Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03232004 - D3 t� TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICDCosta COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �.;. County DATE March 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal Filed by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance of a County Planning Commission decision to Conditionally Grant a Land Use Permit for a Cemetery (County File #LP022068, Gan Shalom -- Applicant & Owner) in the Martinez/Briones Valley area. (Sup. Dist. 1) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination proposed by staff and adopted by the County Planning Commission as adequate for purposes of Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON March 23-2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER X See attached addendtn for Board action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 111` I CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake 1(925)335-12141 ATTESTED March 23, 2004 cc:Community Development Dept.(prig.) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Gan Shalom SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Briones Hills Preserve Alliance Archer Norris,Edward Shaffer Public Works Crept., Eng.Serv, Div. BY z^ ' ✓` EPUTY Health Services Dept.,Env. Health Div. County Counsel March 23,2004 Board of supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 2 B. FIND that the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; that on the basis of the whole record before it, the Board of Supervisors has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that the material which constitutes the record of the proceedings may be found at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 551 Fine Street, Martinez, CA; C. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program; D. DENY the appeal of Briones Hills Preserve Alliance; E. SUSTAIN the decision of the County Planning Commission that grants a Land Use Permit for the proposed cemetery subject to conditions; F. GRANT the requested variances to allow the proposed perimeter fences to be taller than the maximum six feet in height normally allowed within required front and side yards(proposed 7-foot tall wall,7 'l2-foot tall at the pillar caps), and direct staff to add this variance authorization as a modification to the conditions of approval, G. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the approval of the land use permit; and the findings contained in Exhibit 1 for the requested variances for the proposed perimeter fencing, as the basis for the Board's approval of this project; and H. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs in the processing of this application and appeal. RESCHEDULED HEARING ON APPEAL This item was initially scheduled for hearing on March 16, 2004 but was rescheduled to this date. BACKGROUND A group representing owners and residents of nearby property,the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, has appealed a January 13, 2004 decision of the County Planning Commission to grant a land use permit for a cemetery on an 83-acre parcel located in the Martinez/Briones March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, rile#LP022068 Page Malley area. Summary of General Plan and Zoning Considerations - The application for the land use permit was filed by the organization, Gan Shalom, on July 25, 2002. It involves a request to establish a Jewish cemetery on a site zoned "General Agricultural" (A-2). The site is located within the area of the 1988 Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Agreement that is citedin the General Plan Land Use dement. The General Plan Land Use dement designates the site Agricultural Lands. The site lies adjacent to a road that the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element designates as a scenic route, Bear Creek Road; and the majority of the site lies within the "scenic corridor" of this road. The A-2 zoning district is one of the zoning districts that are consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation. The Cemetery Ordinance(Chapter 88-2)prohibits the establishment of cemeteries in certain land use districts, but allows them to be established in other districts after the granting of a land use permit, including the making of special findings. The A-2 district is not one of the districts that the Cemetery Ordinance prohibits the establishment of a cemetery. Consequently,the Ordinance allows a cemetery to be established in an A-2 district after the granting of a land use permit. (ref. Ord. Code § 88-2.206) Site and Project Description--The site consists of 83 acres. Approximately 30.4 acres of the site consists of valley bottomland with a gentle upland slope. The remainderof the site (approximately 52.6 acres) is either tree-covered hills or lands along the Pinole Creek channel. Only the gently sloping 30.4 acres is proposed for cemetery use which will be developed in phases over time. The remainder of the site will be retained as private open space. The project includes a chapel/office and related parking facilities. The chapel would have 90 fixed seats, and an accessory business office. Environmental Review Prior to scheduling this project for hearing, staff undertook a study to determine whether the project might result in potentially significant environmental impacts for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Special studies were commissioned with qualified professionals to investigate potential impacts associated with biological, cultural, and groundwater resources. These studies concluded that possible significant environmental impacts could be avoided if the project observed certain mitigation measures. The applicant provided staff' with a letter agreeing to comply with those mitigation measures. The applicant's traffic consultant submitted a study of road and traffic conditions that was reviewed by staff. Consequently, staff proposed the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and issued a Notice of intent to Adapt a Mitigated Negative Determination, as required by law, on 'November 6, 2003. March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, F=ile#LP022068 Fuge 4 Staff Concerns in the Review of the Pro iect The primary environmental concerns related to groundwater resources (water quality, adequacy of the well to meet the irrigation demand of the project, and potential to effect production of off-site wells) and compatibility of the project with regulatory programs (e.g., Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation policy). Groundwater The following discussion is intended to highlight and summarize technical data and engineering analysis that was the basis of staffs evaluation of groundwater issues and concerns. • Water Quality. Both the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department have reviewed the application. 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 t; the vaults are buried 20 inches below the surface, and then covered with the excavated sail). A subdrain is to be installed just below the vaults to control elevation of the water table. Irrigation Demand. The applicant has estimated the irrigation demand for Phase 1 to be approximately 1,200 gallons per day per acre during the summer. For the 5-acre Phase 1 area, this translates to an estimated 6,000 gallons/day. 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, 2003). Even if the water demand was 1,800 gallons/acre, the irrigation demand of the cemetery is less than 50 percent of the irrigation requirements of some potential agricultural operations of similar size. For 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. 4 Water Supply. The irrigation well itself is more than 1,200 feet from the property line. The pump test report issued by the applicant's hydrogeologist concludes 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 five mitigation measures to ensure that the water usage is fully monitored; and performance criteria are provided to see that Gan Shalom does not create a significant adverse impact on nearby properties (see Initial Study, pages 28-29). These measures are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 5 (COAs #19-23.) • Peer Review of Puma Test. Based on the recommendations of the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department retained Geoconsultants Inc., licensed hydrogeologists, as its peer reviewer. Their scope of work included: a) review of the 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 Briones Hills Preservation Alliance retained S.S. Papadopulos &Associates, who issued a review letter that is presented in an appendix to the December 16th staff report. This letter questions the analysis of the County's peer reviewer, 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: a) The applicant employed a methodology for testing the groundwater supplies that is acceptable to the County. The methods of analysis utilized for the pump test are consistent with the methodology used to analyze other wells in the area. b) 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 plants; and use of an efficient irrigation system. As a result, the water demand for the cemetery is anticipated to be less than many potential agricultural uses of the site. c} 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, Engeo Inc. prepared a groundwater monitoring and mitigation plan and the plan was refined/modified by Geoconsultants, Inc. 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. d) The site is an 33-acre parcel, and the well is 1,490 feet from Bear Creek Road. The nearest developed parcels are across Bear Creek Road from the site. They are 5 to 10+ acres, each; their 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 March23, 2014 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022066 Page 6 groundwater. e) If groundwater supplies on Gan Shalom were not adequate to support Phase 1 of the cemetery, the opportunity exists to collect irrigation water in subdrains and recirculate this water, reducing demand for groundwater produced by the well. If the water recirculated from the subdrains were not sufficient to make up the shortfall, then the water supply for irrigation of cemetery landscape plantings would be reduced. f) 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. County Plannincl Commission Hearing This application was considered at two Planning Commission hearings. The initial hearing was held on December 16, 2003, at which time, staff reported that the required ordinance findings for granting a land use permit should be made, and staff recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. The recommended conditions include the mitigation measures that staff had identified for the project. The Planning Commission received testimony from representatives of the project proponent, which among other items discussed the site selection process; need for the facility, and details on the cemetery operations. Testimony was also received from all persons who wished to speak, which included chiefly residents of the Briones Valley area who spoke in opposition to the project; and several persons requested that an Environmental Impact Deport be prepared. In response to the testimony and due to the lateness of the hour, the County Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing for one month,to January 13,2004. During that month, staff contacted the Sheriffs Office of Grime Prevention about any special law enforcement issues posed by the cemetery,and staff received additional written comment letters from the public on this project. At the January 13, 2004 hearing, the Planning Commission received additional public testimony, including testimony from the applicant's traffic engineer(Abrams&Associates) and the applicant's hydrogeologist(Engeo Inc.), along with testimony from a hydrogeologist representing the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance (S.S. Papadopulos & Associates). Testimony was also received from residents of the Briones Valley area (speaking in opposition to the project)and from representatives of the Jewish community(who spoke in support'of the project). After receiving testimony from all persons who wished to speak, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, Fife#LP022068 Page 7 After discussion, the County Planning Commission agreed that the required ordinance findings could be made and voted to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination and approve the project (5-1; Clark/Hanecak m/s/c; Wong -- dissenting; Gaddis-absent), subject to(1)a revised Indemnification condition (COA#8),and(2)with addition of a condition requiring that Happy Valley Road - Upper Happy Valley Road not be used for funeral processions (COA#9 and #4). Demonstration of compliance with the restriction on funeral processions was made a requirement of the annual review of the permit.' Prior to approval of the project, Commissioners offered two modifications to the staff recommendation that the motion-makers declined to include in the final action. • A proposal to require as part of the landscape plan to be developed, inclusion of natural indigenous grasses that do not require substantial irrigation or pesticides (Mehiman); and • Site policing during the hours of diminished light;that is,from dusk to dawn(Wong). Commissioner Wong felt that the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Agreement did not intend to allow cemeteries within its defined area, and thus voted against the motion. LETTER OF APPEAL On January 20, 2004 the Community Development Department received an appeal from Carole 'Dwineli, on behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance. The appellant's letter identified nine appeal points. The appeal points and staffs analysis are as follows: REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS AppealPoint #1. The County Planning Commission is ignoring County Resolution No. 87/483 I(the so-called, 1938 Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area Agreement),which was intended to protect the Briones Valley area. Staff Analysis: This appeal point refers to a 1988 agreement involving the County and the Cities of Richmond, Pinole, Hercules, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and Orinda that is based on a 64-square mile delineated open space area. The compact states that the jurisdictions voluntarily agree to not annex any 1 For the first five(5)years of the permit, Condition#4 of the permit requires the applicant to fife a Permit Compliance Report providing evidence of compliance with the land use permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, and at five-year intervals thereafter. The report is also to document build-out of the project, water usage, survival of landscape plantings, performance of the project well, and results of monitoring water levels in observation wells. March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, Pile#LP422068 Page 8 lands in the area for the purpose of allowing urban development. This resolution was incorporated into the Land Use Element of the County General Plan (Policy 3- 955). The appeal letter considers the cemetery to be inconsistent with the range of uses that can be allowed in the Briones Valley area. Staff has reviewed the resolution and associated General Plan policy. The key points are as follows: • The site is designated AL (Agricultural Land) by the General Plan and the site is zoned A-2 (General Agricultural). These designations provide that a cemetery is an allowable use with the issuance of a land use permit,but the issuance of the permit requires that "findings" for establishment of a cemetery be made. (The special ordinance "findings"for granting a land use permit for cemeteries are specified on page g of this staff report(see Table 9). Policy 3-955 of the Land Use Element states that the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area is designated for "Watershed"(WS), "Parks and Recreation" (PR) and "Agricultural Land" (AL), and that the plan anticipates that the area will remain in public and agricultural use during the planning period. • The neighboring property owners and their attomey infer that cemeteries are an urban use that cannot be permitted in the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area. However, the General Plan (on page y1-36),2 Section 4(F)(2) clunes "non-urban uses" as rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law. • The parties to the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Agreement must have previously concluded that a cemetery use is an open space (non- urban) use. At the time of the establishment of the Agreement, the affected area included a major portion of an existing cemetery(Queen of Heaven). If the framers had not intender) to include a cemetery activity within the boundaries of the affected area, they would have omitted any existing cemetery from the affected area. But they did not. The proposed development will rely on on-site ground water supply and sewage disposal systems. The project will not be served by community utility (water or sewer) systems. Citing definitions contained in the Measure C, 65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan, passed,by the County electorate in 1990. March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Nearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022088 Page 9 The proposed cemetery is reasonably interpreted as a privately-funded and operated facility for a public purpose which is necessary for public health,safety and welfare. It should also be recognized that cemetery uses are restricted to approximately 30.4 nacres of the 83-acre site. The Site Plan indicates that the channel of Pinole Creek will be retained as private open space. All cemetery uses will be setback 100 feet from the top-of-bank. Additionally, the hills on the site will be retained as private open Table 1 space. The acreage of the open space FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR THE on-site totals approximately 52.6 acres. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERY Thus over 60 percent of the site is to be Cemetery Ordinance retained as open space area on the site (Ord.Code§88-2.404) that will function as wildlife habitat areas and watershed land. 1. The establishment or maintenance of the cemetery will not jeopardize or adversely Appeal _ 2: Mitigation measures described affect the public health,safety,comfort,or PP Point - � welfare. Within the CEG2A Initial Study for the project 2. The establishment,maintenance,or cemetery in fact neither reflect nor resolve issues extension will not reasonably be expected to concerning area water. While the residents of the be a public nuisance. area, in good faith as early as July 2002, 3. The establishment,maintenance,or requested that the Well be tested in both the extension will not tend to interfere with the Spring when local wells are recharged from the free movement of public traffic or with the proper la g g protection of the public through interference winter rains AND in the Fall when after the with the movement of police,ambulance,or summer dry season all the wells being used on fire equipment and thus interfere with the convenience of the public or the protection adjacent properties and those properties nearby of the lives and the property of the public. experience low flaw, this request was ignored. 4. Demonstrate adequate financial ability to establish or maintain the proposed cemetery Staff Analysis: This appeal point rejects so as to prevent the proposed cemetery the mitigation measures pertaining to from becoming a public nuisance;and water resources without identifying any 5. The proposed cemetery is consistent with specific objections to the efficacy of these the General Plan of the County and will not offering specific suggestions interfere with the orderly development and measures, or o g }� !�� igrowth of the County. for strengthening those measures. The water resource mitigation measurements were based on hydrologeologic data, and independent,peer review of that technical infonTfation. With regard to the details of the pumping test, the Community Development Department retained a peer review hydrologeologist to review protocols for the pump test and evaluate the data gathered. Furthermore, the health Services Department(HSD)monitored the pump test,and the HSD was provided with all field March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 10 data and engineer analysis. Based on the information provided, HSD indicated that the pump test met their expectations. AppealPoint #3: In the staff report for the Hearing on December 16, Allan Moore, Esq. pointed out clearly that CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in all close cases show a clear preference for the drafting of an EIR. 1 quote.... "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(in this case,the County) must prepare an EIR" and further states"that the County pay close attention to the comments of S.S. Papadopulos & Associates with regard to the local, fragile water supply." Staff Analysis: There is no disagreement among experts. The CEQA Initial Study agrees with S.S. Papadopulvs & Associates that there is potential for water resource impacts. Hence, there is no disagreement among experts on potential for "over-pumping"to affect water resources of neighboring properties. The mitigation measures contain provisions for an early warning system;provisions for shutting off use of irrigation water within the cemetery, should that become necessary;and prior to commencement of each phase, Gan Shalom is required to demonstrate adequate water(or other procedures) to support expanded cemetery use. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval adopted by the County Planning Commission (COA's 20 through 24). Appeal Point #4; The Chairman and Commissioners constantly interrupted Dr. Gordon Thrupp, who represented S.S. Papadopulos&Associates and the BHPA at the Tuesday= January 13th Planning Commission Hearing. The County was notified in advance that Dr. Thrupp intended to make an overhead presentation to the Commission. A screen and (BHPA provided) overhead project were set up but members of the Commission complained that they could not see the screen. These complaints exhausted a portion of Dr. Thrupp's allocated three minutes. Dr. Thrupp during the question period after his presentation was thea examined on issues that were not under the realm of his obligation to BHPA. Staff Analysis: The County Planning Commission received testimony from the hydrogeologist retained by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance and the Planning Commission posed questions to the hydrogeologist. The exhibit(and screen)used in the presentation was not provided by staff. They were provided by the speaker, who did not elect to come to the meeting early to select the best approach to providing an illustrated presentation for the Planning Commission. The speaker, who is a technical expert, was lecturing on concepts such as the meaning of"steady state." The interruptions were questions on the technical material that was provided. The Planning Commission in rendering its decision considered that testimony, along with all other evidence. _.. March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 11 Appeal Paint#5: In the review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by GeoConsultants Inc., received by the Contra Costa Community Development department,time-dated 2003 October 06 at 8:02, and submitted by Jeremy Wire, Certified Hydrogeologist, No. 93,from the Table of Contents to the actual test data and the figures chart; the numbers for Drawdown Well #3 were omitted from the CEQA initial Study. The figures in the "Evaluation" by GeoConsultants show that Drawdown Well#3(Well P-3),located 1200 feet from the project well, dropped about a half an inch, all within the last 12 hours of the pumping test. When I asked why the results of P-3 had been omitted from the CEQA Initial Study, I was told it was insignificant. BHPA and I ask officially and on the record: How, in only 24hours, can any change in the level of ground water from Well P-3 at 1200 feet from the source well, be considered insignificant? Staff Analysis: The Commentor cites data from GeoConsulfants report but not GeoConsultants analysis of the data. The report concludes that the area influenced by the pump test was confined to portions of the site within approximately 250 feet of the production well. GeoConsultants did not speculate on the water level data in P-3, but it was their opinion that the data was unrelated to the pump test. The inch drop in P-3 was recorded at the 94th hour of testing. No further drop was observed for the remainder of the 24-hour test. This suggests equipment or human error was responsible for the reading rather than an actual reduction in water level. Different individuals made the groundwaterlevel measurement. It involved dropping a cable down the monitoring well,measuring the distance from the top of the casing to the water surface;and then subtracting the height of the casing above the ground surface from the measurement to obtain depth of the water table. Considering the methodology used, a Y2-inch difference noted is not significant. Furthermore, if the pump test was affecting the water table level in the monitoring well, staff would expect to see a gradual, consistent pattern of drawdown. It should also be recognized that the monitoring well is at the property line and near Pinole Creek. The flux in the water level in the creek during the pump test or production of ground water by pumping of an off-site well may also account for the observed data. Appeal Point#6: We intentionally went outside the county, investigated an international firm that would not be influenced by any commitments within the County or with any personal connection to either neighbors or the proponents,to have an unbiased look at the water information. This very important information was not allowed to be presented. We want to assure you that most of the information, however, is in the four letters/reports that _.. .... __. March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, Pile#LP022068 Page 12 were submitted by Dr. Thrupp to the County before the December 16, 2003 hearing and are recorded in the staff:report for the December hearing. These reports were summarily dismissed. The experience of the residents of many years, offered in good faith and as good neighbors, was also ignored. Staff Analysis: It is incorrect to conclude that the consultant retained by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance was ignored. All technical data, engineering analysis, conclusions and recommendations of S.S. Papadopulos & .Associates were forwarded by staff to the applicant's hydrogeologist and the County's peer review hydrogeologist within 24 hours of their submittal to the Community Development Department. Similarly, as hydrologeology documents were provided to staff by the applicant and by the Countys peer reviewer, they were immediately forwarded to the representative of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance. The input received by the County was forwarded to the County peer reviewer with the recommendation that the suggestions of S.S. Papadopulos be included in the pump test if they appeared reasonablelprudentlfeasibie. Some of the suggestions from S. S. Papadopulos & Associates included extending the duration of the pump test;delaying the pump test to the end of the summer;providing monitoring wells at the property line; etc. The Gan Shalom well is not a municipal well for the use of a city,it is an agricultural well. The County peer reviewer, in consultation with NSD determined that for the proposed agricultural well, a 24 hour test was adequate duration and that delaying the Gan Shalom pump test to the end of the summer wouldlcould set an undesirable precedent, and would represent inconsistent treatment of applicants in the sense that wells intended for domestic use by property owners throughout the County are not required by Ordinance or other regulations to delay pump tests to a specific point in time. Basically, the pump test was treated as a technical matter and the test parameters were set up accordingly. The appellant selected a hydrogeologic firm with international experience, but with limited, if any, local experience. Testing for an agricultural well has different requirements than a major international project. Furthermore, there are differences in the evaluation of the pump test data among the hydrologists. The County's peer review hydrogeologist concluded that there is sufficient water for Phase I with a safety factor, and there is an adequate aquifer recharge area for Phase 1. At least in part because of the analysis of S.S. Papadopulos &Associates, the CLQA Initial Study identifies water resources as a potential impact for Phase l; and with recommendations from the County's peer reviewer, five water resource-related mitigation measures were identified. It should also be noted that the pump test and associated hydrogeology analysis provides more data than is available for the wells of property owners in the Briones Valley area, including those that have reported problems with waterproduction from __ _. _. _...... . ............................................. March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Lend Use Permit for a Cemetery, Fife#LP022068 Page 13 their existing walls. In many cases, the wells ofranchette properties in the Briones Valley area are so close together that they are competing with one another for ground water. Furthermore, water demand for some existing uses in the Briones Valley area (e.g., stables) are comparable to Phase 1 of(pan Shalom. The Cyan Shalom well is approximately one-quarter mile from Bear Creek goad, and clearly Can Shalom owns the water rights to its property. Due to dozens of witnesses on both sides of the project who wished to testify, to try to be fair to all, the Planning Commission imposed a three-minute time limit on testimony. Dr. Thrupp had planned on providing a presentation to the Planning Commission that included slide exhibits on a display screen, however he failed to appear early for the hearing to make the appropriate preparation for setting up his slide presentation. As a consequence, there were technical problems in its presentation. Planning Commissioners also interrupted his presentation to let him know that the material he was presenting was not displayed in a manner that they could easily follow. Still, Dr. Thrupp otherwise was provided more than three minutes to complete his testimony. In conclusion, the experience of the residents was not ignored. Staff did considerit, but felt that the experience, methodology, evidence,and restrictions imposed on the project are sufficient to demonstrate that the project can be developed without causing a significant adverse water resource impact to the environment including the surrounding properties. Appeal Paint #7: Under the CEQA study, under Environmental Study Checklist Form, it states that under Chapter 84-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, "the permitted uses include"and then lists the permitted uses. Nowhere on that list is a chapel, and in fact, a chapel was already discouraged from being built almost directly across the street from the proposed site by the Planning Commission in the late 1990s. Staff Analysis. Cemeteries are a special use. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 88-2, lists the standards applicable to cemeteries. According to Section 88-2.206,a land use 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 t. Zoning Ordinance Section 84-38.404 lists uses allowable in the A-2 District with a land use permit, including "(1) Allowable uses designated in Section 84-36.404." Section 84-36.404(c)allows such uses as hospitals, churches, religious institutions, schools, community buildings, clubs and similar facilities that attract groups of people commonly include meeting spaces. First, the chapel of a religious-based cemetery may reasonably be considered similar to a "church" or "religious __.._.. _ ....................................................... March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 14 institution"for the purpose of this application. Second, the Zoning Ordinance is not meant to name every conceivable specific type of land use activity, and the County has discretion to interpret the list of allowed uses to include other uses that are similar in the nature and intensity of activity, and the effect on its neighbors. A cemetery chapel can be permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Ameal Point #8: In regards to traffic, a large animal clinic („Targe" in this case being animals such as horses, cattle, llamas,goats and sheep appropriately cY for agricultural areas) was totally discouraged from applying for a permit because of traffic issues. It would cause too much traffic. This was an agricultural business that would greatly benefit the people who reside in the Preserve as well as neighboring horse/cattle communities, such as these adjacent to Tilden Park and in Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, in fact, all of the cities which were signatories of the Agricultural Agreement. Staff Analysis: This comment addresses traffic issues associated with an animal clinic, and does not speak to the Gan Shalom project. The applicant's traffic engineers, Abrams &Associates, evaluated the tragic-related effects of the project and subsequently by County staff. This professional review indicates the project does not present potential for a significant impact. Nevertheless, the public Works Department review resulted in the identification of traffic and circulation issues that were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval adopted by the County Planning Commission. Appeal Point#9: The number of vehicles traveling the winding two-lane roads will not be static numbers as the cemetery planners have repeatedly reported. If the plans to develop the first 7+ acres take place, each acre with 1,000 graves, at 200 graves per year. (Gan Shalom figures) mean by the end of the fifth year, there will be many, many repeat visitations to honor deceased relatives and loved ones on the appropriate Jewish holidays. And,the proponents say this traffic will only occur in the daylight hours in the middle of the day, not during commute traffic. Evening only comes at five o'clock during Pacific Standard Time for two months at the most. Several times, it was mentioned that the hours would be from 8:30 until dusk. during Pacific Daylight Time, dusk is at 9 PM and that certainly dues encompass commute hours. Not quite what the traffic report would have one believe since it was done only for two hours from 1 PM to 3 PM on a Tuesday and then only at the less traveled intersection. The actual traffic collection was NOT in the CEQA Initial Study,only a summary that did not indicate the time frame of the actual data collection. Staff Analysis: As the comment observes, with the passage of years there will be a gradual increase in visitors to the cemetery. Some visitors will add to the peak hour trips. It is anticipated, however, that the trips will be distributed throughout the day. On Memorial day and certain Jewish holidays there are likely to be an increase in the number of visitors. However, there is no evidence to support the hypotheses March 23,2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Land Use Permit for a Cemetery, File#LP022068 Page 15 that visitors to the cemetery will significantly add to traffic or would lead to unsafe conditions on the local road network. Conclusion Based on the foregoing review, staff concludes that none of the appeal points have merit. Several of the ,appeal points address the adequacy of the CEQA determination for this project. The paints are similar to those raised in the hearing before the County Planning Commission and rejected by that body. Staff continues to find that the appeal poses no substantial evidence that would contest the CEQA documentation and determination adoptedby the Planning Commission. VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW PERIMETER FENCING THAT IS TALLER THAN NORMALLY ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE Gan Shalom proposes fencing to control unauthorized access to the cemetery. As proposed,the fence along Bear Creek Road is a 7-foot tall decorative masonry and tubular steel wall/fence with signage. (Figure 3 of the December 16, 2003 staff report presents an elevation of the fence, which is to be located just behind the road right-of-way.) The caps on the pillars increase the maximum height of the wall to 7%feet. Staff Analysis: The Sheriffs Office of Crime Prevention recommended a 6-foot tall chain-link fence with three strands of razor wire. A fence of that construction is not consistent with the project character sought by Gan Shalom. Rear Creek Road is an officially designated scenic route. General Plan Policies 5-34 through 5-43 indicates that projects along scenic corridors shall preserve and enhance attractive natural qualities. The challenge of the Gan Shalom report is to balance security and aesthetic needs. The proposed design attempts to strife that balance. Condition of Approval#11 provides for review and approval of fencing plan and for the design, color and location of any entrance signs. That COA does not allow for the wall height to be extended above the 6-foot high maximum that is allowed in the structure setback zone. In staff's opinion, a decorative fencelwall that is Moot high, with pillar caps allowed to extend 71 feet high are appropriate. Further, staff has reviewed the ordinance findings for allowing a variance to be made and has determined that those findings can reasonably be made for this project as presented in Exhibit 1. GACurrent Planning\carr-plan\Board\Board 0rders\Ip022068-c.bo.doc DM/RD ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 March 23, 2004 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Carole Dwinell and the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance of the County Planning Commission approval of the land use permit for the proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery in the Martinez area. Gan Shalom, Inc (Applicant & Owner), County File#LP022068. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair then opened the public hearing. The following persons presented testimony: Pete Murray,Mayor of Pinole; Allan Moore,on behalf of the Appellants Briones Hills Preserve Hills Alliance, 279 Front Street,Danville; Carole Dwnell,Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, 201 Bear Creek Court,Martinez; Jessie Craine, 1170 Garcia Ranch Road, Martinez;. April Ennis,Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, 212 Bear Creek Court,Martinez; John Fouhy, Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, 1218 Bear Creek Road,Martinez Paul D.Brooks, Briones Hills Preservation Alliance,450 Bear Creek Drive, Martinez; Tim McDonough, 1676 Sandra Court, Pinole; Lawrence Nunes, Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, 100 Via Domingos, Martinez; Linda Sutton, 230 Bear Oaks Court,Martinez; Ed Shaffer, on behalf Gan Shalom, 2033 N. Main Street,#800,Walnut Creek; Melody Howe Weinstraub, 3903 Happy Valley Road, Lafayette; Jeffrey Taylor, 1398 Danville Blvd.., Alamo Anthony Nunes, 1015 Garcia Ranch Road,Martinez•, Chris Bearden, 1105 Bear Creek Road,Martinez; Frank Nunes, Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, 1015 Garcia Ranch Road, Martinez; Tom Greerty, on behalf of Mr. Mulcahy,917 Las Juntas,Martinez; Lynn Sugayan, Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve, 1071 Pereira Road, Martinez; George Hess, 1141 Bear Creek Road,Martinez; Shalom Eliahu, Applicant, 331.5 Stage Coach Drive, Lafayette; Charlie Abrams,Abrams Associates,Traffic Engineer,on behalf of Gan Shalom2815 Mitchell Drive, 9120, Walnut Creek; Shawn Munger; Eneo Inc., on behalf of Clan Shalom; Susan Leflestein; on behalf of Gan Shalom,4425 Kearsarge Court, Concord Adam Selvin, 1170 Garcia Ranch Road,Martinez; Shoshana Eliahu,on behalf of Gan Shalom, 3315 Stage Coach Drive, Lafayette; Deanne Winer,Reutlinger Center for Jewish Living, 780 Raycliff Place,Concord.; Ronald Gross,2 Muth Drive, Orinda; Rev. Dr. David Sammons, Interfaith Council of Contra Costa County, 829 Hutchison Road, Walnut Creek; Jared Goldin, Gan Shalom, 931 Kenworth Court, Walnut Creek; Page 2 March 23, 2004 Item D.3 Gordan Freeman, on behalf of Gan Shalom, 68 Gakdene Court, Walnut Creek, Mike McGoldrick, on behalf of Gan Shalom, 3314 Stage Coach, Lafayette; Ted Mendelson, 169 Larkwood, Danville; Ilan Greenberg, 3146 Ebano Drive, Walnut Creek; Marilynne L. Mellander, El Sobrante; Phyllis Ceaser, 22 San Jose Court, Walnut Creek; The following persons did not address the Board,but left written comments to be entered into the record: Linda loess, 1141 Bear Creek Road, Martinez Eleanor Nunes, 1015 Garcia Ranch Road,Martinez. The Chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. The following modifications to the Conditions of Approval were requested by Supervisor Gioia: • Condition of Approval#1 regarding Security precautions should be changed to read "Security precautions shall betaken to protect the cemetery from vandalism. A private guard shall be hired to visit the cemetery on a regular basis during each 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 to work at 8:00 a.m. This shall be in conjunction with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff." • Condition of Approval#1 regarding burials should be changed to read "There will be no burials on Saturdays or commencing after 3:00p.m. • Condition of Approval regarding landscaping, add the following to the paragraph"The irrigation system shall consist of an overhead type irrigation system with equal to or greater than 75%uniformity and shall use an automatic, self-adjusting irrigation controller. Input data should be from either an onsite weather station or front CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information system). Applicant shall consult with .East Bay.Municipal Utility District to review and assist their landscape and irrigation plan". In addition, Supervisor Gioia requested that for the turf use itself, the following is added"the applicant shall use the most water efficient turf." "Only trees and shrubs native to the Ilriones Hills shall be used.71 • Add a Condition of Approval regarding pesticide prohibition"There shall be no pesticide use for any of the landscaping': Page 3 March'23, 2004 Item D.3 • Modify the Condition of Approval regarding Water Resources to read,during the first year of operation of the wells should be monitored weekly and monthly thereafter"it should be changed to the first five years there is a report every six months and at the end of five years, evaluate at that time if reporting should be continued twice a year or an annual report. • Condition of Approval regarding the hydrogeology report, add a sentence that it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that an adequate water source exists prior to approval of the next phase and that would be subject to the review of the Zoning Administrator. • Add a condition that during a procession, a temporary traffic sign that would provide advance notice to drivers coming south bound on Bear Creek.Road that is cross traffic. Supervisor Gioia moved to deny the appeal and approve the recommendations along with the modifications mentioned. Supervisor Uilkema second the motion. The Board took the following action: a CLOSED the public hearing, a DENIED the appeal by Carole Dwinell and the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance; a ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination proposed by the County Planning Commission as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; a FOUND that the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; that on the basis of the whole record before it, the Board of Supervisors has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have significant effect on the environment; and that the material which constitutes the record of the proceedings may be found at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, Ca; a ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring Program; a SUSTAINED the decision of the County Planning commission that grants a Land Use Permit for the proposed cemetery(Gan Shalom, Inc. Applicant &Owner) subject to conditions; a GRANTER the requested variances to allow the proposed perimeter fences to be taller than the maximum six feet in height normally allowed within required front and side yards and directed staff to add this variance authorization as a modification to the conditions of approval; Page 4 March 23, 2004 Item D3 a ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the approval of the land use permit to include the modifications to the Conditions of Approval by the Board of Supervisors as presented today and the finding contained in Exhibit I for the requested variances for the proposed perimeter fencing, as the basis for the Board's approval for this project; a DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. EXHIBIT I Ordinance Findings for Granting Variances to Allow Fencing Taller than Six feet to be Placed within Front and Side bards Gan Shalom Cemetery Proposal County Land Use Permit File #LP022068 Martinez/Briones Valley area Listed below are the ordinance findings that are required to grant requested variances to allow the perimeter wall/fence to be 7-foot tall, and up to 7 Y2 feet tail at the pillar caps and gate of the wall (maximum 5 feet allowed within the required front and side yard areas), and the related project finding for this proposal. (ref. C.C.C. ford. Code § 26-2.2005) 1. Required Finding —Any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding — The proposed variances do not constitute a grant of special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and that are zoned General Agricultural, A-2. There are no other properties in the area that contain a cemetery. The nature of the project uniquely necessitates an aesthetically pleasing perimeter fence design that will also meet the security needs of the cemetery operation. Source: Site visit. 2. Required Finding --- Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective E-2 Ordinance Findings for Granting Variances for Fence Heights Gan Shalom Cemetery,Land Use Permit File#LP022068 zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. erect Finding— The surrounding visual qualities of the rural Briones Valley area warrant special aesthetic and security treatment that would allow a slightly taller fence than is normally allowed within the required yard area. The proposed fence will provide security for the cemetery while providing a decorative appearance that is complementary to the rural area. The appearance of the wall will be softened by the planting of native trees and shrubs along the exterior of the wall. Source: Site visit;project site plans. 3. Required Finding —Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. EUo ect 1=indinq-- The Ordinance Code allows for a range of activities in the General Agricultural zoning district that may be suitable for an agricultural area. One of the special uses that may be established on property zoned General Agricultural, after the granting of a land use permit, is a cemetery. Perimeter fencing of a cemetery is necessary to secure the property. In this instance, the proposed fence design (and requested variances) substantially meets the intent and purpose of the General Agricultural district by providing protection to the proposed cemetery use, while allowing a decorative design that blends with the agricultural setting. The proposed design is preferable to the 6--foot chainlink fence with razor wire suggested by the County Sheriff, in terms of respecting the scenic corridor along Bear Creek Road. Sources: Article 84-86.4 of the Ordinance Code; site visit; 11612004 letter from the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff: GACurrent PIanNnglcurr-plan\Board\Board 0rders\Ip022068-var-fndg.doc Rd\ Resolution No. 10-2004 County Planning Commission BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL Gan Shalom Inc. (Applicant & Owner) Briones Hills Preserve Alliance (Appellants) Request for a Land Use Permit to Establish a Cemetery in the Martinez/Briones Valley area County File #LP022068 On July 25,2002,the applicant, Gan Shalom, filed a land use permit application with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department to establish a cemetery pursuant to provisions of the Cemetery Ordinance on an 83-acre parcel at the southeast comer of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road in the Briones Valley area. The General Plan designates the site Agricultural Lands. The site is zoned General Agricultural, A-2. On August 21, 2002, staff notified the applicant that additional specified items were required Before the application could be deemed complete. On June 24, 2003,upon submittal of a groundwater quantity pumping test report, the staff determined the application to be complete for processing purposes. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental {duality Act (CEQA), staff conducted an initial study on the project to determine whether the project would result in a significant environmental impact; and staff determined that the project might result in several significant impacts including impacts pertaining to biological, cultural, and water resources. Staff also identified measures that would mitigate each of those impacts to a less than significant level, and the applicant agreed in writing to those measures. On November 6,2003, County staff posted a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and otherwise provided for notice of the proposed determination as required by law. The notice allows for public comments on the adequacy of the proposed CEQA determination that extended to 5 p.m., December 8,2003. Resolution No. 10-2004 County Planning Commission On December 16, 2003 after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff presented the staff recommendation on the application, and the Planning Commission accepted testimony from the applicant and other members of the public. After receiving testimony, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to its January 13, 2004 meeting. On January 13, 2004, the County Planning Commission continued to accept testimony from all persons who wished to speak on the application, including a rebuttal from the representatives of the applicant, Gan Shalom, Inc. Following the rebuttal from the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. The County Planning Commission,having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all evidence and testimony submitted on this matter. RESOLVED, for purposes of compliance with the CEQA, the County Planning Commission FINDS that: • On the basis of the whole record before the Commission, 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; • The Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; • 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. Further,the County Planning Commission ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; Further, the County Planning Commission FINDS that all of the Ordinance Code findings that are required for granting a land use permit(Ord. Code Section 26-2.2008) together with the special findings of the Cemetery Ordinance (Ord. Code Section 88- 2.2404) for this application can be made, Further,the County Planning Commission GRAFTS approval to the land use permit application for a cemetery, with modification to the Conditions of Approval that had been recommended by staff. R-2 Resolution No. 10-2004 County Planning Commission The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on January 13,2004 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Clark, Hanecak, Terrell, Mehlman, and Battaglia NOES: Commissioner Wong ABSENT: Commissioner Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioner-None Further, on January 20, 2004, the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance filed with the County an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision on this project. LEN BATTAGLIA Chairman of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California I, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on January 13, 2004. ATTEST: 61 `d TENNIS M. BARRY,AICP Secretary of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California GACuzxent Planning\curr-plan\Resolutions\Resolution-Gan Shalom.doc DM\RD R-3 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2068.02 AS APPROVED BY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 13, 2004 (Conditions of Approval Added by Planning Commission Shown in Bold) 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 2 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. 3. The establishment, maintenance, or extension will not tend to interfere with the free movement of traffic or with the proper protection of the public through interference with the movement of police, ambulance, or fire 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 Works 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 Road, 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 Frank 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 424). S. 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 305 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. 3 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. B. Land Use Permit Findings I. The proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. The applicants have not requested exceptions to any health, safety and welfare requirements of jurisdictional agencies (see COA's 5, 6 and 7). 2. The proposed use shall not adversely affect the orderly development ofproperty 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 Preservation agreement. The environmentally sensitive lands are the site (wooded hillsides and creek corridor to be retained as private open. space.) 5. The proposed use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. The applicant proposes to provide private security, and no special law enforcement problems are anticipated. COA 91 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 applicants objectives for a Jewish cemetery. 4 C. Growth Management Performance Standards I. 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 938-40 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 925). 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 91), 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 1. 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 5 the project description provided by Gan Shalom on the technical studies 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 8:00 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. Compliance Report 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 andmaterial charges, with an initial deposit of$500 which shall be paid at time 6 of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. Administrative Reviews 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 ofsubmittal 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. Indemnification 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents and officers,from any claim, action or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents or officers, to attach, set aside, void or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this land use permit application. The County will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 7 Funeral Processions 9. � At least 30 days prior to the first services or burial, submit a plan to discourage, to the extent possible, funeral processions from using Happy Valley / Upper Happy Valley Road. The plan is subject to review and approval of the Deputy Director of Current Planning, Community Development Department. Compliance with this condition shall be part of the reviews mandated by COA#4. Landscaping 10. 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 certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance, 82-86.. Fencing/Signs/Lighting 11. 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. 8 Construction Conditions 12. 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 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal holidays. E. 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. 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- 9 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 13. 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. 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 and/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 14. 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. 10 15, 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 procedures to provide documentation of compliance with all components of the mitigation measures. Table 1 RED-LEGGED FROG MITIGATION MEASURES a) A I00 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 label)the 100 foot setback line. b) The I00 foot buffer zone shall be fenced(permanentfencing),with the fencing plan subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.It is anticipated that the fence will be split-rail or equivalent. The surveyor for the project shall set stakes at the 100 foot setback line, The fence shall be installed on a phase by phase basis. Construction fencing shalt 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 ofsite improvements,and immediately after removal of the construction i fencing. Once installed, the permanent fence shall be maintained over the life of the project. i C) Prior to any grading and construction that affects land adjacent to the 100 foot wide buffer zone,a frog exclusion fence shalt be installed near the top-of-bank along the entire length of Pinole Creek on the project site. The fence, constructed of 114-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 of four feet high, with the top six inches of the fence bent inward(towards the creek)to prevent frogs from jumping over the fence. This fence shall be maintained in good condition during the duration of all grading and construction-related activities. d Preconstruetion surve s or the California red-le ed o ,consisting o one da and ) Y J� gg .� g g f Y 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 U.S.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 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, the project may continue. j 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 100 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 necessary since frogs are not migrating during these periods. 11 Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak 15. 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 . Table 2 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 shall 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. 1 1 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 buyer 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,permanentfencing 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 he fenced and the General Notes shall speck no access or earthwork within the fenced area. Any trees proposed for removal shall be shown on the grading plans. 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 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 6.5 inches in diameter at breast height or greater, then replacement trees shall be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon tree and one I-gallon seedlingfor each 6 inches in diameter of the trees j removed(i.e.,an oak tree 30 inches in diameter 4%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 tree(s)removed.An automatic drip 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 1 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 riparian habitats, the landscaping plan prepared for the project shall consist entirely of tree and shrub species native to the Bear CreeklAlhambra Talley area. No non-native, ornamental trees or shrubs shall be planted. Nesting Raptors and Loggerhead Shrike 17. T_ Prior to construction in the southern valley, submit evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Nesting Raptor and Loggerhead Shrike relitigation measure in Table 3, presented herein. The submittal 12 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 3 NESTING RAPTOR AND LOGGER HEAD SHRIKE MITIGATION MEASURES 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.lune in the year that construction is planned. The surveys should encompass the area on the project site within approximately Y4 mile radius of the proposed improvements and follow accepted protocols. If the area to be 1 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' I 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". Seep 18. 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. Table 4 SEEP MITIGATION MEASURES a) Provide accurate coordinates for the seep adjacent to the Phase 4 area prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area. 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. 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. 13 Alameda Whipsnake 19. Prior to the commencement of each phase, submit a plan/methodology for compliance with the Alameda Whipsnake mitigation measure in Table 5, 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 WHIPSNAKE MITIGATION MEASURES According to LSA there is a low probability that whipsnakes would attempt to cross a portion of 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. a) Prior to any grading and construction activity, a qualified 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 speck the type,height and other details of design and installation. 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 speck the timing and procedures of any such surveys, I 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 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 14 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 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. 23. If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down 10 feet or if P3 is drawn down b 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. 24. 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 22, 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 25. 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 landscape plan for the perimeter of the maintenance yard. 15 Endowment Gare Fund 26. 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. Fire Protection District 27. 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 28. 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 WI`T'H THE FOLLOWING-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE PROPOSED UNDER THIS PERMIT. General Requirements 29. 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 30. 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'/2:1 slope from the south toe of the creek (with 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. 3L. 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 32. 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. 33. _ 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. 34. 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 vehicle to turn around and re-enter the through street in a forward direction. 17 Sight Distance 35. Provide sight distance at all driveway intersections with Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road for a through traffic design speed of 40 mph. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of.Access 36. 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. 37. 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 38. 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/U ndergrounding 39. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convev 40. 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. 41. Storm 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. 42. _ Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk and driveway in a concentrated manner. 18 Exceptions 43. Applicant shalt 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 44. 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 45. The applicant shall comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance(Ord. 4 96-21)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 shalt 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, • 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 19 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 Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE 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 Code. 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. 99-3 5)as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 20 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. 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 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. Dl\l/ss C\W1Nfl01VS\Temporary kite-met Files\Content.IE5\UTIIIZAHLP022068rpt-COAF+'indings-March04.wpd 3/18/4 THF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFOR81A -' Adopted this Order on August 4, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson b Mcpeak NOES: ?lone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: !lone SUBJECT: A Joint Resolution of the } RESOLUTION NO'. 871463 Cities of Martinez, Pleasant } 'Hill, Lafayette; Orinda, r�.... Richmond, San. Pablo, Pinole, } Hercules and Contra Costa } County establishing an ) agricultural preservation area} in the Briones 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 65560 of the Government Code; and ` HE1( p�edcm�n�nt 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 Best 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 Al 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 - 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 Solano/Contra Costa County line. _ _. Kerr RESOLUTION 97/463 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 this agricultural preservation agreement for this arta 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 becomt detached from•Lhe 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 BE 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#Mebp rtrttty that We is a true and correct ropy of to actfon taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe fors on the date shown. ATi rS?E0: {� d � � -dol_ P81L BATCHELOR,Clark of the!Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By r pe" C.7: Community Development County Counsel County Administrator LAFCO All Cities ,.. •'��- CROCKETT _ PROPOSED BRI PRESERVE ARE NORTH .-� SCALE:I" -8000' ;��o�y , � -` -,✓ MARTINEZ wi w *. --� HERCtILESy ` �•`-S ♦•� .mak:", , � It i � ""'#'. f.d>?x�'!7{ +t��� - ar�. �y t , � • i •1 jr � i ;.r,.te't�Mt Y";�,. � yr. rt r � t ■ It v PINryV L E CL OR I NDA �� ?�`�• '.�'. r�.fr;;. • k�,�w.M:�.,at .r' .�.r�;_. 4�.wyr � t w� _ � . L� + � �. w � •+uat° a w.... �+�. �l,It. t �f i tw'!tt•. i a a �• a s 'ww �Ir. i r„'M+`. r r` y r t• 1;a+rYe •��.any �� 3 �, A..`� + � d / mit ''t` .�. • «i '+a �. �� �` r �r! h. �f t t ��,��'svi.+ f s r wr i x�2F � i '7\.`tel•+1 r.:K t ��i 1 IQ • VSs. �f. #`` .+ _, 's }.« `. 'r`�' LAE W w C cn 7 , u d j Q C P Mb'A a � 6Sv baF v u � 8 °ro -•o.G as 3a, o v a v 3a w s 8 i IAN'go iii, AZI tR r _1 ti r; 6 w �W'tr^ ��C C�• •�•C� �D'i +7' O`4' C i7 � q� y",aCi � � ',.,r U c v w a o� .,''-,- �, � o.>e v M 4 u �a y �y.c,❑ C.,' Prov-- me a a ov °as ab �y, p:L ����^� b.G t+. v 4 $ y,C aro crow, v4cov �� vkCgo.cv y a `�C ti � "ei. w� 4y,a E3 'C �,�b tf� b u� hp '�» b w�.C C¢1•�7 v ca 4 U a.��. p'^.�`�,y�' G EFa . 'o -6 {t a � e x� ""...'�'.� uvb .Q �a ,� Q b� •aav `�� o ,� o_v Q,w�. °fi U }i uU 4 ' �5c � " ,n 'a4:s� t 104 q gV� C §t qok y� a N 66 lot N T O+•�O 1 wG a A , d 1 4 6 a a ;o—g d D y r vw g°� r 7 s -✓`, o w•r � m '3 U �G'N��.G tl1 J;:. •�v w�wCy' (� O r`b u a pa °� o O of�h �,GG� c7 N o A� waGi 'o �,'+?.y v W'A yca.p•N •p.r.a d G o W G.6 b a`-U i y'' d� o C,7 ai er R C�°"•.i wG p G ��G,;.t�� xi v •� N-AO d�° 4 V„ N'Fn' O"�"7 wG� eC'^3� `.,+ 4' N�.�, � d v.G.v Hit y °iy p G M++ 1-6 WAS 7,� Snuff a o G� 3 wcr U O O`Yt Y T ei A N J Sw'N^' N G 9tA n C+ t ��'ra�°� v�u ��� �.�ice� `�m�P$'o r'v �a,, � b�'�'•ya'•�" t, W ?p`� G �f'$p no';j ' o '-n N. fl. Q �`3' ,t ¢ ,o w Qoo•r- u a'a :,5y?" �° n at t~v-$i �' ., •n U m-o p �,� �a",� � iy -� � ca c �' � •a ��,tw`1S-,n J'� a , 'O$� Wall. A3 °wki'u o`��Cd'.�' �6`% �"����' N "' •aG *. c,7 �, •vy..., G y p•4'4 t� b "'7 4', o O ill O� y y s n rC u, C .d 0 4. 1 �w �•ami u a 1 nae a p x n c., tXl t�tl C ✓ W p�j,}#� u F tl3 �N A G O gj C A'�"" p�11 b u�O y y dt At sj��o^3rbuu..c��s'tav -law aA9 1 mg, �"3 �c.l'U.�b's�,�y, r�u�G•�(y3�u O. U �a •- v o� N c a` gilt b.dIS �� �vv d.�bda,7•w a >: � �Wm uE3 '= Caa'°�u.a � cdd o 3 a. si a n a wn - odd'. %F �3 6 i ? a� c n o . o n o ° ro .wvv b �''�' a ° a.x�i.b � ots�,�� ,�� b °� a•-• �7� u _ v u�b" �w. � A y'u�' G u a G) a•� *n �� �u. G q� 4) .,r a v °�.., c.c Rn v °L '� acv i° m aam Gaul oboo " c�eo r✓ s .� to", _ � >~`CaFn�a 4: �.��, V� +yJap�p-e��w �^�'r���� ri•`5~ �'-y �,%,��s'" > �,�:g °'y'Wilt" .vim�� "y �� •" "�'atl���. �.F3`ui ca � a � a A . uc 4 5'� �I � � cci .�'aroar•. � �.wuv kb, p,U his U 3 A A w a ro Pb b I .y ra � �4p,v WIN Y d u a a 1 a ra�r�jj tl Q 11 p .m , fl 401 c � A s ASN n> v r u , 0 0 � A o M u s r br, P b'� I•' u"':� 1 all! N U ',"y,,'.p°U u.CS ai W 9 t7 N Nn bP F U salvo •o,� �b �y'�(i q mob..7 � �..N�a is N�' �G� 'rN b=� > a!' S"'np Y Y,Up G �GG LJ' v�A 6i m ar tG U�"' O f U N U �� �� tit a�fit da U 1. Y�.�'v� ." r. list�"'�,°s G °�',A w �✓ u t'i o 4'n A g sa...n�`W •s��+, '� 'rte v' c° �l�i' � An v o9r✓` �' �� o'��N�„r3 ��,�n° G ��oF moans �. '6.�.�ot• Ti ,,, �m�6� 7+ '6S °q d �, v 'wC,•j 63 y K?v�A'� ', "� � a�r�°�6: a'"i yin 7 •'� D� t7�d1 C���G,N.v� ,^..{�„ � y,wet stilts ilg 5. � , v d� p r� 'tA r U U�y U � N G ✓ i } d 'gypp�a N �+x.i'fi3 0 a v A•'� U t v KlanSol Sona �' o � i� %o � sa�o � ° a•a b • cost at ,1 ca °� `�� .�✓c3 g �p U.�G � +il ""r.+'�tl '31 W N ¢CS�! � \ k� ni OR %� Q^ N N N N '�`L4 G '{j. r � N •7`a1"�,•p� ' m 'r i F t-a uC�i.;'� GGA t q a vet m•p .�S^ 0 'cd Ot 5o Yy '3� � ram v1 m`� ro Mgrs• �3c e§F•, G b U 'xH d rG w N '� °� xj C°' C+" N o�,}L•N�1 6 O ': Et CB�'O N S'. G\ •++',p� K�f .� � C ^J'3-i 9+ ✓Ot'O v e4i ° fi Apr UNIX a 6 o 1 l �y N d c7 m G vg b Y� 1 INS S O jo 'Wit v w Y J 1 Qom+ "o m t M��:. C'7 M p •d ° v U� w' G+ yy AS nD m S c ll 0— a�J 'p p a l� �G t loll o � o to 7 WIT Ob o.cS1131 e y G � a mom• � WSA 0 0 3� �n�°•�,3� `� ""� -15 d' 4 �'' yy C�' 'N N +'�' � q L R•� 1�' '� /" b § r s r w s C5 01 ----- ------- -.[.t.•'.^. O'7,• C�� cl'.i "ate+ e p ,C D � G v w O �V, N G ✓� U !t7 C• a .a ro acss � N� a d °z> oGts � E OR ern•..: �i� ,�, 63d� -� w �:°a �s � °' �.�� m5�p�� �' l cg b'n" x :sUA, � ;}o 234 UN,c�' '3y U :��c••��Nc ✓ N N N + .�•.�3 0.Y.-+ v �+6D y G v C u ew H S -.9 E n.'�',u d' ',u 9 rw �•o z�.a � ffi Ise 6 G a Cv w N Y 7w w U A•�•Ni N M� Cb y O f r �G aw'cia n' V CA m t �.G✓" .vr u•w C G dj O \ G Grallot, o GKs aN, eA V G X�Y �• O,�V O p p \ 'S.-C AsCs v b 7 � G w''�' O.d•� i � o'Gi yA n 00N �✓ 4"a C b �" p U cd'i7 c^i a v d d P vP. ZD -- v`6 T°ut d +a� L'w•-' 's^y'qa `�°bct�xn a- v 6Y N G y n )n N BJ 0 y3 U .A�,�� q'�4. ✓N rG,�.5 r v v�O 9 f11 v (A.1.'S3-f O.G N GN �w 4..� o G o N al °sostem 03ya , ° c' 3 •p'rgos� ` s wU A V -J all a a 0 r3 G ^w o y yp � �6A� Gpp ^�y'r 'G Caw �'Y o y} 'S " �'dy all tay .G i 'i. /L +'�•G.P p'.y, C�� �q 4 �, aarA �✓+W �~ � � 7"y W d Y Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY JANUARY 13, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION GA's; 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). 11. 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 or other material 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. S-2 IIT. DECEMBER. 16 2003 HEARING At the December 16th hearing, the County Planning Commission held the first public hearing on this project. At that hearing staff described the project and the applicant's representatives provided an overview of the project and provided testimony regarding the primary planning issues for the project. This was followed by public testimony. During the course of the testimony, the Planning Commission listened to the comments and issues of all persons that submitted speaker cards. Due to the time, the Commission voted to keep the public hearing open, and continue hearing to January 13, 2004. The individuals that submitted speaker cards at the December 16th hearing are listed below: Applicant Testimony Edward Shaffer (Archer • Morris), Attorney, representing Gan Shalom Shawn Munger(Engeo Inc.), Hydrogeologist, representing Gan Shalom Steve Abrams(Abrams Associates), Traffic Engineers, representing Gan Shalom Shalom Eliahu, Gan Shalom Representative Jack Chapman, Cyan Shalom Representative Public Testis mono Melody Howe Weintraub (Support) Nancy Fleischauer (Oppose) Jarred Goldin (Support) Dianne Pereira (Oppose) Robert Gmetz (Support) Ken Reiss (Oppose) Frank Nunes(Oppose) Cathy Christanser-Felder (Oppose) Carole Dwinell (Oppose) Sheila Guess (Oppose) Allan Moore (Oppose) Linda Sutton (Oppose) Lynn Sugayan(Oppose) Rose Brudigam (Oppose) Tim McDonough(Oppose) Matt Ennis (Oppose) Paul Brooks (Oppose) John Fauhy (Oppose) Terri Dubrasich (Oppose) Adam Nathanson (Oppose) Jeffra Cook (Oppose) Chris Bearden (Oppose) At the public hearing, letters and a petition were submitted by the public. Copies of these submittals are presented in Appendix I. Also included in this appendix is the first page of the petition, which was 274 pages in length and with four signatures (max.) per page for a total of more than 1,000 signatures. This petition opposes the approval of the cemetery, The points made by the petition may be summarized as follows: • A cemetery is not allowed as a matter of right; it requires approval of a land use permit. • The local road system is narrow,winding and lacking in sidewalks. The roads are currently used by children/pedestrians,horses,pets,trucks and other vehicles. The traffic associated S-3 with the cemetery will: a) destroy the rural, agricultural neighborhood; and b) create a hazard to users of the local road network. • The levels of public services, especially policing of the area is marginally adequate . • The area has a limited, fragile water supply. All properties in the area are dependent on wells for domestic water supply. The increased water usage required by the cemetery will place a new, great strain on the existing limited water supply. • The cemetery is said to be an intense commercial use that is not appropriate in this rural, agricultural area. The public testimony focused on the potential environmental effects of the project,with most of the commentors either requesting preparation of an environmental impact report, denial of the application or both. The principal issues presented by the opponents may be summarized as follows: • Potential for irrigation of turf in the cemetery to deplete the water resources in the project vicinity. • Potential of the cemetery use (including use of chemicals to maintain the turf) to degrade water quality in Pinole Creek. • Potential for the cemetery use to degrade or interfere with wildlife/wildlife habitat. • Deficiencies of the road network creates potential for accidents. The roads are marginally adequate for the existing uses, but not adequate for carrying cemetery traffic. • The cemetery will adversely affect property values in the area. • The project represents intrusions of an urban land use into the Briones Hills, and is not consistent with General Plan Policy 3-155. • Based on the preceding points the speakers conclude that the necessary findings to grant the land use permit cannot be made. IV. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was received during the week immediately preceding the hearing that was received too late to be included in the December 16th staff report. That correspondence,which is presented in Appendix II, includes letters received after the December 16th hearing. It includes letters from the following agencies and individuals. S-4 I. State of California, Governor's Office of Planing and Research 2. Letter from Ken and Louise Cunningham 3. Letter from. Chris and Carol Bearden 4. Letter from Angeline and Garry Riopelle 5. Letter from Stephen Vali and Bonnie Brown-Cali 6. Letter from .Paul Kuhn 7. Letter from Katie Maltsberger 8. Letter from Matt Ennis 9. Letter from Paul D. Brooks 10. Letter from John Maltsberger 11. Letter from I Ielty Dutra, Pres. of Cowgirl Inc. 12, Memorandum.from Edward H. Jenny 13, Letter from. Hetty Dutra 14. Letter from Nathaniel Bates 15. Letter from Tim McDonough 16. Letter from Roger C and Kay Steele V. STAFF EVALUATION A. Land Use. Some of the written comments and testimony assert that the application is a request to establish an urban land use in the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve area. In the case of the proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery,the operative policies and regulations are presented in the December 16th staff report (pages S-I through S-4). The key points are as follows: • The site is designated AL (Agricultural Land) by the General Plan and the site is zoned A-2 (General Agriculture). These designations provide that a cemetery is an allowable use with the issuance of a land use permit; but the issuance of the permit requires that"findings"for establishment of a cemetery be made. The"findings"for cemeteries are listed in Table 3 (see page S-5 of the December 16th staff report). Policy 3-155 of the Land Use Element. This policy states that the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area is designated for "Watershed" (WS), "Parks and Recreation"(PR)and"Agricultural Land"(AL),and that the plan anticipates that the area will remain in public and agricultural use during the planning period. • The neighboring property owners and their attorney infer that cemeteries are not an agricultural use that can be permitted in the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area.. However,the General Plan(on page 1-36),Section 4(F)(2)defines"non-urban uses" as rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law. S-5 The proposed cemetery is reasonably interpreted as a privately-funded and operated facility for a public purpose which is necessary for public health, safety and welfare. It should also be recognized that cemetery uses are restricted to approximately 30.4 acres of the 83-acre site. The Site Plan indicates that the channel of Pinole Creek will be retained as private open space . All cemetery uses will be setback 100 feet from the top-of-bank. Additionally, the hills on the site will be retained as private open space. The acreage of the open. space on-site totals approximately 5.2.6 acres. Thus over 60 percent of the site is to be retained as open space area on the site which will function as wildlife habitat areas and watershed land. B. Water Resources. To conserve water demand the conditions of approval recommended by staff call for an efficient irrigation system; drought-tolerant native tree and shrubs, and a landscape plan that is certified to be in compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance 82-86 (COA 48). Compliance with this COA will require selection of turf that has a relatively low water demand. A 24-hour pump test was performed on-site using the existing production well and several monitoring wells. The field procedures during the test were monitored by the County's peer review hydrologists,Geoconsultants,Inc. and the County Health Services Department was kept informed by Geoconsultants to ensure that the test met the expectations of the Department. Ultimately,the field data was analyzed by the applicant's hydrogeologists and peer reviewed by Geoconsultants, Inc. These reports, which are presented in the Initial Study as appendices, conclude that there is ample water for Phase 1 with a safety factor included. The Briones Hill Preserve Alliance retained S.S. Papadopulos &Associates to review the pump test data and all hydrology data generated by the applicant and County. The review questioned some of the parameters used in the analysis of the hydrology data, and' suggested that the validity of the test would have been improved by increasing the duration of the test and performing the test at the end of the dry summer season. The Papadopulos assessment also questions whether the well will yield sufficient water for Phase 1, and infers that it is possible for pumping to draw down the water level on the perimeter of the site. The Initial Study agrees with the Papadopulos assessment that there is a potential for a significant impact and has identified mitigation measures. The mitigation measures include provisions for an early warning system; provisions for shutting off irrigation water should that become necessary;and prior to commencement of each phase, Gan Shalom is required to demonstrate adequate water (or other procedures) to support expanded cemetery use. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended condition of approval (see COA's 18 through 22). S-6 It should also be recognized that the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and County agencies (Health Services Department and Clean Water Program staff) have not expressed concern about potential water quality effects of the cemetery. C. Traffic and Circulation. The comments/testimony received by the Planning Commission indicate that the road is narrow, winding and that users include children, horses, bicycles, as well as vehicles. There is concern that any increase in traffic volumes will create unsafe conditions. Among the specific items mentioned were: a) concerns about slow-moving funeral processions; and b) concerns about the possibility of traffic associated with water trucks, should groundwater prove to be inadequate to meet the irrigation needs of the cemetery. The nature of the project is such that it's traffic does not coincide with the AM and PM peak hours. Funeral processions are estimated to be 15 percent of the cemetery services (one or two processions per month, on average). The Public Works Department has included conditions of approval that pertain to improvements and documentation of adequate sight distance at the Bear Creek Road entrance to the project; and a requirement for improvements to Hampton Road, when maintenance is taken from that road by Gan Shalom(COA's 27 through 33). Additionally, recommended COA 91 precludes Saturday and night services. Cemetery services are not expected to conflict with Monday-Friday peak hour traffic. D. Biological Resources. The applicant submitted biologic resource reports prepared by LSA and those reports were peer reviewed by the County's biologist, Monk&Associates. The representatives of the California Department of Fish&Game were contacted to verify that the studies addressed all of the issues and concerns of CDFG. The biologic studies identified potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less- than-significant. Those mitigation measures have been translated into conditions of approval (COA's 12 through 17). E. Utilities and Public Services. The project, as proposed, does not require a public water system or other infrastructure. The testimony and some comment letters express concern about the level of protection provided by the Sheriff's patrols, and the potential for unauthorized persons to trespass on the cemetery grounds at night, creating problems for Gan Shalom and neighboring property owners. Although there is no evidence that the cemetery will create law enforcement problems, but COA 41 requires security precautions to protect the cemetery from.vandalism. In response to the testimony, staff contacted the Sheriff s Office for their assessment of this project as it relates to special law enforcement problems posed by the proposed cemetery. The office of the Sheriff issued a letter, which is presented in Appendix III. That letter states the following: S-7 "He current crime analysis data does not show a significant instance of criminal activity in the area, a cemetery, religiously Lased or not, has the potential to attract illegal activity to it. As a religiously based cemetery, this project has the added potential of attracting hate-based individuals or groups. Perhaps what might be termed the primary recommendations are that a) a dedicated security officer be on the premises and patrol the property at night, b) to control unauthorized access, a 6-foot high chainlink fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top (total height 7 feet) is recommended to run the perimeter of the property, c) the entrance gate should remain locked at night; d) lighting is recommended to make clearly visible the presence of any trespassers, and e) landscaping should strive to maximize visibility (from the perimeter roads) while not compromising aesthetics. Additional recommendations are provided that address building systems (e.g., exterior doors, windows, landscape planting adjacent to buildings, signage and other project details). Gan Shalom has reviewed the recommendations of the Sheriffs Office and indicates that they intend to implement nearly all of the general Security Recommendations (pages 2 through 4 of the Sheriffs letter). The notable exceptions are those recommendations that either conflict with the goals and objectives of the project or are inconsistent with the punning objectives of the project. The landscape plan has as its primary objective, to soften views of the site from Bear Creek Road, a designated scenic route, and blend with the vegetation along the creek corridor. Night lighting, as proposed, will be limited to fixtures adjacent to doors (of chapel and maintenance building) and illumination of the address at the entrance is anticipated. The fencing is to consist of 7-foot high decorative fencing along Bear Creek Road. As shown in Figure 9 of the December 16th staff report, this fence consists of tubular steel with arrowhead verticals, a 6-foot high wire fence is proposed along other boundaries. With regard to security, Gan Shalom is prepared to match its security to the actual needs of the cemetery. This issue is addressed by COA9 1. It should also be recognized that COA 94 prescribes annual CUA compliance reviews for the first five years and at five-year intervals thereafter. The Zoning Administrator, if conditions warrant, require provision for on-site night security. VI, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Applications for land use permits,minor subdivisions,major subdivisions and some development plan projects normally include an indemnification condition of approval. Due to an oversight, this condition was omitted from the COA's presented in the December 16th staff report. Staff recommends that the following condition of approval be added: S-8 Indemnification xx. The applicant(or any agent thereof) shall defend,indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employers from any claim, action or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this land use permit application. The County will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Appendix I Materials submitted b y Speakers at the Dec. 16"Z, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing .✓ YV Th iN a 01W Plq e oft 274 pqe petition a..N S 1AL0,1 i, Inc. has made application to Contra Costa County (County .File ,LP022068) for a LAN-1) USE PERNUTto place a C'E tETERY,to be known as the &kN SHALOM C E I'E T ERY, r ear the corner of Bear C°reals Road and Hampton Read, A PN 365-010-00-5. We, the undersigned, are neighbors or othenvise live .in the vicinity of the proposed CEMETERY. 'We, the undersigned, STR L ' OBJECT to the County's issuance of LAND USE PERMIT for the proposedEiNYIETIrR ". Ourobjections include the following: fl) The Cl i YIETERY is no, allowed at a matter r oaf right t to our amara:[. M�ri�:rrlt�tral ars-� T�ac� :"EIE`I"ERS"'. i;��r �r.ly bm appr��-ed a;�,a c�wnst.�+.��,:ted if the County grants a special use permit, or LAND USE PEP NTIT. 1` Our rural,agricultural area has narrow,winding roads,without sidewalks, utilised byour children and other pedestrians, our horses, pets, trucks and other vehicles. The increased, interne traffic vVhich would be created by a d C.E tETERY will destroy the rural, agricultural neighborhood,and place our children, pedestrians, horses and ether local users of our roads in danger. (3)Our aural, agricultural.area has a lirtrated, fragile mater supply. e do not utilize any water utirlities; but tither depend r i e can inc i ideal Water ells for all of our domestic water supp %. The existing water source and pr oduct on is the stile"lifeline"for our homes, 'rhe increased water usage required by the CEMETERY will. place a new, great strain on the existing limited water supply, (4) Cour rural, agricultural area is supply not suitab'e for intense development and intense commercial use as proposed for the CEMETERY. Name: Address j _ mate Name Address '3, ,r r` Date Na :e :address mate- Name Address Briones H1 Preservation Agreement t Now Be Jf 56ere f ore Resolved oil April 17 I988, 6y tfie Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and tlie City Councils of Hercules, Lafayette; MartineA, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Ric6inond and San Pablo 6 re6y agree to a policy o} not arinExing agricultural and ope'tt space lams to ur6.111 ( service districts and c'itie's, tflerebit precluding ur6ati Jove'lopment. 1 i f 'i l s • ..onto LAdta l`d,8ttti NJat'.{ J i rtg,,#tftr�IltPe �tett a(P,noit Cott,,I CAkilr,ft ! �rj" "✓9'7^.tel jj���,'.f. / y ..y ...�,,i �x�c�--.ra..�,. - Olit of Abrimex tit..f RwfIM,v,,t O r n,ta 'I N i i • f `lir r;,etre t .t(.nLr,rx } rin„�r Monett 111111 rt<.t.a„t tl,il den 1'a61n Agricreitarat r: Pmervation At” t t7r i n,�x Jt SCALE : 007 W d rshe !!' r `� + 4 " - j•t . —Soo r , .p. L • .r a g 4Z + r•. r. ��'fit,wwr�r. *�,;M •u*' .,«S;,*i �" � �,c:s ���s r � � �r $< WIN ....f .- M r ar c n, zi<'rrrl �4• :x--:��:.r}rr t�t:�6aar��tut�.�sts=ttr,�rtEr aF. ,rrg+`�S..a{,t,ei�aia a�f a7 t���dlalst•r:b`€t¢�+���Tr+b? ,�€,�` of dmij icry f3t�a�t $r nl„m 4 r,fire efin4mu g i7s€t�aftaa�•rsr#arzY�a�ti•�sr.t'��.„cram 7E�,¢x:�.rr'rd�wss rra.�� �'}�' tr+t#z 1xy a #tr>r2 rarer sti„rer'mt vuJIw A F m"t {rrr�'r�*+ �„rud ra�x 1� •Ysi�i�+�a't��bi'tit�ar��.r+� � �`"� $ Y4 k Y 6 F yea ys, tarrrta rf#dric,crty 2884 21 i LlrutSual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties 4,11!`,0 � �!t 2001 C�j¢2.5 ry Lt-Lo lt �k `ti)t?t:tPSf'3i_���Ef tt _rSiCt' H. ) aO lrlitrew Al Alnus rubra Bbk; StwbyCyn Rip ,also plaited at JgnMlr & Tlc;n (A, rhombifolia is more BoN: )gnMlr, (OkindAr-1902) comroon) 13 AlopeCUrus 53ccatiis See Appendix B V11131 More than 9 sites but: Limited/17hreatened Habitat Small POPUlations a "m;irmithus blitoides See Appendix B Misc A2 Arn IM111thtf5 californicu5 Sbr: BribnR,,vr, SnPblRsvr Wtid Dbk: BlkDmdP, ClytnRnch (Dbo): (Dba-1935) Hsn: ONO Al Amarimthu, paimeri 7 Misc Reported here but site unknown Al Asnaranthus powellii Dbk: BlkDmdP Misc A2 Awbrusia rharnis zonis FSC: (AlaSli-1898), SnLndroBy CStd; Snd LJrnitedM)reatened Habitat FsN: Albny5h, (BkySh-1894), Einyvi, Includes former A. bipinnatisecta RchmndSh, RdeoSh Mit: Brkl; PtOrnt, PtRchmdAr A!. Arlimannia coccinea (BoN). (QklndAr-1934) Rip; Wtdd Lirnited/Tireatened Habitat Dbo: Dbo (Van): (Arntchl)-?date) Alx Arrismckla dooglasia,na (Ach): (CrlHlwAr-1938) DSIp; Rck PreSumed E)MRPATFD (E3oN): (RdwdP-1932) (66): (GhbtP-1934) (Van.): (Antcl-Ar-1938) A2 Annsinckia eastwoodiae Alt: AltPs, MtriHs Grs; Mist Declining Avq: LsVgrs 8br: BrionRsvr (Lva): (LvrmrAr-1937) Vby: ByrnAr 'AI AMSINCKIA GRANDIFLO A Ach: CrlHlwAr,CrlHlwL300 Grs; 5nd; Misc Small Geographical Range (Avq): (LsVgrs-Planted) Only 2 current natural populations i (Dbk): (SikDmdP-Planted) here, but some planted ones Hcrri: CdrMtn (Lva): (ShdwClf-Planted) (Van), (Antchk-1883), (AntchD•1887);(Anrchl'1887) ... ._ _._..,.__..,......-._.._..._ i *A2 Ai,ISINCKIR LUNARIS Alt: ARPs Grs; Wd1d, Misc More than 5 regions tint: ( ___._._ _......._----__...... __..... Hbk: (Skyl-11-1900),V1mrPkERare,Threatened or Endangered i 1 Sbr: 13rionP, BrionRsvr Nmptn, statewide SbntRdgS, anPhlRsvr i 131f: (LfytAr-1934), LfytRsvr Sit: (LsTrmpsAr), LsTrmpsP, RckyRdgE f ► amc: FickrRdq 1 # Bod: GtwyE, SnPblRdgE f (BoN): (Rdwd(7-1932) 1 .yytl !{,fit . 9 CN ,+^� CNP' INVENTORY ©r' FARE AND E.NOANGLREt1 PLANTS i f1V VV0 Arnsinckia lunaris tti acbr. Highly localized and oftcrs overlooked; Cisrnonta ne woodlind,lowermcnttne Marty oCCurrcncrs excirpaced. DOPS plant coniferous foret•t/ mesh.,elevation "I,:•n!:-t�,7Nerc,1 ftcidlcn ck"� f,:oragin3ceae occur in'Tehsrna County?Wry rare in 1100-2000 rneters. E.ist IB/ RCD 2-2-3 Southern C ilifornia. Endangercd in Care- perennial herb,blooms Ju1Ie-1r:ly. Ali ,teda,rConcra C'odta,Colina,Lake, ion.Set Manua]crihivDotcnyofthe Rrpn Mari,,,Napa,S;cnri Crux,Sh tsta?,Sisld- afSurj Francisco lyay,p.238(1894)by£. See Modreno 2,1(2):78-83(1977)for yLr,?, ,10 M-Lt:O,S0110MI Crar,nr,for original descriprion, and original descrifr;on, 45ilC,401,'[>,X1456,4.166,4480,4-11-5 D, itmerirar M;�twnd Nacarn/is132:132-163 �G.:B,4G4r� 65[7,-18aC,485A,4~513, (1944)For taxonomic treawivnr.. Angelica kingii (WIX.S.)CoLllr. °c t)l Ei,5?Gt3,5330,5330:.5348,547B, Rost: 51,7C, 545A, Si2Es,5490,S6;r3 Androsace fil'rformis Retz. "King;sangelica" tpiaacrar C:crasral bluffse-rul>,ci•.ntoncare wood- slender-rearm}Zee!androsace" Primulaceae Use 4/ RED 1.2-'1 land,valley and foothill grassland; Litt 2/ RED 3-1-1 inyo,Mono;Idaho,Nevada,lk`h Oevaiian 3-SOt3 rnercrs. I,,tttt.J{,cats,bioci! rs March-jund. Siskiyou;Idaho,Oregon,Wishingcon, Great Basin scrub,meadows r,nd serfs, Wyoming,andelsewhery pinyon and jun;per woodland;mesio; trl.tetycollitctin.^s 01,1;eurrer,rsearuy 732C, 7330 elcvarion 1930 3080 Meer-rs. it't�'ryr station nurde. i. Dues p!anr occur in St ni;-'d 5;ski,ou Threw- Meadows and seeps,upper montane Pcrcnni;ri herb,blooms June-Au7,ust. enud by d""V'610prrter t. conifcrous forest:;clavation I SCO-1630 Known in California only from the Whice Meters. Mins.Thre:arened by grazing and ern,iort, .. .insi.. Annual herb,bfoom3June-Occoben See Borrnyofthe KingEploroAcn p. 176 Atrrsincicia s ectabilis'v r': (11 871)for originxl dercr;pcion,and Cate nI,tcr 0C.Lrpa vibutirns from rhe U.S.Na:ianvl Hsrbariurn Androsace occidentalis lt'ursh. var, Consir#cra:cJ latae rt`jeCr.^d:tot?common 7:156(1900)for revisrd noMt:!1Clatdr?. simplex(Rydb.)St.John Amsindda vernicosa H. &A var. "sirnp!e androsace" � Primuliceae Anrelic:a lucida L. furcaui 'S.j .) Hoov.ksdUst 2/ RED 3-1-1 _ t ^ „ -. Placer;Arizona,New Mexico,Texas, sal-waecl! Apat.:c.se "Soy !l rd f'dJlr,ar ck" (Ioriginaceae Ust 4/RED 1-2-1 Utah,and cisewharc 4/ RED 1.2-3 5560 Del Norio,Humboldt, Mendocino;C7rc- i rc:s•ao,Kiiq;Ii,Kern,San ihrliro;.San Luis Son,Washington,rand elsewhere Lepper montane coniferous forest;(usua.l- (� Caasr.;tl hfuff;cruls,co,seal dunes, Ci ly mcsic);tlevation 1675--1700 rret.er, coastal scrub, rnar^.hes and swamps ::mr.nrZr3r t><-:Jc:dl-nd,vr.11ey andp for'd-611 y;±as,.iarltl;elcwuicin 50-1000 Annual herb,blooms Augu_•t-Sr.pceinber. (eoaital salt); elevation 0-'SO meters. rn,crer9., Known,in C`lifomia only from Emigrant. Pr-.rennial Kora, blooms h;ay-5ehre;nb r. e"IIItlirl F`,tfb,bitionis February-Mny. C+Sn.5ce Bulletin ofthc Torrey Botanical Oub ,More com,r:un th;.n previously thought. 40(13):462(1413)for original descripcion. Anisocarpus scabridu5 (Fasrw.) f't,rvar:n^d byanini:?g..n;#,grltin,v.,.Sce B.C- Baldwin (1 -� rd', c sior 4-1:529-536 5295- 6 Androstephium br-e viflorum Waits. � .i)fur oft x± "scabrid alpine tarpiant" AstL!raccae t;mafi-flowered andrtartap:hium Liliaceae Ust 18/ RED 2-1-3 Usrr 2/RED 3-1-1 Colusa, Glenn,Lake,Mendocino,Shale., rlrnsincltia vernicas'a Var. Vernicosa inyo, lkiversicle,San Bernardino;Arizona, Teharrra,Triniry t'gtr,id,2red but rrjrcuad: Loo..Co±mtrort Na�ada,Utah,and ukewhere 565A,581 C, 5821), 597D,5970, 598A, 990,158C,20413,2040,', 20417,2288, 6130,6130, 63417,68013;680D Androsacei elongata L. ssp. acuter 22`•30),251A Upper montane coniferous fortnm(rncta- (Greuric) Robbins N4rrjawan dcserrscrull(bajadas); morphic,rocky);clevation 1650-2300 elevacion 220-1600 menti, rrtr..rer's. "C:r;if��rni:a art?rosacc" i rrlrtutaceae 11,t 4/RED 1-2-2 Perennial herb(bAlferous),blooms f'ereltnial herb,blr,omsJuly•Auhu;r. h arch-Afirii. Al:,;z7rri,t, ,port±rl Costa,r,:alus.i.,F'n:;rrra, 1 Need quacks fort Clenn County.A syn- Kc°rc,,Loi/tit.,' Merced,Sart Dcrnar- Need mesas for Inyo County,See MedroAo onym of RoiRort?ivjrsis scabrid4 in T'hej:psorr d}; o,San iro,S.a rlenrtt:a Clara,Sart Dle.s,ci, 31(3):192(1984)for di.tribur:;onai it:ror- MAntard.Seu f3uilerinofthr:7'orrey6ordniral Si:.4,i}r7u,San joaquin,San Lui=f: bkpo, matdort. Club 32:216(1905)fur original de.scrip- i B aj,a C iifonain,Oregon* tion,and Novem 9462-171 (1953)for k hapayr„1,risrnontdne woodt:irrd, Angelica arguta reveler!nomenclature. rr7.r.,t1 scrub,valley and foothilf vrass- Considered bur reeked.coo ccrnmon 305.-12017 rn-cers• Anornobryum filiforrne (Dicks) ',naval!curt,,i7iqunts Marcft;sale, Angelica calhi Math. &Consr. solms. "Call's angelica" Apiaceae Bryacrce List 4/ RED 1-1-3 List 2/ RED 3-2-1 Fresno, Kern,Tulare Hurnboldr,Mariposa?,Sana Cruz; C7rc- gon,and elsewhere 4073!3,�55C3?, 6S5f0 'y' �b;�.�1,J?.,.� t"J f``�i's`.�d<�_� �i ���.��` -� � 3�•�t�.�"G� c`rv't�� •r"` �1 C"�c"�+� i' .y'�t t� `--.� '� �,..� t.,.� Ararr?tuyninftx-e4 slate (Santa Clara thorn-mint) Hab: Chaparral (serpentine) Calaveras Dam - Vouchered by A. Holdenried 1940; ALA: 427A C€dar Mountain - Observed by R. Aaiche 1968: ALA: 445D Near Cedar Mountain - Vauchered by R. Ralche 1988, ALA; 4450 Ohlone Regional Wilderness - Observed by S. Edwards 1989; ALA; 4450, 4450 S unit# Rogiorktl Wilderness - Vouchered by B. Enter 1997-, ALA; 4460 i Rol Mountain - Documented by CNPS 1989; STN: 42SB i Afthr n shartrsittaee (SharsmitlVe onion) Nab: Woodland (serpentine) Chir Mountain, Rancho Repose - Documented by J. Greenhouse 1993; ALA, 445D I t , Amsinckia grandh9om (large-flowered tiddleneck) Nab: Grassland (alkaline and/or clay) Antioch - Vouchered by Kehogg 1883: CCA: 464A Mack Dornond Mines Regional Preserve - Natural papulation presumed extinct, retntroduce d by S. Pavilk 1989; CCA, 464A Corr-al Hollow - Vouchered by L Heckard & R. Ornduff #1470 1966; SJQ; 445A Crural Hollow- Observed by L- Ellis 1992; ALA; 445A Judsonville (Black Diamond),. Vouchered by T. Brandeges 1887, extigZted: CCA; 464A Lawrence L.lvermore, Site 300 - Documented by S. Paviik 1992; ALA f SJQ-, 445A Los Vaqueros Area - Introduced by S. Pavlik In 1990-, CCA; 4640 Cedar Mountain (Mines Road Area) - Vou6bered by Freemen #54 UCSF 1974; ALA; 4.45A Connally Ranch, near Corral Holl" Road - Documented by A. Howald and B. Pavflk 1991: SJO: 445A Shadow Cliffs regional Park• Introduced by W. Knight 1974, possibly extirpated; ALA: 446A Stawartsville. (Blank Diamond) - Anecdotal; CCA; 464A _.. West Hartley Ane�riotalr CCA;.,g6gA.........._ ... ...... .,._.... ._ _ .. . . .............., ., .__.,..... ... ....... .... Arms hickia lur vis (bent-lowered tiddleneck) Hab; Grassland, Woodland I Bald Park Bald Peak = Vollmer Peak) -Vouchered by R. F. Hoover #975 1936; GCA; 46-SS Vollmer Peak - Observed by B. Enter 199?; CCA: 4456B Briones Reservoir - Observed by R. brrdutf 1991: CCA; 4658 East of Ctrloda - Vouchered by F. Chlsaki and P. Kambray #2275 1952; CCA; 465B #-#a�rrlptc�B..IcI ((E£ tl �_ b1Y J.Duarte 199 . CA,;_ 8 Hills Naar Berkeley -Vouchered by J.P.Tracy #678 1900;.ALA; 465E Las Trampas Rogional Wilderness - Vouchered by W.L. Jepson #21083 1899; CCA; 465D Near Lafayette - Vouchered by J. P. Tracy #13196 1934: CCA; 4668 North of Brlones Reservoir - Vouchered by A. E. Fuck #639 1986: CCA; 4658 Redwood Ridge - Vouchered by L. Constance #404 1932; ALA; 46.50 San Pablo Reservoir (EBMUD lards) - Vouchered by R. F, Hoover #4058 1939; CCA; 4658 Sar: Pablo Ridge (EBMU0 lands) - Anecdotal 1993: CGA; 4658 ii - 1 BIRD LIST - Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve Red Tailed Hawk Stellers Jay Great Horned Owl Plain Titmouse Barn Owl Starling Red-shouldered Hawk Chestnut Backed Chickadee American Kestrel Anna's Hummingbird Northern Harrier Black-chinned Hummingbird Turkey Vulture Black-headed Grosbeak White Tailed Kite American Robin Mallard Duck Pintail Duck Green-winged Teal Woad muck ? Canada Goose White Pelican Brown Pelican Western Gull Swans/Egrets ? Golden Eagle (1972) Great Blue Heron Western Bluebird Barn Swallow Violet Green Swallow Sparrows Golden Crown Sang Sparrow (?cricket) White Crowned Fox Ouse Lazuli Bunting Dark Eyed Junco Blank Phoebe Red-winged Blackbird Crow Raven Northern Flicker Woodpecker Ash Throated Flycatcher Western Tanager Meadowlark American Goldfinch Lesser Goldfinch Lawrence's Goldfinch Purple Finch House Finch Black-chinned Hummingbird Anna's Hummingbird Plain Titmouse Pigeon Bewicks Wren ?(Blazer nest) Peregrine Falcon Yellow lumped warbler Spotted Towhee Clapper Rail or Common Snipe Calif. Thrasher Western Scrub Jay With regard to county code chapter 88- 2. 404 it is Ty concernfor the health and we Hare of" of the community .as a -whole Myname is , Frank ENuncs 1015 G3 Mia Ranch Rd Nfiati=e CA 94553 . ."a a life time resident 0f 71 years in this valley makes my number one concern the depletion of our water in this valley.. Water is our lifeblood! Old wells that were 60 to 100 feet in depth are drying up Wells that were dug 15 years ago producing 1.0 gallons per minute at 150 to 250 feet are now marginal and must be supplemented in hot weather and in late fall . Newer wells are being dug to a depth of 350 and 450 feet, on 450 foot well has brackish water , if wells continue to get duper salt water will intrude then what do we do, where do we get our water then. Also in this report there is a statement that this field ( where the proposed cemetery is to be located) was in 1953 an irrigated tomato field , show me the facts, show me that well. Because in 1953 Antone Martin owned that field and Antone Martin along with my father and 12 or more other farmers in that valley all dry farmed tomatoes ,now I'm talking about 750 to 1000 acres of tomatoes and no field was ever irrigated from a well. This report also states that to irrigate one acre it would take 5,431 to 6,789 gallons of water per acre per day. And if you times that by 30 acres it would take 203,670 gallons per day tunes a 100 day growing season,1t would take 20 million 367 thousand gallons to irrigate this field that would take a well that produces 4 .7 gpm to pump 24 hours a day for 100 days and the is no well in that valley that has done that. I don't find in this report a graft or chart about the aquifer refill or small pool recharge. I don't see an annual rain fall chart or graft What I do see is an assumption of what might or might not happen if to much water is pumped to irrigate the first one acre .I do find a mitigation that says lets take a look at the situation a year from now and see if another well is needed to continue with the second one acre. Does this mean there will 30 wells when this project is finalized There is a question here of water availability ,even Oeoconsultant in their report on page 12 has a disclaimer stating and I read --- And to finalize one thing I am sure of is this log of the annual rain fall of this valley taken by me since 1965 . On that note I ask the board to deny this application. Thank.you Chris and Carol Bearden Poplar Place Stables and Eventing 1145 Bear Creek Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 December 15, 20343 Members of the Planning Commission CCC Community [development 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Gan Shalom Cemetery—CCD Pile#LP022068 Respected Planning Commission Members: My name is Chris Bearden. My wife Carol and I have owned the property at 1145 Bear Creek Rd for 8 years, where we live and operate a horse boarding and training stable, Poplar Place Stables. I am speaking to you this evening regarding our concerns of the proposed cemetery. Of the marry concerns to be brought to your attention by others, I would like to address the concern of water, both quantity and quality. As you are aware, this area is zoned A-2, General Agriculture. County Code 88-2.404(b) states a permit shall be denied if it is found that the cemetery jeopardizes or adversely affects the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. The report of water availability in the CEQA report indicates tests for quantity were performed in the spring when the aquifers are full, rather than at the time of year(September or October)when they are drawn dawn. Realize, our property abuts that of the proposed cemetery, and we are fully cognizant of the draw down problem. When purchasing our property eight years ago, we were not afforded the luxury of waiting until the fall to test the wells on the property, and were only able to test the wells in the spring. The spring test results showed 22 gallons per minute available.After we purchased the property, we were forced to drill and develop a new well the next fall, as the 22 gallons per minute in the spring evaporated to 1.2 gallons per minute in the fall. As well, the CEQA indicates in the past the growing of tomatoes and alfalfa in the valley, pointing towards a history of great water quantity. Our understanding is the tomatoes were seen in an old photo, and it was believed they were irrigated by well water. In fact, the small plot was irrigated by water pumped from behind a dam in Pinole Creek,which was removed when Fish and Game became aware of its existence. The alfalfa growing claim is a huge blunder, as water has never been available in that quantity, nor of the quality to irrigate such a huge water dependent crop.Water quality in this valley is poor at best, of the small amount wells in this area produce. We purchased a water truck in order to purchase and transport water for dust control of our riding arenas. The amount we bring in is negligible compared to the amount necessary for the cemetery to irrigate the lawns proposed. Please assure us that if the proposed cemetery is allowed to develop, when our wells decrease production, some mediation will be in place so that we are not paying for purchasing and transporting water while the cemetery depletes the aquifer irrigating their lawns. In addition to existing poor water quality,what measures will be in place to assure that bodily fluids from corpses that are not embalmed will not leak from caskets, thus contaminating the aquifer? All of these issues indicate the cemetery will jeopardize, or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare, and thus the County must not adopt the propose Mitigated Negative Declaration. As Planning Commission members, you are tasked with the responsibility of providing for the health and welfare of the county residents. The current CEQA is inadequate, and to be conservative, naive and flawed. We ask that the Planning Commission deny the permit. If not,we ask that the Planning Commission, at the very least, not adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative declaration for Gan Shalom Cemetery, and require a full EIR. Consider the importance of valuing the needs of the living more over the needs of the already deceased. Sincerely, Chris and Carol Bearden _.. ... .. . .. . _... ......... .. Cattle pen, Bear Creek ltd, 0.4 from site hrsPIKMAI i T n� 4 � ` r x s � _._.. _. ......... ......_.. ....... .. _.. . _. ...................... ........ ......... ...... . _ ....... ....... .... __. 79 } by N. bra.flyV f ,Ir pY �y h u c� i x s PL PLA E s r, ALES AEVEKnNa !925;372,4629 r k £ .. ,..'��':., ... .s 9�. ., . .a ."+^ "=as,-,. .,,ms £ �' S �uti`'"'�i."�. xk,. ., :., ., s.n� .r��., �.:�a �✓ffi:r., ,'Afi�� Vineyard and olive orchard, 0.55! from site Ir 0 G- i � z 4 $ za T F mix ':<.�,� a•� " a l� P"r ..r It t f Bear Oaks Lane, 0.8mi to site i ' 1 �r W { Y � ryl a �, . b fi "M �. r a d x> k4y� Efi h $�gyp, ro s � roq vp IS Rg � fi `4 } � f. x k " a- GAN SHALOM CEMETERY w July 22,2002 OFFICERS—, Mr. Dennis Berry Community Development Director Prank Winer Centra Cush County President +621 Pine Street Susan Lefelstein Martinez,CA 94553 VicePresident Ref APN 365-010-0.08-8 Mimi Zinn Secretary Subj. Proposed cemetery at Bear Creek and Hampton Roads JcTeasu�-ar Qrabkin Dear Mr. Berry; �r DRECTORS. The enclosed tetters from various rabbis in the area indicate the c4itical need for a Jewish cemetery in the area. These letters represent eight congregations Jack Chapman which include over 2700 member families. We estimate that the total Jewish { community in the area includes well over 7000 families. This includes 16 Norman Burg congregations encompassing 5300 families, as well as those Jews who.are Shalom rri Eiiahu not formerly affiliated with a congregation,but will still require a Jewish burial. This project is needed. Jared Goldin j Thanks for your consideration. Paul Hed Margot Jab Efi Lubliner Fri M. Winer President,Can Shalom Corporation David Nisslrn Mort Schwartz S. Bruce Pincus Attachments; g letters ;awrence Wanetick Marvin Zinn Glenn Zwanc t PO, Bax 167 K Lafayette, CA 94549 3 t Temple Beth Shm 642 DoUes Avenue San Leandro, CA 94577 (5 1 0) 357-8505 Fax: (5 1 0) 357-1375 June 11, 2002 Mr. Dennis Berry Community Development Director, Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 34553 Dear Mr. Berry: I am the Rabbi of Temple Beth Sholorn, located in San Leandro, California. This letter is being written in support of the pending application by Can Shalom, Inc., for a land use permit allowing for the development of a Jewish cemetery on the approximately 83.acres of land owned by Can Shalom fronting on Bear Creek-Road and Hampton Road in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The Jewish community of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is in dire need of a Jewish cemetery. Currently, the only cemetery in Contra Costa County, as well as those portions of Alameda County east of the Oakland Hills, able to accommodate burials conforming to Jewish ritual requirements is Oakmont Cemetery, located in Lafayette. Oakmont Cemetery contains certain limited areas for Jewish burials, although the facilities do not meet the strict requirements for Orthodox Jewish burials and, accordingly, are not available to Orthodox Jews. Based on analysis of projected Jewish demographics and needs in Centra Costa County, best estimates are that the plats available to be purchased for Jewish burial at Oakmont Cemetery will be completely exhausted within the z • Paye 2 June 11, 2002 next 3 to 5 years. At such bine--unless a new Jewish cemetery has by then been developed and is ready for operation within Contra Costa County--Contra Costa County's Jewish population will have no alternative but to utilize a cemetery in Oakland, Colma or Ban Jose in order to provide their laved ones with a proper Jewish burial. Gan Shalom, a nonprofit corporation forTned approximately seven years ago by representatives of eve East Bay synagogues (although, in actuality, the formalization of efforts to build a Jewish cemetery in Contra Costa County that go bads some thirty years) is Convinced—as am 1--- that this property is the optimum property at the optimum location upon which to build the Jewish cemetery that Contra Costa County so desperately needs. It has some forty acres of relatively flat land upon which to develop the cemetery in a way that will be scarcely visible from surrounding properfies and public roads, and has ready mess from all paints in the County. Further, the proposed use will not be in conflict with any of the sparse activities carried out on its surrounding properties. In fart, two adjacent property owners have already committed to Gan Shalom that they will not oppose the subject land use permit application. I strongly urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon Gan Shalom's permit application for the development and operation of a Jewish cemetery on the property. Such approval will facilitate both the obligation sof your department to ensure that Centra Costa County has adequate burial facilities to fulfill the needs of its residents, and the obligation of the County's Jewish residents to provide their loved ones with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Jew=ish burial. Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter of great concern to the Jewish community of Contra Costa County. if these is any other way in which 1 may be of assistance in facilitating the approval of Can Shalom's land use permit application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Rabbi Harry A. Manhoff, P Rabbi Mark S. Blown x �Y r .tune 11,20032 Mr.Dennis Berry Community Development Director Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Niarlinez,CA 94553 Dear Nlr, Bevy, I ain the Rabbi of Congregation Beth.Abraham in Oakland. I would tike to afftrrn my support for Can S lom's permit allowing for the development of a Jewish cemetery on the lana they already own on Bear Creek and Hampton on unincorporated Contra Costa County. The Jewish community of the entire East Bay is in dire need of a Jewish cemetery, We are rapidly running out of space for our loved ones and,currently,the only Jewish cemetery in Contra Costa County.Oakmont Cemetery in Lafayette,dens not meet the strict requirements for Orthodox Jewish burials. Gana Shalaraa,,a nonprofit corporation formed about seven years ages by representatives cal'five least Baysynagogues, is convinced,as am 1,that this property is the optimum lotion to build the Jewish Cemetery we so desperately meed. It has forty crud acres of relatively flat land and has ready access front all points in the County. Further,the proposed use will not be in conflict with any of tlac sparse activities carried out on its surrounding propertie& It is my understanding that two a4jacent property owners have already committed to Gari Shalom(hat they will not oppose the subject land use:permit application. I sincerely hope the Department of Community Development will act favorably upon Gan ShalomYs permit application for tare development and operation of a Jewish cemetery ion the property. ;Such approval will facilitate both the obligation of your depwtment to erasure that Contra Costa County has adequate burial facilities to Writ the needs of its residents,and the caligation of the County's Jewish residents to provide their loved canes with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Jewish burial. 'Mark you for taking the time to consider this matter of grew,concern to the Jewish community of Contra Costa County and the entire Last Bay. If there is any other-way in which.I may be of assistance in facilitating tlac approval of Gan Shalom's land use permit application.,phase do not hesitate to contact nae. Sra�ly=, e � T sr "Lv+ Rabbi Mark S. Bloorn Temple. Beth Abraham -336 Euclid Avenue - Oikland, (-A 94,610 51,0-,02-0-930 * Fax 5103-8.32-4930 � r�.�hf�il�3��c�rratc�t'l�hass�t laracl.c�c aOUu ivit. Vtab3o t')lvd., Lafayette,(A 94549 Office 925.283-8575 • School 925-284-9,191 Fax 925-,283-8355 ISCLI(M Roberta D,C,raetz Sir R Judy Shanks Rabbi Chanin Berner April 23, 2002 castor Gail Schwartz Executive Director Mr. Dennis Berry Deborah Endow Community Development Director !radon hector Contra Costa County Ginger Morris Administration Bldg. Jig Shugart Emy cm&lood torr 65I fine St. Gabe Salgado Martinez, CA 94553 You VILA xsp Director Mary Artrie Winig Dear Mr. Berry: Adidt Program for §henry M.Walde"berg R"Emeritus I am writing in support of the pending application by Gain Shalom, Inc., for a land use permit allowing for the development of Jewish cemetery on the approximately Board of Directors 83 acres of land awned by Clan Shalom fronting on Bear Creek Road and Hampton. Susan Adler-Bressler Road in an unincorporated area.of Contra Costa.County, President Maynard Lichtetman Executive'it'tPresidernt As the Rabbi of Temple Isaiah in Lafayette, 'I have long been aware of the dwindling Sari McClure space for proper Jewish burials in our county. Temple Isaiah's Garden of Vice Pretkient Tranquility at the Oakmont Cemetery gill run out of space with 3 years. After a Paul Me"alter long search for land, a group of tireless volunteers around Gan Shalom a nor, profit We P ident Robin YL wolf corporation, representing the totality of our community, has located this ideal Secreary property. Lisa Hirsch Trenurer I strongly urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon Michael t Gan halom's permit application for the development and operation of a Jewish arian Gary Mich cemetery on the property. Such approval will facilitate both the obligation of your Marty Berg department to ensure that Contra Costa County has adequate burial facilities to fulfill Sherry Berkman the steeds of its residents, and the obligation of the County's Jewish residents to Emily Blanck provide their loved ones with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Lisa Cohen Jewish burial. Cindy Malars Cerin Marissa CorMn Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter of great concern to the Jewish LAM President community of Contra Costa County. If there is any ether sway in which I may be of r.V`n'i I&W assistance in facilitating the approval of Gan halom's land use permit application, Creta Frantz please do not hesitate to contact rine. Judy Goldman 'Vo ism Very trufeno s, :lames Green Judy Matzkin Terry Naylor Susan Rideout Rabbi RLra Ivor Silver Steve Snyder Milford Watdroup Steve Weitumuner Member of the Union of A rues t ars Hebrew Congregatieana (?t AB D OF THE FAST BAY Chabad of the East BaY, Inc. 2643 College Avenue: Serkeley.CA 94704•.3406 June 17, 20092 (511)540.5824 (510)849-0536(fax), www.rhabadcenters.,-orn/berkeley 'People Hetp ng f' ople" Mr. Dennis Berry Rabbi Yzhada F'ern's, Community Development Director Executive Director Contra Costa County Administration Building A charitable,not-for-profit, 651 Pine Street religious,educational,and Martinez, CA 94.553 corn munity service,50 t(c)(3 organization. Dear 11`ls. Berry.- Berkeley erry;Berkeley Chab;3d House l aria the Rabbi of Chabad of the East Bay, located in Berkeley, a p rojecl of Cha bad of thc Eist tray California. This letter is being written in support of the pending application by Gain Shalom, Inc., for a land.use permit allowing for the Nursing Horne 5 Prison Visitation development of a Jewish cemetery on approximately 83 acres of land owned by Gari Shalom:fronting on Bear Creek Road and Hampton Student Resident Program Road in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Campus outrear-h The Jewish community of Contra Casts County is in dire need of"a Jewish cemetery. Currently, the only cemetery in Contra Costa County, Jewish enter for Learning, as well as those portions of Alameda County east of the Oakland Hills, Daily Classes, Lecture Series cable to accommodate burials conforming to Jewish ritual requirements is Oakmont Cemetery; located in Lafayette. Oakmont Cemetery Miriam Nec'ha Lending Library contains certain limited areas for Jewish burials, although the facilities do not deet the strict requirements for Orthodox Jewish burials and, worr� r Programs, accordingly, are not available to Orthodox Jews; Based on analysis of projected Jewish demographics and needs in Contra Costa County,best Ci�abad Newsletter estimates are that the plats available to be purchased for Jewish burial at Oakmont.Cemetery will be completely exhausted within the next 3 to Minyan CeleServbrations, Open &Holiday 5 years. At such aisle- unless a new Jewish cemetery has by then been CeiebratFans,�,en to Everyone developed and is ready for operation within Contra Costa County - The Jewish Art Calendar Contra Costa County's Jewish population will have no alternative:but to utilize a cemetery in Oakland, Colma or San Jose in order to provide Torah tan rhe Line (510)558-TORAH their loved ones with a proper Jewish burial. Miikvah Taharas Israel. Gan Shalom, 8 nonprofit corporation farmed approximately seven years (510)848,7221 ago by representatives of five East Bay synagogues(although, in actuality, the formalization of efforts to build a Jewish cemetery in. Jewish M1ledlca.Ethics Studien Contra Costa County that go back some thirty years) is convinced - as at UC rkeley aril I -that this property is the optimum property at the optimum Camp Can Israel SpL-Refs Bureau eHABAD OF THE EAST BAY Cttabad of the East Bay, Inc. M 2643 College Avenue Berkeley,CA 94704-3406 location upon which to build the Jewish cemetery that. Contra Costa (510)540.5824 County so desperately needs. It has some forty acres of relatively flat (510)849.0536(fax) www.chabadcenters.comJberkeley land upon which to develop the cemetery in a way that wall be Scarcely visible from surrounding properties and public roads, and has ready "People Helping Pcopie` access Froin all points in the County. Further,the proposed use will not Rabbi Yehuda rrrfs, be in conflict with any of the sparse activities married out on its Executive Director surrounding properties. In fact,two adjacent property owners have A charitable,not-for-profit, already committed to Gan Shalom that they will not oppose the subject religious,educational, and land use permit application. community service,501(c)(3) organization, f strongly urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon. Gan Shalom's permit application for the development Berk-el y Cha bad hoarse and operation of a Jewish cemetery can the property, Such approval will a project of Chabad otthe East Say facilitate bath the obligation of your department to ensure that Contra. Costa County has adequate burial facilities to fulfill the needs of its Nursing Home F,Prison ufsatatic:n residents, and the obligation of the County's Jewish residents to provide their loved ones with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Student Resident Prograrr, Jewish burial. Campus Outreach Thank you for taking tate time to consider this matter of great concerti to the Jewish community of Contra Costa County. if there is any other Jewish Center for Learning, ray in which l may be of assistance in facilitating the approval of Can C a+iy Classes,i situ;e.Serves Simloni's land use permit applications, please do not hesitate to contact me. Krlam t lecha Lending Library Very truly yours, Women's Programs !, . Chab.:d Newsletter R.ab i Yehuda Ferris Minyan Services,Shabba.t.i".,Holiday Celebrations,Caper to Everyone The Jewish Art Ca!enrlar Torah On the Lire: (5 10)558-TORAH Mikvah Tahwas Israel, (510)848.7221 . ewr sh Medicai Ethics Studies at UC Berkeley carrtp batt Israel Sp'--a:kes's Bureau ■ Llt Yi;'3l " � ■ C,i't*,C`s32F;GATION ?*fit 7'w(.)"i" SitAI_OM 1 841t-i.ki-u---'' 'WA)' I; ERKEt..Y"Y, CALIFORNIA 94703 Z 2 RABBI STU pias Gni "} Z Eli�r a ctActtr a Yt't3 a April 30, 2002 Mr. Dennis Berry Community Development Director Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Berry: I am the Rabbi of Congregation Netivot Shalom, located to Berkeley, California. This letter is being written in support of the pending application by Gan Shalom, Inc., fc r a land use permit allowing for the development of a Jewish cemetery on the approximately $3 acres of land owned by Egan Shalom fronting on Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The Jewish community of Contra Costa County is in dire need of a Jewish cemetery. Currently, the only cemetery in contra Costa County, as well as those portions of Alameda County east of the Oakland Hills, able to accommodate burials conforming to Jewish ritual requirements is Oakmont Cemetery, located in Lafayette. Oakmont Cemetery contains certain limited areas for Jewish burials, although the facilities do not meet the strict requirements for Orthodox Jewish. burials and, accordingly, are not available to Orthodox Jews. Based on analysis of projected Jewish demographics and needs in Contra Costa County, best estimates are that the plots available to be purchased for Jewish burial at Oakmont Cemetery will be completely exhausted within the next.3 to 5 years. At such time — unless a new Jewish cemetery has by then been developed and is ready for operation within Contra Costa County A-- Contra Costa County's Jewish population will have no alternative but to utilize a cemetery in Oakland, Colma or San Jose in order to provide their loved ones with a proper Jewish burial. We at i'iac�?,i {�3t� Sew?-<���7 }=;:a t�9t.r �<«> {�=�•, Netivot Shalom are also In need of a cemetery since we, as a relatively new congregation, have never had our own cemetery. Gan Shalom, a nonprofit corporation formed approximately seven years agcy by representatives of five East Bay synagogues (although, in actuality, the formalization of efforts to build a Jewish cemetery go back some thirty years) is convinced — as am l --that this property is the optimum property at the optimum location upon which to build the Jewish cemetery that Contra Costa County so desperately needs. It has some forty acres of relatively flat land upon which to develop the cemetery in a way that will be scarcely visible from surrounding properties and public roads, and has ready access from all points in the County. Further, the proposed use will not be in conflict with any of the sparse activities carried out on its surrounding properties. In fact, two adjacent property owners have already committed to Gan shalom that they will not oppose the subject land use permit application. I strongly urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon Gan Shalom's permit application for the development and operation of a Jewish cemetery on the property. Such approval will facilitate both the obligation of your department to ensure that Contra Costa County has adequate burial facilities to fulfill the needs of its residents, and the obligation of the County's Jewish residents to provide their loved ones with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Jewish burial'. Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter of great concern to the Jewish community of Contra Costa County. If there is any other way in which I may be of assistance in facilitating the approval of Gan Shalom's land use permit application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, R / ttqq,, s Y� Rabbi Stuart Delman Congregation Netivot Shalom Cc: Debby Graudenz / Frank Winer 0-%P.Kh;*t 14 ii*i r"-+Ary Mr T n i n Brnai sh m 74 ECKLEY LANE - WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 (925)934-9446 - FAX(925)9341-9450 RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.(925):334.9510 www,ftd.orglbnaisbalom FOUNDED IN 1964 AFFILIATED W17H UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM Rabbi July 11, 2002 Gordon M. Freeman Hazzan Marc A,Dinkin Contra Costa County Planning Commission Educational Director and All interested Parties. Rabbi Rachel Miller Martinez, Calffbrriia. President Fran Shalom.,a non-profit corporation established to create,operate and Craig Judson Vice-Presidents maintain a Jewish cemetery in Contra Costa County is applying, for Rayne Arnoid permit to build a cemetery Dere. Gan Shalom.represents all the ,le -ish Myrna)(Im raelman con Marls Saliman gregations in Central Contra Costa County. Michael Tejeda Recording Secretary As the rabbi serving Congregation B'nai Shalom in Walnut Creek,I asst Debbie Roudmacl %Titing this letter in support of this permit application. Our congregation, "T'rea'surer Eti LAjbllner alone, services over a thousand people. The need for a Jewish cemetery is Administrative Secretary very great, since the Jewish community is growing,. Eve Notas Past-President Howard Blin;` We hops* that you accept this application.. Directors Dorothy Glint Sincerely yours, Michael Bloom Mark Feldman Sandy Ffucht David Goldman Gwen Kerney Starr Levine abbi Gordon MI. freeman Jeff Criik Neil Rosenberg Leonard Schaer Canter Emeritus Harry Mass Life Members Or,Allan&Lynda Chasnoti Jack*&Lea Cohen Dr, &Mrs.Jerald Ka plan Bernie&Eve Notas. 01 Blessed Mer cry Congregation Rnai Tikvah 251-1lllcroft Wray Walnut Creek,CA 91596 Office (925)933-5397 Fox(925) 433-6833 Email office@tikvah..org www,tikvah.org RArPHAEL W.ASHEN DAVID BENTLEY STEPHEN RICHARDS JUC3IN G TTESMAN rabbi Cantor Center Emeritus Religious SchoLc Director April 29,2002 Mr. Dennis Berry Community Development Director Contras Costa County x Administration Building 651 Pine Street ' < Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Berry: I arty the Rabbi of Congregation B"nai Tikvah, located in Walnut Creek,C;alifomiat. This later is being written in support of the pending application by Gan Shalom,Inc., for a land use permit allowing for the development o a Jewish centetery on the approximately 83 acres of Iand owned by Cyan Shalom fronting on Bear Creek Road and Hampton.Road in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa.County. The Jewish community of Contra Costa County is in dire need of aJewish cemetery. Currently, the only cemetery in Contra Costa County, as well those portions of Alameda County east of the Oak-land Hills,able to accommodate burials conforming to Jewish ritual requirements is Oakmont Cemetery, located its Lafayette. Oakmont.Cemetery contains certain limited areas for Jewish burials,although the facilities do not rneet the strict requirements for Orthodox Jewish burials:and,accordingly, are not available to Orthodox Jews. Based on analysis of projected Jewish demographics and steeds in Contra Costa County, best estimates are that the pleats available to be purchased for Jewish burial at Oakmont Cemetery will be completely exhausted within the next 3 to 5 years. At such time —unless at new Jewish ceinetery has by Hien been developed and is ready for operation within Contras Costal County--Contras Costa County's Jewish population will have no alternative bul to utilize a cemetery in Oakland,Colmaa or Sats Jose in order to provide their loved ones with a proper Jewish burial, Garr Shalom, a nonprofit corporation formed approximately seven years ago by representatives of five East Bay synagog-Lies (although, in actuality, the formalization of efforts to build a Jewish cemetery in Contra Costa County utast go back some thirty years) is convinced_as.1 am—that this property is the optimums property at the optimum location upon which to build the Jewish cemetery that Contra Costa County so desperately needs. It has some, forty acres of relatively flat farad upon which to develop the cemetery in a way that will be scarcely visible from surrounding properties and public roads,and has ready access from.all points in the County. Further,the proposed use will not be in conflict with any of the sparse activities carried out can its surrounding properties, Iso fact,two adjacent property owners harp=e: already committed to train Shalom that.they will not appose the subject laird use permit application. PHILIP WEESM EHL,President 'PAST PPESIDENTS J0re1d,,,A deft Aj+t1,,uf KoTr1 9t:)tl3E'SCFa"7 )f:? :IL71"?Cf Lyr-oe H.Groff Sl+.pY1C'n ifispan(L..fj Ct'',XIOS E,M T BOTTY Sif:IMafc l.Isd fin,Fm's.(.). Member Union of American Hebrew Congregations I strongly urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon Gan Shalom"s permit;application for the development and operation of a Jewish cemetery on the property. Such. approval will facilitate both the obligation of your department to erasure that Contra Costa County has adequate burial facilities to fulfill the needs of its residents,and the obligation of the County's Jewish residents to provide their laved ones with adequate facilities within the County for a proper Jewish burial. Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter of great concern to the Jewish community of Centra Costa County. If there is any other wary in which I may be of assistance in facilitating the approval of Gan Shaalotm's land use permit application,please do not hesitate to contact roe. Very truly yours, Raphael W. Asher, Rabbi CONGREGATION BETH EMEK Rabbi Richard Winer July 17, 2002 Mr. Dennis Berry Community Development Director, Contra.Costa County Administration Building 631 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Bear Mr. Perry. I am the Rabbi of Congregation Beth EmekY in Livermore, California. I am writing in support of the application by Gan Shalom, Inc., for a land use permit allowing for the development of a Jewish cemetery on the land owned by Gan Shalom at Bear Creak and Hampton Roads in.an unincorporated area of Centra Costa County. The Je wish community of our region is in great need of a cemetery that can properly seine our needs. The Jewish section of Oakmont Cemetery in Lafayette is quickly filling and will no lunger be available for our use within. approximately five years. I serve the Tri-Valley region and have on several occasions officiated at burials in Oakmont. Gan Shalom's proposal will answer the nes of many families in this community as well since we do not have a dedicated Jewish cemetery and many do not feel comfortable without the facility for a proper Jewish burial. As a native of Centra Costa County and a present resident of the section of Alameda County much more closely related to Contra Costa, I can certainly attest to the need. I have been closely following the establishment of Gan Shalom as a non-profit co oration designed to answer the needs of the Jewish community in such sensitive matters as burial. e have searched for quite some time for an appropriate location and strongly believe we.have found one. The property provides good access with relatively little visibility to the surrounding community. I urge the Department of Community Development to act favorably upon Gan Shalorm's permit application for the development and operation of a Jewish cemetery on the property. Please help us answer the needs of many longtime, dedicated resident.-, of Contra Costa County. Peel free to contact me in.regard to this matter. I am happy to be of assistance. Thank you for your consideration, Rabbi Richard Winer 1886 Colleges .Ave niie . Livermore, CA 94550-5604 + (925) 443,-1681) Fax (9215) 443-1601 12-16-03 Good evening, any name is John.F6uh y; I ant a Resident of the Briones Hills Agricultural preserve for the past 7 J ears, y'prt��"ession is a C' l fflrnta L�cer€s I;andsci p evnfr�%c tir and h been in this fi ic4 dor "? years i the o 'tra C`-ossa ares. County code zoning chapter 88 section 2.404 flub section (1 ) Health, Comfort and Welfa.re By issuing a permit to Gan Shalom Inc. will affect our residents and visitors, Water is one of many concerns. I request that you reject this permit or at the eery least require a Fall EIR report. I am hear tonight present information provided by Dr. Gordon T'hrupp who was unable to attend tonight's meting, Dr. Thrupp is contracted to represent our organization by overseeing our serious water issues, He is with S.S. Pap dopulos, An Environmental and water resource consultant, licensed professional geologist and certified hydro geologist in California. This is a simple Graph to represent documented. information recorded by EENGEO an environmental consultant, who was contracted by Gan Shalom Inc to perform a groundwater aquifer test and analysis in May 200-3. EN EO findings report there is no risi; or claim of harm to the neighbors water supply, As residents, many here a lifetime we say the report: is not inadequate, misleading; and. should not support a mitigated negative declaration. 0 represents the static water level in their well at the' beginning of the gest and 50 represents the level v hen the well will stop producing below that point. During;the 24 hr pump test the graph demonstrates their wells capacity continues to deplete, and at no time finds a levet which continued pumping could be sustained. Also after 24 hours you could conclude that continued pumping at the same rate would deplete the aquifer in less than 4 hours more. One day after pumping, the wells static water level only recovered 65% or 10' below the initial start. The residents of Briones Valley Agricultural Preserve demand an extensive well test that will directly relate to long tern, yield requirements in the most critical. Months of Sept. _. Oct. requiring a. one month pumping test. conducted at the average proposed pumping rate of the existing well. would better assess the sustainable yield of the well and most importantly potential. impact to neighboring properties. Which we know as'residents find us with df, wells during these months. Lastly the health, comfort and welfare of our special valley is beim; challenged, I main request that you reject the permit for this use or at the eery least require a Full EIR report, I invite you to take a few minutes and review the information that I have provided you-1 will be available to answer any questionts after tonight's conCIU iOn.. Thank you for your time. John Fouhy 1218 Bear Creel. Rd Martinez, CA 925-229-9499 ft I a -�a r- 3 i LL Gtr 4 GJ rn A i as 1 CL 04 CL ! O CL 1 8— C �„ E tot CL g LU CL c 1 s ! Ae + j LO i cz OND baja ut doj(3 � C. .S S. S.PAPADOPI.LOS t&ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental c& Fater Resource Consultants De--c,mbcr S,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 hilts Preserve Contra Costa County, California bear DT. Meyers, On behalf of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance(BIfPA),S.S. Papadopulos &Associates (SSPc&A) reviewed the letter report by ENGEO dated fume 20, 2003 and titled Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis, and the Georonsultants, Inc. report dated September 2013 and. titled Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation, bran Shalom Cemetery, Bear Creek and Hampton.Roads, Contra Costa County, California. We submittedwritten comments on bots.. documents. Unfortunately,we were not provided with a copy of E GEO's letter date September 25, 2003, which included responses to our September 4,2003. However,ENGEO's September 25, 2003 letter is included in the Compilation of CEC A Initial Studies that we received several clays agcy. In this tetter,ENGEO disagrees with vfitually 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---was is not an analysis,it is fly a graph of the data and an extrapolation of the drop in water level exhibited during the test ENGEO claims Haat 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-terra test can prove it. The simple and responsible interpretation of this data:is that the well would be pumped doves to the screen in less than terse days and.will not sustain the design flow rate needed for the proposed development. The CEQA Initial Steadies Compilation does not include our letter dated November 7,2003 Comments on Review of Wiping 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. 11$ NSvv MONTS00AERY STREET, SUIT* 400; SAm FRANcisco, CA 94105-3529 TEU (415) 596.9000 FAX. (415) $96.9095 www.rspa.Zo •-ansnl. ssnfrancisccesspa.com . S. PAP+ADOPULOS ASSOCIATES,INC. Par. 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,f feet that it is my duty to subunit to Contra Costa County that the estimation of,groundwater production potential and potential impacts of pumping presented by ENGEO and Geoconsultants are technically inadequate,misleading, and should not be used in support of a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development~ Please contact rte if you have questions or wish to discuss any of the data or interpretations. Sincemly, S. S. PAPADOPULOS&AssociATES, INN. Gordon Tbrupp,Ph.D., R—G., C.HG. Associate Attachments: One Figure Copy of November 7"h Letter CC: Allan C. Moore, Attorney Adam Nathanson, Br ones HiUs Preserve Alliance S. S. PAPADOP LOS & ASSOCIATES, INC. EnNironmental & Water Resource Consultants November 7, 2043 Darwin Meyers Darwin Meyers Associates I308 Piste Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Comments on Re-dew of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by+Geocousultants,Inc.hated September 2003 Proposed Cemetery Development Hampton and Bear Creek Roads Br ones T1s Preserve Centra Cost*County, California tear Dr.. lv'lep:rs, 4n behalf of the Eriones Malls Preserve Alliance(BHPA.), S.S.Papadopulos& Associates(SSP&A) reviewed the letter report by ENGEO dated.lune 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 fixer evaluate groundwater productionpotential of well GSW-l on the proposed cemetery property,and potential impact to wells on nearby properties. In a letter dated.September 4,2003,SSP&A provided comments on the June 2003 'ENGEO report. On behalf of Contra Costa County,Geoconsultants,Inc. also reviewed E GEO's June 20,2003 report and prepared a report darted September 2003 and titled Review ofPumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation, Garr Shalom Cemetery,.Seas Creek and Hampton Roads, Contra Costa County, California. Ger ornsultant's September report also states that they reviewed our September 4,2003 comments on the ENGEO reports This letter provides comrnents on the Geoco ultant's review of the ENGEO art, The projected in gatkm need for the Phase l proposed cemetery development is in,the range of 6,000 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)dig the irrigation season, Genco tants,like ENGEO, assess the yield and`radius of ii fluence"of the well GSW-I fon-a pumping period#,f only a single day. Moreover,the operating practice for OSW-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),fal:€s significantly short:of even the lcow end of the range of the estimated irrigation need. Based on ESGEOs pumping test data, Geoconsultants report an independent estimate of trans missivfty that is approximately 4 Hisses lower.than the average, and 2..5 times less than the lowest, value:of transmissivity reported by ENGEO'. however,Cmconsultants do not use their estimates of ansmissivity and storage to evaluate long-term stainable yield of GSW-1. butead,they calculate a i Geoconsultants estimate banstniasivity M of 153 gpdtfi(203 Wld). ENGEO retwtted ars avazp T of 595 gpd1fk(79.5 ftp /d). excluding the highest value,which they eomidemd anomalous. ENGEO's lowest tatimate of T is 373 V&ft(49.4 ft Id). 116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE Salmi; SAN Fx^x0faco, CA 9 OS-332'9 TEL:(495) $90-9000 FAX: (415) $96-9999 www.sspa.coan *-mail* santranclecoesspa.eom S. S. PAPADOPULOS S ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr.Danvin Meyers November 7,2003 Page 2 -24-hour maximum sustained yield"of I1 gpm,leased simply can the available drawdown,tate specific capacity(pumping ratriwater level drawdown) 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 GSA'-1 by Geoconsuftans from specific capacity data may be unreliable: 1. Specific capacity can provide a reasonable estimate of well yield if specific capacity attains or approaches an equilibrium vale for a givers pumping rate. It did not—see Figure I and discumion below, 2. Tlae calculation of well Yield.from specific capacity also depends on available drawdown, which is distance between static water level and the torp 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.106 to October 31 (Mendocino County, 1989). 3. The reasoning for the 60,1/o efficiency factor applied by Geocousultants to their initial calculation of lq gpm for well yield is technicady mowed. A well,e£ftcietacy correction is appropriate when calculating transmissivity of the aquifer ftom specific capacity of the well(oar vice versa),because dace to head losses at the well,the water level in the well is genana ly lower than the water level in the aquifer just outside of the well. however,in this easee the calculation of yield was based on drawdown measured in the well., which includes the influence of head lasses. Therefore, application of an efficiency correction term is inappropriate in this calculation vGEO advocated that a conservative estimate of GSW-1 well yield(14,400 g d)is nearly 2.4 times the Phase 1 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 grated below: "On high yield wells, where recharge and discharge do not reach equilibrium until one hour afier the beginning o,f the test measuremem[frequency]ofptmzp discharge may he limited to one hour afFer equilibrium is reached,411h a minjmwn of two me=crre aim 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 GS -1 was not conducted in compliance with the County guidelines; 1. No flow measurement data were provided, I After six:hours of pumping,drawdown measurements in GS)NI-1,Pl,and.P2,were only made every two hours,instead of at least every 30 Mutes as stipulated d lay the County guidelines, 3. The test was not conduce until equilibrium drawdown was attained in the GSW-1. 4, The County's Wer Well Pump Test Report(Exhibit B),which,is, attached to this letter,was not included with EINGEO s report and apparently was not completed..The form includes two important data fields,which are not addressed in the ENGEO apart. Time Required to Reach Equilibrium Between Rccbargt and Discharge: Total Time Pump Test was Continued After Equilibrium was Reached: S. S.Pr PADOP''ULOS ASSOCIATES,INC. . Darwin Meyers Noveniber 7, 2003 Page 3 The County also relies on the State of California'mater Well Standar(DWR Bulletin 74.81)for general guidance on well performance and capacity testing. A pertinent excerpt from page 15 of this document is provided bellow 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 pr miuy concerns discussed in the SSP&A September 2003 letter. Only 63%recovery occurred in 24 bours, We recommended that monitoring oftwater levels should have be=continued at least until 90%recovery was attairte& Some County regulations allow monitonng to stop when S00%recovery is attained(e.g.County of Mendocino, 1989)_ Also,ltetp in mind that the test was conducted in spring when groundwater levels we" at seasonal highs. Recovery may be even slower in late summer or auv.amn when ambient grvuu,dwater levels lower. As an example,the`Vv ater Well Testing�delines frac Proof of iter for the County of Mendocino.requires that wvazer wells be tested during the dry season,which they de xte as the period,f mm August 2e to October 31. In addition, as we discussed and illustrated before (SSP&A,September 2003),and is illustrated again by Figure,l attached to this letter, the water level recorded in OSIS'-I during the 24 hours of pumping did not. approach an ewquilibrituu drawdown. Inst.,water level was steadily dropping at a rate of greater than 12 ftlday during the last six hours of the test. Extrapolation of the drawdown trend suggests that continued pumping at lel gpm for would draw the water level down below the vols of the screen in.less than 3 day: (Figure 1). Because.the depth to water in the GSW-I did not approach an equilibrium level,the test should have be= continued for a longer period of times.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 duty),require a miniumum pumping test duration of 72 hours for bedrock wells.. Ceocosultants calculate that 224 feet is the radius of influence(U.1 ft drawdown) for the"24-hour duty period"of operation of GSW-I at 11 gum.. Figure 2 provides a comparison of the drawdown calculate using the Theis solution and the drawdown value at I-day calculated with the Jacob approximation at a paint 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 approxi atiow. Also, Withy do ENGEO and Geoconsultants assess impact only for a pumping durations ra,f`.1 day? Irrigations 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 drawdowrn 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 nes pumping as advocated by Geoconsultants. ` The Theis and Jacob solutions are both subject an identical set of limitations and nssstunptionas. However,the Theis solution aplslie s at all times xod distances,but Jacob method is only applicable to the ze a in which steady-state conditions prevail(e,g. Hrstt, 198}). For the Jwob approximaWn to provide remona;tlo results in analyzing the GSW-I test,either the distance for which drawdown is calculated must be much less,or the time much longer,or both.. S. S. PAPAOdPULOS &ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr. Darwin Meyers November 7,2003 Page 4 The drawdown curve e depicted by Figure 3 is calculated using the Theis solution with assigned aquifer properties determined by Geo resultants(T=153 gpdi t=20.5 fwd, S - .0009). Note,that after only 3-weeks of operation,drawdown of the groundwater level is approximately 6 feet at a distance of 224 feet 57om the pumping well. 224 feet is the distance deterinked by Geoconsultants to be the radiusof 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 I cemetery development. Cecconsultauts advocates that recharge in the local watershed above GSW-1 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 inflated from surface recharge. It is unclear if recharge to the confined, fractured-rock aquifer system is limited to the local watershed upstream of SW-1.The area inhere recharge to groundwater pumped by GSW--I occurs is unknown. The:calculations addressing well yield based on recharge in the local watershed area we 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 1000 feet respectively from GSW-1.They propose that if pumping of GSW-I results in a significant decrease in water levels at P3 and P4,the rate ofpuraping 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 308 feet would not be impacted by continuous pumping at Ill gpm"(4* paragraph,page 2,ENGEO,September 22,2003),but theca on the next page they propose monitoring points JOW and 1200 feet from GSW-1, and use 10 feet as a criteria for significant influenze. I NGEG's Groundwater.Aquifer Testing and Analysis report(June 20,21 13)and their Proposed Groundwater Mowtoring and Nfitigation Program(September 22,20003)both claim that the sustainable yield of GSW-1 is 10 gpm. However,the data indicate that GSA'-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 pain GSW-I at Ill Slam is the same as their calculated radius of influence after only one day of pumping. Moreover,their calculation of radius of influence at I clay is technically flawed. Unfortunately,Geoconsultaitgs(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,Geocorasultants imply that the existing well(GSW-1)at the Site can meet the Phase I irrigation needs of'the development, Geoconsultants states,"for the practical purpose sof determining the radius of influence during pumping"a factor of four difference in traznsmissivity"is not very significant". However,Geoconsultants does not comment can the fact that for a transmissivity 4 tames 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 sof GSW-1. However,in assessing the production potential of GSW-1,Cl eta do not use the estimates sof aquifer properties basest on analysis of the observation well data.. Instead'base their estimate S. S. PAPAC>OP LOS&ASSOCIATES,INC. Dr.Darwin Meyers November 7, 00-3 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 mote than 1' feet per days. Although we understand that the purpose of Geoconsultants review was to provide an independent assessment of the sustained yield of the CSW-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 clea.rly.llustrat+e that conclusions reported by ENGEO's and Geoconsultants are not supported by the data. Miring the last 6 hours of the 4-hours of pumping at GSW-1,,the water level was dropping at a constant rate of over 12 feet per day(Figure I). Without an analysis, this data Malone figure 1%should raise serious doubt haat the well can sustain kung-term pumping at 10 gp . 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 root convinced, perhaps one alternative is to seek another review by a qualified hydrogeologist who is acceptable to all parties. Another altemative,and perhaps the best approach,is to require a long-term(one month)pumping test conducted at the average proposed pumping rate at GSA'-1 to better assess sustainable yield of the well and potential impact to neighboring properties. o Please contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss any of the data for interpretations, Sincerely, S. S. P iAD OPULOS&ASSOCIATES, INC. Gordan Thrupp,Ph.D.,RG.,C,11G. Associate Attachments: Reference list,three fid, County Water Well Pump Test Report Farm CC: Allan C.Moore, Attorney Adam Nathanson,Eriones Hills Preserve Alliance __. . _.. S. S.PAPADOPULOS& ASSOCIATES, INC. Dr, Darwin Meyers November 7, 2€03 Page 6 References California Department of Water Resources, 1981,Water Well Standards: State of California,Bulletin 74-81, 92. pgs. Cooper,H.R and C.E.Jacob, 1946. A generalized graphical met iod for evaluating formation constants and summarizing swrell field history,Am G phys.Union Trans.,vol,27,pp. 526-534. I Ti.scoll,l~.G., 1986,Groundwater and Wells,published by Johnson Filtration Systems Inc.,St. Paul,IVLN, 55112, 1089 pgs, Duffield,G.M., 2t3t3tl,A.QTESOLVTm for Windows,version 3.01.HydroSCLVE Inc.,Reston,Virginia. ENGE©Inc.,2001,Groundwater Availabilty Evaluation,Letter Report to Margot.Jacob of Gan.Shalom, December 10,2001. ENGEt3 Inc.,2002, Limited subsurface Exploration and Percolation Test Results, Lehr to Shalom Eliahu of Gan Shalom,June 19,2001 ENGEt3 Inc.,2033,l"lydro eolog c Discussion of Groundwater Issues,Letter to Shalom Eliahu of Gan Shalom,February 1 a,2003. ENGEO Inc,,2003,Groundwater Aquifer Testing and Analysis,Letter Report to Frank Winer of Can Shalom, ;Tune 20,2003. ENGEC Inc.,2003, Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation frogman,Letter to Frank.Winer of Gan Shalom,September 22,2003. Geoiconsultants,Inc.,2003, Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation,Gan Shalom Cemetery,Bear Greek and Hampton Roads,Centra 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 inynite leaky aquifer,Am.Geophys.Union Trans.,voL 36,pp.95-100. Heath,C-R., 1989,Basic Ground-Water Hydrology,DS Geological Survey Water Supply Palter 2220,84 pgs. Kruseumn,G.P.and de Ridder,N.A., 1990,Analysis and ev-a.ltration of pumping test Bata: 2nd ed., International Institute for Land Reclarnation and Improvement,Publication No.47,Wageningen,The Netrlands,p, 377. Mendocino County, 1989,. Coastal Groundwater Development Guidelines,July 1989. Theis,C.i/., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezomeiric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using grmmdv4ftr storage,Am Geophys.Union Trans.,vol. 16,pp.51.9-524. +n 01 9� Orap in Water Level ( t) " 5c ` + ° € 3 se c C T7 tg t rr# 3 3 c K CD ' m ° C7 C3. qtS SIL 5. CL r t S _ 1 01, 4s R is Ib 033 ' On 3 { t m G cs ccs , to CL kv to I# 4 # f i' tilV. .........«........_"-----,e'-,.e-.e......3.,.-p,..r._ - ----...r.....w.......�.......�.-- r...4...—r-...-..,«_. 4 r 10. Y app-, i Sj 1 Negligible Drawdown of 0.1 ft for 24 hrs of 11 gpm calculated i r by Ceoconsuttants using Jacob s equation incorrectly. OA 1. % 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 g Ff:20.5 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 0.1 'radius of Influcence'value was calcu- lated using the Jamb method,which is an approximation of the Theis aquifer solution. The Jacob method is an appro)dmation of the Theis solution,so if the Jacob metbod was used appropriately the calculated draw- down value (grey drat)would be nearly coincident with the 11 gpm Theis curve. 820 Calculated Drawdown Curves 224 feet from i 11 gpm Pumping Well Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer- valuetiori S.saes Proposed Cemetery Development � S".Filroibm CA rmto5 Briones Mils Preserve,Contra.Costs County; California Figure t t t s j I ddd " �a W 3 � 111 $.... ._._.._ .........�. I � i y l .. 2 1 i 3 � 49. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20, Time(day) Notes: 1. Drawdown of water level calculated using Teis Aquifer Solution for repeated cycles sof t-lay at 10 gpm followed by 3-days wtt i no pumping as advocated by Geoconsultants. 2. Assigned aquifer properties determined by Georonsultants(T=153 gpolft=247.5 fwd, 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 Pumping Schedule Recommended by Geoconsultants PMjW Comments on Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation 3 s. S. *a��,Inc. Proposed mete Deve nt t Briones Hill serve, Contra Costa County,California r 9 0133 904 EXHIBIT 48" WATER WELL PUMP TEST REPORT Contra Costs County Wealth Services ire ertment Halle Of Well K&ne of Property Owiier: ftrcei Rulber: Mailing Address. Date of Test: time Fest Was Started; Time i gvired to Reach EgiriIibriLei Between Recharge and.Discharge; . Total Ti*e Pwo -Fest Was Continued After Equilibrium Was Reached: Orawdown Measurements Including Distance to mater Laves AtId Time of Day: Time orawdown , 3. 4, 6, COMMIJNITY SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE GAN SHALOM CEMETERY REQUEST FOR LAND USE PERMIT ON BEAR CREED ROAD By Cathy Felter CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING December 16, 2003 My name is Cathy Felter and I am resident of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve. My family and I have lived at the corner of Bear Creek and Hampton Roads for 13 years and I am a twenty-three year employee of the Berkeley Police Department. I believe the permit to allow this cemetery should be denied per County Code Chapter 88-2.404(b)(1) and (3)because this development may jeopardize or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare; and the establishment will tend to interfere with traffic, and with the protection of the lives and property of the public. I am here tonight to urge you to disapprove the permit for the cemetery or at the very least to require a full environmental impact report. The proposed cemetery will adversely affect safety and welfare in three ways: exponential traffic increases, inadequate public safety coverage, and possible delayed emergency response. Bear Creek Road is eight miles long, very windy, it has no sidewalks or streetlights, in many areas there are limited shoulders, there is a large population of wildlife, and extensive bicycle, motorcycle and equestrian traffic. Equestrians must use the intersection of Bear Creek Road and Hampton Load (a dogleg turn)where the cemetery will be located as the only access to the local reservoir trails. Attachments 1 through 5 show a map and pictures of the area. The Traffic Safety Evaluation, page B1 of the CEQA Initial Study estimates a static number of people visiting the cemetery. This does not address two issues: a growing number of visitors once burial begins and the aging of the baby boomers. At the end of five years, using Can Shalom's estimated number of gravesites, one family member per gravesite visiting twice per year would add 3640 vehicle trips on the road. By 2030, the baby boomers, 20% of the US population, will range in age from 66 to 84. There will be an unprecedented increase in burials the years surrounding this decade and consequently in traffic to the cemetery. (Attachment 6 shows these statistics.) (As a side note, the cemetery developers point to residential development or horse related development that could occur on the same site and say those uses will add up to more traffic and growth in the area. A house holds a limited number of people and a stable is built with a particular number of stalls. Yhere is initial growth when it is built, and you know generally what that number is, but when you keep burying people,you keep adding visitor numbers and the numbers grow over a period of time.) In 2003,we have had six fatality accidents, even after increased patrols by CHP. Motorcyclists are encouraged by websites to come drive our road as fast as they can and drag race. Many of the street and traffic signs have been defaced by vandals. (Evidence of all this can be seen in attachments 7 thru 16.) The rural nature of this area has made it unique within the county. It has also made it a place that normal public safety response is not the norm. Enforcement is thin at best and with the current hiring freezes and budget cuts it is not likely to get any better. Emergency vehicles will share the windy two lane roads with the funeral processions. In many areas, there is no place to pass. This would not occur often, but isn't one delayed response that did not save a life,jeopardizing public health or safety? Our community backs to wildlands and fire is a major concern. Delays in response could easily devastate our neighborhood, as we have no fire hydrants and must rely on fire engines to fight these fires. People who have chosen to live here are aware of the dangers. I don't believe that people who are burying their dead will be thinking about the dangerous roadway, equestrians, or how to get out of the way of emergency traffic. This proposal seems like a combination of factors guaranteed to create additional challenges to everyone's safety. And at its worst deadly tragedy for some. ' Il m x r� f II p r a 4 i i i { 4S�h £W rrz- t R S' �d )xr ­,��� �4 « 4 WN MOM— yoga. PRO—m- 41,:�: k r g.a TWA MAKWAIN OW nook, 3 x c RAM. £"ZI 11s MN '41, IT IT < � a ASm Az Gant vy c ,vW ;, .,� ls P r I, � u, ,��.ars•. S� �q k� fl� X� Wt �j r 1F B z K fid` �a ��... .�iPr a � Y Z. t- � r � . » \� ». �\ \ :# . %< . \2 :> ��\ Q�/\ ��} \ � ' « Oil, �" *01 ,cR A44.�0"1" X,#eP" T i I 3 Millions 1 5.0 i US Population . �.... v" as-of 3s I 4,0 3.5 3,0 .At. ... z z 2.55 i 2.0 >� 1.5 �u0,5 � 4x a ttp,.U�y t ✓`s �R � ��i�"€, ,�w � :x.� .� �}� s'have �rE�.���y;� ���.s�. "�.� I 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 100- I ,age Y S US Certvus Bureiu, 2000 _ f THE B A� 1 3 j BUUMER1 N r.AF t 2 , 3 t1( 13, Total n-umber-77,702,866 i E{I ° �`;'^);37E°'ien,",s 27 5% o if?e t;,'srr•'�,'.7L'lt�i i.Pt,�") ! 50 femwe iJx°a,.y Ci ar�lfri5 I I ,wil{ be ,,,?ti's 66,.._...84 r_tit mF.iks? up '2#h..'?lt? 20'-k-' ,7i ,}:t?: s l _. " .i. �t �'�S �r 2� Martine r r pillole— "Y valt y „ Pew . �El sObracYf+b e C A i 3 Y _ €f ^�� es aka jams ReUt rest Park rxf Brut mek cad 't-1 cirii GY i rp Let ok Osw 3 dAP WkOp"F }Vkw GL4i4 �$}jJ� }yam �• '9Ytx7w���k1.:�{�{, �"'�!!'bi+���� M� tt��5,-PSH rC�.;4'.���'�•J1�.t"�+- it:"•' r,F �.•.er }: reeY! ^r w a a' •� �. � s �. "c-TMS �r - sib,tr" '�✓��,,,�� � D ' a�"-��y?�yy,� S �*s•,.•�',�" Dnp r*� e T 3 . k� �fy y av r V: b y�� 4 VN f �s v aE TA j ti- 14 y i*� q.`.�. ��xx Y v x`• S Y �^ + " N y a *9 Jw�p 7W y �; QQ � ,,. xt g� f 1 �,i .q Y y d a ` x � 7v ,, -. Jtf TA g All An Ow �6 kw 4 $ , # ga: M ero.,F AIRo- * �°' n x ,P ylw kP g {{ x EE i 4 z B ar C'rc:l~ Road lcttorc�cle Ririe, Contra t testa €_ oun',Y- t, d" tic >rr2r,.=, s ar4ee `hanks To(-eorgc _ Contra � iP;Cf�1 (.fPtIP'1�'< E ri;rlTc A iT.C M Ba1v Bea Creek bad Bomar Creel Rd starts just north of Orinda on fan Pablo D€€n Rd The junction for Bear Creek %xv ill be on the ri ht. about a mile out of WVN n. lncadental.lz 7 this is the carne traffic light for Wildcat Canyon.Rd, "-hic;h heads up and o er the ridge to Berkeley and Kensington, but, e not ridden that road yet so can't conirnent on it, l..00ks REALLY twisty on the reap though! Bear Greek.Rd, starts out as a little lane through the trees,but as ;goon as you get about a. 114 mile into it. the road opens tip and begins to climb. Fora %,o-lane,the shoulders are v6de, the curves are big s,veepers, and as long,as N ou don't get caught behind a car, you can really let the ponies loose, Tiie road has a great view of the Briones Reservoir, especially once you've goat up the hill a bit.. 3 t N ..t Syr< f ka "r "y' .'tt rs $ riW "1 0111 N Bear Creek R04d The wide sweeper character of Bear Creek continues for about five to sig: rniles, and then .fir starts to chole back.down to a narrow twisty shoulderless I'cc�untry lame" as You approach the junction to Alhambra Valle)" Road Mast two miles, primarily), From this point, you can turf xvest towards San Pablo, or east to Martinez along Alhambra Vallee Road. http .';' p,Ishnit err=goads/c&l,'`BearCree�,Rd.htrrt 2/16/2 raC ; 11 Bear Creed.Road 'Motorcyc',e Ride Contra osta k.,C311t"lY, 4 it''t 11 is;n 1 did this run the other daywith a friend, I ,vas riding niv '79 Yarrxatia 7'riPle and he had an, Honda CBIz I IOOXX (Blackbird). We also Passed a contingent or sport ike riders at the side of the rt ad, ri zht as�.�,��e turned onto Bea Creek, so it appears word i s al;ead�� out ?b0in this short.but sNveet tittle East Bad' road. A'cn . Thanks lo Crr'aF�� r.�It�r6� }s ho.stingy this pic and csa xc'r tr r;:err. er 4 TA Oe> , Ing t z A.L W:li $!S'1t` .. P xrKs v,Z;7" $ z`A� �5�� ram qw,9 �� a �a •' 'fir '� ���n� �� �� �� � �� Isear Creek Road- M Miles Related Links: Mud astsq t.C")m Ow teas M Ore that " ate 0 vii eN°ery rrIO th (`:) But with an increased number of hits cores bandwidth demands and visitor expectations _two very expansive items. Pashnit.corn has no commercial sponsors &-,no advertisements on any Copyright C 2003 of its neariy 300 webpagesi.To make a contribution http;s•'.r ���•���. ashni+.cern:�r�sacis`ralfBea,�`�-ee�.Rcl.htrn 121111 with PayPal is easy and secure. Any amount will be f highly appreciated, dick the button to make Pashnit.co m a still better experierce. Thank You t_ Make a Donation) A f'ashiiii Producdoii �'hic�r�tta��s�i s�:�t�rrttcTr- t �l.€c a a N ph�ra h r r rie�c�r p2 rz st r fir`usms, u sr:C e €s� the c €xh�r .r ur=v hrewh a'd k» ala e xz r�rcleasxs,z h ct.Awa frxr m n xe�tx f astp Ir. oil ir;x rata tneur ast r S A r ma. c}:u Frs„trr'3ursk fyr;ire gat alr)y' ?baa r&<et n>xyVv 7 star lamas,neat thr""Ar's, vn merflabl :r'znpar ,ti n:Cttiih:-ttrdpashnd.Urn zirt tr € r ztc sacs W,eat tttz;fid4 a mr�red Ife herx,fidl-fkr hfbnet. .gars, jsrx—v'I*O c<at ex?:rt rss Mofmn7r zl< ml r.,qy nt`h&r&WS jeorer m4arcrsum»and:rr urrca O;a�'Iandi-qg;xrW.Iftntas end A"ill,r"i r yami all q fzi,o.in(nrsr aww:s sub)va lo Ch4mgC rz altr lime any,r-eramenow- Mo 0glwcY.OI I''5J'`$Lqxy C tt,pmil f'OPt01s adP10,C91719rP Makt tt{ITgq!pfign§�1 YVQ04 Sidecar Unks a = pm FAQ I a , sal c� I i t c�Pfications i elk!s�rnt=� �trat lit I Qat€ford _Cum K , (� -AIP I Ya a Y�npha Venture Suzuki S Ok. I rlat apia r7 Trj e � #r ��,l��c�tl#�t_�st€€t�t��s��i � � Su��l�, abgs j l3t�caft ifi[t�st�i,�ral, ttfe �r QOK s jjy.,:T_HE_AU!UjQRt rttQMiles in 8Days Aride,across thewsOutb I 'lP NQ s in, Vii. ?ay"s..._T ", ; al Search r pa�hnft cc�rrt l w. u st gr k t,P'IIv% wv' pa"unit c s zr as ;,.cal.;`"B ar t h 1116!2003 1-714 _ _ ......................... a ;ll, m x w: i�. rwE'•ner MMneroia:.w...s r� t: sem.*,•.�: i E y �p W �- �,�` �: w� 1 f � Ir'I rr yam.� I� ��'����� �� �15� ���� .. r� _ �� ����� ,,. ,: �� �:.'. �" !d a7t..r ry L �'•:'m;?r'a �, '���- ., ��`, �; ��� .` �,c� � '-: .fir �'. "�. �%� g � 4sF �,_�' � Yq ^T ��j����II� I �� ii di� ;k 1� I � I II G':-:. 3 A � L SPEEC) LIMIT s" r t' P` +"� c,r+M,"` :tom � r � •gKdt�f•w'. AA A-" 45 < as F 1� { a Atif t & f x EX, a �S I $ � —'03 As a resident of the BRJO IES HILLS AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE T believe, the prepared mitigated negative declaration is a travesty to the community.. An E. 1. R. HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED There are no guarantees on well water. The neighbor across the street,at 1141 BEAR CREEK RD.,was sucking sand from his well by the third day of the ENGEO WELL PUMPINGTESTS. If this neighbor drills a bigger well,who's to say he vvon't make EN EO'S WELL SUCH: SAND. THEN STARTS THE WATER WAR , which will bring in more water trucks to the area. The heavy fertilization of over 30-avers ,''IT"S NOT A MATTER OF IF, IT'S A MATTER OF WHEN THE CREEK DIES! "(hydrologist Jarmes Duffield) The CEMETERY would like their building to be 4,000-sq feet to hold 200 people.That's about -miles of cars. In Jahn MUIRS day,they use to core mut to this valley by horse and buggy to picnic in the beautiful surroundings. WOULD JOHN MUIR DEMAND an E. 1, R. As an agricultural preserve,the heart of the preserve, is the BRIO ES HILLS. The planning commission of 1987 established this COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. THIS CEMETERY WILL OPEN THE PANDORAS BOX to urbanization, which the General. Plan does not support. AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 2063,DENY THIS PERMIT-CCD FILE LP022068 Appendix II Correspondence Received on theproposed Gan Shalom Cemetery that was not included in the Dec. 16th, 2003 Staff Report (Includes letters received too late to be included in staff report and materials submitted since Dec. 16th m«.,�F,rtif ti�E of P7-BNNyP xW %� STAVE, OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit P,�lfa�"�..•,'F°'��'` Arnold Jar;Boel Schwarzenegger Interim Deputy Director Governor December 9,2003 Darwin Myers Contra Costa County 651 Pine St.,North Wing, 4th Floor M1iiairtinc2, CA 94553 Subject: LP022068 (Gan Shalom Cemetery) SC-I#: 2003112036 Dear Darwin; Myers: t.s;e subi:iined the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for i i:e iev;ew period closed on December 8, 2003, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearingbouse review requirements for craft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the envirolvnental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, 'Tesry Rod t��`ts Director, State Clea:inghot:se 1400 TENTH STREET F.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 PAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov uocument uetatis tceport Mate Clearinghouse data Bas SCN# 2003112036 Project Title LP022068 (Gan Shalom Cemetery) Lead'Agency Contra Costa County Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The applicant and owner request approval of land use permit for the establishment of a cemetery on a 83-acre property.The Preliminary Plans indicate cemetery uses are restricted to approximately 30 acres of 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. Lead Agency Contact Name Darwin Myers Agency Contra Costa County Phone 510-335.1210 Fax email Address 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4th Floor City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County Contra Costa City Martinez Region Cross Streets Bear Creek Rd/Hampton Rd Parcel No. 365010008 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Pinole Creek Schools Land Use LU:Grazing Zoning: General agricultural (A-2) GP:Agricultural land(AL) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic: Septic System; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Traffic/Circulation:Vegetation; Water Quality;Water Supply;Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Came, Region 3; Department of Forestry and Fire Agencies Protection; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, District 4; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 11/07/2003 StartofReview 11/07/2003 End of Review 12/08!2003 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. f tom'``' • .— '� r �r �,�� t a � r ✓ ) j fl f J v _. Chris and Carol Bearden Poplar Place Stables and Eventing 1105 Bear Creek Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 December 5, 2003 Mr. Darwin Meyers CCC Community Development 651 bine Street Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Gan Shalom Cemetery—CCD File# LP022068 Dear Mr. Meyers, We are writing you regarding our concerns of the CEQA for the proposed cemetery. Of the many concerns to be brought to your attention by others, we would like to address the concern of water, both quantity and quality. As you are aware, this area is zoned A-2, General Agriculture. County Code 88- 2.404 (b) states a permit shall be denied if it is found that the cemetery jeopardizes or adversely affects the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. The report of water availability in the CEQA report indicates tests for quantity were performed in the spring when the aquifers are full, rather than at the time of year (September or October)when they are drawn down. Realize, our property abuts that of the proposed cemetery, and we are fully cognizant of the draw down problem. When purchasing our property eight years ago, we were not afforded the luxury of waiting until the fall to test the wells on the property, and were only able to test the wells in the spring. The spring test results showed 22 gallons per minute available. After we purchased the property, we were force to drill and develop a new well the next fall, as the 22 gallons per minute in the spring evaporated to 1.2 gallons per minute in the fall. As well, the CEQA indicates in the past the growing of tomatoes and alfalfa in the valley, indicating a history of great water quantity. Our understanding is the tomatoes were seen in an old photo, and it was believed they were irrigated by well water. In fact, the small plot was irrigated by water pumped from behind a dam in Pinole Creek, which was removed when Fish and Game became aware of its existence. The alfalfa growing claim is a huge blunder, as water has never been available in that quantity, nor of the quality to irrigate such a huge water dependent crop. Water quality in this valley is poor at best, of the small amount wells in this area produce. We purchased a water truck in order to purchase and transport water for dust control of our riding arenas. The amount we bring in is negligible compared to the amount necessary for the cemetery to irrigate the lawns proposed. Please assure us that if the proposed cemetery is allowed to develop, when our wells decrease production, some mediation will be in place so that we are not paying for purchasing and transporting water while the cemetery depletes the aquifer irrigating their lawns. In addition to existing poor water quality, what measures will be in place to assure that bodily fluids from corpses that are not embalmed will not leak from caskets, thus contaminating the aquifer? All.of these issues indicate the cemetery will jeopardize, or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare, and thus the County must not adopt the propose Mitigated Negative Declaration. As an employee of the county, you are given the responsibility of providing for the health and welfare of the county residents. The current CEQA is inadequate, and to be conservative, naive and flawed. We ask that the County not adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Gan Shalom Cemetery. Consider the importance of valuing the needs of the living more over those of the already deceased. Sin erely Chris and Carol Bearden �n fain"W,California Decn,her 5, 2003 Ir. Darwin Aeyers 151 Pine stryet lorth Win?, "th Floor Lartinan Ca . 945A Hot A CEMEVERY A! BEAR WERN & H OPTUA r Dear Or. ., 9 AH.;AS.E D...1 .:�.i.,- �.�' ".x.�' �b1 '#'.1"te construQtion t"a t a cemetery:3t'.:. ..e,`'t/' ,3 f., iS! .`•3i Y`rok & H-l.m:i'lptU'1s ARds for the following +'ti:•a sonf 1. Qe area is con'<_'7 for aS_" 1cull;t.ire, %orses, and farms - not to be Used for the burial QIP Weaved i:1r^ople, 2. Ha.ny i.y,r}rsas and t..#.)eir riders traverse that 2"il,„„x.d on ii7c'.ny €7:].ven days Halt:' the added traffic would he an additioial hazard to riders, .:r.ciclist , aid hikers and -rr.hn`zC=rs woo exercise an `.`i'at _'<;ad. he adeltional auto and especially haarstswould N A;^iFUZ The LaISvhHvs in the area have 1ROdJ.Uh..S i✓BTAK1N�MAPS AS P 1j, the t._.nt;ah.^?l`y l:,t;'S iLd definitely deprive is e YR"....71'aA`,r' t..)WHAS AN .iEJIDE OF ;I R, not to mention t°1p K-y' and other animals i'1 the area. Z. .�,. VOTE t. y. ._. . .� >" -� �. �.� 1i. Vfk7., �i _t..i: t3..' A CEMETERY , YOU :�)t;1�..�D v�.ait ,lir AIL ';-y5r� !a'.T#�-."- 't V T ti.:.sW'..'.ryi':.T r Thank ou f nr ;C}u 3f'•",'. (,=1on '#o this }^'im ±`r :andL rt.;AS VOW 'i GA 3 1.T 1 ".iigti:1~ne and Garry c..i,f��,;.,llc-- _ _ r J I ! f • .1 ,y } .. V s STEPHEN L. CALI BONNIE L. BROWN-CALL 312 Bear Oaks Lane Martinez, California 94553 925-229-1937 December 5, 2003 Darwin Meyers Centra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Bear Creek Road /Alhambra Valley Road, Martinez Proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery Public Comment Dear Mr. Myers: We are residents of the Bear Creek Road neighborhood. We write this letter to express our concerns about the short and long-term implications the proposed Gan Shalom Cemetery will cause to the health, welfare, and safety of the local community and its residents, nature enthusiasts,and wildlife who live and take advantage of our beautiful natural surroundings. Pursuant to County Ordinance 88-2.404, the County must consider numerous issues before granting the requisite permit for the proposed Cemetery to proceed. The Subsection (a)of the Ordinance provides that before granting any permit for a proposed cemetery the Board of Adjustment: "...shall review the location, design, and layout of the proposed cemetery and may condition the pennit on requirements as to design, location, layout screening, and design of entrances and exits as the board of adjustment or the board of supervisors finds reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the count and to protect propertyvalues alues and the orderly and economic development of land in the neighborhood." The Ordinance also provides that the Board shall deny the permit if the proposed cemetery "may jeopardize or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare...", present a "public nuisance," interfere with traffic, and not fall within the County's general plan. $5-2.404(b). Various reports were prepared in support and in opposition to the proposed cemetery. The reports in support of the cemetery superficially address water and traffic concerns. While _ _ __ Darwin Meyers December 5, 2003 Page 2 the traffic report indicates there will be no significant impact to the local traffic patterns and roadways, it does not adequately address the adverse implications the significant increase in traffic the cemetery will bring to the business closest in proximity to the cemetery. There has been no evaluation or study performed to detennine what impact will result to these businesses due to the increased traffic congestion. The County needs to consider the legal ramifications to these businesses and what remedies may be pursued when the adverse impact occurs. These roads are also frequently enjoyed by locals and visitors alike to hire, run, bicycle, and generally enjoy the natural surroundings. The Biiones area is filled with wildlife and Bear Creek Road has Wildlife Habitat sips cautioning motorists to drive slowly. The anticipated significant increase of traffic, both from funeral processions and future visitors to the cemetery, threatens the very safety, welfare, and peace to the local residents, those who use and enjoy the Briones area, and the natural wildlife. Additionally, the traffic report does not address the potential increased costs to the County for road maintenance. Alhambra Valley Road and Bear Creek Road are small rural roads. Several years ago, portions of Bear Creek Road were washed out leaving only one lane available for passage. The County's inability to repair the roadway for a very long time created safety and traffic congestion simply on the amount of traffic that already occurs on these roadways. The significant increase in traffic the cemetery is sure to bring; raises the specter of increased damage and necessary road maintenance and repairs for which the County is responsible. Based on the County's past repair performance, significant delays in making repairs will occur. What plans and budget has the County considered for these rural roads to cover (1) additional maintenance, (2) additional repairs that will be required, and (3) the adverse impact to local traffic and emergency access? We have also reviewed with interest the water test reports that were submitted in support of the proposed cemetery. Besides the questionable value of the methodology utilized by the proposed Cemetery's engineer, noticeably missing was any effort to inquire or obtain information from the local residents on the availability of water they have experienced. As a resident of the area, I can assure the County, as can all the local community, that the absence of water is a major inconvenience, and potential health. issue. This year alone numerous residents have had to deal with dry or lower producing wells just to adequately supply water for household use. The fact that the Clan Shalom Cemetery proposes tap into local aquifers to irrigate the cemetery raises significant concerns to the community. Clearly, the absence or decreased production of water adversely impacts the public health, welfare, safety and comfort. Has the County considered and put into play any anticipated plan to protect the local residents should the cemetery's significant water usage adversely impact the available local water supply? Has the County considered the adverse impact to local property values that will occur by the very existence of the cemetery and the adverse impact to all local resources? There are many significant interests and issues that will be adversely affected by allowing the proposed cemetery to proceed. There are also many potential issues that 2 Darwin Meyers December 5,2003 Wage 3 clearly have not been adequately addressed or anticipated. As a result, the County has not fulfilled its obligation to protect the public health, welfare, safety and corrrfort, and the local property values, Therefore, we respectfully request that the County reject the application and deny a permit for the Gan Shalorn Cemetery, Sincerely, STEPHEN L. CALI 30 NIE BROWN-CALI 3 Paul Kuhn 2£31 Yuba Street El Cerrito, CA 94530 pkuhn9@hotmaii.com Darwin Meyers CCC Community Dev, Dept 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th floor Martinez, CA 94553 4 December 2003 Dear Darwin Meyers, As a resident of Contra Costa County and frequent visitor to Bear Creek Road and the Briones watershed area,I would like to express my objection to the proposed cemetery at Bear Creek Road and Hampton Road (COD File #LP022068). Part of my decision to live in the area was based on the relatively close proximity to areas which have not been overdeveloped, It is no overstatement to say that the ease of access to Bear Creek Road and its rough beauty add to the quality of my life and further my appreciation of the county;I feel truly enriched when I pass through there (which I do frequently), It is my feeling that the walls,fences and manicured lawns of a cemetery would degrade the area. Further, the damage a cemetery would do will be hard(if not impossible) to undo.it will spoil the resource not only for our generation,.but for those to come as well. Please do not allow this development to compromise this valuable asset to our community, Sincerely, Paul Kuhn title .V 101 Hampton lid. Martinez, Ca. 94553 (925). 29-2695 December 3, 2003 .Dear Mr Meyers, The purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to the consequences of`approving the proposed Gan Shalom cemetery. To the casual observer, this may seem like an insignificant problem,just one more small extension of`the urban limit. However, we who live out here know the gravity o,f the water problem. Water dictates what we can and can t use the land for, and our home (being on Hampton Bd.) in particular will be affected. We do not feel that a business should take precedence over established families and their homes. :The other major drawback is the condition of the roads leading up to the area in question. Please, please come and sit out here on the road for a few hours. You will see bike riders, horses, and many motorcycles who are already competing-for road space. The.word criminal is very strong, but I believe it would be criminal to approve long, slaw funeral processions on such dangerous roads. We already have too many deaths per year out here, and this will (not maybe, T,VILL) increase the amount of deaths. There are flowers and a small cross already at the corner o,f I-Iampton and Bear Creek, where a young motorcycle rider lost his life. Please--lets not have any more. Sincerely, ... December 3, 2003 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Devel. Det. 651 Pine St.,North ging, 4 Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers, I am concerned about the proposed cemetery on Bear Creek Road. I have lived in this area for 29 years and have seen many accidents and near accidents due to the narrow, winding, and lack of passing possibilities while following unfamiliar slow drivers. Access to the cemetery location via Alhambra Valley Rd. and a portion of Bear Creek Rd. are extremely dangerous since there are very few places to pull over to allow faster moving traffic to pass. This will be the case as drivers encounter a funeral procession. My concern also centers on Emergency Vehicles passing or corning towards this funeral procession. Add in a group of bike riders or a couple on horseback and you have a mix of circumstances that could spell disaster. There are too many drivers that do not have the patience to follow a long line of mourners. I have tried to pass bike riders and student drivers going 15 MPH, and thank Clod, missed a head on collision. Cell phones do not work well in this area. In case of an accident, First Responders could be 30 to 45 minutes away. This is not the case in the normal city and county locations. This is a RURAL setting used as a recreational area for bicycle riders, hikers, horseback riders, and commuters who reside in West Contra Costa County on their way to Rte. 24. The roads and the general area do lend themselves to the kind of traffic a funeral procession will generate. People in general are impatient, in a hurry; and will take chances in an automobile that will cause many safety problems and injure the innocent. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and I look forward to the meeting 12116. Sincerely, l Matt Ennis 212 Bear Oaks Ct. Martinez,CA 94553 925-229-0745 450 Bear Oaks Dr., Martinez, Ca 94553. 4 Dec. 2003. Darwin Meyers, CCC Community Dev. Dept., 551 Pine St., North Wing, 4`h Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. Cc: CCD File # LP022068 Dear Mr. Meyers, I have read with interest your CEQA Initial Study on the Proposed Can Shalom Cemetery, dated November 2003. 1 am concerned that no where does the report discuss the problems that almost certainly will arise from vandalism at the cemetery. Under county code permit 88- 2.404 (b) (1) it states that "the establishment or maintenance of the cemetery will not jeopardize or adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort or welfare.,, Unfortunately, I can only see that a cemetery in this remote location, particularly a Jewish cemetery, will attract vandals who will deface the graves and mausoleum, dramatically affecting our safety, comfort and welfare. Living as close as we do to an area of high population density, we are plagued with acts of vandalism. Certain elements of society take fun in riding out into the countryside to commit mischief where there is effectively no police presence and a density of houses so low that people living here cannot readily see what is going on and report it. For example, we cannot prevent our mailboxes being smashed up or robbed, even when they are only 100 yards from our house. On Bear Oaks Drive we had to put in an electric gate across our private road to stop people driving to the top of the hill at the end of the road and drinking, partying, dumping their trash (which included used condoms and even pairs of panties!). Indeed we had found firewood for a fare in July, and a trailer near by was burgled. Almost all of us have dogs to ward off such people. Although the county Sheriff department is willing to help, they do not have the resources to our patrol our roads and drives by are so infrequent that I have never seen a Sheriffs patrol car, even on the main roads, after dark in 13 years of living here. It would seem to me that any remote dark cemetery will become a magnet for the type of person who wants to find a place away from the general population to drink, possibly vandalize and even conduct bizarre rituals with very little likelihood of getting caught. This problem will be even more magnified with a Jewish cemetery. Unfortunately, we have to recognize that there is a very small but disgraceful group in our society who take pleasure in defacing anything that is a symbol of the Jewish faith. This makes it necessary in many areas for police to actually put a police car next to a Synagogue on Jewish festivals. What will happen when these people discover that there is a Jewish cemetery a half a hour drive away, yet so remote that vandalism can easily be accomplished with virtually no chance of being caught? One can immediately see that anti-Semitics will take a positive delight in defacing Jewish graves. Reprehensible as this is, there would appear to be no way that this could be prevented in such a remote location. Therefore I propose that the potential for vandalism be incorporated in the county file LP022068 and brought to the attention of the county board of supervisors, with a response from the Sheriffs department on what policing they plan for the area. The members of the congregations that plan on using the cemetery should also be informed. I think that after consideration they will want to bury their loved ones in a more secure location. Yours sincerely, raj 6d. Paul D. Brooks. _ _ _ .. _A :x 101 I1ampton Rd. Mar linez, C.a. 94553 (925) 229-2 695 December 4, 2003 .Dear AIr. Meyers, Please keep our Briones preserve intact. If`you approve a cemetery in our rural community, it will change the whole flavor of the area. Now it is used as a respite for many communities, such as Concord, Orinda and Pinole. Our property out here has been in our family for many generations. I built our home myself, taking,four years out of my life, and mostly away,from my family. We have always had enough water to live, but none to spare. I hate to think of the millions of gallons that will be required for this cemetery. The next step that I hate to even consider is what will happen to the fragile water balance, and the lawsuit that I would be forced to file when our water is affected Please, seriously consider these points, as it is easier to prevent problems than to remedy thein. Sincerely, t.. OWQRL, INC. AT HOSS)1-,AOOR 1 151 8E10- CKEW ROA 1}, ?�_�KTTNEZ, C1.945 5 3 925-228-5790 *PsX 925-372-0484-"cowgirlinc.com Darwin Meyers Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Darwin Meyers Cowgirl, Inc. operates Hossmoor, a horse boarding facility at 1151 Bear Creek Load, almost directly accross from the proposed cemetery. In our area there are many horse boarding or training facilities (Poplar Place, Bottomley Farms, Windmill Farms, Rancho del Lago, Half-Halt Farm, Double G, Coyote Ridge Manch, Hossmoor, Eric & Julie Thomas and Teri & Doug Grey-Cantwell). I believe the cemetery threatens our existence. I believe all of us purchase additional water during dry times of the year. Although I have two wells, I purchase water from June - September and occasionally at other times as well. The projected water use of Gan Shalom threatens the water table and will probably force us to either purchase much more water or to drill deeper wells. Both of these are expensive alter- natives. People operating boarding/training facilities for horses need to survive economically and there is not much of a profit margin already. Most of us have a love of horses which keeps us in the business despite not enjoying as many financial benefits as our friends who work less hard. I think we will be forced out of business. People keep horses as recreation and came out at least 2 or 3 times a week .to ride and care for their horses. I have people riding here as early as 7:00 AM. There are people riding here all day. Retirees, these that need not work, or those that work evenings or have flexible hours are Frere mornings and early afternoons. Children come to ride after school and later people come to ride after work. Even in the Winter people ride up to 10:00 PM. Weekends are our busiest times. The funeral processions would greatly impact rely boarders and I be- lieve they would so dislike being stuck behind a procession for 5+ miles at a time that they well may decide to move their horse. It could destroy the boarding businesses in the area. Please do not allow a cemetery in our Agricultural Preserve. Sincerely Hetty Dutra, President _. __. _ _.. From: Edward H. Jenny Iren Aslanian Jenny 1299 Bear Creep Road Orinda, Ca. 94563 Tel. 925254-8809 Date: December 1st, 2003 To: Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th floor Martinez, CA. 94553 Subject: Opposition to the location Gan Shalom Cemetery Although our mailing address is Orinda, our actual house on Bear Creek Road, is very close to the proposed location of the Gan Shalom Cemetery. We have lived in this location since 1978 and would like to live out the rest of our lives in the area. Unfortunately in this valley, we cannot get city water and the water we get from our well is our only source of water. We want you to be absolutely certain before you sign on the dated line for the approval of this cemetery, that you are aware that this cemetery is being proposed in a location where all residents are on well water. Well water that comes out of the ground and can be contaminated by chemicals, known and unknown, associated with cemeteries. Please make absolutely certainn that you are not trading the health and lives of those of us living in this valley for a nice final resting place for those that have already passed on. You may give us a call at the above number if any questions. Sincerely Ted and Iren Jenny ' cc: Jahn M. Gioia, District 1 Gayle B. Uilkema District 2 115I Bear Creek Road Martinez, CA 94553 925-228-5790 December 3, 2003 Darwin Meyers Community Development.Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers My property is on the opposite side of the street from the proposed Cyan Shalom Cemetery kitty corner from it's North Eastern Boundary. I have lived on Bear Creek Road since I was 2 years old and have owned my current property since 1977. I am totally against the cemetery. Not only is it a non-Agricul- tural use in an Agricultural Preserve, I have two concerns: The first is water and the second is traffic. Water: is a precious commodity out here and there has never been enough water to raise crops. There have been tomatoes and. Christmas Trees grown in the area with water pumped out of the creek during the initial planting time and then no irrigated use. We do not have city water or sewer and we have dug wells (at great expense) and must maintain them. Most of us purchase additional water(I purchase water from June - September) during the dry season. Gal Shalom has dug a very deep well and has a lot of water available, but it comes out of the aquifer we all share, I do not believe they should have a Iicense to drain the aquifer leaving us all having to dig our wells deeper or purchase water entirely, since their water use is projected to be many times larger than all our neighbors combined. Traffic: As an Agricultural Preserve we are used to having trucks with or without horse and stock trailers, the occasional tractor and such on the road. Bear Creek is a windy two lane road,as is Alhambra Valley Road and Pinole Valley Road - to get anywhere you have to take at least one of these. It is seven miles from my house on Bear Creek to the light on San Pablo Darn Road going to Orinda. In that distance there are two very short areas where you could pass legally. Neither would be adequate to pass even the smallest funeral procession. There are no places to pass legally on Pinole Valley Road and it is about the same distance to Pinole. There are two short places to pass on Alhambra Valley going to Martinez, one is at the Hog Farm Hill and the other is just before the stop at Reliez Valley Road- again many many .miles of being stuck behind a funeral procession. Based on Gan Shalom's projections, we would be severely impacted by the processions. Please reject the bid for the Gan Shalom Cemetery. Let them go somewhere with water and better transportation access. Sincerely Hetty Dutra _ __ 1 " t>'t�K)of .sci. Cvezy,CAC Ll 23 t6`� s i 109, vvn VVV i �JkA CA53�1 r - __— - e^Illo '�A Irl- -P-t :�, ,-Po e i s 1 s t ___cam �_ _ _ ........................................... -- ��, vik'n CL LG - - � (Acx i i i I rte- _. _ _ _ - _ _ i } t arc w f g mbm _ _, -- C'- December 7, 2003 Derwin Meyers DCG Comm. Dev. Dept. 651 Pine St. 4th Plr. Nth. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Gan Shalom Cemetery Dear Mr. Meyers, I am a registered civil engineer in California and a resident of Pinole and am quite concerned at the thought of the issuance of a special use permit without an EIR for the proposed cemetery at Bear Creep Rd. and Hampton Rd. . In an area where all residents rely solely on groundwater for all uses, it makes no sense to assume that a new and heavy user of water will have no effect either on the environment or the personal needs of existing residents. Very limited tests have been done to date, but seem to suggest that a constant major landscaping usage could have deleterious effects on the availability or quality of groundwater for current residents: The burial of bodies in unlined graves near a groundwater drinking source also calls into question whether the Health and Safety codes might be inadequately applied in this case. Have studies been conducted to an adequate extent regarding the migra- tion of bacteria and pathogens into a proximal groundwater source ? The most amenable solution would seem to be a requirement that, if the petitioners are granted their land use permit, the petitioners should be made to bring potable water through a closed utility system (EBMUD) to the availability of all residents. In this way, health and safety for the residents and the environment would be somewhat preserved. Thank you for your time, Tim McDonough 1676 Sandra Ct. Pinole, CA 94564 ROGER G. STEELE 1253 UPPER HAPPY VALLEY ROAO P.q,BOX 4079 LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 0454$ INCLINE VILLAGE, NEVADA B0450 December 18, 2043 Darwin Meyers CCC Community Dev. Dept. 651 Rine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: OBJECTION TO CEMETERY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Mrs. Steele and I hereby record our very strong objection to the proposed cemetery near Bear Creek Road. As home owners/resident8 of 1253 Upper Happy Halley Road (around a long corner from Bear Creek Read) for over four decades , we sometimes use Bear Creek Road to avoid traffic backups on Highway 680. Bear Creek Road is narrow, dangerous, and the area should be preserved as open space. Sincerely, Roger C. Steele Kaye Steele P . S. I realize this letter comes after the 12/08/43 deadline for Public Comment and after the Public Hearing of 12/16/03 , but we did want to state our opposition and have it on record. RCS Appendix III Letter from the Office of the Sheriff {�LnII I11" of Urolltra L1[l?iiLl Of lfl` o f till' 3- 4ri-if Warren E.Rupf Shetiil January 5, 2004 Darwin Myers Associates 1308 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers, Subject: Establishment of a cemetery on 83-acres of laird, located on the south quadrant of the Bear Creek Road /Hampton Road Intersection, in the unincorporated area of Martinez. RE: County E'ile*4LP02-2058 Project Description: This is a request to establish a cemetery on an 83-acre parcel. The cemetery uses would be restricted. to approximately 30-acres of the property, primarily the lower and Batter portions of the parcel. A private open'space corridor is proposed along Pinole Creek and the surrounding hills are to be retained as private,open space. Access to the proposed cemetery will be via Bear Creek Road. This cemetery will cater exclusively to the Jewish community. Area Description The proposed site is located on a lightly traveled two-lane road in the rural area of unincorporated Martinez. The surrounding area is comprised primarily of residential and agricultural property. This area is remote and has very limited traffic during the evening hours. Given its remote setting, lighting is very sparse. Crime Analysis Crime analysis data, for the six-month period July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, shows the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff took the following, crime reports in the surrounding area: one grand theft and two petty thefts. While current crime analysis data does not show a significant instance of criminal activity in the area, a cemetery, religiously based or not, has the potential to attract illegal activity to it. As a religiously based cemetery, this project has the added potential of attracting hate-based individuals or groups. Cif additional concern with regard to cemeteries, is their appeal to juveniles as a prime location to consume alcohol and/or narcotics. This is typically enhanced if the site is not monitored.during the evening hours. With these concerns in mind, close adherence to crime prevention recommendations is strongly encouraged. Of special emphasis will be after hours premise security. 1980 Muir Road • Martinez, California 94553-4800 (925) 313-2500 "Corrzmuni(y Policing Sind 1850...... Proiect Specific Concerns • A£,nentioned above, after fours premise security is a primary concern. It is recommended that at least One,dedicated security officer by on prermse and patrol the property daring all houi-s of dinunished light. Because of AF significance,, it is recono-Fended that this be added as a condition of approval. * It is recommended that perimeter fencing be eight feet in height and constructed of a chain- link material or better. A six-foot cyclone fence topped with three-strand barbed wire will suffice. This fencing should run the entire perimeter of the property that is being used for cemetery purposes. Standard barbed wire fencing is sufficient for the remainder of the parcel. • The entrance to the cemetery should remain locked during evening hours. Entrance to this gate should be controlled by a code lock system. Applicant shall ensure that emergency services are provided with the access code. General Security Recommendations Building Security and Safety Concerns (Interior) • If cash Qr valuables are to he stored on premise, it is recommended that the administration office be equipped with a safe of solid metal construction. This safe should be secured to the concrete foundation by bolts from the inside of the safe. Access to this safe should be restricted to necessary personnel only. • The door entering the administration office should be of solid wood construction and secured by a deadbolt lock with a minimum one-inch throw. The strike plate on the door should be secured with 4-inch screws. It is recommended that this door be equipped with a viewing device(peephole)with a coverage area of 180 degrees. • All doors and windows entering the chapel should be wired to a central alarm system, which is monitored by a licensed alarm company. The door entering the administration office should also be wired to the central alarm system and register as such with the alarm company. • All storage areas should be closed and locked when not in use. Exterior Doors • Exterior doors should be of solid care construction; 1'14 inch thick, and secured by a single cylinder dead-bolt lock with a minimum throw of one-inch. Strike plates should be secured with four-inch screws. Door latches should have a minimum 1/2 inch throw. Door framing should comply with code and be secured with additional two-inch screws to guard against forcible entry. • Doors with glass panels and glass panels adiacent to doorframes should.be secured with burglary resistant glazing, or its equivalent. Glass doors shall be directly wired to the central alarm system. Glass break sensors should be added to alt glass doors and windows to detect breakage. * Doors with panic bars should have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal should be installed on the doors exterior to protect the latch. • A viewing device(peephole) should be installed in each exterior solid core door and should allow for 180-degree vision. Numbering • A street number shall be placed at the main entrance. The street number shall be located in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. • The numerals shall be no less that four(4) inches in height and shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The numerals shall be illuminated at night. Please feel free to contact this office at the number listed below should you have any additional questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Marren E. Rupf, Sheriff Office of the Sheriff'—Contra Costa County By: Michael Voss Crime Prevention Specialist Office of the Sheriff Contra Costa County Homeland Security Unit (425)313-2723 cc Lieutenant Charles Skuce Muir Station Commander Pat Pava--Community Services Supervisor File _ Windows • Windows should be constructed so that when the window is locked it cannot be lifted from the frame. • The sliding portion of the sliding glass window should be on the inside track. • Window locking mechanisms should be capable of withstanding a force of at least 300 lbs. in any direction. • Accessible ground-level windows that open should be equipped with secondary locking devices. Security Lighting • Parking lots, footpaths, passageways, aisles, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings, should be provided with sufficient lighting, of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination, to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premise during the hours of darkness. Such lighting should be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. Fixtures should be installed at a height sufficient to deter vandalism. Fixtures should be placed in such a manner as to not encroach on surrounding properties. • All extetior lighting should be controlled by a photocell system designed to provide illumination during all periods of diminished light. • Each entrance/exit door should be equipped with a dedicated fixture, of sufficient wattage, to provide adequate illumination during all hours of darkness. Landscaping • Landscaping should be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. • Landscaping should be no higher than 42" from the ground. • Defensible landscaping is encouraged along fence and property lines, under vulnerable windows, and any other location where you want to restrict people's ability to sit, loiter, climb, or walk(security plant listings are available upon request from the Crime Prevention Unit at 925-313-2723.) • Where mature trees are used, a maintenance plan should be established to prevent growth from violating a minimum safety barrier, preventing the tree from being used as a natural ladder for a roof access. Tree canopy should be no lower than 7' from the ground. Parldng&Signage • All entrances to the parking area should be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. Also, appropriate signage referring to section 602 PC (No Trespass) and Section 647 PC (No Loitering) should be posted at all entrances to the property. • Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and proper signs posted • Tire stops shall be installed in all parking spaces. I January 20,200 Carole Dwinell Briones Hills Preserve Alliance o � � u l f� 241 Bear Oaks Court. P.O.Box'1562 �r Martinez,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553 Contra Costa.Community Development Department 651 Pine Street. Martinez,CA 94553 To the Centra Costa Beard of Supervisors: Request for Appeal of the County Planning Commission Decision/13 January 2004 As a representative of the Briones Hilts Preserve Alliance,(BHPA)I am formally requesting a Hearing before the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors regarding the Proposed Gan Shatom Cemetery,County File#LP022068 for,but not limited to,the following reasons: The Contra Costa County Planning Commission is ignoring County Resolution No. 871483,which was untended to protect the Briones Hills area. • Mitigation measures described within the CEQA Initial Study for the project cemetery in fact-neither reflect nor resolve issues concerning area water.While the residents of the area.,in good faith as early as July 2002,requested that the well be tested in both the Spring when local wells are recharged from the winter rains AND in the Pall when after the summer dry season all the welts being used on adjacent properties and those properties nearby experience low flaw,this request was ignored. • In the staff report'-for the Hearing on December 16,Allan Moore,Esq.pointed out clearly that+CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in allclue cases,show a clear preface for the drafting of an EIR. I quote..."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(in this case, the County)must prepare an EIR." and further states "that the County pay close attention to the comments of S.S.Papadopulos&Associates with regard to damage to the local, fragile water supply." • Dr.Gordon Thrupp,who represented S.S.Papatdop-ekes&Associates and the BHPA, at the Tuesday,January 13 Planning Commission Dearing,was constantly interrupted by the Chairman and Commissioners.The County was notified in advance that Dr.Thrupp intended to make an overhead presentation to the Commission.A screen and(BHPA provided)overhead projector was set up but members of the commission complained that they could not see the screen.These complaints exhausted a portion of Dr. Thrupp's allocated three minutes.Dr.Thrupp during the question period after his __ _ presentation was then examined on issues that were not under the realm of his obligation to BI IPA. • We intentionally went outside the county,investigated an international firm that would not be influenced by any commitments within the county or with any personal connection to either neighbors or the proponents,to have an unbiased look at the water information.This very important information was not allowed to be presented.We want to assure you that most of the information,however,is in the four letterst'reporrts that were submitted.by Dr.Thrupp to the county before the December 16,2003 hearing and are recorded in the staff report for the December hearing.These reports were summarily dismissed.The experience of the residents of many years,offered in good faith and as good neighbors,was also ignored. • In the Review of Pumping Test and Aquifer Evaluation by GeoConsultants,Inc., received by the Contra Costa Community Development Department,time-dated 21103 October 06 at 8:02,and submitted by Jeremy Wire,Certified Hydrvgeologist,No.93, from the Table of Contents to the actual test data and the Figures chart;the numbers for Drawdown Well#3 were omitted fitted from the CEQA Initial Study.The figures in the "Evaluation" by GeoConsultants show that Drawdown Well#3(Well P-3),located 1200 feet from the project well,dropped about a half an inch,all within the last 12 hours of the pumping test.When I asked why the results of P3 had been omitted from the CEQA Initial Study,I was told it was insignificant.BHPA and I ask officially and on the record. How,in only 24 hours,can gU change in the level of ground water from Well P-3 at 1200 feet from the source well, be considers insignificant? • In the CBQA study,under Environmental Study Checklist Form,it states:that ander Chapter 84-38 of the Zoning Ordinance, "the permitted uses include" and then lists the permitted uses.Nowhere on that list is a chapel,and in fact,a chapel was already discouraged from being built almost directly across the street from the proposed site by the Planning Commission in the late 1990s.. • In regards to traffic, a large animal clinic("large"in this case,being animals such as horses,cattle,llamas, goats and sheep;appropriated for agricultural areas)wad'� totally discouraged from applying for a permit because of traffic issues.It would came - too much traffic.This was an agricultural business that would greatly benefit the people who reside in the Preserve as well as neighboring horsefcattle communities,such as thosii, adjacent to Tilden.Park and in Lafayette Orinda,Moraga,in fact,all of the cities which ` r- were signatories of the Agricultural Agreement. • The number of vehicles traveling the winding two lane roads will not be static; numbers as the cemetery planners have repeatedly reported.If the plans to develop the first 7+acres take place,each acre with 1000 graves,at 200 graves per year,(Gan Shalom figures)means by the end of the fifth year,there will be.many,many repeat visitations to honor deceased relatives and loved ones on the appropriate Jewish holidays. And,the proponents say this traffic will only occur in the daylight hours in the middle of the stay,not during commute traffic. Evening only comes at five o'clock during Pacific Standard Time for two months at themost. Several tunes it was.mentioned that the hours __ _.__. would be from 5:30 until dusk.Turing Pack Daylight Time,dusk is at 9 PM and that certainly does encompass commute hours.Not quite what the traffic report would have one believe since it was clone for only two hours from I PM to 3PM on a Tuesday and thea only at the less traveled intersection.The actual traffic collection data was NOT in the CEQA Initial Study, only a summary that did not indicate the time frame of the actual data collection. These and ether substantive facts require closer examination by the Supervisors. There is no mention of what would happen if the valley runs out of grater.Residents will truck water, and continue to live under drought-like conditions should it be necessary. After all,we do it every single summer.The Gan Shalom plan.,as approved by the Planning Commission does not adequately address this issue now,or as cemetery expansion occurs in the future. An Appeal is necessary to present these and other questions to the Board of Supervisors and to the public. It is necessary for all our information to be placed in the record. Please let me know when there is a date available on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors calendar and we will be there. Most Sincerely, Carole Uwinell Attachment. Filing Fee Payment: Briones Hills Preserve Alliance Check#1010 for $125.00 NOTIFICATION DIST