That doesn't seem like much but it means water was being tapped that far away.That test result was LEFF OUT of the CEQA but is in the original ENGEO 24 test report. Please understand that for the cemetery to use 18,000 gallons per acre per week,it will run dry in about a month if not sooner even if they only develop one acre and they are planning on developing two. What happens with acre three?with acre 18 or 24?There is NOT enough water for the cemetery to survive! The county MUST ask for a 7-DAY test or even a 3-day test.That test must be done in the spring at the same time of year as the previous test(May 29130)and it MUST BE REPEATED at the end of October before the first of the heavy rains.The test must include all three monitoring sites and the site on the adjacent property. In the report,the cemetery people say they will truck.How many trucks will that be for 2-acres, for 11?As our hydrogeologist reports: both ENGEO and Geoconsultants refer to graphs as incorrect analysis when in fact they are graphs of the existing data and an extrapolation of that data showing what would happen.It shows clearly that the well "would be pumped down to the screen in less than three days and will not sustain the desighn flow rate.needed for the proposed development. They say in their reports and CEQA repeats it. a comparison of water use that they say applies. Please note: Irrigated Pasture: 6789 gallons per day per acre Vineyard: 5521 " " Alfalfa 3801 " Tomatoes(drip) 5431 " Tomatoes (row irrig) 6781 " Horse Boarding 1920 for 80 horses at the property(not per acre) The major error is that there has NEVER been row irrigated crops in this area. Not pasture, not vineyards,not alfalfa, not tomatoes. Horse figure was based.on 24 gallons per horse per day.According to Mercks Veterinary Manual,horse use is 8-12 gallons per day, less than half or a third of their erroneous quote. So the figures and perhaps the whole report needs to be revisited. Almost everyone in this valley has a marginal well,some people trucking water as early as May. We are okay with that, it's part of living in the country but we can wash clothes only once a week,we can be sure and turn off the water when brushing our teeth,using all the measures one takes during a drought because THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO UO, we can live with it.The cemetery however,must continue to offer what it sells to people who buy plots and if they run out of water themselves,not to mention the neighbors at all,they will not be able to keep their promise to their own people, that of a beautiful landscaped facility. It's not okay to change a countryside and its residents beyond repair.There is no repair for destroying this agricultural preserve. Most sincerely req ting your attention Carole and Roger Dwinell. 201 Bear Oaks Court Martinez,CA 94553 E e5 t �,G:' COSTA � 03 DEC -3 PH 4, 31 � ' t"s£YEt,�aFM"c;-fT ONtP:. /14 e-S. 2/G2 i __.,?' r �!, r` .S c-..nU-c-- _ �r lit C C`-s ISSN � /� t>r r- �'�,,,r- ,.y''�!f✓' .r-'''�c.s� ,�c�t._� .t,� .�-a�.� � � �..r �..�....�-=.�zJ C-4-. 74> .11-ACi.._?""" E' _ it i ,E i _..�dt ;j ii CL r - 11 _ �E o-yx- f.Cl _ _ .S"'rcl +C l ,y _..1.��.- . ?.sacra 44-Cf.. -4:7 C( -7`"�.,I� o _. �{`a2' L.l'�C.x.. (� Tr .. - -__.._ .�.i F.. ��.....��...--. -a!' .Y.C✓t.�,J ..C'_,v' .s ._��!G'L!�:..�'t��'.."S.„J -.(�1.�.��,.(_-;...:G_�.! . ..... s- ...04llC I tyle C`1 �Z G7C� CSCZ 1...- ! .. �? Y C� CG S. 3t _ /G1 �._. ../...` �'7 /.'tom�Z C...... LZ t 7' __!_._`z ..._.L?� Y. Li 1` . e7'�e C,2 S. 16 3 Il-t/.s. 6 V" .CGS a1 r I :.December 8, 2003 03 or-(- 3 Darwin Meyers Community Development Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North wing, fourth fl. Martinez, CA., 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers I am writing in opposition to a special land use permit being approved for the proposed cemetery, LP022068. I am a life long resident of the Briones Hills and a Fire Captain with twenty-five years of fire service experience. Fifteen of those years as an Emergency Vehicle Operations Driving Instructor. l have driven fire engines under emergency response conditions in the area and they are very difficult conditions at best. The subject property has an over ten minute response time from the nearest staffed fire station. This is double the acceptable time for an urban response. In the last year we have had the following emergency incidents in an approximate three-mile radius; Medical 6 Trauma 3 Vehicle accidents 12, (6 fatal, mostly high speed) Structure Fires 4 Vehicle Fires 4, (mostly criminal in nature) Grass Fires 4 Misc. 4 Total 37 Other noteworthy incidents are drug related execution style murders, approximately one every couple of years or so. This is due to the remoteness of the area. Emergency response if difficult to perform due to the narrow roads, the high speed roads, blind turns, bicycles, motorcycles, horse riders, joggers and many other types of vehicles. The additional traffic resulting from cemetery operations including funerals and visitors to existing graves increasing over the years will compound the hazards. The problem areas span beyond a three-mile radius to the whole Briones Hills area, as there are only three roads into the area. 2 The several hundred citizens, more than one thousand vehicles each day, the thousands of visitors weekly to the country reads and open spaces ,people picking up children from schools and taking them to area riding schools in the afternoon and the people using the cemetery will all be at a dangerously increased risk due to the further impact of an already poor emergency response. Section 88-2.404 paragraph one of the Special Land Use permit process demands that the permit shall be denied in that the cemetery will jeopardize and adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the public. Sincerely, %1 Lawrence E. Nunes 100 Via ®omingos Martinez, CA., 94553 December 6, 2003 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development Department 651 fine Street,North Vying 4'h Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers: I have recently learned about the proposed cemetery development plan on Bear Creek Road. Please accept this letter as my statement in opposition to the development. The Briones Hills area is a treasure to the Bay Area. It's an open space intended to be just that— a sanctuary for the appreciation of nature. Any kind of development is a diminishment of the natural beauty. While it might be argued that a cemetery poses less threat to the area than,say,a new housing development, it is nonetheless an imposition on the landscape and the source of far more car traffic. I am concerned that this is being offered as a less-threatening initial option and once established, could set in motion far more expansive and aggressive development Thank you for your consideration of my statement. Cordially, Leanna.Hudson 3628 Stoneglen South Richmond,CA 94806 t re's r, Mr. Darwin Meyers, 12-5-03 CCC Community Development Dept. ('1?k Hello Mr. Meyers, My name is John Fouhy, as a resident of the Brionr is C --8 1J"1 2; Agricultural preserve and a California Licensed Landscape Contractor for 22 years #6653557; I am compelled to express my concern about the proposed refit rn fur; unique valley. The code states that section 88-2.404 is in place for the Health, Safety, Comfort or Welfare for the public, the allowing of a cemetery will affect the following. 41) Water issues My home is approx. 4 lots west of the proposed cemetery with my total property consisting of 5 hilly to flat acres,much mirroring the cemetery layout only on a smaller scale. With my skill and knowledge in landscaping, our unique Valley has proven to test my abilities in plant structure, drip irrigation and rodent control. With out going into to much detail, The Quantity is an issue as well as Quality,water in our valley is not beneficial to most plants; especially turf, The PH and high salinity have not been addressed in the Engeo reports. To bring the onsite water to a good usable supply, standard practice available is to mix in large storage tank onsite chemicals that will equalize the PH and nullify the salinity. Turf requires a tremendous amount of water, even with today's state of the art technology in the hot summer months to look well and fight off disease, so leaching will no doubt tape place affecting the surrounding creek, wild life and possible ground water contamination. Turf in our valley is virtually non- existent for these reasons not to mention the gopher infestations that would be controlled by poisoning them. The water report by Engeo has many misleading statements and information that does not support there claims, I suggest having a 3rd party, independent of all interested, affirm or unaffirm Engeo findings, Using our most demanding months of Aug. thru Oct. as there testing window. Our constant struggle for water is a burden and to further strain our resources for turf is not consistent with the character of our special valley, ?dative plants and flexibility in there selection and maintenance have proven to be my best ally in my postage stamp landscaping on my property. #2) Traffic To further explain my concerns, I have been blessed with 4 children, three of which living at home,Ages 13, 14 and 17 all of which travel our country roads via horseback, bicycle, walking and driving. Our front field has been a landing pad for the life flight helicopter on many occasions for accidents in our valley. These victims were unfamiliar with the narrow winding roads out here, my fear is the proposed cemetery will add more unfamiliar drivers to the already dangerous conditions and one of my children will fall victim to a tragic accident caused by the addition of more vehicles,this proposed cemetery will affect traffic! And over time will grow to a larger concern as time moves on, thus affecting the future of my children's children.. x moved here for the country two lane roads and don't support there widening either. This Proposed cemetery doesn't fit the character of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve, I erg you to reject the cemetery from being placed in this remote area. Thank you for your time ' this matter, John Fouhy 1218 Bear Creek Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 (925)229-9499 To: 12/06/03 :Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development Dept. s 651 Pine St.,North Wing,4`h Floor Martinez,CA 9455.3 pry From: Monica Mueller and Mark Zaitzew rr r^- 32.Richie Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Re: Land Use Permit Application for Can Shalom Cemetery We oppose permitting the Gan Shalom Cemetery proposed for the vicinity of Bear Creek and Hampton Roads in the Briones area. We have been East Bay residents for over 10 years and have lived and worked in cities both east and west of the Briones area. We consider these open spaces and agricultural preserves a major factor in the quality of life in this area. We enjoy the recreational opportunities including bicycling and hiking on a weekly basis year round. We also value the area as an important and ever more endangered environmental resource. The Briones area as it stands includes critical watershed, wildlife habitat,plant life,and agricultural land. The ever escalating development in the Bay Area is resulting in permanent loss of these irreplaceable resources with immediate and often unforeseen long term negative consequences for the sustainability of our communities. For instance,many residents in Pleasant Hill have recently been designated at increased risk for flood damage by FEMA at least in part due to development in the uphill areas. Also traditional cemeteries use landscaping that is chemical and water intensive. In our own home, we have worked hard to plant water conserving landscaping and do not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Limited water resources and increasing pollution dictate that we develop more sustainable alternatives such as natural environment cemeteries. PIease deny the Gan Shalom Cemetery use permit. Monica Mueller and Mark Zaitzew 3921 Allendale Avenue Oakland, CA 94619 December 3, 2003 Darwin Meyers Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers I work for Cowgirl, Inc. at 1151 Bear Creek Road and I am totally against the cemetery. Not only will the traffic problem with funeral processions impact my commute and other trips to town for supplies for the ranch, but I think it is going to create a very bad situation for the boarders here at Hossmoor. If boarders have too many problems getting out to ride their horses, I believe they will move their horses to more accessible locations. Another fear of mine is that the water table will recede and we will not have enough water and will be unable to afford to purchase stock water. Again if we pass expenses to board- ers they may move elsewhere. I need and want to continue to work here and I see the cemetery as a big threat to my livelihood. Please do not issue permits for Gan Shalom Cemetery. A cemetery is not an agricultural use and I really think it will forever change the nature of the community and could adversely affect my livelihood, that of the stable owners and of the boarders to come out for recreation. Sincerely R. J. W iters AT`I'N; Darwin Myers �_ CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER.-88-2 - 88-2.404 (1) SAFETY Bottomly Farms is right across the street from the proposed cemetery . They hold horseback jumping competion and practices. Will the gan shalom cemetery have 21-GUN SALUTES to honor there military dead. Horses spook easily.Riders will be thrown and injured.The public safety will be at risk Little girls ride there horses down Bear Creek Rd.to Hampton Rd to enter the park.These riders could be thrown and the horse could run wild down these roads for miles before coming to a stop.HORSE VS. CAR-MOTOR CYCLE or whatever is in there way. G67 , ,,.''`C,f-- Fr. T` I`l A cc)c,rA ATTN; Darwin Myers CCL?#LP022068 CHAPTER-88.2 f " 88-2.404 (1) PUBLIC HEALTH How does the cemetery plan on maintaining the goffer population. Will they use strychnine poisons and will it run into the creek. When they realize they have a water shortage problem,will they have to maintain there grounds with heavy fertilizing and will that run off into the creek There use to be turtles in this creek and I would like to see them reintroduced to this habitat. ATTN; Darwin Myers 1 ` "i = A C 0S T A CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER-88-2 h M . 88-2.404 (A) PROTECT THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF iT.HE PEOPLE AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES As a resident of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve The Gan Shalom cemetery has stated that as a last resort,if and when there well runs dry, that there will be water trucks hauling down our winding roads to replenish there huge holding tanks. This will be a HAZZARD► This will add to higher road MAINTENANCE This WILL LONER PROPERTY VALUES As a firefighter at station 191 know how dangerous the roads are . Are they going to have the low bidder for there water hauling Are the haulers going to know how dangerous these roads are. My family of 5 generations know ! ATTIN; Darwin Myers C 0 S I*;N CCD FILE#LP022068 CHAPTER 88-2 ru As a residence of the Briones Hills Agricultural PRESERVE ,with Five:generations hh'd'kiil growing. In order to prove that this property has plenty of water,a report was filed that stated,tomato plants where irrigated by well water. They were watered from the creek.They even damned the creek,which Department Of Fish and Game made them remove. WHO IS THERE EXPERT fr� <, ST ATTR; Darwin Myers CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER-88-2 ,3 8$-2.404-A PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES AND THE ORDERLY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD As a resident of the Briones Hills Agricultural preserve ,my property value will decrease,having a cemetery next door. o. ATTN; Darwin Myers +w. <. a t P J aA CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER-88-2 03 07^ - p , 41 88-2.404 (A) PROTECT THE SAFETY AND WELFARP'OPtHt k6 GAN SHOLOM CEMETERY Is a funeral procession going to have real law enforcement officers maintaining traffic patrol . Some processions have imitation type officers on motorcycles Will they have communication to 911 (cell phones do not work in the valley) Will they know how dangerous the roads are. When the procession needs to halt or stop the general public ,IN ANY DIRECTION NEAR THE CEMETERY, they will be endangering the public. There are winding blind corner roads with no shoulders. From O RINDA , BEAR CREED.RD. Has a 50 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT(OFTEN AND DAILY SPEEDS GO UP TO 100 MILES AN HOUR. How can this be considered SAFETY ALHAMBRA VALLEY RD AND BEAR CREEK.ROAD to be used daily and many times a day for funeral processions is a recipe for DISASTER ! PLEASE DENY PERMIT#CCD FILE#LPO22068 ATTN; Darwin.Myers 1A ►A ' CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER-88-2 88-2.404(3) MOVEMENT OF POLICE,AMBULANCE,OF.-,,FIRE EQtHP1C1 7) Fire Fire ST. 19 is 3-tenths of a mile from the proposed entrance of the Gan SHOLOM cemetery. The 2-tenths is the most narrowest ,where fire engine and car side by side do not fit.This is where the creek had washed out the road. When cars in p*cession back up to a stop,ST.19 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND �'Ce'.' Ss a"0 ATTN; Darwin Myers ��r� VI R A C 0 S T A CCD#LP022068 CHAPTER-88-2 C,3 Ci Er," - 3; 88-2.404 (1) a .. PUBLIC HEALTH The Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve is a 5 acre minimum. You are allowed one septic system per 5-acres-100x50 The Jewish orthodox burials have the non embalmed in a pine casket that is ment to decompose into the ground and possibly into the ground water that I drink. Is there a risk of contanamation to the creek. There could end up with 50- acres of human waste �.` 7 . � v Al Humbert Residence: POB 2248 200 Bear Oaks Ct. Orinda CA 94553 Martinez CA 9455 � � leo # 925-335-9740 925-335-9759 cell .Z?.",fTf a r CCC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. , Attn: Darwin Meyers . 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4t` Floor Martinez, CA 94553 12/07/03 RE: GAN SHALOM CEMETERY REQUEST FOR LAND USE CHANGE Dear Mr. Meyers: I think this change of land use is a poor idea for the following reasons: 1. Safety for bike riders. This neighborhood is a haven for thousands of bike riders yearly. They travel Bear Creek Road and Alhambra Valley Road daily. There are not any shoulders and there are many sharp turns. One bike rider was killed this Summer by a passing motorist who simply clipped the handlebars with the car's side view mirror. The expected increase in traffic is completely unwelcome and dangerous. 2. Disruption for emergency vehicles. I work as a reserve fireman in this valley. We respond in a 40,000-pound engine, which is 8.5 feet wide. We must travel down the middle of the road to avoid hitting any trees and telephone poles. There will not be any room to pass a funeral auto procession. 3. Disruption to agricultural activities. One day I assisted a neighbor with moving 550+ goats from one pasture to another pasture. We went right up both lanes of Bear Creek Road, which is legal, and we had the right of way. What do you think would be the effect of an auto procession? 4. Shaping Our Future. The surrounding cities have already collectively agreed to maintain this area as an agricultural preserve. The change in land use would send a signal to all the surrounding cities to allow additional inappropriate uses of this area. Before very long, we would have another Tassahara Road. 5. Sensible alternative cemetery,is available. Rolling Hills Cemetary has a 40-arce parcel available for the asking. It is close to the freeway and does not have any of the negative effects I have listed. Sincerely. Al Humbert Denise Humbertv.. ,. } �. .,,. Residence- POB 2248 'to r § ` `'`' ¢ ¢ 200 Bear Oaks Ct. Orinda CA 94563 Q 3 SPC, ,-8 PN Ess 35 Martinez CA 94553 925-335-9740 HENT rEP 925-335-9759 cell CCC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Attn: Darwin Meyers 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4t Floor Martinez, CA 94553 12/07/03 RE: GAN SHALOM CEMETERY REQUEST FOR.LAND USE CHANGE Dear Mr. Meyers: As far as I am concerned, I cannot believe this request for a change in how the land is to be used has gone this far along in the consideration process. This idea should have been killed in committee long ago! It was just recently that the surrounding cities all agreed in good faith to .maintain this area as an agricultural preserve and to keep it as an undeveloped, watershed area. The City of Martinez has no business allowing a cemetery to be "built" out here. This would totally undermine the spirit of the multi-city agreement, not to mention be an unnatural and uncharacteristic use of this land. As a valley resident, I can attest to the fact that this valley has very little water, especially during the long summer months. I understand that Gan Shalom Inc. has paid for their alleged "water expert" to declare the water issue a non-issue but I suspect that they found an"expert" willing to mislead them. Their water argument is riddled with holes. The test was done in April when it should have been done in August! They compared their proposed cemetery water use to that of having 80 horses per acre. No one has 80/acre! Plus, horses do not use as much water as stated in their"expert evaluation". Another comparison was made with the tomatoes, which were at one time grown in the valley. They failed to mention that the Pinole Creek was DAMMF-D to get enough water! The Dept of Fish and Game consequently shut them down. The tomatoes were not watered by well water as the cemetery folks have been lead to believe. I know people in Redding who had a similar situation forced upon them with many "water experts" stating that a new development's water use could be sustained by the existing well water. In just a short time, new and old wells dried up. "Experts" can tell you anything but real time experience is more valuable information. If you allow this cemetery to move in, what will you do for our community when we run out of water? The cemetery will have millions of dollars to truck in water but what about us? This proposal makes no sense! Sincerely, Denise Humbert December 5,2003 1375 Grand Avenue, #200 Oakland, CA 94610 510-595-4200 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development Dept. fit Pine Street,North Wing,e Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Cemetery on Bear Creek Road Mr. Meyers. As a hiker who enjoys Briones Preserve and a bicyclist who likes riding on Bear Creek and Alhambra Valley roads, I oppose this proposed development. It will bring a lot of cars into an area that currently has very few. This area is heavily used by bicyclists from Berkeley,Martinez,Pleasant Hill,Lafayette,and Orinda. (There is a one-hour loop that includes San Pablo Ilam Road, Alhambra Valley Road, and Sear Creek Road.) I'm sure the cemetery would change the appearance of the hills,from dry brown to irrigated green grass with willow trees. Besides being a waste of water, it would be out of place. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely yours, James L. Hand* C") Xw cr, LtJ J I� -�9 ! 0 3 D�� Helmuth Spieler 2546 Carmelita Way Pinole, CA 94564 December 6, 2003 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Dev. Dept. 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Proposed cemetery on Bear Creek Road, APN 365-010-005 1 am writing this letter to voice my strong objections to the proposed cemetery near the corner of Bear Creek and Hampton Roads. Clearly, for the local residents there are legitimate concerns regarding realistic water usage. Increase traffic is another issue. This is a very popular route for cyclists and the winding road in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site exacerbates the probability of accidents between cyclists and preoccupied motorists. I travel this road every weekday and frequently on weekends and have often observed risky behavior. We should not encourage increased traffic that will exacerbate these problems. However, this is not the main objection. The open area around Bear Creek Road is an invaluable resource. The quiet rural atmosphere provides wonderful recreational opportunities for many from the surrounding areas. Deviating from the existing development patterns can bring about irreparable harm to the quality of this recreational resource. This is not just a concern for the residents near the proposed site, but for numerous residents in West County and other areas. Please reject this proposal. Sincerely, 4 c11t sy,''+OS-A Helmuth Spieler Torn Lease CI 'f' 1216 Haney Trail a 12 Walnut Creek, California 94597 November 7, 2003 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development Department 651 Pine Street North Wing 4''Floor Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Cemetery at Bear Creek Road&Hamptons Dear Mr.Meyers, I am strongly opposed to the idea of a cemetery at the Bear Creek Road location. This area represents one of the few undeveloped and untarnished open space areas left in the county, it would be a travesty to pave over this oasis for a segment of the population that will not even be alive to enjoy it. The area represents what little innocence and beauty there is left amidst the sprawl and other poorly planned developments that have plagued Contra Costa County. There are other practical reasons that a cemetery should not be placed at this location: I. The narrow and winding roads are not conducive to large limousines, Hearst's,etc. and I think the senior population would find them very hard to drive. 2. This area is very near a protected watershed and our water supply could be threatened by construction mishaps, lawn fertilizers or other malfeasance during or after construction. 3. The wildlife, critters,birds and the like have suffered a huge loss of living space to our man made developments and it would be a serious environmental error to wipe out what little green space is left for a cemetery. 4. Location is very poor. This is an out of the way area that is not close to any freeways. Also the roads leading into this area were not designed for the heavy traffic that would ensue, not to mention all the heavy construction equipment that would be needed. I am sure there are other reasons I failed to mention why a cemetery here would be such a bad idea. Sincerely, Tom Lease toinlease((4comeast,net C Documents and SettingslanyoneNy Documents0arwin Meyers.doc F, r° 4069 Happy Valley Road lAfsyette,CA 94549 6 December 1903 Darwin Myers CCC Community Dev..Dep. 651 Pinc.Stitvt,North Wing,4'Fluor Martines,CA 9455 ' Sirs We,the undersigned, residents at the above address are registering our reaction to the proposed development of a cemetery on.dear Creek road. 1.JUiIzOlon of Happy Valley-road:for access:and egress of:funeratproc emions to and ftm the above site is by virtue:of the.terrt►i tii cu t,by virtue of the narrowness and twisti '-o theroad-darngerous:and-icy virtue of-the-paucity ofalternate routes tot-fire equipment,ambulances and residents'a`threat`t6the-community, In addition the effect of the cemetery and its usage on the recreational value of the area would be undesirable. We doubt the appropriateness of major development such as the one proposed outside urban limits. S#cnc eels': TEvison Ronald R.iggafl Joann Elizabeth Riggalr APPENDIX B Correspondence from Gagen McCoy., McMahon c *mstrong Attorneys representing the Briones mills Preserve Alliance S.S. Papado utas associates ydrozeolog sts 'Representing the .Briones mills Preserve,Arliance Comments Received during the N. o.1 CommentPeriod th (Nov. nthrough Dec. 8th GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION W€LL]AM GAGEN,JR. DANv ILLS OFFICE GREGORY L.MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.1MCMAHON P.O.BOX 218 MARK L.ARMSTRONG C3:AR€.rs A.Koss MANVILLE.,CALIFORNIA 94525-021$ MICHAEL 3.MARKOWITZ December 6, 2003 TELEPHONE:(925)8370585 FUC€ARD C.RA£NES FAX:(925)838-5985 v€CTORJ.CONT€ $ARBAR.A DUVAL JEWELL RODERT M.FANIXCI }MAPA VALLEY OFFICE AL LAN C.MOORE THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE STEPHEN T.Bum 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 AMANDA BEVINS ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 44574 MART'INLYSONS TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 JAN1cE L.F€TzsIMMDNs FAX:(707)963-5527 PAUL S.GOODMAN TARA IB.NBLSON YL4THERINE S.ZELAZNY Please Reply To: ANA C.Meaux Danville .ERIC S.QU UNDT .By Hand--Delivery December 8, 2003 Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Proposed .Mitigated Negative Declaration CDD File #LP0220681Gan Shalom, Inc. hand Use Permit for Cemetery Dear Mr. Myers. Our law offices represent a large group of residents, bicyclists, horse owners and others living adjacent to and surrounding the proposed cemetery ("Gan Shalom. Cemetery") near the Bear Creek Road and Hampton road intersection within Contra Costa County. This neighborhood group (an unincorporated association with the name "Briones Dills Preserve Alliance") is strongly opposed to the location of the Gan Shalom Cemetery within the remote, agricultural and rural/residential Briones Hills area. The entire Briones dills area has been protected from just this type of development and land use under the County General Plan, and under a separate compact between the County and neighboring cities. As shown herein, the proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery is not a proper land use within the area for several reasons, including: (i) incompatibility with the current and long-term land use designations for the area, (ii) extremely dangerous traffic conditions, and (iii) potential loss of an extremely fragile water supply. We have received a copy of the County's "Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Gan Shalom Cemetery." Please consider these written comments a formal response to such Notice. F:\elacm',3 5245`v-rndco€Tsm.}€:.d o� ecem er 5, 2003 Page 2 L General Comments On Issuance of Mitigated NeZative Declaration The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") l and its accompanying CEQA Guidelines a set forth strict standards for preparation of an initial study, and thereafter a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report ("EIR."). The County prepared an initial study in this case, and, based thereon, prepared a mitigated negative declaration (MND). A negative declaration is a statement that merely describes "the reasons why a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR.' A mitigated negative declaration confirms that potentially significant effect may occur, but further states that identified project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or mitigate the impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts may occur.4 In either case, such a determination can be made only if there is no substantial evidence in the entire administrative record before the lead agency that such an impact may occur.5 CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, however, in all close cases, show a clear preference for the drafting of an EIR. An EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record shows even a fair argument that significant impacts may occur. In such case, even if other evidence in the record supports a different conclusion, the City must prepare an EIR.6 In fact, the standard is so low, that where qualified experts present conflicting evidence on the extent of potential impacts, the affected City must accept the evidence showing that a significant impact may result from the project. In this regard, we request that that the County pay close attention to the comments of S.S. Papadopulos &.Associates with regard to danger to the local, fragile water supply. As shown below, the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance believes strongly that the proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery will cause significant impacts on the environment, requiring the preparation of an EIR in this case. } CEQA statutes are set forth at Public Resources Code(PRC) §21000, et seq. 2 CEQA Guidelines are set forth at California Code of Regulations'title 14, Chapter 3 §15000 et seq. s CEQA Guidelines at §15371. 'CEQA at §21064.5 s CEQA at §21080(c)(1) 6 See Remy,Thomas, Guide to Environmental Quality Act, 10th Ed. 1999, at p.206,citing No tail, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68. F:\clacm\35245\mndcornrr,.ttr.doc Page 3 II. Specific Comments A. Land Use and Plannipg/Compatibility with Land Use Flans The Initial Study discusses Land Use and Planning issues at Section IX. Both CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require full environmental review (an E_TR) if the project conflicts with any applicable land use plan, general plan, zoning ordinance or other policy, including the compact between the County and neighboring cities regarding protection of the Briones Hills area as referenced below). 1. County General Flan The County General Plan (1995-2010) is the constitutional framework for the County. The General Plan's most fundamental land use designation is the incorporation of Measure C - 1990. Measure C established the "65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan," and the accompanying "Urban Limit Line." Generally, these laws provide as follows: *Urban development in the County shall be limited to no more than 35% of lands in the County; therefore at least 65% of County lands shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. *An urban limit line (ULL) is established, which shall prohibit the County from designating any lands located outside the ULL for future urban uses. (See County General Plan at pp.1-33, 1-34.) The project property, and the entire surrounding area, is outside the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL). The County made the decision as part of its General Plan and ULL that areas outside the line would be preserved for agricultural/open space uses. The County's {General .Flan does not support uses within the 65% open space areas that will tend to urbanize such open space area, or require further infrastructure in terms of water, sewer, and roadways. The County General Plan recognized that there would be subsequent attempts to slowly "urbanize" areas outside the ULL and within protected open space, which would undermine the 65135 Land Preservation Plan. The General Plan thus set forth several policies specifically designed to discourage such attempts: *Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that would prematurely extend development into areas lacking requisite services, facilities and infrastructure shall be opposed. F:lciacm\3 5245\mndcomm.lmdoc Page 4 *Areas not suitable for urban development because of the lack of availability of public facilities shall remain in their present use until the needed infrastructure is or can be assured of being provided. *The extension of urban services into agricultural areas outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL), especially growth-inducing infrastructure, shall generally be discouraged. (See General Plan policies 3--8, 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11, at pp. 3-40, 3- 41.). In this case, the Briones Hills area was designated outside the ULL because of its lack of availability of public services, including sewer and water, and lack of adequate roadways, and because the County strongly desired to protect the area as open space. The referenced policies were adopted and incorporated into the General Plan to protect the Briones Hills area and other similar areas. We note in this regard that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MhTD) does not appear to discuss, comment on, or recommend mitigation measures for, the project's incompatibility with the General Plan or the referenced policies. The General Plan further specifically recognizes the Briones Dills Area as a special area requiring "Adopted Area Policies." (See General Plan , Figure 3-2, p.3-63, Policy Area 17.) The General Plan states at .Policy 3-155 ("Policies For The Briones Hills Area" as follows: "This [General] plan strongly supports the intent of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area compact that was signed by the County and the cities of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda, Richmond, Pinole, and Hercules in 1988. The [Briones Hills] compact states that the jurisdictions voluntarily agree not to annex any lands within the 64 square mile area for the purposes of allowing urban development...This rural area includes large properties owned by either the East Bay Municipal Utility District or the East Bay Regional Park District, which are designated "Watershed" and "Parks and Recreation" on the General Plan land use map. The remaining properties are used primarily for grazing cattle and are designated "Agricultural Lands." This plan anticipates that the area will remain in public and agricultural use during the planning period. " (Emphasis added.) See General Plan at p. 3-67) As shown, the General Plan provides specific protections for the Briones Hills area. The proposed project is clearly incompatible with these protections. An EIR is required in order to analyze these issues. An EIR requires analysis not available or authorized by a mere mitigated negative declaration. An EIR, for example, would allow for a full "alternatives analysis." An alternatives analysis would identify and consider F:,ciacm135245\nmdcomm.itr.doc 7 Page 5 alternative sites within the ULL that are available for the cemetery. In this case, the County Board of Supervisors might properly decide that such alternative areas are better suited for the project, and would be more consistent with the General Plan. The MND does not contain such analysis. 2. County Resolution Into. 87/483, Protecting Briones Hills Area As referenced above, in 1987 the County formally recognized the special significance and land use sensitivity of the rural and agricultural lands of the Briones Hills area. The County recognized that potential annexation of lands by adjacent cities, as well as introduction of more intensive land uses, would slowly "chip away" at the agricultural and open space uses of the Briones Hills area. In order to address these issues, the County and eight neighboring cities entered into a joint resolution, establishing an "agricultural preserve area." specifically for the Briones Hills area. The joint resolution (Resolution No. 87/483, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), confirms as follows: *The Briones Hills area lands are predominantly utilized for agricultural and grazing purposes, with secondary uses being for parrs and watershed purposes. *The Briones Hills area lands are uniquely situated in an area that is extremely difficult to serve with sewer, water, police, and other urban services; *The County and all cities signing the resolution therefore declare that the Br*ones Hills area lands are worthy of retention in agricultural and other open space uses for the overall best interests of the cities, the County and the state. The joint resolution therefore confirmed that neither the County nor the nearby cities would annex any of the Briones Hills area lands for any services which would lead to urban development. The County and cities further confirmed that all such lands should be preserved for agricultural and compatible open space uses. It is clear that both the General Plan and the above-referenced Resolution No. 87/483 specifically require that the Briones Hills area remain protected, and not be "chipped away" for more intensive and urbanized uses. We do not believe that the MND adequately addresses the inherent incompatibility between the proposed cemetery and the referenced General Plan and related policies protecting the Briones Mills area. F:\ctacm\35245\mndcotmn.tt.doc Page 6 3 County Zoning Ordinance The MND indicates that the County Zoning Ordinance allows cemeteries within agricultural lands upon the issuance of a land use permit. While this is true, the MIND fails to recognize that neither the General Plan nor the County zoning ordinance designations for the property for agricultural use reference the potential use and compatibility of those agricultural designations for cemeteries. Instead, cemeteries are addressed in a separate zoning ordinance under Division 88, entitled "Special Land Uses." Chapter 88-2 ("Cemeteries") Section 88-2.206 allows cemeteries, on the issuance of land use permit, in all areas except those specifically prohibited. In other words, the zoning ordinance does not specifically state that cemeteries are compatible with agricultural uses. A careful reading of Chapter 88-2 (`Cemeteries") shows that the County intended to narrowly allow cemeteries only in areas where such projects will be strictly compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Thus, unlike most land use permit sections, the cemetery ordinance strictly provides that the land use permit must be denied if any of five separate findings can be made. Those five findings are as follows: *The cemetery will jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare; *The cemetery will cause a public nuisance; *The cemetery will tend to interfere with traffic patterns; *'The applicant does not have the financial capability for the cemetery; *The cemetery is not consistent with general plan or land use policies. With regard to the above findings, as set forth herein and in separate comments to the County throughout this process, the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance believes that at least four of the five findings listed above can be made here. The cemetery will endanger the fragile crater supply. The cemetery will cause new and significant traffic impacts in the area. The cemetery will create a nuisance in terms of noise and urban intrusion. The cemetery is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan and the referenced Resolution No. 87/483. B. Comments on Traffic Issues The Briones Hills area, and specifically the area of the proposed cemetery, is characterized by narrow, winding roads, with few sidewalks or shoulders. These roads are utilized and shared by local residents, bicyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians. A cemetery use is incompatible with these road conditions and uses. Cemetery services will consistently introduce neer people to the area, unfamiliar with the F Ac?acm13 5245\jTmdcomm.1tr.doc Page 7 long and winding reads. The cemetery use will create inherently unsafe traffic conditions. The traffic report referenced in the MND simply does not address the introduction of cemetery uses in this remote area. Again, a full EIR would perform the type of analysis needed to address these issues. C Comments on Fater Issues The Briones Hills Preserve Alliance hereby incorporates all comments on water issues as previously submitted by its water consultant, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, including the November 7, 2003 letter as supplemented by its December 5, 2003 letter (such comments attached hereto as Exhibit "B.") Please note that the conclusion of the December 5 letter confirms as follows: "...However, as a licensed professional geologist and certified hydrogeologist in California, I feel that it is my duty to submit to Contra Costa County that the estimation of groundwater production potential and potential impacts of pumping presented by ENCEO and consultants are technically inadequate, misleading, and should not be used in support of a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development." (December 5, 2003 letter of Cordon Thrupp, at p. 2). We appreciate the County's review and consideration of these comments. We believe, based on these comments and all information in the administrative record, that a fall EIR should be prepared prior to any further consideration of development in the Briones Hills area. Very truly yours, Alla n C. to e ACM:kra cc: Briones Hills Preserve Alliance FAclacrn\35245\mndc Tnm.ltr.doc ExhibitA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 4, 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson b McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: A Joint Resolution of the } RESOLUTION NO. 87/483 •Cities of Martinez, Pleasant } Hill , Lafayette, Orinda, ) Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, ) Hercules and Contra Costa j County establishing an } agricultural preservation area} in the' Sriones Hills. } WHEREAS, the lands within the Briones Hills are generally planned for agricultural or other open space uses by the County and the .cities as defined in Section 555617 of the.Government Code,, and WHEREAS, the predominant use of land in this area is for agricultural and grazing purposes, with secondary uses being for parks and watershed purposes, and WHEREAS, lands within the Briones Hills lying between the West County cities and communities and the Central County cities are difficult to serve with sewer, water, police and other urban services; and WHEREAS, the lands within the area are generally designated as Open Space, Agricultural Lands, Parks and Recreation, Watershed or other compatible open space categories on the adopted County and city open space plans; and WHEREAS, the lands are generally located outside of LAFCO adopted municipal or urban service district spheres of influence; and WHEREAS, the County and the affected cities, hereby declare that the lands described below are worthy of retention in agricultural and other open space uses for the overall best interests of the cities, the'County and the State, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Contra• Costa County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Martinez, Pleasant Hill , Lafayette, Orinda, Richmond, Pinole, and Hercules hereby all agree to a policy of non-annexation to urban service districts and cities for agricultural and open space properties which would lead to urban development between these cities bounded generally as described below and as shown on Exhibit A of this resolu- tion: - on the east and south by the Martinez, Pleasant Hill , Lafayette and Orinda City Spheres of Influence r, - on the west by the Richmond, Pinole and Hercules City Spheres of Influence - on the west and north from Rodeo to Martinez by the LAFCO adopted sewer sphere of influence boundary and the Solana/Contra Costa County line. _ _ 4 RESOLUTION 871483 BE IT 'FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and the aforemen- tioned City Councils request the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra . Costa County to honor chis agricultural preservation agreement for this area and to continue to act in a manner consistent with the preservation of the aforementioned lands for agricultural and other open space purposes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this agreement will be reviewed by the paricipating agencies after results of the decennial Federal .Census are avail- able; any proposed changes shall be considered in concert with the LAFCO review of sphere of influence for cities and agencies;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should incorporated lands within the Briones Hills area become detached from-the signatory cities and become unincorporated land, that area shall be included within this agricultural preservation area established by this resolution without further action by the parties hereto.; and SE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution is not intended to affect the property rights of land owners under the existing General Plan and zoning (including the right to apply for 5 acre parcels) i#preby cartify that this is a true and correct copy of as action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe sors on the dste shown. ATTESTED: 4&j.ti. PHIL 54:17CHE 1011,Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors and County Administrator i By r Deputy Community Development County Counsel County Administrator LAFCQ All Cities _. LU uj � - �' uj � a Ln Ul S •Lij io•i r^•, y„y M f C? Lt3AL V . dr ai rf A' .. ��♦ . f� �7{ riy;� ��{{ t �. .:, t t '�- z � '311�y � r r1T�11!.�. � 7r' MW ' 1 4✓ � "'%c��r: � 4 z '. xMro, � Y> x?,. �'°"a �f 7� y �"`s",,�`',`,� '.,„wit" \Y, 'r3, , ,� +r° �� '� s d,p +z *. a �� ' t+` a:"" s u s Y � t � {. j�`wJ i 1��•.,f. +s i 1 � ��a- >. • +.'Y` �,. ,#� �� x ti'M ar � •. r _ , 1' '-'r' toy r� c.{; ti4 w. '. •"�+ F tr ys � 5 Z�' .a ( a, � f �x .�rti . .`w.t i •,,,,� r i x f li r- ? ' r ► C y, i `� t x � r:y 1 l r �a •—a r i♦ i rr r j'�"��\r- ;fit �r � ♦ �� 'F }�� )VS fi��,�'%ytv2�' iFa...;; V r '� a•arr " r ...,J x+i , �; r+ rr \+K.y♦`"y 4 t1. ! CD t) ' ` Y i sfi } w CLi ` r ♦ � v'wJ r s ( '�" '``?�:I y f4':., .!'C+"C✓✓ '�• r"r—'. t! t!" wa'ti'' �•,'i"'["'� '� 1191HX3 l Exhibit B S. S. PAPADOPULOS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental& 'Water Resource Consultants December 5, 2003 Darwin Meyers Darwin Meyers Associates 1308 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Inadequate Technical Evaluation of Groundwater Production Potential Proposed Cemetery Development Hampton and Bear Creek Roads Briones Hills Preserve Contra Costa County, California Dear Dr. Meyers, On behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance(BHPA), S.S. Papadopulos &Associates (SSP&A)reviewed the letter report by ENGEM dated June 20, 2003 and titled Groundwater Aquifer .Testing and.Analysis, and the Geoconsultants,Inc. report dated September 2003 and titled Review of Pumping Test and.Aquifer Evaluation, Gan Shalom Cemetery, .Bear geek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California. We submitted written comments on Moth documents. Unfortunately,we were not provided with a copy of ENGEO's letter dated September 25, 2003, which included responses to our September 4, 2003. However, ENGEO's September 25, 2003 letter is included in the compilation of CEQA Initial Studies that we received several days ago. In this letter, ENGEO disagrees withh virtually all of our comments and says we are wrong,but do not specifically address any of the graphs of the data, or the analyses that we present. ENGEO ignores addressing comments on graphs of data,by referring to them as incorrect analyses. Figure 1 attached is a fundamental example---this is not an analysis,it is simply a graph of the data and an extrapolation of the drop in water level exhibited during the test. ENGEO claims that this test achieved steady-state conditions—it did not. The regular trend of dropping water level might level off with continued pumping,but test did not show this, and only a longer-term,test can prove it. The simple and responsible interpretation of this data is that the well would be pumped down to the screen in less than three days and will not sustain the design flow rate needed for the proposed development. The CEQA initial Studies Compilation does not include our letter dated November 7, 2003 Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by Geoconsultants, Inc. Therefore,we request that our November 7, 2003 letter be entered into the record of comments on the environmental review of the Proposed Cemetery Development. A copy is attached. 146 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 900; SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105.3629 TEL,: (445) 896-9000 Fax: (415) 896-9090 www.sspa.com e-mail: sanfranciscoc@sspa.com S,S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers December 5,2003 Page 2 Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the public hearing due to a prior commitment. However, as a licensed professional geologist and certified hydrogeologist in California,I feel that it is my duty to submit to Contra Costa County that the estimation of groundwater production potential and potential impacts of pumping presented by BNGEO and Geoconsultants are technically inadequate, misleading, and should not be used in support of a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss any of the data or interpretations. Sincerely, S. S. PAPADoPuLos&AsSOCLATES, INC. �6 Gordon Thrupp, Ph.D., R.G., C.HG. Associate Attachments: One Figure Copy of November 7`b Letter CC: Allan C. Moore, Attorney Adam Nathanson, Briones .Hills Preserve Alliance 00 a `^ �s CD 0 to 0-m o CL ca E C,x j 0 (D Q. n? cli �y d c C E 1 1 ) Q> 0 1 r- 1 Lq 3: c L m CL 0 y, M w jm ams ° O 'D $ T3 > »vis p cA t.5 S i .W t^' .�, G' O i ( y i ' AL1tm > 0 k Ltd C t r- E }} vd 4 l 1 ci fy} i ° C? ¢i co Lco U 00.0 0 to 0 CL C', N `d U G3 v { } C l C Cd C? 47 0 r ej CA > G_} OQ1` cos LLI 1 2f! f i17 > (1) r, .- 0) LSA 5 i 1 Cr E n o W 0 N w ++ Cx. o3: 0 C3 CL 1moll = 0 4 u 0 U.) co 10 e� 0 .0 >ID 150 V'C A.r US S. S. PAPADOPULOS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental& Water Resource Consultants November 7, 2003 Darwin Meyers Darwin Meyers Associates 1308 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by Geoconsultants,Inc.Dated September 2003 Proposed Cemetery Development Hampton and Sear Creek Roads Sriones Hills Preserve Contra Costa County,California Dear Dr.Meyers, On behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance (BH-PA), S.S.Papadopulos &Associates(SSP&A) reviewed the letter report by ENGEO dated June 20,2003 and titled Groundwater aquifer Testing and Analysis. The ENGEO report presents data and analysis of an aquifer pumping-test that was conducted to further evaluate groundwater production potential of well GSW-1 on the proposed cemetery property, and potential impact to wells on nearby properties. In a letter dated September 4, 2003, SSP&A provided continents on the June 2003 ENGEO report. On behalf of Contra Costa County, Geoconsultants, Inc. also reviewed ENGEO's June 20,2003 report and prepared a report dated September 2003 and titled Review ofPumping Test and aquifer Evaluation, Gan Shalom Cemetery, .Bear Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, Cal ffornia. Geoconsultant's September report also states that they reviewed our September 4,2003 comments on the ENGEO report. This letter provides comments on the Geoconsultant's review of the ENGEO report. The projected irrigation need for the Phase I proposed cemetery development is in the range of 5,000 to 8,500 gallons per day during the summer months(ENGEO,June, 2003). Although this equates to a continuous pumping rate in the range of 4.2 to 5.9 gallons per minute(gpm)during the irrigation season, Geoconsultants, like ENGEO,assess the yield and"radius of influence"of the well GSW-I for a pumping period of only a single day. Moreover,the operating practice for GSW-1 recommended by Geoconsultants(cycles of pumping for I day at 10 gpm followed by 3 days without pumping,which is equivalent to 2.5 gpm),falls significantly short of even the low end of the range of the estimated irrigation need. .Based on ENGEU:s pumping test data, Geoconsultants report an independent estimate of transmissivity that is approximately 4 times lower than the average, and 2.5 times less than the lowest, values of transmissivity reported by ENGEO'. However,Geoconsultants do not use their estimates of transmissivity and storage to evaluate long-term sustainable yield of GSW-1. Instead,they calculate a ' Geoconsultants estimate transmissivity(T)of 153 gpd/ft(20.5 f12/d). ENGEO reported an average T of 595 gpd/ft(79.5 ftl/d), excluding the highest value,which they considered anomalous. ENGEG's lowest estimate of T is 373 gpd/ft(49.4 ftl/d). 116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 900; SAN FRANCISCO, GA 94105.3629 TEL: (41 sl 896-9000 FAX: (415) 8969090 www.sspa.com e-mail: sanfranciscosspa.com S. S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES, 1140. Dr.Darwin Meyers November 7, 2003 Page 2 "24-hour maximum sustained yield"of I I gpm,based simply on the available drawdown, the specific capacity(pumping rate/water level drawdo-vri) in GSW-1 at the end of the 24-hour test, and an applied efficiency factor of 60%. For several reasons,the calculation of well yield of GSW-1 by Geoconsultans from specific capacity data may be unreliable: I. Specific capacity can provide a reasonable estimate of well yield if specific capacity attains or approaches an equilibrium value for a given pumping rate. It did not—see Figure I and discussion below. 2. The calculation of well yield from specific capacity also depends on available drawdown,which is distance between static water level and the top of the well screen. Therefore, in predicting the long-term yield of a well,it is also necessary to consider changes in the static (non-pumping) water level due to natural seasonal variation and other pumping. Testing at the end of summer or in autumn would provide a more realistic assessment of well yield as we stated in our recommendations for evaluation of groundwater production potential(SSP&A,April 2003). As an example, County of Mendocino requires that water wells be tested during the dry season, which they define as the period from August 20"'to October 31 (Mendocino County, 1989). 3. The reasoning for the 60%efficiency factor applied by Geoconsultants to their initial calculation of 19 gpm for well yield is technically flawed. A well efficiency correction is appropriate when calculating transmissivity of the aquifer from specific capacity of the well(or vice versa),because due to head losses at the well,the water level in the well is generally lower than the water level in the aquifer just outside of the well. However, in this case the calculation of yield was based on drawdown measured in the well,which includes the influence of head losses. Therefore, application of an efficiency correction term is inappropriate in this calculation. ENGEO advocated that a conservative estimate of GSW-1 well yield(14,400 gpd) is nearly 2.4 times the Phase I water demand of the proposed cemetery development(6,000 gpd). Contra Costa County's well testing guidelines define a high yield well as one that will sustain at least twice the minimum quantity required for the proposed property development. A pertinent portion of the County's well testing guidelines for high yield wells is quoted below: "On high yield wells, where recharge and discharge do not reach equilibrium until one hour after the beginning of the test, measurement[frequency] of pump discharge may be limited to one hour after equilibrium is reached with a minimum of two measurements of drawdown at 30 minute intervals, Yield tests shall be reported on a form provided by the Health Officer. See attached Exhibit B." Apparently the testing of GSW-I was not conducted in compliance with the County guidelines: I. No flow measurement data were provided. 2. After six hours of pumping; drawdown measurements in GSW-1,P1, and P2,were only made every two hours, instead of at least every 30 minutes as stipulated by the County guidelines, 3. The test was not conducted until equilibrium drawdown was attained in the GSW-1. 4. The County's Water Well Pump Test Report(Exhibit B),which is attached to this letter, was not included with ENGEO's report and apparently was not completed. The form includes two important data fields,which are not addressed in the ENGEO report: Time Required to Reach Equilibrium Between Recharge and Discharge: Total Time Pump Test was Continued After Equilibrium was Reached: S. S.PAPADOPULOS &ASSOCIATES,INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers November 7, 2003 Page 3 The County also relies on the State of California Water Well Standards(DWR Bulletin 74-81) for general guidance on well performance and capacity testing. A pertinent excerpt from page 15 of this document is provided below with boldface added for emphasis: "The ability of the water level in a small capacity well to recover should be observed. If the water level fails to return to nearly its original level after 24-hours, the reliability of the producing zone is open to question." Indeed the slow recovery of water level after pumping for 24-hours at 10 gpm is one of the primary concerns discussed in the SSP&A September 2003 letter. Only 63%recovery occurred in 24 hours. We recommended that monitoring of water levels should have been continued at least until 90%recovery was attained. Some County regulations allow monitoring to stop when 80%recovery is attained(e.g. County of Mendocino, 1989). Also,keep in mind that the test was conducted in spring when groundwater levels were at seasonal highs. Recovery may be even slower in late summer or autumn when ambient groundwater levels are lower. As an example,the Water Well Testing Guidelines for Proof of Water for the County of Mendocino requires that water wells be tested during the dry season,which they define as the period from August 20'h to October 31. In addition, as we discussed and illustrated before (SSP&A, September 2003),and is illustrated again by Figure 1 attached to this letter,the water level recorded in GSW-1 during the 24 hours of pumping did not approach an equilibrium drawdown. Instead, water level was steadily dropping at a rate of greater than 12 ft/day during the last six hours of the test. Extrapolation of the drawdown trend suggests that continued pumping at 10 gpm for would draw the water level down below the top of the screen in less than 3 days(Figure 1). Because the depth to water in the GSW-1 did not approach an equilibrium level,the test should have been continued for a longer period of time. As an example,.County of Mendocino requires a pumping test duration of 17 hours or"until water levels in the test well and monitoring wells stabilize, whichever is greater." In addition,Mendocino's guidelines for major water use projects(greater than 1500 gallons per day),require a miniumum pumping test duration of 72 hours for bedrock wells. Geocosultants calculate that 224 feet is the radius of influence (0.1 ft drawdown)for the"24-hour duty period"of operation of GSW-1 at I l gpm. Figure 2 provides a comparison of the drawdown calculated using the Theis solution and the drawdown value at 1-day calculated with the Jacob approximation at a point 224 feet from GSW-1. The discrepancy in the calculated values of drawdown after one day of pumping is a consequence of inappropriate use of the Jacob approximation.. Also, why do ENCEO and Geoconsultants assess impact only far a pumping duration of 1 day? .Irrigation for the proposed development would need water for many months. Even if the well is operated in on-off cycles,the drawdown influence will accumulate. This is illustrated by Figure 3,which shows drawdown with time at a distance of 224 feet from a pumping well operating at repeated cycles of 1-day at 10 gpm followed by 3-days with no pumping as advocated by Geoconsultants. The Theis and Jacob solutions are both subject an identical set of limitations and assumptions. However,the'Theis Solution applies at all times and distances,but Jacob method is only applicable to the zone in which steady-state conditions prevail(e.g. Heath, 1989). For the Jacob approximation to provide reasonable results In analyzing the GSW-1 test,either the distance for which drawdown is calculated must be much less,or the time much longer,or both. _.._ ............_..__. . ..... ........... ........ ........ ......... ...... .... _...._. ....... . . _. S. S. PAPADOPl1LOS &ASSOCIATES,INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers November 7, 20013 Page 4 The drawdown curve depicted by Figure 3 is calculated using the Theis solution with assigned aquifer properties determined by Geoconsultants(T=153 gpolft=20.5 ft2Jd, S =0.0009). Note,that after only 3-weeks of operation,drawdown of the groundwater level is approximately 6 feet at a distance of 224 feet from the pumping well. 224 feet is the distance determined by Geoconsultants to be the radius of influence of pumping"for the 24-hour duty period". Moreover, this pumping cycle schedule is equivalent to continuous pumping at a rate of 2.5 gpm, which would not meet the minimum projected water demand for the Phase 1 cemetery development. Geoconsultants advocates that recharge in the local watershed above GSW-I will sustain production from the well. However, they also claim that the aquifer is under confined conditions,which means that at least locally the pumping zone is hydraulically isolated from surface recharge. It is unclear if recharge to the confined, fractured-rock aquifer system is limited to the local watershed upstream of GSW-1. The area where recharge to groundwater pumped by GSW-I occurs is unknown. The calculations addressing well yield based on recharge in the local watershed area are highly speculative and are not supported by the aquifer test results or any other data. An additional potential impact of groundwater pumping for the proposed cemetery development is a local reduction of groundwater contribution to Pinole Creek flow during the dry season and related impact to flora and fauna. This issue also warrants assessment. ENGEO proposes a monitoring plan that would include monthly water level measurements at P3 and P4 at distances of 1200 and 10001 feet respectively from GSW-1. They propose that if pumping ofGSW-I results in a significant decrease in water levels at P3 and P4,the rate of pumping will be reduced. They define a significant decrease as"greater than 10 feet over a six month period". ENGEO states that"water level beyond a radius of 3018 feet would not be impacted by continuous pumping at 10 gpm"(4's paragraph,page 2, ENGEQ, September 22, 2003),but then on the next page they propose monitoring points 1000 and 1200 feet from GSW-1, and use 10 feet as a criteria for significant influence. ENTI GE03's Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis report(June 20,2003) and their Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program(September 22, 20003)both claim that the sustainable yield of GSW-I is 10 gpm. However,the data indicate that GSW-1 could not sustain a pumping rate of 10 gpm longer than 3 days(Figure 1). In addition,ENGEO claims that the long-term extent of influence of pumping GSW-I at 10 gpm is the same as their calculated radius of influence after only one day of pumping. Moreover,their calculation of radius of influence at 1 day is technically flawed. Unfortunately,Geoconsultant's(September, 2003)review and conclusions are also unsubstantiated by the data. Although they report an independent estimate of transmissivity that is approximately 4 times lower than the average value reported by ENGEO,Geoconsultants imply that the existing well(CSW-1)at the Site can meet the Phase 1 irrigation needs of the development. Geoconsultants states,"for the practical purpose of determining the radius of influence during pumping"a factor of four difference in transmissivity"is not very significant". However, Geocon.sultants does not comment on the fact that for a transmissivity 4 times lower, the expected production rate would be 4 times lower. Analysis of response to pumping recorded in observation wells generally provides more reliable estimates of aquifer properties and sustainable production potential than only the water level recorded in the pumping well. This is why the observation wells were installed and monitored during the pumping of GSW-1. However, in assessing the production potential of GSW-1, Geoconsultants do not use the estimates of aquifer properties based can analysis of-the observation well data. Instead base their estimate S. S. PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES,INC. Dr. Darwin Meyers November 7, 2003 Page 5 of sustainable yield on a specific capacity value from the pumping well at the end of the 24-hour test,but the water level was still dropping a rate of more than 12 feet per day. Although we understand that the purpose of Geoconsultants review was to provide an independent assessment of the sustained yield of the GSW-1 and potential for impact to wells on neighboring properties,we are disappointed that they fail to address most of our comments and figures that clearly illustrate technical inaccuracies in ENGEO's analyses and conclusions. The data and figures that we provided clearly illustrate that conclusions reported by ENGEO's and Geoconsultants are not supported by the data. During the last b hours of the 24-hours of pumping at GSW-1,the water level was dropping at a constant rate of over 12 feet per day(Figure 1). Without any analysis, this data alone (Figure 1) should raise serious doubt that the well can sustain long-term pumping at 10 gpm. The data do not support claims that the well can sustain the pumping rates needed to irrigate the proposed cemetery development. if the County is still not convinced,perhaps one alternative is to seek another review by a qualified hydrogeologist who is acceptable to all parties. Another alternative,and perhaps the best approach,is to require a long-term(one month)pumping test conducted at the average proposed pumping rate at GSW-1 to better assess sustainable yield of the well and potential impact to neighboring properties. Please contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss any of the data or interpretations. Sincerely, S. S. PAPADoPULos& ASsoCI m, INC. Gordon Thrupp, Ph.D.,R..G., C.HG. Associate Attachments: Reference list,three figures, County Water Well Pump Test Report Form CC: Allan C.Moore, Attorney Adam Nathanson,Briones Hills Preserve Alliance S. S. PAPADOPULOS &ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers November 7, 2403 Page 6 References California Department of Water Resources, 1981,Water Well Standards: State of California,Bulletin 74-81, 92 pgs. Cooper,H.H. and C.E. Jacob, 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field History,Am. Geophys.Union Trans.,vol. 27,pp.526-534. .`Driscoll,F.G., 1986,Groundwater and Wells,published by Johnson Filtration Systems Inc.,St.Paul,MN, 55112, 1089 pgs. Duffield,G.M., 2000,AQTESOLVTM for Windows,version 3.01:HydroSOLVE Inc.,Reston,Virginia. ENGEO Inc.,2001,Groundwater Availabilty Evaluation,Letter Report to Margot Jacob of Gan Shalom, December 10,2001. ENGEO Inc.,2002,Limited Subsurface Exploration and Percolation Test Results,Letter to Shalom Eliahu of Gan Shalom,June 19,2002. ENGEO Inc.,2003,Hydrogeologic Discussion of Groundwater Issues,Letter to Shalom Eliahu of Gan Shalom,February 19,2003. ENGEO Inc.,2003,Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis,Letter Report to Frank Winer of Gan Shalom, June 20,2003. ENGEO Inc.,2003,Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program,Letter to Frank Winer of Gan Shalom, September 22, 2003. Geoconsultants,Inc.,2003,Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation,Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Creek and Hampton Roads,Contra Costa County,California,prepared for Darwin Meyers,Contra Costa County,September,2003. Hantush, M.S.and C.E.Jacob, 1955.Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer,Am. Geophys.Union Trans.,vol. 36,pp. 95-100. Heath,C.R.., 1989,Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2220,84 pgs. Kruseman,G.P.and de Ridder,N.A., 1990,Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data: 2nd ed., International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement,Publication No.47,Wageningen,The Netherlands,p.377. Mendocino County, 1989,Coastal Groundwater Development Guidelines,July 1989. Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezoinetr-ic surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage,Ain.Geophys. Union Trans.,vol. 16,pp. 519-524. co au. o w F– co rs L73 C''? ea cLs ° c s � � as t, Ul0) - E CD w w > c 4 r j ei q) `+ C _ _ *N N w cu 18 UC } � x t: Lit j CL , tG I ) +>, j t° as 4 "St ` co 6I a � iI e ms" U) m cu > ' lG2V CD " '� `m It _ 1 c4 > + Edo > L a� ~ ` f 13ttea; a� � L) m M76 J j I jiCL CT) C-DIP o 0 I o c ear m CL X 0- t0 C s.. u, 1 In C ar ca O cv a . v o Nr f was yrs � CN N U CD E c L 0 3 ° + � 6 CU urI 0co v, :5 mom } t t t t CJ tt7 to �- , JaA,91 JG;eM ut doJq m (D - c > y emu, QM az = v� 100. i 10. }. L I 0 1 11 d 0.1 Negligible Drawdown of 0,1 ft for 24 hrs of 11 gpm calculated by Geoconsultants using Jacob i equation incorrectly. 0.01 0.1 1. 14, 100. Time (day) Notes: The curves show water level drawdown with time calculated using the Theis solution, aquifer properties esti- mated by Geoconsultants Inc., (T= 153 gpdfft=M5 ft2ld; S =0.0009)and a pumping rate of 11 gpm. Note that the Theis solution gives an entirely different result than the"radius of influence"calculated by Geo- consultants(0.1 ft drawdown after 1 day pumping at 11 gpm). The V "radius of influcence"value was calcu- lated using the Jacob method,which is an approximation of the Theis aquifer solution. The Jacob method is an approximation of the Theis solution, so if the Jacob method was used appropriately the calculated draw- down value (grey dot)would be nearly coincident with the 11 gpm Theis curve. Calculated Drawdown Curves 224 feet from 820 11 gpm Pumping Well Project Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation 2 S.S.Papedopulos&Associates,Inc. Proposed Cemetery Development 11$New Montgomery Street San Francisco CA 94105 Briones Hills Preserve, Contra Costa County, California Figure 10- tl � I ' E i 8. _ _ - { I 6. i i 0 t 4. � - { i 2. 0. -., 0. 4. 8, 12. 16. 20. Time (day) Notes: 1. Drawdown of water level calculated using Theis Aquifer Solution for repeated cycles of 1-day at 10 gpm followed by 3-days with no pumping as advocated by Geoconsultants. 2, Assigned aquifer properties determined by Geoconsultants (T=153 gpd/ft=20.5 ft2/d, S= 0.0009). € 3. Note that drawdown of water level continues to accumulate with time. Calculated drawdown 224 feet from GSW-1 with a Cyclic 820 16111 JIM Pumping Schedule Recommended by Geoconsultants proect Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation 3 s.9.16 No oauscs�Associates,tree inc, Proposed Cemetery Development 198 New Montgomery Street San Francisco CA 94105 Briones Hills Preserve, Contra Costa County,Cal€forma figure 10f31✓ 10:59ENV I ROMENTAL HEALTH 914158969090 N6.133 904 EXHIBIT ug„ WATER WELL PUMP TEST REPORT Contra Costa County Health Services-_DeR r'tment Name of Well Permit,APP H=e of Property Owner: Parcel Number. Mailing Address; ~ Date of "test.; Time Test Was Started: Time Required to Reach Equilibrium Between Recharge anis, Discharge: . Total Time Pump Iest Was Continued . Auer Equilibrium Was Reached: Drawdown Measurements Incl•udiPg Distance to Water, Level and Time of Gey: Time Drawdown 3. 4. , 6. S. S.PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES,INC. Environmental &Water Resource Consultants PRELMINAR.Y I)IiAF-r December 4,2003 Darwin Meyers Darwin Meyers Associates 1308 Pine Street Martinez, CA 34553 Subject: Inadequate Technical Evaluation of Groundwater Production Potential Proposed Cemetery Development Hampton and Bear Creek Roads Briones Hills Preserve Contra Costa County, California Dear Dr. Meyers, On behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance(BHPA),S.S. Papardopulos&Associates (SSP&A)reviewed the letter report by ENGEO dated.lune 20,2003 and titled Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis, and the Geoconsultants,Inc.report dated September 2003 and titled Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation, Garr,Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek awl Hampton Roads, Contra Costa Counryr California. We submitted written comments on Troth documents. Unfortunately,we were not provided with a COPY of ENGEO's letter dated.September 25,2003, which included responses to our September 4,2003. However,ENGEO's September 25,2003 letter is included in the compilation of CEQA Initial Studies that we received several days ago. In this letter,ENGEO disagrees with virtually all of our comments and says we=wrong,but do not specifically address any of the graphs of the data,or the analyses that we present_ ENGEO ignores addressing comments on graphs of data,by referring to them as incorrect analyses. Figure I attached is a fundamental elle---his is not an analysis, it is simply a graph of the data and an extrapolation of the drop in water level exhibited during the test ENGEO claims that this test achieved steady-state conditions it did not The regular trend of dropping water level might level off with continued pumping,but test did not show this,and only a longer-term test can prove it. The simple and responsible interpretation of this data is that the well would be pumped down to the screen in less than three days and will not sustain the design flow rate needed for the proposed development. The CEQA Initial Studies Compilation does not include our letter dated November 7,2003 Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by Geoconsultants,Inc. Therefore,we request that our November 7,2003 letter-be entered into the record of comments on the environmental review of the Proposed.Cemetery Development. A copy is attached_ 116 NEw MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 900; SAN FRANCISCO,GA 94105-3629 TEL: (415)896-9000 FAX:(415)$96-9090 www.sspa.com e-mail: sarrlfrancisco@sspa.com dim S.S.PAPADOPULOS&ASSOCIATES,INC. Dr. Darwin Meyers PRELIMINARY DRAFT december 4,2003 Page 2 Unfortunately,I am unable to attend the public hearing due to a prior commitment Howevear,as a licensed professional geologist and certified hydrogeologist in California,I feel that it is my duty to submit to Contra Costa County that the estimation of groundwater production potential and potential impacts of pumping presented by ENGFA and Geoconsultmu are technically inadequate,misleading, anti should not be used in support of a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss any of the data or interpretations. Sincerely, S. S. PAPADopuLos&AsSOCIATES,INC. Gordon Thrupp,Ph.D., R.G., C.H.G. Associate Attachments: One Figure Copy of November 7`h Letter 0C.__Aan�C-MG=,9 Adam.Nathanson,Briones Hills Preserve Alliance T- CDCL #� C4 m C C!! i w C> c E +n 3 a 15 CL 'us a0 UD v I as Qac co V ... to _ c � 1 or m; vi CL cEU r- CO C, �° to o 100 W5 P -- cr OR I "' mac° C3' c LO c CL ! {C341 c�a m Z 1r- �:s co cro C>,§ Om wL p C ct t tt? CC> Az t V- its m {U} ISAGI JejeM ui doia � - 00 z ni vi Ole ai r ..............1 111.1 1............................ . ................................................................................................................................. . ............... . . ...................... Li APPENDIX + 'o��esadencefto Archer Norris ttorneys representing the Gan Shalom, Inc. LSA, Associates B 10 ogic Resource �'��s�lt�x�ts representin Gait Shalom, Inc. ommehts eceivedjollOW47 the N. 0.1 Commentreriod th (ReceivedDee. .10 _. _.... ._. .. ._........_...__.. ....... ........ .......... _.......... .......... ........ ........ ........._... __.. _....... __. .. .. ... _.. ' r .............................. .11.11 _ __ _ _.... ...... ......_...._.........._. ......... ..... .__. ..........._1111 _ _ ........ ........ ....... .. e!1VA1RCHFR 4P0 NC3RR15 2033 North Main Street,Suite 800 CALIF04NIA OFi tCES PO Sox 8035 Walnut Creek Walnut Creek,CA 94596-3728 LDS Angeles 925.930.6600 Richmond 925,930.6620(Fax) Corona December 10, 2003 EowARD L.SHAFFeR � esha.fferCe rche rnorm Com 825.952.5409 Centra Costa County Planning Commission 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor-North ding Martinez, CA 94553 Re. Gan Shalom Cemeter_)((_022068) Honorable Commissioners We represent Gan Shalom, Inc., applicant for a land use permit to develop and operate a cemetery on Bear Creels Road. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold:a hearing on the application on December 16th. The County circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which the Commission will be asked to adopt. The County received a letter dated December 6, 2003 from Allan Moore on behalf of local opponents, challenging conclusions in the County's Notice. The purpose of this letter is to respond to his complaints. Project Is Consistent With General Plan,Briones Compact And Zoning Ordinance. The County's Notice concluded that the project is consistent with the General Plan,the Briones Compact, and the Zoning Ordinance. Nothing in the neighbor's objections undermines that conclusion. Their complaints question the wisdom of approving a cemetery in this location, but do not concern CEQA adequacy, The opponents are wrong: cemeteries should not be treated as "urban"development, and this project does not violate Urban Limit Line regulations. No public water, sewer or other facilities will be built: just a septic system to handle two bathrooms plus a well for toilets and irrigation. There are,no dwelling units, retail activity,manufacturing, or ether aspects of "development"—simply faneral services and burials. This project is not urbanizing the area or installing growth-inducing infrastructure as the opponents claim, This land use is compatible with the goals of both the General Plan and the Briones Compact. At all times the property will remain and appear as mostly open space. About 2/3 of the land will be untouched, consisting of forested hills and the Pinole Creek corridor along Bear Creek Road. The open field will be converted to cemetery use very slowly, averaging only 3-4 burials per week. Phase One will tape 20-25 years just to fill one small corner of the site, while the remainder continues to be grazed. During the next 20-25 years, Phase Two will be hidden in 60139001/330119-1 Archer Norris,A Professional LaW Corporation r County Planning Commission December 10, 2003 Page 2 a protected valley far from public view. Even occupied areas will appear open: there are no gravestones, only markers installed flush with the grass. The opponents argue that it would be better to locate the cemetery somewhere else, inside the Urban Limit Line. Actually, the opposite is true. Developable land inside the Line is scarce, and should be conserved for housing and other purposes to reduce outward sprawl. This was the County's goal in adopting the Urban Limit Line, and is the key principle of the current Shaping Our Future planning effort. The irony of the opponents' argument is that most of the existing uses in the area actually are more intensive and cause more disruption than the cemetery ever will. There are a large number of commercial horse stables in the vicinity, at least I I with indoor riding arenas. These businesses attract a steady stream of customers. Their operations generate traffic, noise, dust, sewage,runoff from stables contaminating Pinole Creek, increased demands for emergency police/fire/medical services. They operate wells near the creek—without County oversight. The County Code allows this use in the A-2 zone, and recognizes that cemeteries are compatible with nearby agricultural and related uses. Gan Shalom Cemetery was carefully planned and designed to avoid affecting the neighborhood. The low level of activity will not cause any nuisance,or harm,public health, safety or welfare. There is no valid objection to the cemetery, and the Commission can easily adopt the findings for approval of a cemetery permit. Traffic Will Be Minimal, With No Impact. The applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by Abrams Associates, a well-respected transportation consultant. Mr. Abrams' results were reviewed and accepted by County staff. There is no risk of increased congestion, or safety hazards, or any other traffic-related problem. The cemetery will average only 3-4 funerals per week---less than I per day. They will occur during non-peak traffic hours. There will be few visitors on a typical day. Funeral processions tend to move at a safe speed. Individuals driving to or from a cemetery tend not to speed (unlike many of the drivers now using Bear Creek Road). The entrance will be safely designed, with adequate queuing space plus room for turning. This property could be developed with a large commercial stable and riding arena, without any permit. Such an operation would generate more traffic and cause greater effects on the neighbors than a cemetery. The opponents offer no data or other evidence to support their complaints of traffic or other impacts—gust unfounded fear and speculation. There Is No Risk Of Any Impact On Neighbors' Water Supplies. At the;County's request the applicant conducted extensive testing of water capacity from its existing well. The results of that work were carefully reviewed by the applicant's consultant 601390011330119-1 �r.A vv Kw ilvK County Planning Commission December 10, 2003 Page 3 Engeo, by the County's independent consultant Geoconsultants, and by the County planner in charge of this project who also has expertise in groundwater matters. They all concluded that the well can supply sufficient water to support the cemetery, without any risk of harm to neighbors' water supply. The opponents' consultant challenges these conclusions. however, Engeo and Geoconsultants reviewed his claims anal determined that his analysis is based on faulty assumptions and incorrect use of data. his fears that other wells will be affected are unfounded. Nevertheless, in an excess of caution County staff are proposing a series of conditions to address this concern. Water use and multiple observation welts will be carefully monitored during the life of the cemetery. An,early warning system will trigger more detailed study and reductions in water use before any drawdown effect extends beyond the property line. Recycling and other measures will be required if circumstances require. In a worst-case situation well pumping will be reduced as necessary—even if it means replacing grass with other groundcover. This package of conditions represents a failsafe system to protect the neighbors. There is absolutely no credible risk that the,project as conditioned might cause any significant impact on water supplies or water quality. This ends the discussion for purposes of CEQA; no further study is needed, and an EIR.certainly is not justified. Gan Shalom representatives observed at least three new wells being drilled in the vicinity last summer, apparently without any County approvals, research into potential adverse effects,or consideration of possible impacts on neighbors. Gan Shalom certainly was not consulted as to the wells' effects on its legitimate water rights. It is important to note that in the past the Gan.Shalom property was used to grow tomatoes and hay, both of which required more water than the cemetery. The land could be used today for active agriculture, irrigated pastures,horse stables and other types of use-•without any County permits or restrictions on water use. Consideration of the proposed cemetery should take into account the property owner's right to use the land and draw water. The applicant's expert consultants will be available at the hearing to discuss these matters and answer any questions. We ask the Commission to follow staff s recommendations, adopt the mitigated negative declaration, and approve the cemetery permit, Sincerely, ARCHER.NO S Edward L. Shaffer CC: Gan Shalom, Inc. Darwin Myers,Planner x0139001/330119-I _. __. DEC-20-03 10 = 66 FROM:L.3A ASSOCIATES INC ID: SI023834E0 P#`CF. 2/3 L LSh AS&l7LAC 1z1kXY OPFIGIL6: r57 zAal[ 7S.ACI 5x5-x34.b�Ia ra,x, tYfkit&S.CX zxvazssna t ?T, AICA -OND. CALIF:3'RN[A g4801 510-236,1440 YAX TAVINt IOC:XLYN Decelrtber 10,2003 Mr. Edtv�ard Shaffer A,xcher Noris P.Q.Box 9035 Walnut Creek,CA. 94595 Subject: Potential Presence ofBent-flowered 1~iddleneok(Amsinckia lunaris) Gan Shalom Cemetery,Contra Costa Comity Dear Mr. Shaffer; The Contra Costa County Plansting Depaa tanent was notified through the review of the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration for the Gan Shalom cemetery project that a California Native Plant Societe(CN'PS)List 1B species has been repotted from the vicinity of the project site. 1"he plaxit is bent-flowered fiddleneck(4m,¢irackfcz lun-alis). This species was not included on the list of fare plant species found in the Pinole/Nfartirez area In LSA's reconnaissance level Biological Resources rdport. We reviewed the California Natural Diversity Data Base for records of this species and fotmd,as was repoited to the Coirity, that it has been found at a location approxiniately A2 mile•west/sciuthviesx of the Gaal Shalom project site off of Hampton Road. -Attached to this letter is an updated Special Status Plant Species table from our report including this species. Our report concluded that vane of the potentially occurring special status plants included it the table are likely to occur in the portion of the property proposed.for c;emetesy use. This concluslo'n W1.15 primaxily teased on the fact that this area had previously Leen used for cultivated agrictJti re, eliminating the native flora, When we N isited the site the proposed cemetery area had been heavily grazed and the sparse plant cover was cornpk)sed almost entirely of weedy herbaceous species. We believe our xe�iou.s conclusion also auplies to beat-Powercd fxddItneck. It is highly unlikely to occur in the portion of the site pi oposed for cemetery use due to the hibhly disturbed condition of this area_ Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES,lh`y'C. Malcolm J. Sproul l°'rincipal 1 d/lf)�03i P'�CsA'h'23Ci1$trfi-f#c�ro��idu'testCCkl.,n-w'8d) !7 n'3NT.2s4 � Y)i':1 t,1k+'NMYH4Ay SCIYNIIYi � 118Sf GYi __.._.. ........11. _........ ....11.._.... - _ ...... ..............._....._. ._....... ..... 1111 __...... ...__1111 _ _ _ _ _._.. .. ...... _._...... - ...... ......... .... _... UbU-i$,-UJ 1uO.t5t:1 1-1,duM:L!:iH Wt:iBUCI TES INC PAGE 3/3 L3AA$$OCtATF9,INC. CAN SMILOM L`2V2TR71Y iJE-tub ER 2095 A E CO NINA 1.5 AN CES VU VFA Sp ies Status ( � � habitat Notes Habitat on ' Habi:tat (Federal/ Property lviw)a State/ Project Area Holocarpha artre radenirr FTiSE/Lid Sandy clay soils in Crestal Y'es No Santa Cz-sa tarplant Praixie and Nora-native G .land;bloorrs fune- _-_--�-�-October t orkelia curteut t ssp sericea --1-'List 1B Coniferous forests and I ",To � Nocllogg's lxhrkellia coastal scrub;blooim April- __ _ Se�t�rn'ber --- -_-•_ .._....I..._.__ Juglans hindsil _ _,:_If ist 18 Riparian forest,riparian I Yes No Northern California black woodland- bloorms Affil-'May __ I Lasrhenia coniugens Fr./"List eral pools;bloc=Apnl- 'No ! Nt> Contra.Costa goldfields 1 fs m2y I ?�f"onardella villas a ssp globosa. - t—/Li, 113 1 Openings in ckrapa�i~ral, i 'Y'es Robust rno rdella i coast-al scrub,and assomted grasslands;blooms Plagiobotka s difusus —ISFAdst Grassy slopes with marine O I Na San Francisco popcomflo ger 1B influence; blooms March- June Seraiciv aphanactisZ Drying alkaline flats, i No } No Rayless ragwort I cismontane-woodlmds and ! 1 I coastal scrub;bloorm; Sirepttanthus albidus ssp,.peranmenus _I-List 1B 1 Cl parzal ana grassland an { No I No Most beautiful jewel-f7c,';ver � serpentine;blooms April- - Jame _ I Tr.,olium amoenum ; B,=n.,i4t Low,rich fields,and swales; 1 y4•s No, Sho,Aly J dian clover 1 1B i bloorns A. it June Tropidocarpimi cappaarideutn - List IIS. A.lkalinc-clay soils in Yes No Caper-fruited tropidocarpum grassland,oak woodland- blooms?vlaruh-4�l - - _ •-�--•tom: - 5tatus: SE=State listed as endangered; FB=fedemlly-listed as eudaug€:red, ST=State t_hmate ted PT=federally listed as thxeatemd SR=State rare List IB o California Native Plant SoLiety,(CLAPS), Plan"s rrxe,threatcne:d or endangercd mi Californiaand else�xi�eze; List Z= f.-NTS:plants rare,tb Yeatered cT erdangexod in California but mm re canunon:Lsewh re. �,��(W.�\ir7��'tit)tt}1t-178,'T.t�:OffitLif�lIS4S.w�f��I-it�A'Lli; ,..e _._�.._ ...� ..—.-�..`.�.......•----_r •-.�_._.� uctw-iu- euu0 WCU If-r140 rtl nu, 44 r, uiruq III East Day Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Cray# P. O� Box 5381 FAX Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Phone - 510/635-0135 FAX- 510/569-1417 AGENCY; FAX#: LATE RE- Total ZEtTot al number of }urges being faxed (including cover sheet)" � Original will Original will NOT be mailed. FOR YOUR INFORMATION � AT YOUR REQUEST PLEASE REVIEW AND-CO MENT, AS WE DISCUSSED PLEASE CALL ME C�t�hr1M E h1TS` IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSMITTAL OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE AT (51 U) 544- THANK YOU. UtU_1 U_1'UU6 Wtv U t L i qU I'll t"HA NU. 4 j � `!Ar27 '.Gd c,�•"JtL t':µ�f "T�i ,��YX " J °l.J�� l.j V).",('t 6 ,Acxrrtho mirift kvwedata (Santa Clara thorn-mint) Hain: Chaparral (serpentine) Calaveras Dam - Vouchered by R. Holdenried 1940; ALA, 427A Cedar Mountain- Observed by R. Raiche 1988; ALA; 4454 Near Cedar Mountain -Vouchered by R. Ralche 1988; ALk, 445D Ohlons Regional Wilderness - Observed by S. Edwards 1989; AIA; 4450, 4450 Sundt Angional Wilderness -Vouchered by S. Enter 1997; ALA; 446D Acxi Mountain - Documented by CNPS 1989; STN, 4258 .r€t/frzn *° rsmi a (Shamm th's onion) Hab: Woodland (serpentine) Cedar Mountain, Rancho depose- Documented by J. Greenhouse 1993; ALA; 445D Atnsinckia grandPllom (large-flowered liddleneek) Hab: grassland(alkaline and/or clay) Antioch -Vouchered by Kellog 1883; CCA: 464A Mack Diamond Mimes Regional Preserve - Natural population presumed extinct, reintroduced by S. Paviik 1989; CCA; 464A Corral Hollow- Vouchered by L Heckard R R. Ornduff #14701 1966; SJQ; 445A r Corral Hollow- Observed by L. Ellis 1992; ALA; 445A Judsonville (Black Diamond),.Vouchered by T. Brandeges 1887, extirpated, CCA; 464A Lawrence;Livermore, Site 300 - Documented by B. Pavilk 1992; ALA/SJQ, 445A Lias Vaqueros Area - Introduced by B. Pavlik In 1990: CCA; 4640 Cedar Mountain (Mines Road Area) - Vouchered by Freeman #54 UCSF 1974; ALA; "SA Connolly Ranch, near Corral Hallow Mood -Documented by A. Howaid and B. Pavlik 1991; SJQ: 445A Shadow (Allis Regional Park - Introduced by W. Knight 1974, possibly extirpated; ALA;44M Stewartsville (Black Diamond) - Anecdotal; CCA; 464A West Hartley - Anecdotal; CCA;464A __,,,..... ........... ............... Armsincklu lwmds (bent-flowered liddleneck) Hab: Grassland, Woodland ) I Fuld Park (= Bald Peak _ Vollmer Peak) - Vouchered by RF. Hoover *975 1936; CCA; 465E Vollmer Peak - Observed by B. Frtter 189?; CCA; 4658 Briones Reservoir - Observed by R. Ornduff 1991; CCA; 465B l East of Orinda - Vouchered by F. Chisaki and P. Kambray #2275 1952; CCA; 465B Dunne 199 i.g... 46 8 Hills Near Berkeley- Vouchered by J.P.Tracy #f6778 1900; ALA; 4658 Las Trampas Regional Wilderness - Vouchered by W.L. Jepson #21083 1899; CCA; 465D ! hear Lafayette -Vouchered by J. I'. Tracy #13196 1934; CCA; 465E North of Briones Reservoir -Vouchered by R. E. Buck #539 1986; CCA; 465E Redwood Ridge - Vouchered by L Constance #404 1932; ALA; 465C San Pablo Reservoir (EBMUD lands) -Vouchered by R. F, Hoover #4058 1939; CCA; 4658 San Pablo Ridge (ESMUb lands) - Anecdotal 1993; CCA; 4658 ll - 1 I uc.�,--ilu--euu.� w.-L) it,-ilio r€'i rHA NU, 4 V. UJ/U4 UrtLtstlal and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties �1 :� YL t�t�_. L-A k-kt,, 2003 I_oca l(�r! Ralik 304OPs Re3iQn:--,5P. jfK Site H..Lktat QmMeCsts Al Amus rubra Bbk, StwbyCyn Rip Also planted at JgnMir i Tldn (A. rhombifoiia is more BoN: JgnM€r, (Ok€ndAr-1902) cortirrion) 8 A10PecurUs s:tccatus See Appendix B VnPI More than 9 sites but: Limited/Threatened Habitat Small Populations B Amaranthus blitoides See Appendix B Misc A2 Amaranthus californicus Bbr: BrionRsvr, SnPbiRsvr Wtld Dbk: BlkDmdP, ClytnRnch (Dba): (Dino-1933) Hsn: OhlnP Al Amaranthus palmed ? Misc Reported here but site unknown Al Amaranthus poweliii Dbk: BlkDmdP Mlsc A2 Ambrosia charnissonis FsC: (AlaSh-1898), SnLndroBy CStd; Snd l_imitedMireatened Habitat FsN: AlbnySh, (6kySh-1894), Emyvi, Includes former A. bipinnatisecta Rchmnd5h, RdeoSh Mit: Brkl, PtOrnt, PtRchmdAr Al Aromannia coccinea (BoN): (OkindAr-1934) Rip; Wtid Llmited/Threatened Habitat Dbo: Dho (Van): (AntchD-?date) Aix Arils€nckia clWglasiana (Ach): (CriHlwAr-1938) DSIp; Rck Presumed EXTIRPATED (BBN): (RdwdP-1932) (BoS): (ChbtP-1934) (Van): (AntchAr-1938) A2 Atrisinckla eastwoodiae Alt: AltPs, MtnHs Grs; Misc Declining Avq: LsVgrs Bbr: BrionRsvr (Lva): (LyrmrAr-1937) Vby: ByrnAr *A1 AMSINCKIA GRANDIFLORA Ach: CriliiwAr, CrlHlwL300 Grs; Snd; Misc Small Geographical Range (Avq): (LsVgrs-Planted) Only 2 current natural populations I (Dbk): (BlkDrndP-Planted) here, but some planted ones Hera: CdrMtn t (Lva): (ShdwQf-Planted) (Van): (AntchAr-1483), ' ' ..... .............(AntchD-13$7),-(Antch'1-1887)...,......... .....__..,....._...,.. .... ...._.,..._..._..... ... ... ,_ , "A2 AMSINCKiA LUNARIS Alt: AItPS tars;Wdld, Misc More than 5 regions but: l ----._....., _..._..,_..__. �_.....,,..m ,,......_� Bbk: (Bkylil-1900),VlmrPkE Rare,Threatened or Endangered l Bbr: BrionP, Brioniksv�Nrriptrr, statewide SbntRdgS, Wb€Rsvr l I31f: (LfytAr-1934), LlytRsvr t Bit: (tsTrmpsAr), L-sTrmpsP, RckyRdgE } Bmc: FlckrRdg Bod: GtwyE, SnPblRdgE (BoN): (RdwdP-193?.) r 1JLV I LVuu !"ti.i! SLrY# F i! !C1 CNPi !NVENTCartY Or KARE AND ENDANC+LRFO PLANTS � � YJ t/ � vc 7 "At17 ir*t kis lunaris Mzcl�r. Highly localized and often overlook d; Cismontane woodl:a.nd,lower montane n€;-llta•�cra:d fidderne c#'�- Eicaravinaccae marry occurrences extirpated. Dees plant coniferous Forest/mcsic;elevation occur in'Tellama Counry?Very rare in 1100-2000 meters. Ust 10/ RED 2.2-3 Southern California,Endangered in bre- perennial herb,blooms}unp-July, Akirneda,Contra Costa,Colusa,Lake, gon.See.manual o thef3otaYyttftheReron SeeMadm;-o 2,1,(2):78-83 1977 far Mario,Napa,Sant,Cruz,SFI:Tsta?,Sisid- nfSun Francisco Bay,p.238(1894)by E. { ) yuF,?,San Maters,Sonoma Greene for original description, and original deseriprion, 4080,-10913,445B,4013,4480,4491), Amencon Midlatid Naturdhst32:132-163 484C,18SA,48513, (1944)For taxonomic treatmunr. Angelica ltingii (Wass.)C0LdC.& !,()l 6,51 U3,S33C,S33D,5.345,5473. Rase 547C,548A,5105,5490,S64D Androsace filiformis Rett. " _ "King's s angelica Apiaccap Co isral tbluf'fsrrub,ckrnontana wood. "slender-sterrFnted androsace" Primo#c+rfteact zt 3/ 13 -2-1 e#i:v;,ttian 3 lanes,van 3 7-500 fra4 nsetcrtcr s.l grassland list 2/ RED 3-1-1 Inyo,Mono;Idaho,Nevada,Utah Annwal herb,bloor€'Fs March lune. Siskiyou;Icahn,Oreton,Washington, Creat Basin scrub,meadows and sur!ps, Wyoming,and elsewhere pinyon and juniper woodland/inesic; tett try aLiont`ee ed.oldCurrent,plane or 732C,7330 elevation 1830.3080 meters, ran;tlrtnaciun nec:circl. llcFrs plane acctir in SF,7:,ca a.nd Siikiyou rotinries?Thre;nt- Meadows and seeps,upper monrane Perennial herb,bloorns june-Augusr. rnr:cl by d,aw.opfnent. conArous foresr;cecvacion 1800-1890 Known in California only from the White €nears. Mtns.Thee ttened by trazitig ntTd erosion. -....4....._ . ---.� nnual herb,bloornsjune-October. SeeBonyofthirKing&plorratiorFp.126 Ao�rsincicia spectabilis var. Arrm('1871)for original description,and Con- niicrocarpa tributirnrts from rhea U.S.Ntat;anal Huff earhwn Consirlered but rejected:too common Androsace occidentalis Pursh,var. 7:158(1900)for revised nomenclature. simplex(Rydb.)St.John r' nnsinicicia.vernicosa H- &A var. "simple androsace" � prin-lulaceae Angelica lucid,L. Curcac��(Suksd.) Nt�ov. Vst 2/RED 3-1-1 - - "m - -"- } "seal-wacc'rt" Ap accae "l'a,>a#ted flddlt neck" _Etoragsri setae I I seer; Arizona,New Mexico,Texas, List 4/RED 1-2-1 L1t #,ane.elsewhere 113-t 4/RED 1-"-3 SSGC Cie#Norte,Humboldt,Mendocino;Care- F'r•e:xnu,Kin(;;,Kern,San Ounir.4,San Luis gon,Washington,,and elsewhere Obi,;CFo Upper montane coniferous forest(usual- Coasrai bluff scrub,cny,stal dunes, Cc.rnrr)r,-me woc d1nnd,valley and ly rr,csic);elevation 1675-1700 meters. coastal scrub,rnarshes and swamps fun(°lilt t, isr:Iand;elevation SO-1000 Annual herb,blocmaAulust-September. 'coastal salt);elevation 0-150 meters. till erersI Known in C aliforrria only from Emigrant Perennial herb,blooms May-September. Annual herb,blooms February-Mcty. Calp,See Bulletindithe7'arreyBoi,raaicalClub 441(9):4.62(1911)fororiginnl description. MOMr.o�Turiun rhr:n previouxly thought. Anisocarpus sGabridus (E35CW.) Thrcrlr,rtrd by mining and grazing.,.Sce B.G. Baldwin �rniriLiarF{�,�anlrlo� ot�r, a�l.s n-;ss Androscephium breviflorurn Wats. - --- - -- -- (1957)fordiFciission oEsaxonotny, "scabrid alpine tarpiant" Asteraccae "small•Eizrwrred andrtistepnium" Li#iaceae Rist 18/ RED 2-1-3 1 isc 2/-1tEQ 3-1-1 Colusa,Glenn,Lake,Mendocino,Shasta, Anisinckia vernicosa ver.vernicosa Inyo,Riverside,San Bernardino',Arizona, Tehama,Trinity Coii5itrrcrl but rejece,e&ton ccman or! Nevada,Utah,and elsewhere 565A,$81 C,5821:),59713,5970,598A, 99D,1580,2048,204C,204D,2288, 613C,613D,6340,6805,68OD Andrasace elongata L. ssp. atcuta 220,251A Upper montane coniFerous Forst(rncta- (Greena)Robbins Mojavean deserrscr€4(baindas); murp#iiC,rocky);elevation 1650-2300 "C.throrn;a androsace" Pr4nulaccae elevae;nn 220-1644 meters. meters. list 4/ RED 1.2-2 Perennial herb(bulbiferous),bloorns Perennial herb,blooms July-Augts,,r. •. " Albirnpd,%,Contra Costa,C olusn,,Fr ,nes, March.-April, Need quads for Glenn County.A syn- Krrn,LosAnp0ts',Merced,San Gernar• Need quads ror Inyo County.See MadlrMa ot7yrri pfRailbartlrolisis scabrida in 1 heJcfisan lino,S:irF rleniro,Santa Clira,San Diego, ( (+o, 31(3):192(1984) or distributionnl inbr• . Montrrrf.See t3uttetin of"the Tarrpy f3orunical S1-skiyou,San jc iquin,Sam Luis Obispo, enation. Club 37x216(1905)For original descrip- 7r.h:.lrrl:t?;Baja Czlifornin,Oregon* tion,and Novan 9:462-471 (1999)for Lh aixural,risrnontsne woodland, Ang�li��argots revi!a;d nomenclature. rl: r.r.,tl scrub,valley and foothill gr:asr_ Considered bur rejer..ted:too common 1.1171.11;c luvarion 305•-1200 movers. Anornobry+um filiforme (Dicks) Annual herb,blooms March June. Angelica calhi Math.&Consr. Solrrls. "Call's a ngs•1'Fca" Ap iaee ae Bryaceae Rist 4/RED 1-1-3 Rist 2/ RED 3-2-1 Fresno,Kern,Tulare Humboldt,Mariposa?,Sanaa Cruz;Ore- gon,and elsewhere 4083,ISSD?,655D