Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05112004 - D.1 EXHIBIT A Letter From City of Pinole (Dated 5/11/2004) EXHIBIT B Responses to Letter from. City of Pinole 05/411/20C,4 09:5 FAX 5107244921, CITY OF PINO�.F PW CDD 1 f102 Painole ,�✓�f^t Development Services Department t 213't Pear Etre Tel : (510)724-9014 Phole, CA 94564 Fax : (510)724.4€21 May 10,2004 Contra Costa County Board ofSupervisors 651 Pine Street,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE. Reconsideration of Land Use Permit 022068, County pile, OLP (122068, Gan Shalom Cemetery Honorable Board of Supervisors: The City of Pinole is providing coat cats on the pian Shalom project as this proposal is within the Pinole Creek watershed, and feels there are several key issues that must be addressed within the ert,vironrncnta.l dc)cunientation. This is the first opporru.nity afforded to the City of Pinole to respond to any aspect of this development proposal. The City of Pinole has zoo record of receiving notification of the project, or being given the opportunity to comment on tho Notice of Intent to Adapt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (l OJ) fnr this proposal. While tEe City regrets providing comraents late in the review process, we, :eel these are crucial issues that must be raised prior to any final adrninistr-ativee decision that is rendered by the Board of Supervisors. the City of Pinola wishes to acknowledge that we do not oppose the proposed project... rather there are areas within the environmental documentation that we fol need to be �+ strmg1hened to batter !understand the potential envirarunental impacts that rm�.ly result from this project. EXECTUIVE SUNIMARY: REASONS TO PREPARE AN ENVJ tClNTMENTAL REPORT 'The City of'Pinole believes that ars Environmental Impact Depart (EIR) is thy: appropriate document to discuss the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed Mari Shalom cemetery for traffic and water duality impacts_ The reasons are listed below, and discussed in detai.i within this letter. I 05,'11,12004 09'59 FAX 5107244921 CITY OF PINGLE PW CDD No discussion of the impact of nitrcygen to the Pinole Creek for Phase I or all five (5)phages of this proposal * No discussion of how the applicant and the County c eo nplies with. General Water Resources Policy 8-75 and 8-77,respectively * Best Management Practices (BMPs) as discussed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. does not preclude die use of pesticides. Use of pesticides should not be allowed for this proposal, and there has leen no discus,sion of how the use of pesticides could harm the Pinole Creek it,., th.e environmental documentation prepared for this proposal. « No discussion of the potential for contaminated water from the decomposition of bodies, and the ability of any cistern to contain this water, and prevent this water from entering the Pinole Greek * 5hoWd this Gan Shalom project be approved, a range of'between 5,304 -- 7,560 gallons of we,] eater per day for Phase I of the project is required for irrigation purposes. For all five (5) phases, a range of 27,132 -- 40,302 gallons per day is required for irrigation purposes. The use of this laced for a oxmetyry use; rivals an agricultural use,at this location.1-be range is'bascd upon 1.,200— 1,800 gallons of water per day as discussed in the proposed Mitigated Negative:.Declaration. Application of mitigation treasures after project appro�,al and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the California Ervin m.-ental Quality Act (CEQA) yet this is haw underperforming conditions or approval/mitigation measures are handled for the water supply related to t l.9 proposed project. The traffic unalysis focuses only"the first year operation of the pmpoaed project, and does not address the perpetual operation of this use,where 1501--200 funerals per year are anticipated to be Wd. There is no discussion of additional automobile traffic to the site by prospective clients who are making atrangernents for this service. +� Many references to this project focus upon Phase 1, and it appears the total cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed cometery operations have not been addressed within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1. -WA"t ER QUALIITY/STORlNWATER RLINC3FF/IRRIGATION ISSUES A, OF t~ERTJLIZLI�S. ,�NYD V4'1�TE1t.C,QU'kLJTY The summary of cemetery operations, a document submitted with the; application, and Pae 10 of the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Corzrr issicm, indicates that 175 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year will be used to maintain the turf areas of the proposed cemetery_ For Phase I of the proposed cemc:tory, tthis translator to 773.5 Pounds of nitrogen per year far a 4.42 grass acre area, 'Where is no discussion of the impact of this compound on the water cluality, runoff, water table and recharge of the aquifer to the Pinole Creek.. The addition of nitrogen to a waterway encourages the fomiation of algae that not only can harm the aq,,iatic, creatures that live in the watm-wtay, but also can siLmificavfly "reduce the flaw of the ware ray and the r-eby irreparably barn 2 05/11/2004 10:00 PAX 5107244P21 CITY 4F PINOLE PW CDD �oa14 the health and viability of the waterway. The Biological Resources section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses the potential impact of the propo.sal on federally listed endwi,gered species, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and moveinent of any fish or wildlife species. 'There is no discussion, howevcr, about the potential impact to the Pinole Creels from the addition of 175 pounds of nitrogen per year for phase I of this proposed project. Should the project be approved, ;:and gill fiv (5) phases are constructed, 3,956.75 pounds of nitrogen per yens on 22.61 net acres of developed burial spaces will be applied to tl)e cemetery grounds-. As this bas not baron included in the proposed Mitigated'Negative Declaration, the City of Pinole believes thaT. an EnNironmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Scction 15088_5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act whew, "significant new information"exists. B. STC Rl 1 A'1 R AIaII G1 UNDVJ�;l'I SL?1'l'l 'AY`a`I t.;(A,l.'j Table 4 on Page 24 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration lists four(4) policies on General'eater Resources. All four (4) apply to the prcmposed project, however er the City. of Pinola;cannot determine hove these policies arab being maintained and supported by the proposal. Specifically, the City of Pinole believes the applicant has not dernOnstrated compliance with policy 5-75 to, „preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resoumes", nor has the County met the intent of policy B-77 to, "Provide development standards in t-aecharge area to maintain and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies", Additionally, the December 16, 2003 staff report disc~usse-8 traffic and drairiage considerations for LP02206K Table 4 on PagV 1:3 of this report indicates that, "compliance with the drainage reqaircments of the County Subdivision Ord.inwioe Aill require all storm water entering or wiginating on the subject property to tie. vollected and c)nveyed to an adequate storm drainage facility,of natural watercourse". As this propoW is outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL), no growth enduing infrastructure is proposed (anal presumably allowed), such as a storm drain system, therefore Pinole Creel.., as the nataral watercotrrse, is the method to collect and convey excess water from this property. Condition of Approval 046 of the April 20,2004 Appeal to the Board of Supmis ors staff r.port (0-43 within the December 16, 2003 staff, report to the County Planning Commission) requires compliance with the ?'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systern (NI'DES). As an ;aspect of the NPDES program, Best Managerra.ent Practices (I3MPs) are to be achieved should this project be approved. It is not discussed within either the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or the December 16, 2003, Jarraary 13, 2004, March 23, 2004 or April 20, 2004 staff reports that pesticides at-e prohibited fion use bythe applicant. Runofffronr automobiles (oil, grcase.and other cont inants), roofe of buildings, litter, chemicals and other miscellaneous compounds may find their way either into the groundwater or waterway and potentially negatively impact,the Pial.ole Creek watershed and groundwater. For these reasons, the City of Pinole strongly encourages the preparation of the Environmental. Impact Report so a discussion (if alternatives to this project Can occur: 05/11,2004 10:01 FAX 5107244P21 CITY OF PTNOLE PW CDD jc)tIr Lastly, thea is no dis "ion on the ability of a cistern or other facility to contain water 6-orn the proposed french drain systezDi to prevent water runoff from entering into the creek system. If this water bolding systern were to become exposed to the by-products of dvoot'nposition, which is likely when irrigation occurs, is here any effect during aerial spraying? Would a holding facility be overwhelmed by an increase in the sh.eetflow of water Clue to oversaturation of the ground? ',Would the holding facility contsin the contaminx—it and try-product (ammonia and carbon based) overflow and keep this water from ontering, the creek? As neither of these natters ha-vc been included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of'Pinole believes tbar an Envi:roninciatal Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California E,nviroatzxaental Quality Act when,"si i 'ttcatit new information'exists. C. IRRIOATION DEMAND AND WELL WATER.SUPPLY The City of Pinole is greatly concerned about the use of well water for cin-site irrigation, W%ltile it is informative, Table 5, Comparison of Water Demand for Potentia-3 Agricultural ' Use of Site, in the Decernbcr 16, 2003 staff report does not depict an accurate portrayal of the amount of well water required by Gan Shalom for irrigation purl oscs. The following 41 table is based upon the information described on Page 14 of;be December 16, 20103 staff report regarding the daily consumption of well water for irrigation purposes. Erased upon these figures, and when comparing these numbers to those listed in Table 5,it is clear that the,water use for a cemetery,even for Phase 1,rivals water needs for agriciahural use:. ATT 1 P— R, 'EM, CI I ySTIMA.TED GALLON'S GROSS NET GALLONSPER DAY F—SR aAI-I.ONS (3ALLONS PER P11AS r: ACRES ACRES PER DAY ACRE PER DAY DAA: PER ACI-1,E 7.6 4.42 1200 5304 11900 7 560 5.9 4.61 1200 5412 1€00 3118, „ 5.09 4,1.1 1200 4932 1800 5.2 4,5 12005400 7800 }Si0 0 6.57 5.07 1200 60'4 IF-00 912 30.36 22.61 27132 4,030 It is not known if the draw down of water from the natural undergro-anal aquifers can support the irrigation of the cemetery effect the flow of the crock during the dryer parts of the year. This has not boort discussed within the proposed Mitigated Negative o.-latation,nor have mitigation measures been prepared for this matter.. 4 0.5/11/2004 10:01. FAX 5107244921 CITY OF PINGLE YK CDT) Zoog The City of Pinole'believes that an Environmental impact Relpon is required in order to address the cumulative impacts that will result should this use be approved by the Board of Sunervisors. On page 114 under Water Supply of the December 16, 200-1 staff report, it is ,stated that, .perfoTmance entcria are provided to see that Gan Shalom does not create a sib ntficant adverse impact (empbasis added) on nearby properties—" The use of the wards "signitieant adverse impact" are generally reserved for inpacts that cannot be mitigated and are usually discussed in the context of an Environmental Impact Report. On the top of page 28 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following s ntenCe is used: "If shortages do occur in the Future, more stttngent mitigation measures shall be imposeA in conntetior with grading and building permit needed for future phases of'the project", Application of mitigation measures after project approval and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the Califon-Iia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). Section .151,26, Consideration and. Di,scu„ssion of Env-uonwental Impacts, states that, "All phases of a project must be considered when cvvaluation its impact on the el2vixbntnerit: 1Slaaaraing, acquisition, development; and cperatic�n.'' Section 15126.2(c), Consideration acid Discussion of Significant Environmental,tampacts states, "Uses of non- renewable during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large ctsm mitarient of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter =Ucly._.Irretrievable commitments of resource should be evaluated to ensure that such forwent consumption is justified Relying upon not only the lsraguage, but intent ox these provisions of C'EQA, the City of Pinole again urges the ward of Supervisors to table any decision of the proposed project, and dircot the Community Development Departnaent to prepare an Environ rental Impact Report for this proposal. D.. IMPACT ON '1; OLOGIC SOURCES Have any e#feets to the lower creek from the project construction or operation now and in the future been addressed? Will the bin-diversity of the area and creel, be dismpted or altered by the construction of the cemetery, and from any of storm water, runoff and irrigation issues? Have any potential mitigenon measures been prepared to address this iss't c? Wbat effect would a solid type of fencing have in denying a potential migration path to an, phibious creatures? What would the cemetery do to mitigate and promote migration 19 across the site and the creel: for this species? How would be the construction smheduling be revisal to avoid conflicts should this migration occur`? Have any puteatial mitigation measures freer,prepared to address this issue? The City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new information" exists, and for the cumulative effects this project may have within this;region of unincorporated Centra Costa.County. 05/11,12004 10:02 FAX S10 7 '4021 CITY 4F PINTO .E PW CDD X007 ii. 'I"R.YFIC. "1"hL€ City of Pinole believes that the traffic impacts that will result frorn leis proposal h8AV not been fully analyzed- A,&n, citing th.e sta.Mary of CWAetery OPC)razlons and Page g of the December 16, 2003 stuff report to tte County Nanning Ccar mission, the applicaxxl. anticipates that 75-150 burials per year far the first year, and I SO-200 buriuls per yl�ar '"' thereafter will occur, Tlae traffic report briefly discusscss the first year of Operation, but does not mention the increase in traffic in perpetuity ftrr the operation of this use in the traffic analysis. Additionally, there is no mention of any increase in traffic d"O to prcrpcctiv rlitnt con�itf tc> the cemetEry to discuss the range of services provided by this business. Appeal paint#q in the March 23, 2004 staff"resort to the Board of Supervisors discusses the potential traffic impact that will t-,e created by this use. It is explained by County staff that, ",..trips will be distributed throughout the day.-However, there is .10 evidence to sxlaport the hypothesis that visitors 'to the cernetery will significantly add to traffic or would lead to unsaic contlitions on the laical road network". This stateme,)t appears to inom declarative that no significant traffic imp will �rccur, rather tlhZa rc viag cin an objective traffic analysis to determine tile curnu%ative impacts that may result should tL-s projeetbc approved. "rhe City of`Pinole believes frxat an EIR should be preparvd to address the cumulative traffic impacts for all phases of'the Carr Shalorn project ptziaimat In Sections 15105 and 15168 of the California Envirorunemal Quality Act(CEt,�A), c:r ess to lks Site also occur-, from the gest along Pinole Valley Road_ It is at the intersectio,11 of dear Creek Road that Pinole Valley ltoad 'becomarn es Allxbra Valley rG goad. Residents along `appy Valley Road specifically asked that use oftbis road not use;•d for f moral processions. A new condition of approval was added by the PlanrrairLg Commission to incorporate this request (new condition of approval #9, Mat lch -23 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors). The City of Pinol6, requests that additional language be included &,condition,of approiml 41 0(r-) of the April 20, 2004 staff report so that traffic, will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley Read as a way to access the proposed Marx Sbalom project. ,111.. A'P'PXRENT TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES 1. The DeUn mber 16, 2003 staff report sloes not discuss a proposed vanauce. whether request by the applicant or found to be required lay staff; for the peri ctex ferr.c e height of seven(7) feet where:sial (fit)feet is allowed for this proposal, Tbeze 1 * is no sriention of the requested variance in thc� introduction of the staff repent or within the findings. Tlac variance is discussed turn page 7 in the January 11, 2004 Pring Commission report It is rnere full discussed in the March 23, 2004 staff report to tl�e 'Berard of 15rrpervisiors beginning on Page 15, and again in the April 20, 2004 staff rcport to the Board,of Supervisors beginning on Page 5.The City of 6 05l11/2004 30:03 FAX 5107244921 CITY 4F PINOLE FW CDD Zoos Pinole did not receive any public notice on this project, and cannot therefore say with certainty how this project may bave been noticed, However, if the �ariance had never been noticed, included in either the discussion of the Docerrileer 16, 2003 staff report but not within environmental doc:urnerrtation, it would seem the project should be:renoticed to accurately reflect dhis variance_ 2. The November 2003 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates on page 32, Public Services, the proposed project is to "provide a fire flow of 1,600 1 gallons per minute . The 24 hour pump test indicates tx at 10 gallons per minute is expected. This seerns like an error that ,should be corrected in this document to prevent any rnisunderstanding that public infrastructure is being constructed outside the Urban Limit Line. 3. Ou Page 23, under the section entitled, State Law of the proposed Mitigated 'Negative Declaration (MND), there is a brief discussion of new legislation that goes into effect in 2000. SB 610 requires the Land Use Elementof all 'local jurisdictions to, "inventory existblg and ether groun&vater resources, assess existing and fixture water needs, and theca develop policies and implementation 15 measures to int-.grate water dotnand with land use plannin&P. The proposed MMD states that as an open space area,the new law"does not appear to be Applicable to lands outside the Urban. Limit Linc. such as the Briones Hills". It would be helpful to know whether this is a decision that has been rendered by Count',( Counsel or the Ea:;t Bay Municipal Utility District (E13MUD), `T"bi.s decision should be included as a resource in the bibliography for the proposed MNID or Environmental Impact Report(ETR) for the Gan Shalom project. IV. REQUESTED ADDITION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHOULD THE PROJECT BE APPROVED Should the Board of Supervisors approve the project, the City of Phiole roquests the following language be added as coxiditions of approval: i. Clan Shalom must constrict a recy=cled water facility on site. The location, siva and capacity of this facility must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning 16 Administrator prier to the issuance of any building pert-nits for this facility. if Design Review is required prior to establishing this facility' that process must occur before the installation of this feature, The City of Pinole requests re-,icwiag the site plan with this facility on the plans prior to the issaanne of any building permit for the site. 17 '. Identify on plans gubrnitted for building permit issuw)ce that the 100' buffer from Pinole Creels be maintained as a perrrmarent conservation casement that precludes any permanent or temporary structure, roads or other improvements that are related to the use; and operation of the cemetery. Additionally, a conservation easement shall be established for the hill area., and areas not specifically identi:fycd 05e'1112004 10,'0 PAX 51.07244921. CITE' OF PINOLE PW CDD for cemetery. Should Gan Sbalorn require expansion beyond the five,(5)phase as allowed by-#LP 02/068 into the conservation easernent areas, an amendrrnenl to the laid use permit sliall be required to remove the caseinent. Rcplacerneni of the easerrsent for the samt size and use must be provided by Can Shalom. proof ofthe procurement of this easement mi-,st be submitted to the Zoning Administrator Prier to any decision at a public hearing for the removal of the easernent. The;City of Pinole requests reviewing the site plan wA,ith these easements on the plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site. 3. 1,4o pesticides shall be used to fertilize turf and rather areas of the Gan. Shalor.0 arca. Prirar to the issua_-ice of a building permit, the applicant must pxovide a weed 18 abateanent and landscape maintenance program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. wilding permits shall not be issued until this report has been reviewed a-rd approved by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administratm.. 4. Revise the fourth sentence of Condition of Approval #24 to read„ "The cc rict is required to ceasepumping iinmediatety to allow the aquifer to recharge. Use of 19 storedwater cr vurchasizag of watermust occur to allow the daily operations at the cemetery to continue. If neither of these options are available, tlae cemetery op ations,burials and daily business,must cease immediately." 5. To ensure that there is no groundwater contamination, at the interntnent of the 201" b(Ay and before additional bodies are interred, a sampling of groundwater must be conducted by a. qualified hydrologist to be selected by the Contra 4''osta 2 County Corm-nunity Development Department (County) and paid for by Cast Shallotn. This report must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, Sub,e.quent tests shall occur at the into-nt€taent of the 401", 601", 801" and 1000n body. At any point should there be groundwater contamination, no further burials shall be allowed until the hydrologist, faired by the County car deterrr'De the c:c?rc of cnr4taminatxvn, and jriethods to prevent cxritinued contamination, 6. Add language to condition of approval #10(cof the April 20,;004 staff report so 21 that traffic will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley brad as a way to access the proposcd Can. Shalom projJect. V. CONCLUSION T"ne City of Pinole is submitting three letters as Attachm=ts, which address the existing horse failities and COTItamination of Pinole Creek from the c°i'•fluent from these uses. The 22 "icy of Pinole believes m l nvi.ronanental Impact Report is prepared to address this on- going issue as a cumulative:impact to the Pinole geek with the propos,:d ceaneiery rave- Th.c City of Pinole believes there is substantial evidence to prepare ar, Envirolunentaal Impact Report £nr the proposed Gan Shalom project. Pursuant to Section 15384(a wid b) of the Cali-fornia Enwironinental Quality Act(i� F�}, substaratfal evidence is defined as, 8 MI?1.,/2004 10,04 PAX 5/07244921 CITY OF FINOLE FW CDD �vlltt "enough relevant information and reasonable inference fi-om this information that a fair argument caai be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might aiso tic reached. Rghetber a.fair argument can he made that the project may leave a signiftcmit effect on the environment is to be detet-m-lined by examining the whole record before the lead agency, Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions, predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts". Additionally, there are many references within the: proposed Mitigated Negative Des h--ration that address only Phase; L As this is to be a project with five(5) phases, the i City of Pinole believes that a program: 'Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15165 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.) should be prepared. Lastly, Y.l-�e City of Pinole reminds the Board of Supervisors the general concept;. of 24 C~EQ a:, described in Section 15002 of the Guidelines &x the Califfbrnia Environmental Quality Act, Thebasic purposes of CEQA are to: 1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, signiffcaait enviresrrnsental effects of proposed activities. 2. Identify ways that crivironinental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 3. Prevent significant, avoidable darnage to the envirorivnent by requiring changes iij projects through, table rase of alternatives or mitigation ne-isures When the governmental agency find the changes to be feasible, 4. Disclose to the- public the reasons why a goverrrrraental agency approved thy project in the inanner the agency chose if significant envircm-mental effc,cts are involved. Again, the City of T'inole does not wish to step the proposed project. We understand the 25 need for this kind of use, and acknowledge that Gan Shalom. is trying to provide a service for its parishioner& Ho-wever,based upon the information contairi4d within this letter, the City of Pinole urges the Board of Supervisors to table any decision on the proposed project, have star`prepare an pnvirorental impact Report, and more fully address the environmental issues raised in this letter_ Thank ycsu for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Belinda Espinosa City Manager c: Pinole City Council Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attachments W:\Planning\Letters\05J004 Cyan Shalom Letter.doc 10 05,111r•2004 10:05 FAX 1107244021. C'1n' OF FINt1LE PW CDD �1�1ti Friends f Pinole CreekWatershed _. P.O. Brix 46, Pinola; CA 934564 December 8,2003 Darwin MeyersP U> ,. Co.Tamuni<y Development Department -- Contfa Costa County 51 Fine Street,North Wing,4th Floor, lvl.artirtez,CA 94553 ?dear Darwin Meyers: y The Friends of Pinale Creep Waterhsed wants to go on record in opposition to iswtiance of a Special 'Land Use Perrn%t (County File##LP02221068)to Gan Shalom, Inc. for the,construction of a cemetery at the corder of bear Creek Read axtd Hampton load.We support the B zones bills Agricultural Preserver residents' group in this regard because of serious concerns about locating a cemetery at that site.We believe it is inappropriate, The issues are complex and require further in depth, study.First there would, cif nceessity,be lame amounts of water withdrawn front the aquifer for landscaping.This would have, a negati Ores impact all residents of the arca who depend on well water.'There would be possible impacts on wildlife (including Califonnia red-legged frogs and steelhead xrout.) as well as water qualify farm r•anofl'travel concentrations of landscapin8 additives,and salts if the water is treated. Second, the very nature of the. area would be destroyed. Historically a dry fsimring area, to add a large area that is formally landscaped would not be fitting to agricultural sw-soundings. And third, Friends of Pincle Creek Watershed supports placing a cemetery in a location wliere utilities and appropriate access roads already exist,nGt in a location that would in-eversibly change the natme of ince surrounding rurnd area. The Friends of Pinolr,Creak Watershed is a community organization dedic eted to protecting and enliarc:ing,Pinole Creek and its watershed and to improving the health of Sart Pablo Bay.The group's members include citizens from Hercules, Pinole, Briones Malley and the surrowiding area, local e-ducators and students.EENTUD biologists, and representatives of local government. .Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is devoted to t1w protection and enhancement of the crtfr`v Pinole Creek Watershed including the upper watershed — and the pcartion that defines the north boundary of the ceirietery site. We therefore ask that all passible pioblerns be )nvt%tiga.tt�d with a full Environn.ental Impact Report. Thank vou, Ioc Nla,��t� ,/'/For Fiiends of Pinole Creek Watershed .05/11/2004 10:05 FAX 5107244921 CITY OF PINGLE PW (TI) 2012 2104 April 07 To'N }or Fater Murray and Counci.t Members, This is an expansion of the Friends of Pinole Creek Wat lxcd c o°ottretns as noted in the attached letter malled to Darwin Meyers,of the Contra Costa.CommuWty Development Departnnent in December of 200 3. Pinole Creel:is a seasonal crock entirely dependent on rainfall for recharge during all the months of the year.This recharge is absent during the summer months and is directly related to the success of Friends of Pinole Cree1 Watershed efTMU to restore oma` creek.. In order to facilitatc that restoration it is important that any large scale list of groundwater be looked at over the entire year. SteelheW,a recognized endangered sptci+es has been.reported along this creek. Burt Muleahacy,a Pinole resident and fish biologis4 in his letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 2,2004 states that"It is well docs rated that a significant amount of water flows back and forth between f ereelos or rives asci groundwater]in bath directions. Groundwater,in fact,in the dry months is the tiAn source of water for creeks suoh as Pinole—Ciroundwaftr levels need to be high enough so that they can interact with (coutribute'neater to)the:stream channel.In a smaller watershed like Pinole,it is rluitc likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows."He indicates in the letter that there are c me studies.examples of ouerdraftzng ef grotwdwater supplies.He further states that%.we mightsee tl.-creek with red-aced flows and may see it gel dry earlier or longer than.usuaL This cotes presentsignificant problems for sieelhead and red°-legged fres which have been.docanw,,ted in the watershed,. Rainbow= trout and steelhead javeuiles that lige year-round in the creek am pardeWmiy dependent can the 000l water temperatures in the summer..." 4 In the list of Conditions of Approval (fags 1 Findings A.2 Bullet#1),it is stated that'"All caskets will be set in concrete vaults with concrete traps installed."What it does not s`wte,is that the cofflus should be of wood,with holes in the boaam sud the vaults live concrete tops and modes, no base..Furthermore,as described in the migina. applicAtic+n,there is a plan to scrape the mo+adow acre by acre to a depth of 2V' ,put down.drainage material and pipes for recycling facility with gaps between each vault filled with drainage material.Winter rains wall inandate this layer With water,along with any herbicides,fertilizers or drainage from the caskets and this material has to ger sevnewhere.Whether it is taken out of the creek recharge and pu pedE to,tanks,or allowed to ran off bato the creek,it will contain that material.Dating heavy rains.the water will run toward Pinole and the bay. 10 In rho Gan.Shalom presentation,they said that them was,upon their own investigation,ten acres available at Rolling Hills Cemetery,located where appropriate access roads already exist,with utilities including water,and sewrex•lines already exist, and experienced staff are on hand.. J/f .J ph.- artotti L• j/f/f/ 05/11,12004 10.06 FAX 5107244921 CIT";; OF PINTOLE PW CDD 2014 Sett W. Compton 1115 Bear Creels Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 23 April 2004 Mayor Peter Murray Received City of Pinole APR 7 7 2004 21 i l Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Office of the City€lerk Dear?payor Murray, Your concern about the potential for pollution of Pinole Creek from proposed development in this area (Centra Costa Times, 21 April, page A5) is commendable. If you have visited the site you would of course have noticed, as cau any passerby, that there is already more immediate potential for stream contamination from neighboring properties also bordering Pinole Creep. To the west of the site is a watershed parcel, zoned A-2, which has been largely paved over with used road asphalt grindings, and is currently actively occupied by an apparent contractor's yard with heavy equipment, construction vehicles and trailers, machinery, materials, and storage containers. To the north of the site is a 55-stall equestrian,center which, contrary to the conditions of the land use permit, stockpiles its manure and stall litter in one exposed cumulative pile very close to the creek bank throughout the rainy season. Be as.-.zred that th-e Contra Costa Cu.;nty Planning C'onunission and Property Conservation Division are aware of these matters. How;vtr, there hasn't been any apparent abatement of the conditiwis. And these are just two immediate examples. V4-io knows what might lie upstream? It is hoped that you will personally demo:nstrate at least as €rush concern about the existing potential for pollution to Pinole Creek, and the County's ability to act, as you show for future conceivable conditions. Sincerely, Scott W. Compton RESPONSES TO COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF PINOLE (letter slated May 10, 2004) 1. The project is consistent with the County General Plan, the prevailing A-2 zoning, the Briones Hills Compact, and that compact provides no provision for notification of cities of land use permit applications. The Gan Shalom project is in the Martinez area, and the Notices for the County Planning Commission hearings followed the County's standard notification procedures. Specifically, the Community Development Department notified property owners within 300 feet, the City of Martinez, and all cities, agencies and organizations, as well as the public, that had requested notification. The Notification List for the January 13, 2004 CPC hearing did not include the City of Pinole because the City had not requested notification. The Friends o Pinole Creek provided a comment letter on the project (dated December 8, 2003). That letter, which was presented in the staff report for the December 16, 2003 hearing of the County Planning Commission, provided comments on Pinole Creek water quality issues. Those comments were considered by the County Planning Commission when reaching its decision, and it was included in the documents forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for the March 23, 2004 hearing. In summary, the project is not in the Pinole area and is not considered to represent a policy change in the Briones Hills Preservation Agreement, so there was no apparent need for blanket notification of cities that were members to the Briones Hills compact. 2. Comment acknowledged. The County appreciates the input provided by the City's letter. 3. The City's comment letter provides eight bulleted points, which provide details on the City's concerns with the adequacy of the Initial Study. The following is a point-by-point response to the eight bulleted points. • Nitrogen. The project plans and project description provide measures to prevent nitrogen from entering the creek and those details of the project are described in the Initial Study. Briefly summarized, drainage to the creek is by sheet flow. There are no culverts that convey runoff to the creek; the project provides an undisturbed/ungraded private open space buffer that extends 100 feet from the CAWINDOWS\Tempormy Internet Files\Content.IHS\MGVZJKIV.LP022068-PumoleRespoiises(2).wpd(4/25/04) 1 top-of-bank. This buffer will intercept nutrients before the reach the creek. The maintenance building(where fertilizers would be stored)is approximately 1,000 feet from the channel, minimizing the potential for accidental spills to impact the creek. It should also be recognized that the cemetery was proposed on 30 acres of a 9,705-acre watershed. Most correspondence and public testimony was directed to water resource issues (quantity and quality, and the potential for adverse effects on Pinole Creek). The testimony and public comments, in addition to the letter from the Friends of Pinole Creek, included comments of the following persons: Carol and Roger Dwinell, CPC, 12/16/03 Frank Nunes, CPC, 12/16/03 John Fouhy, CPS, 12/16/03 Lynn Sugayan 12/16/03 Allan C. Moore, Gagen et. al., 12/16/03 Gordon Thrupp, S.S. Papadopulos, CPC, 12/16/03 Chris Bearden, CPC, 12/16/03 Petition(274 pages) Frank Nunes, CPC, 1/13/04 Chris Bearden, CPC, 1/13/04 John Fouhy, CPC, 1/13/04 Gordon Thrupp, S.S. Papadopulos, CPC, 1/13/04 Chris and Carol Bearden, CPC, 1/13/04 Stephen L. Cali& Bonnie Brown-Cali, CPC, 1/13/04 John Maltsberger, CPC, 1/13/04 Hetty Dutra, CPC, 1/13/04 John Pereira, CPC, 1/13/04 Carol Dwinell, CPC, 1/13/04 Paul Brooks, CPC, 1/13/04 • Policies 8-75 through 8-77. These policies which speak to protection of water resources, are presented in Table 1. The comment identifies placing the General Plan policies cited in Table 1 as a means of their enforcement. However, if protection of water quality and groundwater resources were only implemented through CEQA, EIR's would be triggered on nearly all projects. In general, the Conditions of Approval represent one means of achieving this goal. Another CAWINDOWMemporery Internet Files\Content.IE5\M(3VZJKIV\LP022068-Pbwlekesponses(2)."d(4125/04) 2 means is through project Table i design. Specific comments on SELECTED GENERAL WATER RESOURCE consistency of the project With POLICIES FOR THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT � 8-75 Preserve and enhance the quality of surface and Policies 8-75 through 8-77 are groundwater resources. presented below: 8-76 Ensure that land uses for rural areas be i consistent with the availability of groundwater resources. 8-7.5. Public Works 8-77 Provide development standards in recharge Department Condition areas to maintain and protect the quality of groundwater supplies. of Approval#46 addresses this issue. Additionally, a SWPPP is required for projects that disturb I acre or more. Furthermore, a 100 foot wide open space corridor is provided behind the top-of-bank. It should also be recognized that the Initial Study was referred to the State Clearinghouse and distributed to the California Department f Fish & Game, Region 3; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality; and Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2. These agencies who have responsibility for enforcement of State water resource-related laws and policies, indicated no opposition to the issuance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 8-76. The County required a 24-hour pump test for the proposed production well.. The parameters for the pump test were reviewed by the County's hydrogeologist, who also observed field procedures during the test and analyzed the raw data resulting from the test. Based on evaluation of all pertinent data and comments, the County's hydrogeologist identified,f ve significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant (see Initial Study,pages 21-29 and Initial Study Appendices C, D, E, F and G). 8-77. The County's hydrogeologist reported that the upstream watershed (above the production well) was sufficiently large to serve as a recharge area for the production well. This subject was also discussed at the December 16, 2003 hearing of the County Planning Commission. That watershed area is in excess of 70 acres of land. CAWIN'JOWS\Temporary Intemet Piles\Content.IE5\_MGVDKIV\LP022068-PiiioleResPrnises(2).wpd(4/25/04) 3 • BMP's. This issue was discussed during the hearings on the project before the County Planning Commission by Lynn Sugayan. The Conditions of Approval require no pesticide use (COA#11). COA#46 requires submittal of Table 2 $MP's to protect water WATER QUALITY BMP'S THAT ARE CURRENTLY A PART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN quality. Those that have been included in the project design All surface drainage is by overland flow/sheet flow. There are no culverts that outfall into the creek, are presented in Table 2. There is an undisturbed,100 foot wide open space buffer adjacent to the top-of-bank. This buffer will trap nutrients and pollutants. • Decomposition of Human Any ground water collected by the gravel drains Remains. This Subject was • beneath the vaults is conveyed to a sump more than 100 feet from the top-of-bank,and pumped to a presented in the public holding tank for reuse. testimony and considered by There are no pesticides allowed for use. ' • The maintenance building approximately the County Planning g is pp y 1,000 feet from the creek,so the risk of accidental spills Commission and Board of (fertilizer,for example)presents a very low risk of Supervisors in their review of ' Impacting the creek. the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration(e.g., letter of Tim McDonough, presented in the January 13, 2004 staff report). The ground burials are to be underlain by a 6-inch drainage blanket. The elevation of the water table is controlled by the flow line of Pinole Creek. The water table is approximately 15 feet below the surface; and the excavation for the placement of the gravels is less than 3 feet deep, so the vaults/ground burials will be above the elevation of the water table. The drainage blanket drains to a sump that is more than 100 feet from the creek. The geotechnical report indicates the sump is to be pumped to a holding tank for reuse (Engen letter-report, dated February 19, 2003). The grading pians for the project show the tank at the base of the hills, more than 1,000 feet from the creek channel (labeled tank"s"). In summary, the drainage blanket is to efficiently intercept subsurface water before it reaches the creek and conveyed away from the channel. The soils on the valley floor are clayey and nearly impervious. Hence, the ground burials are not anticipated to have a significant impact on water quality in the creek or pose a health hazard. • Water Demand. The comment uses estimated water demand for Phase 1 to characterize water usage at full buildout. This assessment neglects to consider CAWINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\iMGVZFKIV�LP022068•PinoleResportses(2).wpd(4/25/04) 4 that COA#23 requires the applicant to demonstrate adequate water supply for each phase prior to its commencement and specifies that irrigation of the phase being proposed does not compromise the then current need of adjacent/nearby property owners. • Deferral of Mitigation Measures. In effect the County has provided performance- based criteria for the project. The implementation of subsequent phases is subject to submittal of technical data that meet the criteria provided. We disagree with the legal opinion provided by the comment that performance criteria is prohibited as mitigation measures by CEQA. • Traffic Analysis. In addition to the traffic analysis presented in the Initial Study, the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors received testimony comment letters on traffic addressing: a) remote location of the site; b) rural character of the road; c)use of the road by children, equestrians, hikers, bikers and joggers; d) accident history; e) emergency response time; 0 hazards posed by funeral processions and g) the cumulative growth of visitor traffic, especially on holidays, such as Memorial Day. The commentors on traffic included the following: Allan Moore; Cagen, McCoy, McMahon, CPC, 12/16/03 Lawrence Nunes, CPC, 12/16/03 John Fouhy, CPC, 12/16/03 R.J. Walters, CPC, 12/16/03 Matt Taylor, CPC, 12/16/03 Al Humbert, CPC, 12/16/03 Tom Lease, CPC, 12/16/03 Evidson& Joan Riggall, CPC, 12/16/03 Cathy Felder, CPC, 1/13/04 Hetty Dutra, CPC, 1/13/04 Todd Burlingame, CPC, 1/13/04 Lawrence Nunes, CPC, 1/13/04 Louis& Ken Cunningham, CPC, 1/13/04 Angeline and Gerry Riopelle, CPC, 1/13/04 CAWIND©WS\Temporary mtemet Piles\Ccmterct.IF9MGVZIKIVtLP022068-Pino4eRespoiises(2).wpd(4125104) 5 Stephen Cali & Bonnie:gown-Cali, CPC, 1/13/04 Ed Schofield, CPC, 1/13/04 The technical data provided by Abrams & Associates and evaluations of traffic issues by the Public Works Department, in combination with the comments of the public was fully considered in evaluation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance by the Supervisors and provided information that was utilized when denying the appeal and modifying the conditions of approval. • Cumulative Impacts. The project that was the subject of the Initial Study is described in Item#8, pages 2-3 of the Initial Study. It includes the entire cemetery site. The City of Pinole's letter has provided no technical data to indicate that preparation of an EIR is required. 4. Nitrogen is to be utilized as a nutrient for turf in areas where ground burials are proposed. The plantings along the perimeter of the site are to match native plants found in the Briones Hills. The design of the project handles runoff by sheetflow to the creek. Between use areas in the project and the top-of-bank, a 100-foot wide open space corridor is proposed by the applicant, based on recommendations of the applicant's biologist, LSA Associates. They conferred with the California Department of Fish& Game. The Site Plan for the cemetery and biologic studies were reviewed by the County's biologic consultant. As previously noted, the Initial Study was reviewed by biologists of the California Department of Fish& Game and the East Bay Regional Park District, as well as agencies charge with jurisdictional authority over protection of water quality. The reason these agencies have not expressed concerns about impacts to the surface waters of Pinole Creek can be summarized as follows: a) there are no culverts that outfall to the creek, b)the 100-foot wide buffer provides space for nutrients to be trapped prior to reaching the channel, and c) the irrigation water in the cemetery which infiltrates the soil will be collected in a sump and conveyed to a tank for reuse, and the sump is more than 100 feet from the top-of-bank. Finally, the City cites information submitted with the application and identifies it as new information of an environmental impact. It is information that was considered by the biologic consultant but not regarded as a significant impact due to the design of the project. C:\\uINDOWS\Tetnnoraty Internet Files\Conteart.IMMGVZTKIV\LP022068-PiiiiltResponses(2).wpd(4/25/04) 6 5. This comment is responded to previously (see response to City of Pinole comment#3, bullet#3). Comment 45 quotes the Initial Study and staff reports and conditions of approval, which have previously been considered by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The comment speculates on the types of compounds and substances that may find their way to the creek., but the BMP's required by COA#46 address this issue. It should also be recognized that the maintenance building is 1,000 feet from the creek and the chapel/office building is 300 feet from the creek. 6. The comment questions the ability of the sump recommended by Engeo (letter-report dated February 19, 2003)to collect groundwater and pump it to a holding tank. The County peer review geologist regards this proposed drainage facility as a relatively routine design/construction element of the project. Furthermore, it is not significant new information, but a component of the project design. 7. This comment is responded to previously (see response to City of Pinole comment#3, bullet#4). Comment#7 utilizes information from the Initial Study and the December 16, 2003 staff report, concluding that the City's assessment is new information. A focus of the Initial Study was ground water resources. The discussion pointed out that the project site is in the outcrop belt of fractured sandstone that has greater permeability than the Rodeo Shale (which outcrops across Bear Creek Road from the site). The Engeo hydrogeologist testified that the pump test and associated engineering analysis indicate that the production well is adequate for Phase 1, and the data suggests that it may be adequate for Phase 2. The testimony also indicated that 10 to 20 percent of irrigation demand could be satisfied by recycling irrigation water. The County hydrogeologist identified a series of impacts and associated mitigation measures that reduced the groundwater impacts to less-than-significant. 8. The comment questions the effects on the project on a) the lower reaches of the creek, and b) questions whether implementation of the project will alter bio-diversity of the area. It goes on to question the effects of stormwater runoff and irrigation on biologic resources. In response, the biological resources were evaluated by LSA and those reports were presented in the Initial Study(see Appendix A). The County's biologic peer reviewer, Monk & Associates, reviewed the data provided by LSA Associates, reviewed the Site C:\WINDOWS\Temponry Internet Ffl s\ContentIF5\M(3VZIILIV\LP022068•Pnrol,!R&sprn ses(2).wpd(4/25/04) 7 Plan, and made a site visit. Based on their evaluation, mitigation measures were identified that are presented on pages 12 to 17 of the Initial Study. These mitigation measures have been translated into Conditions of Approval 15 through 19. The biologic resource mitigation measures reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant. 9. A fencing mitigation measure is required to clearly define the 100-foot setback from the creek. The intent is to prevent intrusion of the public to the buffer area. Additionally, a frog exclusion fence is required by the biologist to keep red-legged frogs in the creek corridor. Finally, there is provision for a snake exclusion fence, if the biologist determines that temporary fencing is needed to protect the Alameda whipsnake during grading of the I-acre segments. The fencing is not expected to interfere with significant wildlife corridors. 10. The Initial Study relied on two primary sources of data on traffic. These are the"Traffic Safety Evaluation of Gan Shalom Cemetery" which was prepared by Abrams Associates, and the Public Works Department's review of the project, which took into account the details of the proposed project and the nature of the road network. As noted in response to City of Pinole comment#3, bullet#7, the Initial Study, along with the public participation (correspondence and testimony), were fully considered by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, who determined that there was sufficient information on traffic conditions. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified as adequate and some additional conditions of approval were added to provide additional safe guards. 11. The comment of the City of Pinole questions the basis for staff's response to Appeal Point#9 in the March 23rd, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors. In response, it was based on the testimony of Abrams Associates at the January 13', 2004 hearing before the County Planning Commission and the professional judgement of the engineers of the Public Works Department. The evaluation of the County takes into account the experience with visitors to other cemeteries in the County, and the limitations of the existing road network. In summary there is public controversy over this project, but the public controversy over the environmental effects of the project (e.g. visitor traffic) does not trigger a requirement for an EIR if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency. Determinations on the scope and direction of traffic studies are a technical matter. In the County, such determinations are routinely made by the Public Works Department. CAVANL OAMTempor®ty Internet FiieslContennt.IE5\MGVZJKIV\LP022068-PvtoleResponses(2).wpd(4r4S/04) 8 12. Comment of the City of Pinole is noted. The Conditions of Approval can not be modified without the Board of Supervisors agreeing to Reconsider the approval. 13. The hearing on the appeal filed by the Briones FIills Preserve Alliance was noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing notice specifically identified the variance request, and the notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet as well as all persons, Cities and agencies who had expressed an interest in the project/requested notification. 14. Comment noted. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (see COA#28). 15. SB 610 only refers to groundwater in terms of supporting public water systems, not individual user wells. 16. The construction of the recycled water facility consists of the drainage blanket, the subdrain pipe and sump, sump pump, and pipeline to the storage tank, and then a connection to the irrigation system. The system has not yet been designed, but this type of construction is not highly sophisticated. The City's comment suggests that these improvements, along with building plans be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; and prior to action on the plans the Zoning Administrator they be referred to the City of Pinole for review and comment. In response, COA#1 already addresses the Site Plan, indicating that it is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. While not explicitly identified, it is within the authority of the Zoning Administrator to require details of the drainage/recycled water collection and distribution system, and referral to the City of Pinole for comment is not an unreasonable request. This could be handled administratively without the need for revisions to COA#1. COA#2 addresses the proposed structures, and indicates review is required by the Zoning Administrator. This would certainly include all above ground facilities, including the hatch for the sump, recycled water tank. Referral to the City of Pinole could be handled administratively without the need for revision to COA#2. C.\WINDDWS\T=porary Interiut Piles\Content.IES\MGVZJKIW,P022068-PinottRespolms(2).wpd(M25/04) 9 __ 17. The City's comment is one approach to protecting the private open space within the project. The approach taken by the County Conditions of Approval may be summarized as follows: The 104 foot wide buffer behind the-toy-of-bank. This buffer is addressed by COA#15 and the list of mitigations in the associated Table 1. The condition requires the applicant to a) submit a revised Site Plan for the cemetery that accurately shows (and labels)the 104-foot setback line; b) record a deed preserving the buffer in perpetuity; and c) the buffer shall be fenced (permanent fencing)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 details of the fencing requirement is presented in Table l of the COAs. The language in the table is taken directly from Mitigation Measure 1, which commences on page 12 of the Initial Study. Hillside Private Open Space. The hillside area is not shown for cemetery uses. The applicant would need to apply for and be granted approvals for any use of the hillside area that might be required in the future. Additionally, approval of tree permits and grading permits would be needed. For those reasons it is the County opinion that the hillside areas are adequately protected. 18. This proposal of Pinole requests a weed abatement program. In response, COA#11 requires a landscape plan, providing requirements to ensure both an efficient irrigation system and turf that is selected for drought-tolerant characteristics. COA 911 also provides for no pesticide use. The Conditions of Approval do not address landscape maintenance, considering that an issue for the cemetery to resolve to its satisfaction. (Weeds in the turf may be important to Gan Shalom, but are not necessarily an issue for the land use permit.) COA#27 addressed the Endowment Care Fund to assure perpetual maintenance of the cemetery; and COA#5 requires administrative reviews for the first five years and at five year intervals thereafter. The COA specifies that the Compliance Deport"document growth/survival of the landscape plantings". 19. The City of Pinole has suggested revisions to COA#24. In reply, the last sentence of this COA reads as follows: MWINDOW5\Tempoxatp Intemet Files\Content.IE5\M43VZJKMLP022068-PinoleR.esponses(2).wpd(4/25/04) 10 The cemetery shall implement such additional measures as the Zoning Administrator may require after reviewing the (hydrology) report. The revised language suggested by the City of Pinole is more restrictive. However as the condition now reads, the Zoning Administrator has authority to take prompt and decisive action. There is no new evidence to suggest that Pinole's recommended wording is needed. 20. The City of Pinole has suggested a water quality condition of approval specifying testing for groundwater contamination. The County Health Services Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have reviewed the plans submitted by Cyan Shalom. The Health Services Department indicated they saw no public health or water quality issues; Blair Allen of the RWQCB indicated that the Gan Shalom project was very well thought out; he was pleased the COA#46 required BMP's to protect water quality; and he indicated that the project would require a SWPPP. The recommendation of Pinole has been referred to the Public Works Department and Gan Shalom. The decision on whether to do groundwater testing; its location, objective, methodology could be considered for inclusion as a BMP by those technical experts of Gan Shalom and Public Works Clean Water Program staff. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the agencies have jurisdiction over these matters have not identified a need for testing ground water quality. 21. No evidence is presented by the City of Pinole to support the claim that this is needed a s condition of approval. Nevertheless, the applicant has indicated a willingness to work cooperatively with the City of Pinole to provide measures to discourage use of Pinole Valley Road as access to the cemetery. This is voluntary on the part of Gan Shalom. 22. If substantial evidence of significant impacts is presented, the Lead Agency must prepare an EIR, even though it may be presented with other substantial evidence that the project would not have significant impacts (Guidelines sec. 15064). Sometimes known as the "fair argument" standard, this standard for preparation of an EIR may turn on expert, factual, or other substantial evidence where, if there is conflicting evidence on the record (e.g., if two experts disagree)regarding the potential for significant effect, the Lead Agency is still required to prepare an EIR. The term substantial evidence includes facts, fact-related reasonable assumptions, and expert opinion. According to CEQA, substantial evidence does not include arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, CAWIN-DOWMempornry Hemet Files\Content.IES\MGVZJK.'V\LP022068-PinoleResponses(2).wpd(4/25/04) 11 clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or socioeconomic impacts not related to the physical environment (Pub. Res. Code secs. 21080(e), 21082.2(c), Guidelines sec. 15380. Determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency. To the extent feasible, the decision should be based on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of"significant effect" is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. In this case, the technical studies prepared by consultants retained by the project proponent were utilized, and in several cases those studies were peer reviewed by the County's consultants (engineering geologist, hydrogeologist, and biologist). Furthermore, the input of local regional and State agencies was sought and obtained. For the Gan Shalom project a Negative Declaration was prepared because the Initial Study identified potentially significant effects for which the project's proponent, before public release of the proposed Negative Declaration, agrees to make project revisions that clearly mitigate the effects. (For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, specific mitigation measures must be developed and agreed to before project approval.) During the processing of this application, questions have been raised about water resources, biologic resources, traffic and other environmental effects. Information from technical studies and agency contacts indicate that the only potential impacts are cultural resources, biological resources and water resource effects. The Briones Hills Preservation Alliance retained a hydrogeologist, S.S. Papdopulos & Associates. That firm, along with the County's hydrogeologist, identified significant groundwater impacts. The County's consultant identified mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. In determining if a Mitigated Negative Declaration of significance was adequate for this project, the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors considered all pertinent information, including correspondence and public testimony. 23. The City of Pinole's comment recommends a Program EIR be prepared for this project. A Program EIR is a type of first-tier document that can be prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project . They generally analyze broad environmental effects of the"program" with the acknowledgement that site-specific environmental review may be required for a particular aspect of the program when those aspects are proposed for implementation. Program EIR's are inherently general in nature C:MNDOW51Temporwy Intemet Files\Content.IES\MGVZJKIV\P02206R-PinoleResponses(2).wpd(4!35/04) 12 because of the project being analyzed in general in nature. In this case, the applicant provided approximately 30 technical reports which specifically characterize site conditions and provide evaluation of project effects/provide detailed recommendations for project implementation. 24. Comment acknowledged. The County believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration satisfies the basic purposes of CEQA. No information to the contrary has been provided by Pinole. 25, The County appreciates the continent of the City of Pinole. CAWINDOWS\Temponry Intemet FiL-s\Content.IE3\MMGVI.KIV\LP022068-Pbwle$espoxms(2).wpd(4/25/04) 13 EXHIBIT C Transcript of Public Hearing Testimony (Preliminary Draft) on Reconsideration Request April 20, 2004 SHALOM CEMETERY PROTECT/TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS APRIL 20, 2003 Opening remarks regarding timing, agenda items, issues regarding budget,public comments etc. Sup. Glover: Lets move to SDb and this is to consider a request for reconsideration of the Board's denial of Carol Dwinelle on the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance appeal of the decision by the County Planning Commission to approve a land use permit for the cemetery in Martinez, Briones Valley area. Kutsuris: As you recall the land use permit for the Gan Shalom project was approved by the Board of Supervisors at your March 23rd public hearing. This followed public hearings held by the County Planning Commission. Most recently the same appellants that appealed the County Planning Commission have forwarded to you a motion requesting that you reconsider the decision that you made on March 23rd granting that land use permit; staff has reviewed the information provided by those requesting the motion for reconsideration and respectfully we haven't found any new information or new topic areas that were not either the subject of the Environmental Review or items that were brought up before the Planning Commission and the Board. It is generally the same type of information, the same subject matter or subject matters that could have been brought up during the lengthy public hearings that have been held on this project. Accordingly, following excepting anyone who wishes to speak on this matter, we ask that you find the reconsideration request presents no new substantial evidence that would alter the Board's decision granting the land use permit and denying the appeal and to deny the request of reconsideration filed by Carol Dwinelle and Briones Hills Preserve Alliance. Thank you. Sup. Glover: Thank you Ms. Kutsuris. We do have a number of speakers first being Carol Dwinell. c:\WINDOWs\TempozaryIntemet€iles\eonteit.tesMcvvKIv\LP022068-Hee,i ghntes.wpd(a 25/04) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1 Dwinell: Good supervisors, thank you for hearing me. My name is Carol Dwinell living at 201 Bear Oaks Court and representing residents of the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve. Here we again and one more time we will recite the reason why it is unconscionable to grant a special land reuse permit for a cemetery in the center of Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve. It is area rural in nature with cows, horses and open lane. For so long it has remained pretty much the same and why is that? Certainly it is prime development land, close to major cities, with plenty of view sites relatively close to major freeways once one travels at least 7 miles on small windy narrow roads. So why hasn't that change happened? It is because there is very little water. It is because there are records of endangered and threatened species. It is because the services that would support a major development have been denied by an agreement with the surrounding cities and the County that there will be not more water, ... not sewage, no natural gas <' or managed�„3J control. Cities that were not notified of this change... this is a special land use permit for non-agricultural project. So you have against the wisdom of the people who have lived there for many many years and know this to be true, in spite of the reasons repeatedly offered and you have granted this special land use permit on the basis of information that is fault, incorrect and incomplete. Reconsideration as defined in Webster's dictionary is to consider again, especially with intent to change an earlier decision. It would be good if this decision to reconsider were based on facts. Consider that the water study was flawed, did not reflect the rain-related recharge by testing during various seasons and in a manner that would reflect the plans as submitted, and ignoring, no not just ignoring, but denigrating the materials submitted by an outside expert, one who did not have previous ties to the proponents or to the County. The traffic study was flawed admittedly and on record as flawed, and there was no offer to resubmit accurate information that would reflect the actual hours of usage, the number of type of users, in a manner that would exhibit what visitors could expect from 10 a.m. until dusk, an hour which can be anywhere from 5 p.m. in the winter until 9 p.m. in the summer. CAWINDOWS\TemporaryIntmetFiledContent.1E5\,vIGVZJKIV\LP022068-HearingNotes.wpd(4M/0A) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2 Environmental conditions managed to leave out the steelhead with the winter recharge of Pinole Creek. The staff report that I submitted for this hearing left out a page which was faxed to you this morning and talks about the fact that wood is the only material allowed with several holes in the bottom to hasten the bodies return to the earth. When faults are required they too should be open at the bottom and this is an environmental issue. Here are copies of that fax in case you did not receive and I have also a study done by the Mt. Zone School of Medicine in New York in collaboration with the environmental work group research at two major laboratories that found 91 industrial compounds, pollutants and other chemicals in the blood and urine and the volunteers which you might find interesting. Sup. Glover: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sup. Uilkema Mr. Chairman, Mayor Murray is coming forth. I wanted to say that I mis-spoke at the last hearing on this subject and indicated, it was not malicious on my part. I firmly believe that Pinole had been notified in advance and in fact they had not and I mentioned to Mayor Murray that I intended to clarify that publically that was my mistake, my misunderstanding. So therefore I apologize to you and to Pinole. Mayor Murray: Thank you. We appreciate that. I really do. Sup. Glover: And I would just like to say Mr. Murray that I was sifting through this and just realized that your speaker card was in there;we try to use protocol in having our elected officials come before us first. Mayor Murray: Just another citizen within the County to be treated no more than anyone else. I do want to thank you for entertaining my comments today Chair Glover and Board of Supervisors. What I would like to do is just read our letter i. letter of April 12th in regards to this matter and we respectfully requested that copies of all documents, i.e., agenda packet, and the copy of the agenda for any meetings that occurred. Any meetings, public comments, special meetings which were c:xWIND0ws\TernporaiyIntemetFfles\content.IE51MGVZJKN\LP022058•HearingNates.wpa(4/25/04) PRELIMINARYDRAFT 3 involved related to the subject of this application and directed that to our City clerk. This letter was prepared by our City Attorney. It expressed our concerns with the creek environmental issues and other issues that pertain to this particular application. I do hope you received that, I would hope that you had to date—I have received nothing. So I only knew about this meeting because I received a phone call yesterday about it so, again, I want to point out that we are ill-prepared to comment on this application and if I can point out just a simple fact—I will do it physically for you. This is the valley, Pinole at the mouth of the creek and the Bay and then the valley going up with all the tributaries contributing to it. The creek runs right smack through the middle of our community. It starts going through residential areas, it goes right through our valley park, it goes through more residential areas, it goes through the shopping centers, goes through more residential areas and goes down to our Downtown city areas through Fernandez Park, Senior Center and out to the Bay, It is very treasured within our community and we have been working diligently with the Army Corps of Engineers to restore the creek and restore the habitat with the steelhead. That being one issue. But I just wanted to note to you again, when I left the last meeting I fully expected that there would be an extension so that we could 10 comment on the mitigated issues and I know that you worked hard on mitigation in regards to this application, but we have not seen any of it. I don't know, the City Council doesn't know, our community doesn't not know what the mitigation issues and what the mitigations have been. So we respectfully request, as we requested in this application on the 12th, that we receive those. The last thing I would like to comment on is... I started doing a little research and one of the issues that comes from this is the organic materials from decomposition of bodies within that area and I spent all last night reading through N' ;transcripts of the Planning Commission meetings and I didn't notice that that was ever addressed in any of the issues. C:\WINDOWS\Tempoi,&yInt=et Files\Content,IES\MGVZJKI�1,LF022068-HearingNotes.upd(4/25/04) PR.EL.1MINARYDRAFT 4 You have the groundwater issues which is legitimate, we know in Pinole it is legitimate because during the drought seasons that we had we actually had members of that area having to come to Pinole to load up 80mand whatever else to bring water back to their properties in order to maintain their own standard of living let alone maybe the auxiliary standards for the horses and cows and everything else, and so that valley is in a situation where water is a critical issue. Like it is throughout the State, water is a very critical issue when you starting talking about it becomes very personal. They do have issues with the lack of water there; particularly at the end of the summer, the dry summer seasons. But the point that I want to make is that the decomposition of bodies... I looked up this report that dates back to 1951 but it really addresses the issue of pollution that occurs from cemeteries and how that can 12 affect the water tables within an area. Something for you to read—I would hope that you would read it in lieu of, not in lieu of, in addition to an extension and then the thing that I wanted to point when I was reading through the Planning Commission meetings was that they talked about drains to restore some of the water that might be utilized on the cemetery. These drains would go to cisterns that would capture that water and replenish the water supply that they have to tend to the cemeteries needs, but I guess my question would if you read this report and you talk about the particulates that spread out throughout the water table system, and particularly if you have several layers of burial. You have the vaults are stacked on top of each other,„, is not as closer to the surface and these drains are talking about going through the middle of these to capture this water. That's captured but in the rainy season what happens is the particulants that over the course of 10 to 15 years get into the ground area, saturate the ground area due to natural runoff and percolation that occurs, can come suspended and then during these rainy seasons drain into these cisterns and then ... now we are in a rainy season, what happens when the cisterns overflow, where does that go? Obviously there has to be overflow and the overflow is obviously going to go and end up somewhere in the creek because you are not going to have a treatment plant out there. .... I would ask for a CAWIND0W31T=poratylntemetFilestContent.FE5lMGVZJKIV�LP022068•HewingNotes.wpd(4/25,04) PRELI I]VA YDRA "T 5 little consideration considering again that we were not offered the opportunity to comment on this in the past, either at the Planning Commission nor at the other level. So again we get into the matter of first you have issues with the water table and perhaps wells, other peoples wells, perhaps being affected by ' this, but also the creek and then we have issues addressing stormwater pollution issues like the County does and we have to , '� . What happens in this case? Is this considered. groundwater pollution once it enters into the estuary and begins travels and traverses through the Valley and down to the Bay and does it have to be mitigated? I don't know if that has been addressed. It is a question I had last night when I was sitting there looking into this and thinking about things, thinking maybe a little too deep but thinking about all matters considered and then again I don't know—maybe it has been mitigated. We have never been privy to the mitigations or the reasons that it should have been mitigated. I would ask again that extended so that we can comment on it at the very least in consideration of this water pollution issue and the type of water issues that you have there that you do look at, certainly consider an EIR on the matter. Thank you... Any questions? Sup. Uilkema: Yes Mr. Murray, how long do you think Pinole's analysis would take? Mayor Murray: Again it depends on what we are reviewing.... Sup. Uilkema: Well you have some materials because you were reading them last evening. Mayor Murray: I have is a transcription of the Planning Commission minutes, that is what I have. I have nothing else and that was given to me by one of the proponents of this request that is before you today. And they transcribed them I guess from tapes, so that is what I have just the Planning Commission meetings and again we didn't get it from the CAWINDOWMempormy Internet Files\Content.IE5\MGVZSKIV\LP022068•HeazvigNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PREUVElVARY DRAFT 6 County staff here and we would just request that we do. We have to review all of that, we have to look at those issues might... Sup. Uilkema: So what do you think might be an appropriate timeframe? Mayor Murray: I would ask for a month for us to review it. That is two council meetings, one to talk about it and one to have action on it if there is any issues that we think need to be discussed. Sup. Gioia: I have a procedural question on that. The issue that is before us today is whether to grant a reconsideration, so the question, I want to be clear here, is if we have an extension today would that be allowing Pinole to basically enter the issue whether to add additional information on the request for a rehearing. If there is a rehearing then clearly Pinole gets information into the record. If there is not a rehearing, then the issue of what... under the Ordinance what is the process if we had a continuance today of any additional information from Pinole... I assume it would go to the question of whether a rehearing would occur as opposed to the permit conditions themselves. Barry: The provisions that we have in our Code related to requests for reconsideration indicate that the question is to be placed on the next available calendar and decided based up on the submitted materials: Sup. Gioia: In writing it says... right? I was just reading over that. The request for reconsideration has to be... there is a request that has come in, the Board can make a decision on that request... you had to put it on the agenda at this meeting. The Board can decide on it either at this meeting or subsequent meetings or what is the issue on that... Barry: You could continue it to a date certain. Sup. Gioia: ... one that is really important to distinguish is Pinole's information is going to have to go to the issue of whether or not there would be a reconsideration as opposed... It's a fine point because we haven't opened this up yet. Clearly if it reopened then additional information CANVINL'ows\TemponaryInteinetFiles\content.IE5\MGvzJxrn;Pozzoes-HesringNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY DR FT 7 that you wanted to provide, but initially you may want to provide what information is relevant for Pinole to provide if we do continue it. Sup. Glover: Mr. Markasi do you have some comments? Markasi: No I have no additional comments. Sup. Glover: I am thinking just so that you know, I realize we have more speakers but I am thinking that perhaps we could delay the request in keeping with Pinole's request for the reconsideration. Obviously that involves their review but also it may involve information of some kind and that's what I would need some guidance about, how we would deal with it. Speakers talking over top of each other—can't understand all of it Mayor Murray: I would just like to leave for you these that might be pertinent for you. Here is a lawsuit�L vs. Mt. Greenwood Cemetery for this particular issue that I was talking about, about the flow of pollution into streams. 1 There is an issue of UC Davis being sued for water pollution in to111' 1 Creek and here is a copy of the Board of Supervisors comments on the cost for developing and keeping clean water requirements bill and then our letter to the City. Sup. Uilkema: Mr. Mayor one of the things I am thinking it might very well be the scenario that this material has really already been included in both the Planning Commission and in the previous reviews. Murray: I appreciate that, I understand that, I understood that before I walked in the door but I don't know that. Sup. Glover: That is exactly right and that is why... Nunes: My name is Lawrence Nunes. I live at 100 Via Domingos, Martinez, California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the issues. The staff report stated that there was no new evidence and recommended CAWINDOWS\Teinpormy Internet xites�Conce4t.tesMGvzrxiv\.LPozaosa-Hees gNe.ees.wpa(4/25/o4) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 8 denied the request, however the staff report does not contain part of a document that was submitted. ... faxed it to you this morning. It is regarding Jewish burial customs. The casket being wood only, to be allowed several holes that are open in the bottom to hasten the body's return to the earth. ... vaults require ' £u too should be open at the 1 bottom. I went to Darwin Myers office and discussed this with him after receiving the additional staff report that was missing, we discussed that at the last meeting. We looked through all the information. I talked with people that § already. ... basically confirm it and I also after that meeting called Cemetery regarding the Jewish section of their cemetery and confirmed that this is the practice. Darwin Myers stated in so many words that that was not their understanding. That that was not the configuration of the caskets and the vaults. So again this is new information, especially since it is not in the staff report that we received. It is nowhere. The EIR as it relates to groundwater contamination, the EIR as it relates to the environment of Pinole Creek including federally- endangered steelhead trout, Must about a 1,004 feet down the creek. 16 t$ it did not take into consideration it is not in the staff report and was stated to me in so many words from Mr. Myers. So this condition of the interact with the gravel subdrains system and 1 waterway and heavy rains diverts it directly to the creek again supports requirement for an environmental report. It is necessary, a comprehensive analysis is necessary of this operation and we know that April 15th of last year you initiated and Associates a biodiversity study of Pinole Creek. I don't know exactly where it was but I assume that it is in a public land area between the City and private land headwaters. So again a full EIR is necessary and we hope that you consider our request. Sup. Glover: Thank you Mr. Nunes. Our next speaker is Paul Brooks. Brooks: I have left copies of her comments (Dwinnel) that she didn't leave before, CAWINOOWSMunporityIntemetFiles\ContentlE5\MGVZYKIV\L?022068-HearingNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 9 Brooks: Hello my name is Paul Brooks, I live at 450 Bear Oaks Drive in Martinez, California in the Briones Valley. I am handing out some copies of those pages to you and three different items. Fist I would 1 like you to recognize that in past projects of Pinole Valley such as a neighbor who wanted to build a church, she was advised she would need an EIR on that. If an EIR is not agreed to or required in this project it sets a precedent that the future projects for buildings like this, there will be no EIR or for irrigation or that kind of thing. Second, the PG&E lines run over the project and just as a matter of clarification, I could not find in the original planning documents anything that mentioned them and apparently PG&E has an easement that says nothing permanent can be built under those electrical lines. It 18 was not clear from the planning whether that was ever recognized. They do include grave sites as a permanent building and looking at the original plans it appeared that later portions of the plan would require building grave sites under the electrical transmission lines and I think that point should be clarified through the planning steps. My final discussion is on the arbitrary nature of the measure of the baseline water level. Now I must compliment Supervisors Uilkema and Gioia for being very careful in making sure that the water table was not going to be excessively pumped by this project and affect the other neighbors, however, in talking with Dr. Myer and I found nothing but good faith on this matter, but it is not clear how the 1 baselines will be set in this water document. If you look at items 20 and 21, which on the documents I have given you, it says the water table should be measured and then it will be allowed to go down 15 feet below that in subsequent documents. But it doesn't say how long the baseline should be measured. In fact it is not clear with the order that these items are written in, when the monitoring well people will actually be drilling. It has not been drilled yet. Normally it would seem a matter of sense that one season at least would be required for measurement of these monitoring wells before companies could start and probably two. And if you could ask for clarification with Planning staff`I would appreciate it because I do think it is an area that is CAWINDOWS\Ternporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\MGVZJKIViLP022069-HeazingNotes.wpd(4125/04) PRELIMIXARYDRA"T 10 _..... _. somewhat liable to abuse or misunderstanding in this measurement of the baseline. Thank you. Sup. Glover: I have no more speaker cards in this item. I will bring back to the Board, Supervisor L .... Sup. Gioia: I just want to make a comment on the issue of the baseline ... I want to separate for a second that issue out from the other issue because I think that is more of a clarification issue as opposed to an appeal issue. If this is going to be continued then just to have staff look at some clarification. And just to be clear because I have... what you just gave me showed that as condition 20, we have 21. It is now called 21 just to be clear. I think what you gave us were the conditions prior to our 20 Board action. There was some changes. So the issue of the baseline which is now Condition 21, if you turn to Condition 25 (talking to our staff ,K"<= there is a typo... it says in addition to the preliminary baseline data submitted under Condition 20, that should say now 21 because obviously because obviously baseline data is now in 21 as opposed to 20. But it says here 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 CDD and Health Services Dept. using the two years of measurements. So I think,just so it is clear in 21, the way I have looked at this and again I appreciate that they are again separate from the appeal issue just to get clarification on this, sounds like there is initial baseline line, meaning that there will be data that will be immediately collected but then it will be refined over two years. So I think that issue is resolved as long as maybe when this comes back for the staff to... would it be appropriate even it if.. I want to leave the possibility open if we didn't have a reconsideration that you would be able to clarify that in linking 21 to 25 so it is clear. Because I know in the request for reconsideration it mentioned the baseline data issue. To me that was less an issue of whether this gets a reconsideration and more an issue of clarification and I think under any circumstances we can do that and CAWINDOWS1Tetnporuy Internet Files\Contort.IE5\.V.G\I23KIV\LP022068•HeuingNotes."d(4/25!04) PRELIMINARY DRAFT I I so I am going to suggest that we, looking at 21 and 25 together, get that issue clarified. Sup. Glover: Supervisor Uilkema. Sup. Uilkema: Dennis was going to say something. Barry: To the extent that we edit the wording of the condition as printed, to more accurately reflect the decision of the Board, that would be fine. As long as we don't change the substance of it. Sup. Gioia: And there again it makes reference to using the refined baseline of two years of measurements. Brooks: May I asked a question of the supervisor. Sup. Glover: I will allow it at this time but your time is up. Go ahead. Brooks: Thank you sir. Does this mean that pumping on the well may not start before two years worth of measurement data has been made in the monitoring wells? ... We need to look back over the complete set of conditions as to when pumping would start. I think we need to have discussion to reflect how all the conditions work together. I have a sense it is going to get continued for the next meeting. Sup. Glover: Supervisor Uilkema, Sup. Uilkema: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am going to request, even though this is District 1 site location, many of the residents here with this request are here from District 2, and Pinole is also in District 2 and I would like to honor the request of the Mayor and to delay our decision on whether to reconsider this issue for one month for their review. And I would respectfully request both Supervisor Gioia from District 1 and my colleagues that that be allowed to occur. CAWINDows\TnmpoxasyIntemet FIles�Content.tesMGVZJK LP02aoas-Hears gNotes.wpd(azsroa) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 12 Sup. Glover: Is that a motion? Sup. Uilkema: Yes. Sup. Glover: To what date,just so we are clear? Sup. Uilkema: I was thinking one month which is what Mayor Murray requested. What our calendar looks like, we could go May 18th or 25th to post for 10:40 AM. Sup. Glover: What date? Barry: May 18th or 27th. Sup. Uilkema: 18th. Sup. Glover: Okay. Sup. Gioia: If that is your motion I will second it. Sup. Uilkema: But I see our staff waving hands so that always concerns me. Barry: Mr. Chairman I just wanted to be clear that in the staff and County Counsel's view this continuance as a request for reconsideration does not change the statute of limitations for filing a court challenge under CEQA? So it still runs 30 days from the filing of Notice of Determination. Sup. Uilkema: That would be an issue between the applicant and the appellant or with the County,just to get clear here so everyone knows what their options are. Barry: That would be, { 6L of that statute would probably be available if the Board actively chose to reconsider ... but continuing that question of whether to reconsider allows the Boards decision from last time to stand and therefore the statute will run on that decision. CAWINDOWMTempomry Internet PiLes\Content.IF5\MCfVZJKIV\LP022068-HearingNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELI.r IXARY DRAFT 13 _. Sup. Uilkema: And the party that would have the ability to fthe statute. Barry: ....the opponents of the Board's decision which would be the appellants � L the requesters for the motion. Sup. Uilkema: Just to be clear here.. if the goal here ... so there would not be litigation before the final decision or there has been a decision but there has been now consideration of a reconsideration issue, would the County or the applicant be the entity that would grant a tolling of the statute to the appellant? Barry: Both. A judicial challenge probably would be made against the County and the k party in interest. Sup. Uilkema: Would it be a recommendation that I would include that we request to enter into a tolling agreement or not? Barry: That is not a recommendation. We wanted to let you know the consequences of continuing this item. Sup. Uilkema: Because the statute will run before this item comes back to the Board. Well there may very well be a lawsuit, which either means a lawsuit is filed. If they want to preserve their right to avoid that from happening, obviously it depends what action this Board takes, but I am trying to reach an area where if it is possible to have the County and the property owner toll the statute of limitations until after the Board makes a decision and if it makes a decision to do a rehearing or it doesn't, that will determine the next course. The question is it is not on our agenda today, but the statute is going to run... it runs 30 days from when the approval occurs.. which is Barry: ... from the date the Notice of Determination is filed which I believe was the day after the decision was made. Sup. Glover: When is it tolled. C:\WNDOWS\Temporwy lntemet Files\Content.IBS\IV(3VZJKIV\LP022068-HearutgNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIWIIVARY DRAFT 14 Sup. Uilkema: It was the 23rd it was approved. Barry: The decision I think was made on March 23rd... and the notice was filed the 24th so it would be 30 days from that date. Your next meeting is on the 27th. Sup. Glover: So the question here today is whether to have the County... it obviously involves the property owner or the applicant's concurrence as well to toll the statute before the next ....Supervisor Greenberg? Woman: My questions were very much the same as yours. I wanted to know when the Notice of Determination had been filed, so the Notice of Determination was filed the 24th, which would mean April 24th. Sup. Uilkema: Would the Board be willing to enter into a tolling agreement and can we even discuss that now? Barry: You can discuss it in an open session. Sup. Uilkema: Well we are right here, right now. Sup. Glover: In other words today, given this issue w } relevant to this issue we could provide direction on that issue and if its an emergency item we could add it to the agenda. Barry: Yes you could. Sup. Gioia: I make a motion to add to the agenda as an emergency item, a consideration of whether to grant a tolling because the statute will have run by the time we meet next. Sup. Uilkema: I will second that. Once again who are the parties that would need to be involved in the tolling agreement, and the applicant, correct. Sup. Gioia: Correct. c:\W1NDows\TempormyIntemetPiles\corirene.rEs\MGVVKIVLP022o6s-H Noces.w,a(v25/04) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 15 Sup. Glover: There is a motion on the floor and a second to put it on the agenda. All those in favor. All: I Sup. Glover: Passed. Sup. Uilkema: We have another motion. Sup. Greenberg: Just to ask another question. If the applicant were not willing... Sup. Glover: Hold on do we have a motion on the floor. Sup. Gioia: Not on this yet. My motion was to put it on the agenda which �'� Gail made a motion to continue this item and I seconded it. We were still going to finish the discussion on that. Sup. Glover: Go ahead Supervisor Greenberg. Sup. Greenberg: .... can't hear if the applicant were not willing to enter into a tolling agreement for two weeks or for a month, then pp ap Barry: The way it plays out is that if a lawsuit is filed after the statute runs and the applicant has not agreed to a tolling agreement, then the applicant would be in a position to raise that as a defense and say, sorry you filed too late. Sup. Greenberg: And may I ask you if it is the interest of the Board to allow some time for the City of Pinole to review this, two weeks or a month, and what is the best vehicle for us to do that? Barry: To accomplish that I think you would have to approve the motion or grant the motion for reconsideration today and that may have the effect of staying the Board's decision of March 23rd. Sup. Glover: Supervisor Gioia. C:\WINDOWS\`PempormylntemetFiles\Content7L5\I GVZ.iKIV\LP022M-HeazvigNetes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMIXARYDRAFT 16 __ __ __ Sup. Gioia: As I understand it, the issue is Pinole, however the option is Pinole has an opportunity to add to the record about the issue of the reconsideration. I am sort of deferring Supervisor Uilkema's request to have Pinole provide comment. Sup. Uilkema: My request did not deal with Pinole adding to the record. It was, we delay for one month our decision on the issue of reconsideration. What that does is impact the tolling agreement which we can remedy today. Sup. Glover: Before we allow this to get too much more complicated than ... Sup. Uilkema: Well there is a motion on the floor. Sup. Glover: Before we go to the motion we need to understanding about the tolling. Person: But we need to understand the impact that that has on the tolling agreement. Two people talking over each other Sup. Gioia: Can I ask one question? There is a motion on the floor to continue this item before we vote on it we are deciding what to do with regard to the tolling because if we don't action on the tolling there will probably be a lawsuit filed because the statute will have run and then of course we will have the issue about whether to have a reconsideration on the meeting on the 27th. Barry: I might make a suggestion. The Board is operating in a vacuum not knowing what the attitude of the applicant is and one approach might be to put this over to give opportunity to refer all the parties to discuss it briefly and see whether there would be agreement to a tolling agreement. Sup. Uilkema: Meaning consideration it later on in the agenda today. Barra: Yes. 1IWINDOWS\TemporarylntemetFiles\Content,IF51MGV2JKIV\LP022068-HearingNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY DRAFT 17 Sup. Glover: So there is a motion for a continuance. We will take the continuance along with the added items to consider a tolling agreement and we will bring both of these items back to the board later today. Sup. Gioia: Prior to going into closed session if we have the opportunity to address some of the issues and talk to the applicant. Sup. Uilkema: Mr. Chairman could I point out that if discussions need to occur there is conference room across the hall right over there. Sup. Glover: Yes you can point that out. Sup. Uilkema: I just did. Sup. Glover: We will now move on to the next item... again we will be coming back for consideration after,*Our next item is SD7 and this is to accept a report from the public health director. We will now go back to SD6 and so that we are not disturbed about what we are going to do here. There is a motion on the floor at this time to continue this until May 18th at 10:00 a.m. however, we put an emergency item on the agenda to see if there was a possibility of getting a tolling agreement and we will return to staff to see where that has gone. Person: Mr. Chairman I did confer with the applicants during the break and the answer that they gave me was emphatically no, they would not agree to toll any time limits. Sup. Glover: Okay, thank you. With that being said E= Person: As a motion on the floor, before we vote on that I was just going to suggest, there is nothing that prevents us from agreeing to toll the statute from our standpoint as is a sign of good faith. I realize it doesn't really solve the problem in total, so maybe as part of your motion of you wish to include the tolling of the statute... C:\WINDOWS%Temporary lntemU PitealCement.IUMGVZJKIV\LP022068-tIearir:g'4otes.wPd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY DAPT 18 Sup. Uilkerna: I think if we want to do that we should do it separately. Person: It is a separate motion. Person: On the motion just to make sure, I want to make sure that the staff in this coming back to us, the staff specifically address, and I know you did some what in the report, but maybe just in a little more detail to address the specific issues that got raised in the complaint that will need to be on the record under any circumstance. Person: I would appreciate it if,, ,,. if you mean that we should address as to its applicability with respect to the motion for reconsideration... Person: Yes... Person: or if you want us to address it substantively. Person: No. As to the eligibility of the motion... Person: Is it new information that is being raised that should give rise to reconsideration. Person: Right. In that standard, yes. That is the standard of the reconsideration. Person: Thank you. Sup. Uilkema: My motion is merely to put off the decision on a reconsideration on behalf of this Board until the date of May 18th at 10:00 a.m. Person: And just to be clear that with the direction that we, the staff with additional information on the issues raised with regard to the standard of the reconsideration. Person: Okay are we clear on the motion and are you accepting... C:\WIN➢OWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IBSMGVZIIUV\LP022068-IlearingNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRE"I.,IMIXARYDRAFT 19 Sup. Uilkema: Yes. Sup. Glover: There is a motion on the floor, all in favor. All: I. Sup. Glover: Opposed? silence Sup. Uilkema: Mr. Chairman I would respectfully make a motion that should the appellant's decide to enter into a tolling agreement that ... Sup. Glover: You mean the applicant? Sup. Uilkema: Right there, raise your hand. Agreed to enter into a to111ing agreement during the period between now and May 18th that would, what is the right way to say this Mr. Markasi, that that would be an acceptable course for this Board or, would that be granted? Markasi: It would be I think in the form of the County agreeing to toll the statute until that date. Sup. Uilkema: Should that action occur I recommend that the County agree to toll the agreement until that date. Person: µ' motion... Sup. Uilkema: I think they are still working it out. Person: Does that motion make sense to you. Sup. Uilkema: Crystal clear. Person: ... for the Board to agree to toll the statute makes sense. In the abstract, however, without other people agreeing to it, it is just a statement of attitude. C:\WINDOWS\Temponry7ntemetFitea\Conten•IMMGVZJKIV\LP0220d&-AeahngNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY 20 Sup. Uilkema: Which is what I am trying to do should there be a change of mind and further discussion. Markasi: That tolling agreement, if it happens, will have to happen before the expiration of the statute. Sup. Uilkema: Yes and we would toll only to that May 18th. And makes perfect sense Mr. Chairman. Person: I will second the motion. Sup. Glover: There is a motion and a second, all in favor. All: I Sup. Glover: Thank you... adjourning remarks.... C:\WfNDOWSiTemporuy Intemet Files\Content.ILS,MGVZJKIV\L?622068-HeuisigNotes.wpd(4/25/04) PRELIMINARY DR F1 21 impacts, but none that impact the steelhead, The biologic studies of LSA were peer reviewed by the County's biologic consultant,Monk&Associates, and on the basis of that review the mitigation measures were identified that have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA's 415 through 420). The Initial Study was reviewed by agency biologists, including California Department of Fish & Game, and the East Bay Regional Park District. No biologists have expressed concern about impacts to the steelhead trout. Comment 7. Carol Dwinell indicates that Jewish tradition indicates that the vaults in Jewish cemeteries are "open" on the bottom, and that coffins have several holes on the bottom. (Several published reports were submitted to the Clerk of the Board by Ms. Dwinell for the record.) In response, the applicants attorney prepared a letter that is dated May 6 , 2004. It indicates that the vaults are to be open on the bottom, but that the cemetery design has incorporated Best Management Practices (BMP's) to protect water quality. Those BMP's include the following: + A 100 foot setback of cemetery uses from the tap-of-bank ofPinole Creek + A subdrain below the vaults to ensure the coffins and vaults are above the water table at all times. The drain outfalls to a sumps) located more than 100 feet from the top-of-bank. + The Engeo letter dated February 19th, 2003, states that the water collected in the sump locations are pumped to a separate hold tank for reuse. + The grading plans for Gan Shalom indicate a second tank labeled "s" on the Grading Plans. The County Health Services Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board staff have indicated that the design of the project is consistent with the expectations of those agencies. Comment 8. Peter Murray, Mayor of Pinole,paraphrased a letter from the City's attorney, Benjamin T. Reyes 11. In response, the comment letter ofthe City attorney is dated April 12th, 2004. Point-by point responses to the comments in that letter have been prepared. C,MNDC'4Vs1T*npomry Internet Piles\Content.IE5lMGVZJKIV\LP022068-TestimonyRespoii:es.wpd(5111/" 4 ___ __ Comment 9. A primary concern of the city is protection of water quality. Previous References: Water quality effects of the project are addressed in the Initial Study, pages 21 through 29. On page 28, the Initial Study cites a.November 4,2004 memorandum of the Health Services Department indicating that the data indicates adequate groundwater resources and concurrent with the hydrology and water quality assessment in the Initial Study. The December 16, 2003 CPC staff'report includes a Table 4(Traffic and Drainage Considerations). It notes the applicant proposes to dedicate development rights over the creek structure setback zone (100 feet from top-of-bank), indicates that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to minimize potential pollutants from entering the creek. Public Comments: Public comments (letters included in staff reports and/or testimony) were received on the subject of water quality: Friends of Pinole Creek, CPC, 12/16/03 John Fouhy, CPC, 12116/03 Matt Taylor, CPC, 12/16/03 Tom Lease, CPC, 12116103 Tim McDonough, CPC, 1/13104 Agency Review: The Initial Study was referred to the: a) State Water Resources Control Board,Division of Water Quality;b)Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 2;and c) State Department of Fish and Game. These agencies had no comments on the Initial Study. Project Design: The Gan Shalom project has incorporated a number of BMP's to protect water quality. They may be,summarized as follows: • All surface drainage is by overland flow/sheet flow. There are no culverts that ou fall into the creek. • There is an undisturbed, 100 foot wide open space buffer adjacent to the top-of- bank. This buffer will trap nutrients and pollutants. 0 Any ground water collected by the gravel drains beneath the vaults is collected more than 100 feet from the top-of-bank and pumped to a holding tank far reuse. a There are no pesticides allowed for use. The maintenance building is approximately 1,000 feet from the creek,. so the risk of accidental spills (fertilizer,for example)presents a very low risk of impacting the creek. CAWINDOW51T=porsry Internet Files\Content.IES\MGVZ1KI V\LP02206B-Testimonykesponses.wp8(5/11104) 5 Comment 10. Mayor Murray comments that the City has not seen the details of the project, or the mitigation measures. In response, the Community Development Department delivered the materials requested to the Pinole City offices. Comment 11: Mayor Murray's comment raises the issue of decomposition of bodies and their possible effect on water quality. The subject was presented in the public testimony and considered by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in their review of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (e.g., letter of Tim McDonough, presented in the January 13, 2004 staff report). The ground burials are to be underlain by a 6-inch drainage blanket, The elevation of the water table is controlled by the flow line of Pinole Creek. The water table is approximately 15 feet below the surface; and the excavation for the placement of the gravels is less than 3 feet deep, so the vaults/ground burials will be above the elevation of the water table. The drainage blanket drains to a sump that is more than 100 feet from the creek. The geotechnical report indicates the sump is to be pumped to a holding tank for reuse (Engen letter-report, dated February 19, 2003). The grading plans for the project show the tank at the base of the hills, more than 1,000 feet from the creek channel(labeled tank "s"). In summary, the drainage blanket is to efficiently intercept subsurface water before it reaches the creek and conveyed away from the channel. The soils on the valley floor are clayey and nearly impervious. Hence, the ground burials are not anticipated to have a significant impact on water quality in the creek or pose a health hazard. The proposed approach to ground burials by Can Shalom was reviewed by the County Health Services Department and Blair Allen of the RWQCB. The finding of this review is that the project is well planned and meets the expectations of these agencies. Comment 12: Mayor Murray's comment references a court proceeding, which is described in documents submitted by Carol Dwinell(see Appendix A for the materials submitted by speakers at the April 20'hearing). Barrett vs. Mt. Greenwood CemeteryAssoeiation (March 31, 1945), a 50+year-old court case. This case involved a cemetery whose lands used for ground burials included swampy ground. On portions of the property, groundwater would rise in opening for graves. With regard to Gan Shalom, the flow line of Pinole Creek is entrenched in alluvium and no portions of the Gan Shalom site were considered marshy or swampy by the biologist. The problem that was the subject of the court case was a situation were decomposing remains CAWINDOWS\Temponuy Intemet Piles\Content.IES\MGVZJKI V\LP022068-TestitnonyRespomes.wp8(5/11/04) 6 _. _. . were below the water table. This situation is avoided on the Gan Shalom site by placing subdrains below the elevation of the vaults. This design is intended to control/regulate the .fluctuations ofthe water table to assure that the ground burials above the water table at all times. Comment 13: Mayor Murray's comment addresses the potential for pollutants exiting the Gan Shalom property to impact the lower reaches of Pinole Creek. The comments do not provide evidence of a significant impact. The water quality BMP's that are currently part ofthe project design are presented in Table 2 ofthe responses to the comment letter of the City of Pinole. Furthermore, CDA #46 requires submittal of additional BMP's to protect water quality. Hence, ground burials are not anticipated to have a significant impact on water quality in the creek or pose a health hazard Comment 14: Mayor Murray's comment references the published materials submitted by Carol Dwinell, which are presented in Appendix A. As noted earlier, the,flow line of Pinole Creek is entrenched in alluvium and no portions of the Gan Shalom site were considered marshy or swampy by the biologist. The problem that was the subject ofthe court case was a situation were decomposing remains were below the water table. This situation is avoided on the Gan Shalom site by placing subdrains below the elevation ofthe vaults. This design is intended to controllregulate the fluctuations ofthe water table to assure that the ground burials above the water table at all times. In the UC Davis article cited by Mayor Murray, the sources of pollution included a bus maintenance yard, livestock pens, hosing off of barns, and management of manure generated by livestock. These uses are not related to the proposed Gan Shalom project. In summary, the decomposition ofthe human body does not directly translate into pollution of surface water or groundwater. If this were the case there would be evidence of pollution associated with cemeteries within the San Francisco Bay Region. Within the Bay Area there are cemeteries in various geologic and hydrologic settings (e.g., Sky Lawn Cemetery adjacent to the Crystal Springs Reservoir), concentrations of cemeteries in a small area (Colma), pioneer cemeteries that had no Conditions of Approval or special design considerations(St. Catherines in Martinez), and cemeteries on alluvial sites similar to Gan Shalom (The Queen of Heaven in Lafayette). The lack of evidence of groundwater contamination may be somewhat surprising. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of cemeteries in the San Francisco Bay Region triggering water pollution. Conversely, there is evidence of failing septic systems and improper management of livestock manure degrading surface water quality. C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IES\MGV73.KIV\LP022068-Tes�monyP esponses.wpd(5/11104) 7 ... _. .... _.. .... ..... Comment 15: Mr. Nunes comment addresses Jewish burial practices/vaults open on the bottom. Accompanying Mr. Nunes testimony he submitted a letter detailing his concerns. Responses to the letter have been prepared. See Response to Comment#1. Comment 16: The question indicates that there is a potential for the cemetery to pollute Pinole Creek, thereby threatening wildlife/aquatic habitat. The biological resources were evaluated by LSA and those reports were presented in the Initial Study(see Appendix A). The County's biologic peer reviewer, Monk&Associates, reviewed the data provided by LSA Associates, reviewed the Site Plan, and made a site visit. Based on their evaluation, mitigation measures were identified that are presented on pages 12 to 17 of the Initial Study. These mitigation measures have been translated into Conditions ofApproval 15 through 19. The biologic resource mitigation measures reduce potential impacts to less-than-signif cant. LSA noted that the steelhead trout was a sensitive species in the watershed, but there were no effects of the project on this species, and hence there is no mitigation measures required Comment 17: Paul Brook commented that a previous request to establish a church were discouraged by the Community Development Department. Failure to require an EIR for the cemetery project will set an undesirable precedent. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) makes provision for adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental significance if mitigation measures are identified for each significant impact that will reduce the impact to less-than-significant. The CEQA Initial Study references 31 reports and documents. They were the basis for the impact assessment presented in the Initial Study (see pages 4-5 of the Initial Study). The Initial Study also presents technical data in seven appendices. In summary, technical studies and engineering analyses served as a basis for compliance with CEQA. During the hearings the public comments stressed the need for an Environmental Impact Report and environmental issues of concern were identified by the commentors (through testimony and correspondence). The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors considered the issues raised, but ultimately agreed with staffthat the comments did not raise new issues that were not already adequately analyzed in the Initial Study. Comment 18: Paul Brooks noted that PG&E has a high voltage line easement through a portion of the cemetery. (There are no towers on the lands proposed for cemetery use,but the power lines are 100 feet±above ground level.) C:\WINDOW5\Temporary Tntemet F�eslConksit.IE5\MGV71KI Vii..P022058-TestimonyRespnnses.%pd(5/11/04) 8 The cemetery will need to secure approval for structures in the easement. The uses proposed within the easement include internal roads and ground burials. Ordinarily, PG&.E's primary concern is assuring access to its lattice work towers. It is normally acceptable to PG&E to build roads in the easement,and it is anticipated that ground burials will be allowed. If approval for ground burials were withheld, the cemetery could still go forward with an open area in the PG&E easement Comment 19: Paul Brooks requests clarification on hove long water levels are to be measured prior to determining the baseline. Groundwater measurements will be recorded using a dedicated electronic water level indicator (Solinist Model 101 or equivalent). This indicator uses a factory calibrated electric tape accurate to 1/100 ofan inch. Duplicate measurements are recorded at the time ofeach measurement to verify repeatability in measurements. This methodology is accepted by County,State and federal agencies as a means for accurately determining depth ofwater. Existing wells GSA I, PI,P2 and P3 have been monitored on a monthly basis since March 2004. Previous measurements for the pumping well (GSW 1) have been recorded in September 2001 and May 2003. The fourth monitoring well(P4) is expected to be installed in June 2004. A minimum of one year of monthly measurements will be recorded for P4 prior to production pumping from the existing well GSW 1. Groundwater measurements shall be maintained in Excel format along with hydrographs depicting water level fluctuations. This information will be accessible to Contra Costa County through a secure web site. Semi-annual reports will be prepared summarizing water level measurements and observations. (Details regarding instrumentation can be viewed at the following web site: <http:,ivww.solinst.con2 Pr_od'101_'10_lpromp.html �} Comment 20: Supervisor Gioia identifies a typo in the Condition of Approval, and indicated it would be appropriate to provide clarification on implementation of groundwater resources. The groundwater conditions of approval allow for refining the baseline after two years. As the response to comment 417 indicates, there is currently some data from the production well that goes back as far as September 2001, and there will be at least 15 months of data from Wells PI, P2 and P3, along with a minimum of one year of data from P4. When production starts the irrigation will be limited to I acre. This limited irrigation demand is not expected to affect water levels in PI, P2, P3 and P4. Two years after commencement of irrigation, the water level baseline issue will be re-evaluated. We anticipate that the Zoning Administrator and Health Services Department will review the data. Due to sensitivity of this issue and its technical nature, the Community Development Department C MINDOWMemporary Intemet FileslCcmtent.I$5\MC3VZ3KI V1I,I'022068-TestimmryResponses.wpd(5/11!04) 9 _.... . .. anticipates retaining hydrogeologist to advise the Zoning Administrator on this technical issue. C:\WINDOWS\Tempcmy Internet Files\Content.IES\MGVZIKIV\LP022068-Test rnonyRespomes.wpd(MI 1/04) 10 EXHIBIT E Letter From Benjamin T. Reyes, Attorney for City of Pinole an Responses to Letter (Dated 121.2004) Benjamin T. Reyes It Attorney at Uw 510.808,2000 April 12, 2004 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Gan Shalon, Inc., Applicant ant Croner County file No. LP022068 Dear Board of Supervisors; This office serves as the City Attorney for the City of Pinole. Our office was informed that the City of Pinole had not previously been provided with notice on matters involving the permit for Gan Shalon, Inc., County File No. LP022068. We trust this was an oversight on the part of your staff,which was confirmed at the recent meeting when Supervisor Gayle Ullkerna was corrected on the record by staff after attempting to incorrectly advised City of Pinola Mayor Peter Murray that proper notice was given to the City. We respectfully request that the City of Pinola be notified of all future County public hearings,workshops, appeals, and other matters involving official action taken on the Garr Shalon, Inc.permit application. Pursuant to Section 54054.1 of the Government Code(Brown Act), the City of Pinole hereby requests copies of all documents consisting of the agenda packet and a copy of the agenda for any and all future hearings, public comment,special or regular meetings which involve or relate to the subject application. Kindly-direct your staff to send the agenda packets to the City of Pinola, attn. Patricla Athenour, Deputy City Clerk,2131 Pear Street, Pinola, CA 94564-9744. This project affects the City of Pinole, and specifically, Pinole Creek, in several ways. First, the City is concerned that fertilizer and pesticide usage from the cemetery will effect Pinole Creek, which is a habitat to the endangered steelhead trout. Community volunteers in the City of Pinole have been working hard to restore and clean-up the creek. Indeed, the yearly coastal clean=up efforts are cantered on Pinole Creek and the shoreline of San Pablo Say. These efforts encourage population growth of the steelhead trout. We do not want contaminated water from the cemetery to defeat the progress that'our community has made. The City is also concerned that the run off will affect water quality not only in the creek, but in San Pablo Bay. Any attempts to divert the flow from Pinole Creek for irrigation purposes would also have devastating affect on this most important tributary to the Bay. We would like the opportunity to be involved in providing input to the Board-as this project moves through the process. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Re: Gan Shalon,Inc. April 19,2004 Page 2 The City is also concerned about how emergency services will be provided to the proposed cemetery, and whether traffic flow on certain holidays was considered. We are not aware of any plan to provide emergency services to the cemetery in the event these services are needed. We are also not persuaded that the County has considered potential traffic impacts during certain holidays (i.e., Memorial Day, Mother's Clay, Father's Day, etc,),when families honor their loved ones who have passed on. Certainly, these potential impacts rewire further consideration. Thank you for considering the City of Pinole's concerns regarding this project. We appreciate being kept apprised of this project as it progresses. Very truly yours, Benjamin T. Reyes, 11 Assistant City Attorney, City of Pinole c: Marc Grisham, City Manager Belinda Espinosa,Assistant City Manager Michael S. Riback, City Attorney City Council, City of Pinole BTRlewa 6871090;501-401 Response to Comments of Benjamin T-Reyes, II,Attorney representing the City of Pinole (letter dated April 12, 2004) 1. The Gan Shalom project is in the Martinez area, and the Notices for the County Planning Commission hearings followed the County's standard notification procedures. Specifically, the Community Development Department notified property owners within 300 feet, the City of Martinez, and all cities, agencies and organizations, as well as the public, that had requested notification. The Notification List for the January 13, 2004 CPC hearing did not include the City of Pinole because the City had not requested notification. The Friends of Pinole Creek had provided a comment letter on the project (dated December 8, 2003). That letter was presented in the staff report for the December 16, 2003 hearing of the County Planning Commission, and the comments that they provided on water quality of the creek were considered by the County Planning Commission when reaching its decision. In summary, the project is not in the Pinole area and is not considered to represent a policy change in the Briones Hills Preservation Agreement, so there was no need for blanket notification of cities that were members to the Briones Hills compact. 2. For the Reconsideration Request, the Clerk of the Board notifies only the applicant and the organization filing the Request for Reconsideration. The Board has not granted Reconsideration and the Request was continued to May 18th to provide the opportunity for the City of Pinole to provide comments. The City of Pinole was provided copies of all documents that went to the Board of Supervisors, and their staff has researched the County files on the project. 3. The Pinole Creek watershed is 9,705 acres. The cemetery is setback 100 feet from the top-of-bank. The approach to surface drainage on the site is sheetflow to the creek, which is the approach favored by agencies concerned with water quality(i.e., there are no culverts that outfall into the creek). It is this approach to surface runoff that is urged to agencies such as the Flood Control District, Clean Water Program•, Regional Water Quality Control Board; and California Department of Fish and Game. CAWINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\MGVZ.IKIV\LPP022068-ReyesResponses.wpd(5/3104) 1 The comment of Mr. Reyes expresses concern about the effect of surface runoff on water quality. In this case, there are no pesticides allowed by the Conditions of Approval, fertilizers will only be used on less than 30 acres of the 83-acre site at full development of the project, which is not expected to occur until the 22nd century. (The remaining 58 acres are open space, along with internal roads and structures.) It should be recognized that the turf area within the proposed cemetery will be setback 100 feet (min.) from the top-of-bank. (The area within 100 feet of the creek bank will be retained as undisturbed private open space within the Gan Shalom.parcel.) This 100-foot wide corridor will function as a buffer between the use areas within the cemetery and the channel of Pinole Creek. In effect, this buffer is a water quality Best Management Practice (BMP). It will serve to intercept nutrients before they reach the creek. Of the 83-acre Gan Shalom project site, approximately 30 acres is to be used for the cemetery(0.003 percent of the watershed). In summary, the Conditions of Approval require no pesticide use, and the effect of fertilizers in turfed areas is addressed by BMP's intended to protect water quality. The comment letter does not demonstrate an understanding of the project's design or point out any deficiency with that design. The proposed Gan Shalom cemetery will not conflict with efforts to maintain and improve water quality in Pinole Creek. The project includes measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts to biological resources. Those measures, which have been incorporated into the COA's also have the effect of protecting habitat for the steelhead trout. 4. The project utilizes approximately 30 acres of a 9,705-acre watershed. The runoff from the site includes 50+ acres of ungraded and undisturbed open space, and the project has BMP's intended to protect water quality. The suggestion that the project will impact water quality in San Pablo Bay is not supported by engineering analysis or technical data. Surface runoff from the project will continue to sheetflow to the creek. With regard to the hydrology of the creek, the project has no potential for a devastating effect on this most important tributary to the Bay. It is 3/1,000 of 1 percent of the watershed, and includes BMP's that if utilized by all projects/uses in the watershed, would be expected to substantially improve water quality in Pinole Creek. C:\WIIDQ'WS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\MGVZJKIV\LPP022068-ReyesResponses.wpd(5/3/04) 2 There is no proposal to direct flow from Pinole Creek or to modify the channel of Pinole Creek, The December 13 staff report notes that recycling of irrigation is a possible means of reducing the project's demand for irrigation water. This measure would not change flows to the creek since there is no existing irrigation water on the site which is being conveyed to the channel in the existing condition. S. The comment letter expresses concern about provision of emergency services to the cemetery. With regard to fire fighting, the chapel/office is located in the center of Phase 1 and is to be surrounded by turfed areas; and all structures will conform to the recommendations of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. With regard to police protection, Condition of Approval#1 request that Cyan Shalom retain a private security firm. Finally, in the event of a medical emergency, the 911 operator will dispatch medical assistance to the site. 6. The circulation and traffic issues associated with the cemetery use were analyzed by Abrams & Associates, traffic engineering consultants, and peer reviewed by engineers of the Public Works Department. The issue of visitor traffic to the cemetery was discussed at the County Planning Commission hearings. The number of visitors can be expected to increase on certain holidays, such as Memorial Day. Such short-term increases were not regarded as a serious problem by either the Public Works Department or County Planning Commission. Furthermore, there is no history of traffic problems posed by visitors to existing cemeteries in Contra Costa County, CAVVINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\1\40VZJKIV\LPP022068-ReyesResponses.wpd CAWINDOWS\Temporary Intemet l;iles\Content,IE5\MGVZJKIV\LPP022068-ReyesResponses.wpd(5/3/04) 3 EXHIBIT F Letter From Lawrence Nunes and Responses to Letter (Dated 4/6/2004) Apr 20 04 08: 23a LAWRENCE E. NUNES i�1 tJ i :3'ti'_-���� p. -+ April B, 2004 Dear Supervisors, As you know a motion for reconsideration of the appeal to they cemetery approval has been filed containing new information. A main concern is the containment of the corps within the vaults. County staff repeatedly slated the vaults would be sealed but documentation could not be found to confirm this claim. After a face to face meeting with Mr. Myers at his office and examination of the Conditions of Approval it only stated what was already known. It stated that there would be "concrete vaults" but it did not state that they would be sealed. As you also must know it has been found through research that Jewish custom requires wood caskets and if concrete vaults are required they are to be bottomless. A phone call to Oakmont Cemetery confirmed this regarding the Jewish section of their cemetery. This creates a ground water contaminatio i problem and a cheater threat to water wells and endangered species in the creek. New information was also provided showing gross inaccuracies of the traffic study, the water report and incomplete and unclear reporting from various 2 agencies. All that is being asked is that a thorough and accurate study be performed with an EIR. Several mitigations could be included in that report as conditions of approval that would significantly reduce the impact of this project and satisfy area concerns. If phase one were to start where phase two is planned It would create a greater set back from the creek and less impact. Phase two could then be adjacent to phase one and keep the whole project in the small valley in the south area of the property. Keeping the overall project to only two pheises or about fifteen acres would also create much less overall impact. This has been done with the Gateway Valley project successfully allowing the same approximate four or five to one ratio of open space to developed land. This is over twice the size of the current Queen of Heaven cemetery site in Lafayette:. This new location and size will also allow for more privacy and security to the cemetery as well as less visual impact to the surrounding area. The main entrance to the cemetery would be safer and have less surrounding impact if the proposes{ maintenance entrance is used off of Hampton Road_ Safety improvements to Beau Creek Road between Garcia Ranch Road and Hampton Road such as road widening and sign improvement would also create safer road conditions along their main approach. Transferring the remaining area from proposed private open space to public open space will guarantee its preservation. If East Bay Municipal Utility District were to acquire this area it would satisfy this goal and a couple more. They could better monitor a greater portion of Pinole Creek containinci the Federal Endangered Steelhead Trout and Red Legged Frog. East Bay Regional Park Districts would police the property, which would literally surround the cemetery and satisfy their Apr 20 04 08: 24a LAWRENCE E. NUNE9 (510) 372-5529 p. 5 security needs. The restriction of herbicides and fertilizers could be added to the pesticide restriction. Current horse stable conditions of approval restrict fighting during certain nighttime hours and the cemetery should follow the same rules. Finally, regular inspections of the cemetery would ensure compliance with these renditions of approval. It is hoped that you will reconsider the approval based on this new Information and require a full EIIR with these suggested conditions of approval. Si rely, Lvawrence E. Nunes 100 Via Domingos Martinez, CA. 94553 Home 925.228-5004 Cell/Voice Mail 926-200-8961 Response to Letter of Lawrence Nunes (dated April 6, 2004) 1. Mr. Nunes submitted material from a Jewish web site (www.jewishfuneral.net)titled "Dignity for the Body, Peace for the Soul -- an Introduction to Jewish Burial Customs." Among the material excerpted from the web site were the following: • Wood is the only material allowed and several holes are opened at the bottom to hasten the body's return to the earth. • When vaults are required they too should be open at the bottom. Mr. Nunes letter goes on to indicate: a) that a call to Oakmont Cemetery confirmed this burial practice within the Jewish section of the cemetery; and b)this creates a groundwater contamination problem; and c) groundwater contamination presents a threat to water wells and endangered species in the creek. In response, the Gan Shalom project includes mausoleums with both niches(for the ashes of cremated persons) and above-ground internment of the deceased. This clearly shows that there is a range of views on burials in Jewish cemeteries. For ground burials the project description provided by the applicants indicate coffins to be placed inside vaults. The vaults are to be made of concrete, but with provision for opening at the bottom. Below the vaults a subdrain system will be installed to guarantee that the ground burials will always be above the water table. The subdrain, as proposed, outfalls into a sump, which is more than 104 feet from the top of the creek bank. The waters captured by these drainage facilities shall be pumped to: a) the water reservoir"s" for reuse. Mr. Nunes appears to suggest that the burials have created/can be expected to create a groundwater contamination problem. We were unable to confirm the existence of known water quality contamination problem with in either Contra Costa County or the greater San Francisco Bay Region that is associated with a cemetery. Staffs research in this matter included calls to the County Public Works Department--Clean Water Program.(Steve Wright), County Health Services Department(Sherman Quinlan) and to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Blair Allen). 2. At both County Planning Commission hearings and at the Board of Supervisors hearing on the appeal provided testimony and concerns of the community regarding CAWI1ID0W5\T=porary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\MGVZJKIV\LPP022068-NunesResponses.wpd(5/3/04) 1 the accident history of the local road network, and the types of traffic that currently uses those roads. Although the comment asserts that the traffic report submitted by the project proponent is inaccurate, that report, in combination with the testimony and submittals of the community and the peer review and recommendation of the Public Works Department, taken together provided the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with pertinent data on traffic upon which to evaluate the issues. Based on the issues raised by the public hearing testimony, both the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors added traffic-related conditions of approval. There is no evidence of new traffic-related issues in the comments of Mr. Nunes.. The comment of Mr. Nunes also asserts that the water report is incomplete and unclear. However, no specific issues are identified. Review of the staff reports and CEQA Initial Study indicate no shortage of field measurements or engineering analysis. Briefly summarized, the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance retained a hydrogeologist to review and outline the expectations and concerns of the community; to critically review the results and the pumping test; and to testify before the County Planing Commission. The applicant retained a hydrogeologist to perform a pumping test that complied with the expectations of the County Health Services Department. The Community Development Department retained a hydrogeologist that was experienced with conditions that prevail in the County and with the County Ordinance Code provisions pertaining to water wells. The County's consultant evaluated all of the data(including the review comments of the hydrogeologist retained by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance) and provided a series of recommendations that were ultimately incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. In summary, the amount of data collected and analyzed is extensive, especially considering the well is for irrigation(not potable)water. There is no new evidence to suggest that the project, as conditioned, will present potential for impacts to groundwater resource or water quality that were not previously identified and mitigated. The County Health Services Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board consider the project to be well designed. 3. The comment of Mr. Nunes suggests that the Phase 1 area of Gan Shalom be retained as permanent private open space. He also suggests that the cemetery uses be scaled back from 30 acres to 15 acres (and the project reduced from five phases to two phases), the setbacks from the creek could be increased, visibility of the cemetery CAWIND/0WS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IES\MGVZIKIV\LPP0220d8-NunesResponses.nd(5/3/04) 2 from Bear Creek Road could be reduced, etc. These are interesting points but are not justification for reconsideration. 4. Mr. Nunes recommends safety improvements to Bear Creek Road from Garcia Ranch Road to Hampton Road (widening, signage). This suggestion addresses the existing condition of the road, and not an impact of the project. It is not a basis for reconsideration. 5. Mr. Nunes suggests requiring the dedication of some or all of the private open space to a public agency or the East Bay Municipal Utility District would better assure its preservation. While this is an interesting proposal, it is not a basis for reconsideration. 6. Mr. Nunes recommends restrictions on nighttime lighting. This issue is addressed by Condition of Approval # 12.C. The basic proposal of Gan Shalom is for low-level lighting around buildings. The condition of approval requires review and approval of the lighting plan by the Zoning Administrator prior to project implementation to assure lighting is minimal and does not shine on/toward adjoining properties. 7. Mr. Nunes recommends regular inspections to ensure long-term compliance with the conditions of approval. This concern is addressed by Condition of Approval# 5, which requires annual reviews of compliance for the first five years, and at five year intervals thereafter. CANVIND©WS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\-MGVZJKIV\LPP022068-NunesResponses.upd(5/3/04) 3 EXHIBIT G Materials Submitted by Speakers at Reconsideration Hearin Apr 20 04 08: 15a LAWRENCE E. NUNES (510) 372-5529 P. 2 .{ > .:.};,.,?;k. ;4. k.:: s... .r "F•.::. ..t,.}5,x +'o: ' :}}S,it' `.S'it>' r .•'i;t: .{..:.'^ YS, ;�:i i a n.•3 i:'' sa ':#. .3.. +.`j?{¢{:.R'£i {{��,`'�i:rk;r,: .. : ''n`°°: _}„ ..$.. :t,. yX.. X,•Y• ."i'!;':3` •..{i:; t#.` .:;•}.,.c, •+d:+:k` S: a??: 7 :Ya:u<:!. ,i2}+'{{X -:::ter{: )iY ..�,. .su• },..;{,}{r {},.Y;}i:<o ":>.7c t's.'o.:r.,:,# ,+.,qr } :3:N. �r.t'.vt; ...)n,. ,o::-�::,r•r :,,w. x% ?'3, }t; f. .:�. ., ;::.''}+,v>'r. i e'r��'#. .,{a,''•.s:.{.,. . �• 4 .;�, '.'' ;.d' ¢,4ad•£v; .,.t::i, ,•r4.•;.}{Y°,;., : '„) �.a `: r':�n `:w. :�€ >.c;?'>�, ..�Y$'• ,:t, i�i:S#3'3�''7; -Sy '�,�"'A�,`+i,,r7"r, •,r.$4 :,'<�`�'� •,:- tr:. •}::, ..}> ,.�a,`•,:•,;,t•,,••:,,yy��.i `�✓«::•:`>r•.2r'::•:rr>: ,%r� •:?.. ;'t!y ?'' •/,..,�'k't::;rt:#••>�'�'J h. '}�< ,'i^,t','3?:. a,$� t�omt�.. '.i€S ,$,f'+f �: c�.,'• 7r;{7,.;:; R?�= .:Y.• +}...t,t �r`i �:'{,y'f{.�3j, ,.�` '£+. M1 d} �r� x`xs7.`h: �'R•:"4#'.-{s�.+'�k'`r`k'.�,+•tZ'3``§ }r`d';' }'�f.`: :?�i•t �r f°iK=t �fi..:;rf:: �d;.,..;�{,',•+{•t �) a\•. 1P£ � r;:r<3.r.:. f i;.6s�x}as�°a>.s+�:fit=::s,:<:Y:,,. �� , , .��`' .'�,�t 7 `?�•�,. �.,,: ,rrn44. w«, {�<;s :w. ,;, ,•nys•n rr4 v, ••:sM•+ .,.3, q:.; �,r x '•t','" .,t } rih::x,:v, :..::•:?, ` ..t< :Y,' S ,^i'•{}' f;fd`,?'• -.v.'.• x''§;:"g�;S'`•'•�. '�.:�Lr'''r w •Y'r,'`L" y q„',#•:,a:J>,2$ `. :i�•.�`''L'`£•.: ,q:;.«,w �S: .t:.,,P�+, ✓�.�c t:'#4.'t ,, ,. ';�.t'•fi vi:j°7 �' �: •tit?; ,,9--.�fi f�E;. •' {}.>•>���.? 'u5 �t9,�. ",f„f.,;,{�L,t ,�'¢'�' t arnh a ;=:Q"•:n Yo 2 ?� t. y � ,'�.-,'� # ,.�,^"Sa, �E ;�"•� S: '`��° �'�•" € }i'�.s�,#;�:. ��r s:3':s '3�,<''`g�,c�yr�'ire"?,�}�r.�di4��•,,'�„t,,r �rr,rG'#r't,x � {.� )i S:: ti.;ax;,i �� `?}. 9 `���r k 'r: 3`a`:i+ k:4 a"rt�€ 3 ",)3?' '�•4• a'Yv'rFz`r. ,�,;o}}S{c`r. ¢• ,>.� �# its::'''.'�.�,•Srs:r.n ,..'t ;,?'r ."� A7,{��� = a, i}, Sz#,'�,`�r.',•�•.;� •4,• � s t` '?s{ 't tr. r. ✓da •�`i •}i x 's ,;'f`-i't 1 # •#, ,, 4 r;'�`T' $`.W n,• x�? + :�Jti:;"t+ :.,i t , •n r:•ng,2}i•'}r��:}.. .Si+3>.. }+,e>�ra,'�. ., �$' } .�,•s :s`^,`�`.r+,'�,�{�kms,.h.6o�.xs�>i ,+ �:: :+:.=:,>,a.:..3#.rr._:.r.!., { -g: -`s.',:;{.,_ ';yi,: t.. x-r:' .}.ti}• s a<;t.. K; ' ss •k:. '+,s.: >.S, x {�?}i•;Lr's',f•`.n:,+' 'nf•sk:•. R ? :.h f X'» :h..• h ,:•�'.�'.'N,`'.�,�. .� .'�.a: •',P+•(r` ':%.r. �'3.' .W.. �t;�=Y... ,{'9 •r�::i��.n.'irY'i�t:t^.;:::::is"fL•t��,:::.irt,�'r.{ :Y:.,K}:y.. '�: 't}'`i,o-:�' S r?? r '$ p• �` ,,{;i•S� ...r:•i #,i i;4 v. .4 r.: .7.{,"?�.=r'•rr.�t.• �' `�',,..,• :i cg':•t::..ri.>h r. 3•� �•.Y3,3,:IG3'• .�r .r. �k• :;::s:�f c'•i':i::.:d@tq<t✓.:..:;:a,,,�;. ..w} •.t{>': g,., .ni,;. ;{:7'>5:�3:.{• 4•$ r� ,<sc;r: .}. :�z'v;: '�: L a• r+.<>`.•Fkr:,a" }S x+ r ;e. ra ::,q ,� 3.L^ :'�k.. ��`}}"Y.'3 +.n` 'xj 47 .t, .'?�'>y t,?•}:Y. ^'}J' ?�f .'i,>+r-:•:,:r,,;+3., �.,gZr@,�.�i`.,:a`;;�`•s � ..'r$' �C ,,• }' :4, x��t+ +k '•� i+`{�•''��:,}r ,.� t .,�;'rr• �'��."„,�" °'o-,% :rf.:-.:s�s; #c �,„ �''3'' r`t" •k• '# .�it•�'t'{w' '�. ,,} �`,5;.::;.w;;,..:-:;:.�•.,, ,£;� r• .F4r. .����>`44.;5�r'' #? .`�SY`' +•.��`. .�'3a •�.�•{ 5• >�+. E ''�,s�a,•. ra •�.y' �<t t, :.•,�':•5?•f"fr x t.�r?t't sr3 ,� ••. s�;,; ✓:, y v r1= •,,ljY .Y ,.t;. ,'2: 6'r ;P FP' S #•`rg '3 b{'>i r xi )•:'�'f i C >;�;tkYS=-' S .t: Y, ;'� UU } `'.t�•":>'rx;+.,35 kdi•.:� L •y,' ,+%.�:,~ -Y ?: n s#3 r P. .::'a.F-: •:;} 7r,r {{F"'t�• :�:' P.`vJ<kd., ,�5�}�4 ••}:,+,F ir`,,�• .C, ,y 4 ;t✓v '}`.'{•,t S.2^ {fr,,• Y.,.t., •,'';v°f.' n '' � •:'�`: .t '3 `4•y bti }�'•f,..n' � �33 :�};:-it't;'{�':,,:k� ',-.3tr .6,;:'�<tb- :7�F' V,>` +2,.`'Y ,:$'`'�` 'Y£'•}:P„ fi.,:,;i• .-i. ? �, ,} ;`.�; }' •f r'47tP S,.{t�S'Jvt' :c1r.2rL;' :.;2.✓ .t1Lv'i ,•a}.. ,,}N,S.,t,. ,3;i 'x�' ti4-:',, $'`. .i'- { ::{,,r?t•.'-•S:SrrJx.,*:,;.rr.;•,?ro> PI'}t4: '•;t; %'S i ^c; _ l s>.- .n•tx•Sr+k,' ,�f5;,t'•":.k.';:,,etk,.',}`t>ra :r '. h}J"c •r$r'L �:}• .+3.4`?5:;,f:�i, {: ;"3fi'- rf;.4,''S3•.;;?,. .:�+•}:•>+.'.}x r:�:z:u+^• c?'i`r'rkkY.,tm �'{':•.,:, =:k,:t`&� ,h�,f u:•.:a#kki;.,`}'X:$Yrf.•.;t,#t s'fzti'tn�S•:•,'�x:•':v�.fx,4'x.:Y>+t�'.w..4`.`i;.'�d4:{3i'`frX::>t,' €s k•r`3'`}S+.�.' :{L" Ell, vE,�so-.z�k uu},»»Ar:a,r�£;{rfi':,N?%+,+r.7. ,9t 4,,{,a k ��, �kt$.•`;r:,{.# +z:; ,�, '>r,.:;t•}:,..,•fi.,,,Ns�}':'•••y•:a'"r::•i<3�}:';£w;;3��'f i;}'o-%.,.�,>.3s•r3.,{:.'y'ui.a,;S;:rCYt,•ttt,°1{•,t�'r.,t-y&•F't.'=>:}:,;;ad'�;r-v+•>.,<;,rrS :#r,.`".':.n,£>•.�°�,%,�.,r%.3:'Ci:,?,::.;..s.'a'."3,`a+,�:C}�r'+,�,i�!h:'r°'��•;�.r�`x,?+i.ri{y`;'xr•tr�,:��''..ati'}S,': y$dt�e`a;t• �� 'F ��5rz.•,t•+.. �$v, �'a t "'� 2<; .��+` <;� '.€. £ °w,x•S:t,,:s s:}.' c 4 s +z•.i4 .»-;6:da, s t k t r���� > k` ::St�{<,' 4 �v •4• YL` .t S .#:r'S:,�', a .{.. .,�.. .a.. .:,. ,{ 'Y,q, •$"#:'r :)s`.0 .;}? ,9' .2 t{'T.t.a, r R:, r,'#'.:�P: ,i!•i: .:i�.?<'�,c<=:`�'vr•r. ..} §§ :x?'•r. Ell% r' }:t.�}. .{«•hfi`css: :. N ...'r, • 1 yr'•, .. ., r .: .t�• :,':•s7t,.:;i:: `{{ ::•t•:k3::{{5r?•✓>.r.•r:7.•afirrx: � r~'f :�'t'✓#i,; ;'�: + sfrt•a r ,.��• �. �,r,.4rk`����'•"- ,•�'�,...;` ..r:.v. r kt S ':'S ;rr.{s r,5gwgtr•a :;;<::•:t�g-s3r;::}%x;!;! r;,., t, rri:'. 3t :>q5:4}}sr r,r. '::Ss`,Yi-•�:a � • �."'?t•. � F`" �� ,.` '•�� ��.} :#c r •� '' ,v.•�•, 4rP � a X>•:,,a;.,....:..i.. y; . r;!{.! Y d, .r+•rk$:'krh`t"'£>. .+§.•.:+. +:}'.; .{: n x• .;,•{ '�:'? !,r SN= ..;5 ..,y4 .$� }::'?; i 5 ;5:r ,.{, gg _-k•:`+4:.::.•.,+,t. ,�,}.r{ au •;:''>..,,�•,ar:?•'+.:-: r -::� •h.• v.:. #�. :>'+;.:r ¢:�'.. •5r •5', $"c s: # r, �:fir 7,:i;7n;,.:." ..=s::d'r.t. :td• an:: 't'i': .f ''Sr v�.», :.�_.:=i:?:4:::,4';+ �{ ,>,'��:..... .:.{..r:r:•r ''9} :,r•. }:':tt 't•:• •?' :4':;i` '_{ ?,., :'4• .,:> S .r •:Y;:. 'r+.t,,}>,,r:f>, ••` :ai.r.x. •n. '"1. -.'?'` i #•rx .�¢� 4.; �•v�7. s.>• r:t•>;{;!>•• ..ir'r?''w`,t,: ::-0•.. .a., .t{'+` •rrt:., �`LN: .. .� :'a4',,5,<...•.::5 •a;J, 5. " : t• :'`:;p,`r.�, d":.. 4 r Cyd.. )i'ti337:••AS?,•:r..Yr},'i{>''3r..,,;t; ;@-„u ,5rr,r'�',..•:, x .Lf:` ;:�:i;"✓ r' r�•:. S w S:v�;: w43' w`C�`a;••,k � ,.&r:�• {,k 3' '.'w: 'ar"•'�,xv:. _ ;•.,• +:4 ? ;+f� ;>:n.,,,, ,}, �+�L:r...Y}at,: .}gn sf"':§�'r: d :Y+.#•S, _# 2 -:tK;•,'•.✓.r'+>{. r *i'{�: a t. x ? 's�i,�.,, rt`g,.`;• „„�,�'" ,.,.+ .�.} � �: a.. .,`2 ,,kk a, ��t+:4 .>...• _ t -nr'Yf,s Sts '`^t•3• ,ti 5�2. fi }5lrt `•} `• i;C }' }t:+%`£.v§'::•.: '$.:'+:t�Ca}"t +,v,. i:.,:''::;. ..0 k..< .r : A»��}rt. r'r x�}r •J.r�r R�..:3r, r.$#t•. € .':a�.�{+.;�$' :'��;£ ,}.;•,{{�� .»..,. '�,..;; ,rf�. 'p .� � ••;;,,. , ,.9'r :�: �": t'�;'`�t,n-fir,••• •;.;{e,:: .y+{:st• };„{. •}{!.,:.Y +R%?x,;'r 4 a ✓ +' ;��:t' :;•S:?3'"7•: ..st!i:. } �°;, ,Y,f�'' ,;jr �vr ,n?..�3,4$ ••.;,�,r'r#;:�y 3Y>{4' ? .}�• t"�' ,�;?"�#;.s•'f,, �4Y'd � :{ �... 5• :,s u.,-r4.r rr 4rj r ttYt : Sns y hR, ,br 3_. .,';' aS s {#Y, y df YYF > rS yfi '�a .`` ✓�.�>! _ �.'�+�• �' i {,+x � 7 �•' tiv "� � b�;"•. )`�>�4}' '�.3r, � � 'n '' rtr}?�;,; .rtrr �,�,'tr`:: r..,•, �• �'. t$'f�r�3 Y`r� ,'# w,5�% .S�.�t ss .� � r'r�r� ��.eFa.�• � ✓ .�,'*S,$ 4i$��>£�'. � t'`i.3�.� '�#�` :aai.i n.."� ti t n #r' zi v �::. m$r.;;£+::q #t>'' •'Pasta•t.>�• +t,,..? i.,yyy.w .�s.- ,:s:;:r•„t. 7?�{.at���r s•' pyHP} 1''�}: r!•S:kt d`, 3••,;$.,;:�:�✓r.$':{,, d' # ;},y,d:.�¢` ''++����tgay.4£:3i9'',`,ry?'= `�'3'rt �k.�.<c±. .:ii} { .�y�:' �f:�' ��. S �, �£ �.,S.�,, a7 t••r k:,, ,, }, �° r F; yc •,;` 3a �' 7. ''4' .,''t#`,d='-nPry ,�.. ;?"' ,,},�}'{��,Y � ,7�.' {§#,' r :� .{d?, + .. 9 P 'h .{ 3 � t '� �>.. a.. ') r's&� ti af) r }/..•,�'rS,s:Y� {f"' �: +ak, , uy _. ',. .r»r, r R: .r'',$�rd1>. :.:a •}. .•'t:+r. >,. '`"'�,�.'v.,•.,�'., :� +n�•)fi<.,i�'•{�,+�.°:',.,;;g,'?yg>.',¢%d..S,, 't .J.'. i�i�} ::;5. ':k✓4' ,+tr $r�, _ :j.'g'".'• 7:.<. < rf •.r.,,r, :r7., ,„� a '�^,.y gt :;ria<. .;u;; r>r S�n'" �+ .t .�3� r+, � > W.,�}. `, }:fY'tii� ,�+•:,r :,3:.: :"�y3"t• ..w'; 5;¢•>,':+: ,,r}rx'•:c ,a�g' z., Vi`''a t.•fir"' ':f F,t•.,{, •�� Y' � �}�"r.n< x,.r$�:>:rty{;. } r.�?'s`.�" .,2at• } ':3h,�, Y:: y }{.x, �i'�}� '>"X ''gg�� f.0 °I++. Pr'+,;.'';'•:.:'.;?S:S'�:4%'•.:. f Sr. :r ,,jj'y;},•5,,a:;ri^.,9 4:{- , ;;>..,✓e j�rhi;�'��� 'f,.4',,n.;$:a•.;t f�,. ,��i{��i y;�s��€#••+,lk Fr•.`�, ''d:`,J;,$ ', ',`{.��'�` r.;'; �'1+,.F t�'y'd'qp�}>i '^ t f�t9� r3,''k�.� <; ��,�ur`Y'�,r.rk:f"'#}�#.,•+'�.:?€'�.ir45�, 't�'�3',�4{'�.<};`�.:'��,�ti' :z {f. ,',."{6 .e3 ir25${♦ r+. '�Y�� :a;..,rr..3�r� >.,t<, - ' �;:<f��f'fN. i�S,.':i:fit i :p�`�'r�`", •>iL'.•s'd:'si':�:"' ;�•,`,•;•.i:;•�'n.#. :}� � "{.. '�,. :.`i..P' 'K•� 'r+ ? tr's'.��{,.�k{,a t r£XN. .? ;rvr�s��?''_ •`"�: :.,<.C ,. '{ r�'S ;: ••i�i?>'ts�• } � �} bt` ',' � "+'•}f. - �,,`,?Kr#•�lti•:.. $ A; •• #fes$ '*> ter , �, # b' a ?kS Yxt; yt . <# `. > t'"*`>} } g J:L ix� } >•�ur''�+a'��it� >$� ?. " °,# '+�%Y�,3Ytt 5 i.}2 y hi7� Q!`fi'ti ,,. # t �4� 'ao'' 4a:`.�;i,1 •t r� $ r �ali ��� ;r# sk3ra a y� iP: t � � {", ✓yf �;"} '4'•t, .<V,,+t;'.; {'Sry'$•�< -.�?y' ht?.�'++( ,;Xq..rSt ,3'�'•3sri, P "7t t�i�k�,�y;,?"Fi � .�}'r}#i,#'°� ��4 ''�''�;{'' r{.' g f 3 t ,i 'S^�#=t�-ria `;r'dkv`:•t}}-✓��.�> >., �?• ,r�,t 5cr ari• x +� y sS $n� '� yy �{+5��i P`.`��;' k > °Fy3+�;•` .V}+ "ziik `� �"�,''•l� }' .} X.°�,.3. 'Rt�,`��?:'<: �r. t}{^} �t```' 1,.. Y= :{,i''S,y V i 4'rx V r>a :'{:€>::< J .te ` � ;t•+k2i, A5� .t 3��:'3}:,{•"t:4'1;:.., ,y,� ✓.•`*. gg :i 4�, :•r� � � �PY� # ;``:�•k:�$�%.' F; :b",a:r..,...P,n..'f:'.P,:;} &.?*kK:� :?i:�s?K.•°.L. a3�:i :, .'�i��.w•�P :3 �� 5��,'d+{L.#,�. �^�.> s',. )i &'� fit,� .xtf .t,x. axr,��,:. ;.>xe• ,•.:e«: 3,-..�>}'rt,`br,�>:s{.>�." s#3r., i+#,q;r,�'y�y;�i.�•�xr t'�. :.�'i�; ;iy.,>,'€���.r�r•.r,':�;: s`•+rt✓�'v}r::'krxty a;�,>r �.,r S• >"3 tac?w�xfi}"K+'ty£' {. ,{a''}'�{��a';•>�:':,Q'{:�,r. �?�ti;,fi.?.:i:'4;3,:k:'3`<':s..'•,'`'-a��#7.,`���•s�"#S�.:,tdi;s:t•�x's;.r4r�Y;{3r`,»y�'d�sr:}�;,h3,?g-u• k;€fikf`y>•iy'�7 HIM!.r.'`„?,,} : '4,# ol: >i--Y Xi,� ,.i,`. .$�C':t.�.:.Y•:-0:}i�'ui>) rt'fi.'.,.ilTrr..',5.2?C:: €'v$.rt1, {.ai}.1 W3.•}9r:$ t.'�'F,,+`} `�. .r>..t s +SL, * i t �L:}?;^Y: ){ �- L�r�,a+? •.dXPS A•fi •i��:¢g:VY,;+' 2'$ ,. .# s� 5• $>a 3a�. {nr d t # g'"i }} r:••A, Y}'': ' S •r Y ,t,` ', #}, •i`rr),S P $•.t,�"�>�rA}"Y�h`+,'. 2i '� 4 t` �{; t{+C .�2 4t¢ 5�3C 7�Y.^��•'.+�' 'fir' {�}{' �$E3�y; � ,t'• •' 't�• } } x a a 4 t °a Y`>,?4 3.. :! `tf rr�•.• ;r,.• � �w n�k� 4 y/-} k .r rr( '.•.�,fr•L}j5.�C7,�,9 S,�<{ 2P, ,'}` ,y, .,. "` 5 �.. � � :} 3a�Y� <i'M�.;jPypJp°r.?y a�� iya4' ✓ , �> + �. a ��< '• " } w k6F6Fi.,� Ltz{�'!�?L tt.d?tn nyti LL JJ�� yam, y +,� 3t SP'J tb� t •r} %?>•`}`.• $,w } r�,�3 K't� '{:� Y< rt ��,{y�i�': 2":t' `',,+'`'? tom^#.�{}/ p� . T,` G+ +4 2^-Y t 3 < {. .�k ��•{�� y..irtC}� L.��7 �,k�'+�-k�d, t .,,4 ., R" ;. •�.v:c4: r4 5. r.:yd ?�,'{J;.[�!',,+yC[4,�,<:y.{�p� `+'"° r 1,'� ft' -Y`A '�`.+yo 6 k >•?� ?�yXy��'r�{�r{`'�}}`�a`,Y•4�{�i`ryi' >{L Y ? } :B \,• P, { i 4.}.�,.i�,'ft}..yy.4,+ `` .gip+4 'r". rt✓a, v P #,c,k'. c'S a. ,�4 r r #� F:y. n #r rx5 vt�' �:;}`v �{ �•' .� :.� ?? �;�"' ',s 4ep, }•` ,� a a. u•. ,q x �. -� }�'��• 7 '•'3z ..,Sd�rrvr,•t;f✓,�y?�'�' „,�, :. wf •L• �• �' , ' �"t:}t:�r 7 r•,}`^,•'r.'•' S ?�r '�t.�.'=i:g'i6 .,i+ r,�S x'`= 4v.,.:.. n.?"3:Y:C :.y� ?. ?, r r ,y.�6' ;*�. ',p''�P:�:`,}•;,.,.z`k> :,Yr'�. ;' q .5 �.i*.<N`a• :`? •x:Y..:#.'• '}t�''r:"�'1•$:r:;.•:Y•:i,:c:��q'qfix�a'€4`'' �"n..� .���r`'� "k ��'' ,:s '�3�'S,�•'$r+.,b�r}� '?}i3`: .a t�'` >x V'�'�:�':,' �• �_,�,{ •s�'� }t�: rA7 .�'k'V.,k{{{.}•r,: �,; ;7�:'n,P�'•-,ri; is �-: ''Sa✓ _ ,ry:t'>.r`{'rR•^ir{ :`7"r§R `�� .•+ 4}:v':~: A, 4 �,{7. r:,•>`A: $g' n3:< +�.}' =rf .yiy ,,,o.q k2��• ;. aic':r.}� Y ,,�t,4=?', ..t t'�.Y ¢w "ft�•S`iF#?'Y .3:..faoQ:?.. .:r:}}�tti3.r:4;}hrr:.,;•y}: ,�'� ,{;S,y 4":��,��t. :>.+7.t it�•�' �TR'S'3.`"w q`... �� „d`R'' .S:47 r r�:'%$y}'�.S:ti'`fi "'' y�i>',�` ��x�'q} Ykt' \ >h �� i>.� `�++', ' ✓r{ dq. yr: �S 5''h >�.�' '�+ �{{p'Pnt ',{ ,h,.',� yy qP3?'t.r, �+.S r� k•'} {Yj,,•:�.rr.�,,^S.kF4`� } �, N.LR > 'iS'OS'Y,r ,•Y >'-,`,�`'{.;7;i," '• A +'F,.y:•Fr. '� r-' a,S'S tty 5+ ta� P L;•', �S'0,• �' y.'•.',•§y t?4 fra k•' " '$•w,'„•2�y2;'<' ++ + »,{� gk ,''' r ,f r :t '+a't,'.ar� •" °,r o<,+•', ar{�fir:¢:' ai';tsw,#:s. sa r:r �..F t�, ; � t ��,1 s� -,?r. ,L .� �. ,s,+:S r �'# fiak;7},.t;,�s Y••,zs hr °ys,Y ;5 ..;£ �� �,�•2'a''v'.M"�T7 k;• ,:w >' ,�' } s.7i }+, S, •�y }�„�'� f�' �a*{ 4}}-,f $S,yu'''` t: $$ ��; r �• n` � } .n�� $ 3�t ,� +{.i�''`r'#'�� �7 jfif3,."tt�* p'�+ 4""rtt"• • - P .."� �'>�ir�'�� a:. �'{ ,t ,�3 :Y''�s.,:3�,tt�: ?;)fi?�t,3�' i ct t.:sd �'r�,�5'i2:. {N.y .t �,. � ,.. k,;, ?;, 3t ? v;{' .'�'' z•`i.e7. u,•;�,f.;>�':''+•h <,y,y: :;;;'•., '<+€ "ti M�`.::•:'. '';,n'vr•_"{YY„,5 `'� 7 }L{dy'- ,t%£ ,f%� ,y„r ,.'•>�_.<.�`�:�. t' 4{ ,�,.t >rr ;�?� "+#`;k• w� t � P:d ' � '3 •i; :i5'�?•!. ','� .,3 }..,,$,M >�•�;,':.#}�i.{4.rl.{n:,• ''''y f"n%�Y y U>G` A}{�y `,5:{k•:'ri �h ✓:� :� .{r J:�::4i• k,A,-re}�{� '�a `J: 3°' ;,",'�:,� �<•> .�#�•,5t,s.LS. �.: ..t. •dai�x.} .y.�• g '{ .,x .yr;'s�.�. �'�'#�d?i�i$;:.rs;4;k, , u � x. ,#."33, .k� $° r.}�?�7 x �d.1.�. t :#'�7`,Sr�%.`FR C,. n, t�: ✓>. J. > y '. $`�-":> �;L��?'� 7ti•� d�t� <•?�;••��,�•.} g r,k,�..>;�� `>h-•':a {'?� ��k�! �>t,;::>�,'r.`�:;.�;,: � �'� 'g is+ #.'F,•'.,'�....� •.g.;Ss4a:k2';•Y".'#.:r4...'+ �6$> ':•'f•' 3' 3 S^.tifi . ����'�t, ,4}Y}r o .r,,:Pxr.>�t r sod.€•�7: > ,�: .s.?a,•'�.✓..•r�i.,,.F .2>.{ :fl;:x%`.. ,.s' „, �3:}:yr z •.> ;.;t,>;r.. >x,,•,: ,. Yr`.P�,'1, ,,�+ a.''4tr'. n<`.a ';:i�i,},v:,;{ .•r Y ,. e'v PS.,�,£ :3 + •� a:t;�tt>..xx5"1k.". a :;A ';$. �>,g 7+:r, .::.. .-t•:tz,,zz;;}:',:.:z4`.;ti;#�: •Y.,,. '�a•k :#•F":�:+:,^�,r c�., �:?� r g, ,r5, i;.i �.5. �2':a'3,�`::i:� `� Ig. 40 :^}' S•3''.. ti:�F .,,,;:+,,. ;:'•r•3.=> '# ':..4. .; , r ',_ t. .+ r.#.>';a'P u .:"'..giN . t'A'+' •r:+ - �;F ,:tf,'� �.. ale..,.#...f: ,,;c.,.,{.. R,•r ,w .•{ � «- .P>>r•,•.�,L�::�r.e.y 'Hca y,. :+'% }L r;`'k•a:+:'{{-:o y•}h.,. Rr i:.: :.°%_�, ,.�4, r x�x " �. •fit,.:.� .L�-ra•r?. s� T..,•,>:,.,. .-rt :{r• } ,•.3sr }r.•a{•' �}, }'d>.:t-t .}. :!, •'itni':-r'•ricw.'E .:f:•• :t ...t•.:o: :>. ,,3?},.+.' rx,.::)r.. ,:>:.:>.r#',;7 : ,P ;},,;..{:..,.r -.YY..`t, '•>.:X�'i�+'.- :$r n,¢,�:1} ;, 'd'`+�t':.':Y;: >5 .i?t R... �.. t:t. i :$: :+='=P v.F, .'•:Y:•i4t , ::2t'. :,{.. ,.}.x:{r$,' ;, rr.•rr.,i•?: :::{..•. :'•.4:: '.��?;'}i�e'` }. •.• ':i v rr:M�::nh .✓}.:J>.., {,::4':'}:'k t•: a, ,,,,}4 r :�..r^:: rY �'.,p..r ..{ vi.:r. ..4. '$ .•d{. ,�., �{ IRE '.nL}};••7{,L:::' v{�}• 1.•fiF:+i:iu"ts:.,;.•:Sr s :•7}.,??;.o-a ..4 : .. r:'•;';�^. } r.4r`r.'r�s> ,.:�.: ':;ic,..:.t.>,v r.,,..r,a,• v::'fi...'t2=:r.¢¢¢5...�a...,. r x�,•4�':a' �''.�,,.:::x•.34:..§n=:+.'�,•a,v:,:>t>} r.§a.•7#•.%r% ? i:Y. :�itf:}'w .4kk:7w N:r:•\,;h.;.-t:.w,. ,>....?.:�.'r.4t:tf':{{:;, <ar r= 5.><`"r°f,•;i'tnr.; ;?: a- ;L:,: :t-, �. ,e'.3.,•. .rY• ,_....:7. s`<#'s':,a:><:<.::.:..;r.,r: ,z rr.�3 �t ss ..4.+.'t'.�''', ::ns{e.k=>a:..•,t� >�� 4} rz<: .xd�'. " ..�"��,.} ,:.f°`�n'',�•,`� € �f x- ': >.�:.: .r. ,d :'g n}'::?...P) �i :, �r' n{ s,, .,. `• 2 a.}::{:•k :.:.h r..{, { : rk ,..+✓. .<.t •.t}$::n t,.. ^}t•.•: r^S .�':•>fi' >"4. :?'::;{•{;.. ."�:::d:v?t� ' .a.:• := vh.;,)...vs:o: :.#:��: ;:i:{21. 1.r .y;,i•: •. :'....M.' r .` ,.3,,>. ?,. •,v:rrJ. u.i.••� #. .: : ,? 3..:`s.., .a'r^r•3:,,;Sc 4'' x:=�.: :::'si: {r,ri:, r•.:}'r•::.,,. ,+ 7�} ..3 ' £?:k. ^'r" ,+t :•r't.`t:: •f.;.4., 7:,.$. > v3:,. -:#.�$'. ,y,`h��a`• f,::ta:::?<• ,.?:" "$t�!+^.fi,v•�:b, .>...,>... :<.av4x.r�. ..2 a: .,,PS ,d '?', ,•: ?.t• :: .tet r. :'Ky. '> °{.s,.s'i2}i::;•.:.,: ,•: f:#?: ,.}} .:f. Y}... a{. :Y f:rvS� s:.G?::.t. •:f." +:: s • ''}.t+. ��++.. ,.{f..` ti5l•. •.4 y' r•.fi.. ,.}'};'_`': "r�.S.:SYh,,,,.. -4.'^•,. �s ''kr., # :'ttr-• rF• v-Y2� { .Sr.. •<:.t....§:r.•:;2'k 'r ."��:£•' }- .,,k::y :€;*' {xf.-; :3.�. .k •. ,+:<'.z 's:h-:::+ ^^$$ '::.Jr. :xs r}•:, '*�`•;fi;>•., �rs: ::.?.: .T ,Y.s` r• :::'c::.: }. .r'�'c�.,... ,<'k.. .rv{•::, n, ^a ✓ s:`;•;•.�:ice:t`ii>?�•'•L+'%r..,. •°:: •A•i,'•}.�h=x� { .f.r 3' r..{'+ r'R ,./.iYo:. ,o-:4• v{ r.7': =5'u.; - r• .x.,.i. rx:r 'G`P's :rf4::,, •L•h•++ }:. rrTk;sa.}, ,: .,.3..,, yars ...�••.+• .{r=:4..= 'r...)2r u.,{„.,,Y?:. i .:v•, r..., ?:. r,. a r;r., .. +.r. :. {.�rrrr, .r.}r- r .,r..f ,... ,.:..,..:..,,::•.x•r$,+.•:•:.;,...: ::.:...,...,,.txr,a d.# ..,•.:..,,.., 3. .�s::. :.r,, . . . ..... , n4.,.:r:h:..,.rtr?,L,.,::r.::r,€�.:�s•�.:�t� 2.`�,..,....:§,rr. r..� s•��:t.,:t:.:%:: :�.:s:.:s =' r.,:.r.rr?,:,,.rr.,.ss..>.� .7.... -:,.s, d'.€. a:.}; : :,v•; w-.... : ... ............. .. ...-._ x:,{.....;,,:: r:r::n:rP $....,k , P:�:r...:n.rv.:v:.L}.:�:•i::}.:i.':). .,t. •Yr. :} >:<4:2 Y.^ttp:: •r.'L;{. ,}:fi: •?:3i':::..1 :{,ti:;: r ,+nG„" '":, ,w.,n":e:::Tr,n.,+,::.,...,.1:;wy in,,� -r,.:•:,=r > :..•r. ,:..: :{a .,a�i•,r 55 t a,•:v.: .�i say:.. :,?'i�`so ✓ } f n„ :,,,r,r•.:r., ,rr F ,:. :,�...., ,.,:::y,r.:r:-:iisr'.,5.a?;;::{:".t....•d. 'C 'r>•,. %::3�;i ..,..s. .;::.'.: ,.....,.ry.. ......i.:...... .i.t.r..y}.i:CCv.:;;q..:.rr.>}}.i..:.r..`V. :L.. ..?:a,'t'+.:?i}.:Y. :•:•$:-+ „F.. £r -.>,'. :r. ..>:„ Jnr ..}. ;...:",�.•. ..:, - 7 { i• P 1`+{,7' r#�J€F �_� wti Ft t A > .; 7, tS,}tS }t � r -..-%...,.�..w �� �.:.._,'.... ••:-. }„:fY3 k.¢ '' r H< ? : � t} } :m::.c�-+:eVc.<r+�"..C.`>':�.+'i} k r .....; Apr 20 04 CIO: 20a LAWRENCE E. NUNES (51 0) 372-5529 t :K. r'Jt t \c,LtS 4k �.+ fio$ $s irk $ �xK?'v�°�`# ri •J X1 �e``�9�fwf ',s s x} (., 3 4' `v, "S M { F t tyad ,rt zs E ' 4 a S {v k t dp '. s$ .�5 } t� ti t z }. J< fsi# { s l�•S s s y 3 ak AIR, `-��,"5�� iJIi7Y.A '$ ,r fi } t7• L a 2 yS. 4 r } i a `' ^i`$' °^;'s ''S}X'E n. b.t B j r"r. #' '"�i t j'. x'a .} t e "�,' !L� rit �,([a1 tY+S'tiQ 2 3 1 j�4yN.r R'tiN�'•.@ iR1 E4..k i? K 41 NS L } 3yc>a Kw st'hS�.si'a c� t.rack i,.,{°i,:yy4 t ,lyy� } rM}.Sm wYz4v "Y ais w 1; S v 0 iba'tf Wd" x., d4.s 3t urL .. f K F i n�yw ys .3srE `��.#EF ysi z y.�TStu-L '?i$ s x k$ M c w 'Sz�A"'iY F"',#y �` sti } sr�,Y..KZB s Y n f 9.1 tur: •d G :z 3 t t' - t G r "x F .,r fi,k ZM r ."RIP � d x �� t .L}� �,zi,.a�� } : < � R. �� r �'r "'� s, .� �.azv,� r'� s t y,s >.✓'- ��:Lg� rr A�, zt •sxa :• tit... �. -i!t si>< x �' � R•s� a��x r ¢ �x� �1 t�` ,x b 4�^� F< �� •� £ f y a at t "*,n �` Yrn'4[ 3, ?.R tf §�, r 3 4 6s is:t° r v X:y�° � 'k 'i 4'vd-S tPk•`, a.' <E•'1 t,5i r + 1 F} Lyc a "i R t. r, s "`} y Y r � i zY�k K :19< } p•n� r 3 t y �' s �ysi � +. ., t. X: t^.r lri a C �Lt y rsk' k "k E?tti �ik• a'i rY; f •s s tTl ;., 64' ' S s 'i. S d'$ w .t'` �'u 4 5 s ,� YA{�¢s#S a. �fi 1•y s s �#-�,t .#�, >as 1�. +�sy,�„ �5r� �� dsya��s y. ' s-' � r�'m'?xtE A`r x3'., dto A�4 a} ;.n.. `e5•+dX ,i:? '. 5zftt1 #JRY[ ?:Fas $.r );� L, ti� ffi X ,.; $ Vii• .}S$y, t - >�`s tk �2A' ¢¢ h.k J� a` �'R��ft{rySiy� k �;di�' '�`�.}�t. $.a:c uY:ff-fi t .•�':7c9 '� X.s� .,}y.�scEs i w>Xt � � � � �t�'.a } �Gl��ai• a}gF �.'.y � i r ff r x i &r FJ §sw t tiff e `3 4 Wz 4 LIE +` . srt a'" t ek,, ,y4r sq s x ?Ft v d3 ,rya i r y}; rta + `ry.L.�y3x SFA+ 14 .d"tYh '€F� aid 3d3. reit 23 ik; ° a y .°3'v iir � �4F' wf$i l 17:1+ xt '" � r zsu%r i atzr$'iow.t t* ?•? *xE}(• °t,r}^ J" ei# ;"s$ r r' � P t �� Cb�':k �'z. y.X$ F 4.bs 5i}Y € } G 'L'S"yy,s+� s�,�.3• 'i`4h Y arm yy'CiJ„ 2k k a $ t.apt t5.y�{ �t s£� � _a x t"•sa1j av Wye k3 FJ Y8 r t> ,, r? :'$ Paw-ung4{. +Lt� '•[ :,;t�. ati 3 t 1} g" X21 e< Y o� ,S#fii �jirf pe r # kuys .:.: axil.x} s $.'r8'# ro a -E s i r'fa•o- 3 �"r ri oto a_$ �* s' i'+" �` �lw.{ . $,1. • ,.. t i {;?Sr t �:1x8R31 F# xl' f4`k tk t5 ! <y-i *i• 'F s.-x ' s mu M.Sgxs s. f :, ,a�i�' �� rdxs Y^' v ip' *cs K ' 3 t< ry{ a. hT Fs < F} �y sf;'Ways M` }},y' 3 C 5 K fg Ltys,�; $~, �p 'K €y a•r ° ,� - 5 +a wi ��3r+eC c?:4 0:'ti zd Yw"�.p � -3''°St 3•�h`�`x�' Y� `t kk} � kt"` L"+t{y 5?yrs } r �, J"e d e lit � • T�+, st + a d a?r sF .g� s �k;i;,yi � .x;•� fxn z i w *tz y,El . k' ` � } �;: � e-0 �K k S''�' } r'St �s : •#>��t�Fs•�'+,'��${o �� �1 t h h s ,a '. f �,r s g +. } t r•,t s,us^3 bzc r t F t+ ._""'' a '"?tt s�t s x F ts s �� 'G i "v+§Fk � y t t s}s` t � �2"t$# x_'ao �?..t�sw�'s.�.Ys y :« � §. M r y + •v:a rt;� 4 "fi`z�,. 5 l,u: 1 y £ iK#.{�a�r u t >< a o pwt%-)#h .�. •: ar W&..S}b ,;.'} 6. 2 L R za t �t .s f y fi h "yt4 1 Tz f b a' FL r}K A{�t ,4✓n' d G grk r3 Y � it+J xyKss .�ni3°,q•,�}` ._ �i#n` �.�• ys .r~�` { 'i y s y, 4 ,��L. d". •St'i}� � 'z K' t "z'� s x +F y}. - sh.. r 1 � J i r 4 , [ � �• R x' Ykd ^a' r. t�` a 3 '$� i` 3�_t >�,�,.t F i � 9 re 9 # �•� a ;.•s .r 6 � � t (ta � : r ^'vr�+ fwk fa z r, q s t k d 7 a.E In a study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New`fork,in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 91 industrial compounds, pollutants, and other chemicals in the blood and urine of nine volunteers, with a total of 167 chemicals found in the group. Eike.most of us, the people tested do not work with a chemicals on the job and do not live near an industrial facility. Scientists refer to this contamination as a person's body burden. Of the 167 chemicals found, 76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects or abnormal development. The dangers of exposure to these chemicals in combination has never been studied. Source: Environmental Working Group compilation Footnotes I References: Health Effects These results represent the most comprehensive assessment of chemical contamination in individuals ever performed. Even so,many chemicals were not included in the analysis that are known to contaminate virtually the entire H.S. population. Two examples are Scotchgard and the related family of perfluorinated chemicals, and a group of compounds known collectively as brominated flame retardants. A more precise picture of human contamination with industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides is not possible because chemical companies are not required to tell EPA how their compounds are used or monitor where their products end up in the environment. Neither does U.S.law require chemical companies to conduct basic health and safety testing of their products either before or after they are commercialized. Eighty percent of all applications to produce a new chemical are approved by the U.S. EPA with no health and safety data.. Eighty percent of these are approved in three weeks. Only the chemical companies know whether their products are dangerous and whether they are likely to contaminate people. As a first step toward a public understanding of the extent of the problem, the chemical industry must submit to the EPA and make public on the web, all information on human exposure to commercial chemicals, any and all studies relating to potential health risks, and comprehensive information on products that contain their chemicals. Additional information available. KEY TO CONTAMINANTS from the website of the Environmental Working Group. icon for PCBs PCBs — Industrial insulators and lubricants. Banned in the U.S. in 1976. Persist for decades in the environment.Accumulate up the food chain,to roan. Cause cancer and nervous system problems. icon for Dioxins Dioxins — Pollutants, by-products of PVC production, industrial bleaching, and incineration. Cause cancer in man. Persist for decades in the environment. Very tonic to developing endocrine(hormone) system. icon for Furans Furans -- Pollutants, by-products of plastics production, industrial bleaching and incineration. Expected to cause cancer in than. Persist for decades in the environment. "Very toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system. icon for Metals Metals -- Lead,mercury,arsenic and cadmium -- Cause lowered IQ, developmental delays, behavioral disorders and cancer at doses found in the environment. For lead., most exposures are from lead paint. For mercury, most exposures are from canned tuna. For arsenic,most exposures are from arsenic (CCA)treated lumber and contaminated drinking water. For cadmium, sources of. exposure include pigments and bakeware. icon for Organochlorine insecticides Organochlorine insecticides. DDT, chlordane and other pesticides. Largely banned in the U.S. Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain,to.man. Cause cancer and numerous reproductive effects. icon for Organophosphate insecticide metabolites Organophosphate insecticide metabolites -- Breakdown products of chlorpyrifos,malathion and others. Potent nervous system toxicants. Most common source of exposure is residues in food.. Recently banned for indoor uses. icon for Phthalates Phthalates — Plasticizers. Cause birth defects of male reproductive organs. Found in a wide range of cosmetic and personal care products. Some phthalates recently banned in Europe. icon for Volatile and Semi-volatile organic chemicals Volatile and Semi-volatile organic chemicals. — Industrial solvents and gasoline ingredients like xylene and ethyl benzene. Toxic to nervous system, some heavily used SVOCs (benzene) cause cancer. 1. tia teas a proceeding In sMdty to majoin the d aimag r it a , aaastery into a sussing stream of vater, and Us a ar- tiro "s mot+aiined rritlmrnt requiring a rWSWt first to as Action at Um. !lace prions at the eassterlr Pam&s VMS so stet aid svmW that later would rias is opmainge Gag t4! t`a�ei t0 i1i�h an s,:tent as to eaase thsiar Vis— amt. It ryas proposed to this law sat. the drai tgs into a rMaing streas of 'a4ter r lek 1 rres• tp , and the Matas fret•it IMS VS*t 1W 9911MOL1111- mats for stoait, for Dorsa Inept for daft psrposss,, for smt- U& test am to some extent for dasestis piss.• �fo of the eaapl aims parties bLrv**W Im U !tete arterat In - of from SGt ts► Yvsr Wi WA, it fridsrra.tind:and descent pWpw W gess: TAW aor�t,•� ft" %bat the trey alaaslm'"at of nater Pm"Uting .`+ vi dh the`soil tate the till and theses rsemizA irate► the brook vo ld to water tbarsia ted roeW it lefit for two at the par pawra !sr iehi4h it ma rasied Mae established by a steer piropio[araaoe at taws evidence and was In asoord..rrith oommea imdMtabd.'t, g* #s are at rrpinim the +rrfrt+e M Inc tkdo sum m urt it !'free tras mbstanUal doubt t1 at,Us proposed rimid+trdra imp at dst ee+daatie s o meted v d surtaxilbSta. and iajurlous"ly af`foot US low sa cos itsaoto s mss _ .. far the VMS is vbisle it us put. and Ism of Varch 230 1%2* Dr, BaYmsd IOU*$ testified, as ss expert bastarriatodists that bodies Vala In bows of vood would sower or later be ss 1lgaeerfisd as to be grastieall,y ineorporsted with the soil Is vier tb y ,yore burled, said tk at the sesbterranam dra3lhags of a oemetsry draiming into a seer of brick teed skiarr as ordimrily built, .if drained into a $perima brook would carry oontaminatim and ponato mese h brook for five ones or more, and that brooit, being damad for Its ms►tird within four miles free the eeomietary, road result in a punct from. w1doh inti of a. very .peraicle" quaUty would be barrestedi that the inter frck a brook into which such sewage drafted would be mzhea2tby for cares, and vmf it for drb*Ug ses or for.@odPn- inter for damestie rose. The testIDOW or Other VIU6s804 shored that the •Lands tltrm& ihiah the braoic nviis into jhfe► the drainage from the amoterias mptied, vomId be m ratted for dairy pe7oeres and stock reloW by reason of the emt inaticn of the water by the savageo Us courts fes ita opini.am, ,aids no of there was "m im aff iree d" the degree, fte very purpose of the sewer was to tbrnis6 umlordrafnade, as �1 as wee drain- adrrs to these cometeries. Sme Paum at their gromds me: so "t and wrau f that motto" home rise its yrs to vanes, mfidas ft9f to ,ceche . was sed fluiew as Domartwput+ota pbAIff,� eC a# U i tied 9"n dem pmp"Ims Umaa Wdissa b! a �� '' ra►t+rrs, tau the a~ and frm them" Into fife a owta dgetUg its wtom sea sud"O .th" tent bw tat 'ter mm w bmsta wd datums to tete b"Ith of thawtr -it* siwmu m�e the rwat�rr t++rwt +�- ,,�+��,iiR P" W ribs 8633 L!! rtS"t iet` *on tiat � Md fiat I" �i ea by ` It+w gmu tie a' a t�- s • �' %Y* t .: {. '�y'lt4 'w'• "ir.Y�G'y `�_ .s ka•` 5."�`'y,.�•.. t i 'Y4. S. .- •r .. 3 .a- f: by'�.' . '' tb* qwwtUa ae to • y v ald be tins palated by •Ira b� � tkink the ter of fiat avid"" sastrlxns tiro• at tirrtaetarr "at It `x rwaa d.eIoo eerwa #+s 'so d tr :ti► oam],d be. Y# . . ti►mr spin lm of =*w fiat ` ` 10 got &Ud tai br Und !ylUed titbit dMQft < . bathes, ILON& rtg im" a x, wl" Idtir3,wt a Nn* of-M& Undp soull pet: Im ►teaalca r tb ptsliatlde�t :: t - ; goal 9MUgs of var*'vater ruin fret Us bad of the straws. It t1m tbronSk the private pp-.. ertr of *cap'aI vnaats. they vend its waters for stock, for ems kept for dain PaVoses* tar ask— Ing io+r, ond, at t1s"# for dor esti* ase. .Me dOndants attempted to belt fto taxes of tbs sass mads by aasglaisauats br sbMinad that the ■atsrs of the $rOGIC and tbs ids almag its *car" Vwre already pollutedbj the iMAhbp from ianared Ian used is VMISalad and from din&i tsgrrtables wA other rsfts* matter, wad "sea'p now msftl in showUg that In wet vmther Us vatan of this s'trea�s ft" roodered, lapare from those *&US ** IbAry also showed tbat sstathagr &%U ft a someshat sinilsr 1tvd, frm t Saps Cowt"7 ` disebarg d its Mate s into a ravine .Wab is intM �: weather married Pueh satsrs Into the brook In questi ss bt a point belowttis brad of at' • ' the vas tiaouwts wad abow�r that 6t �: - t ..". r we kner of Flo rpt at law that soa ctions.,�a, beams another bas prsasdwd It,* •It is Boob s tM tbat streamis at nater vonot be as *hsa tl"10.9 tttM& I&*" "0161dsd by Povilow. eammities as ♦bon flowing threx# vpLrw sett'l.ad.lowsr) bat t offoets tai �M 1 arise from tbs.esoupatiaa and ort�.tisalz ad' soil by man do act jWtull flea at a Otr at-WAAW-AMOVIA vroso Propertro in Wdsr at for 1a ratio it 19 ad. 96.) flt it is a well roaWlsod brei of equit;' jvrisdictim to mtrais, by iuj ae. t•imp, the fouling at rwalap streets that pasa- Orretr .the lands tt�srs of O , by oe mect t,her+erilh or by other snssam, seg ace'to ia- the aoetfort smd beeitlth at others or to @su nwe Is%. rerrprmbl,e injury to thoir property'riOLU6 x.12 High an U junetime, p: 3Ws sore. 7%, 7" " ' ': :, - f e t. gill' of etf 1019s, •S OUS. 354' Simi e`f Rejpbagh 16 M. 3223 Ittrowlima M man--� gggav 87 id- 450; kUS& e"• "feek��`_t.M2s, 4 Ch. $731 I= T. 1teaIe MMUl s 12 It. •#231 ILUM .2t Wght •• ffals, 130 M. 273.) And the aaere tact Vwt In the came at bar the eattorer,tit this strem may, to sere extents have been rradeared umM"ho1**tme *ma flooded by they ratethinds t tetee Ytur'ed land& or by tete ea►aeatie s of ether - draiaa= is see exanse for„Ike ftroatmeed pol2stlsp b the asme �1A*. (20 An. & r . at Deter, 968,,974.) it, !t dee bwed by mastics 222 of the Cr'tatnal Cede to be a public saatmas ee e to corrart or render ilea ase or laeepmre the uator of any springs rivers, strew, paod ar erg. to the injury or prejudice of etbare,• and-fte Woos* is p niml abls by laadiatamt, heft the 'ba” toot that the' aUtatee giv" a rerNwadtr b*hedictse bt do" 1A d� the ele in or itd1 star+ 31, 1945. autroritits m this branch of equity Jnrisdiettait that where the bury resulting ft= the nuiamee a in, tri its nature, irrepaiable, aa;"when loss of health, loss of trade, deatmeticn of the ■cans or subsistence or peraeanerit rain to property r311 eneno from the wrongful acct at emotion, courts of equity will interfere, by Injtweticn, In further- onee of justice and the violated right* of property." W%metiwe relief sill be granted to prevent one proprietor from causing filthy or oentasinattied rater to percolate frc a his aedl. into- adjedmiag lands to the injury of his zaighbor. 27 in. to Inc. fey. of Laar,. 437. Mee evidence dorms nCOC sustain appellees, cmtention that the purpose of the savor in more sueaco drainage, or the marrying off awe rapid- ly of nesters from the hoer,eef the emmetery groundsrhieh, by the s1Nr�r praepasnes ! ` peraela ' tion and natural drat ,r would event find their say to the same stream and in a acre isepe'e condition. The contract sbors that the steres =a to be at all times kept open, 'stat to be »need by the two eearouries for sarrying away all surface —4-- m-A me . A..ft 4w P~ 0044 ,1i1..&J V4 fte. .'A +hA Parch 31, 1948. eoaeter7, scan be enj cold r'j ou patmittini saw dr&3aap to tl&w over or tiuoagb the pmAr of the err 6r' the_ �eei�ont 1ude because It 9093A amstitatr a aaimme " � ♦e z ..rt ni--� •Y •. ^•r+. t '_, .w'.: �i..•.'(�.,. rr�lit yV,�i�•.r�" - _. �......-�_`._._�... .. .,�..:ti 1 'bother +or not nem& drai:m p WM pa In aet Owtasimate the water is a gaastlm at fact rddeb am be oastablished In each cue. . t' ` •�•••rr art!! Cft t' .. . r a ,�. �,`7.`i �+tY"' ~• — "S��P�,'� •e�. a ' i ��. -• S u, r• Y'Yr.a+-�• a fr....r.ter �.+. .�' �.- ""°•�.s•�tY lr•'v•�f4�F :'•.e.r+r^y.. :j i+t• ' + .�..�.. y wl(uot cotint 01, Contra Costa goYne moc ifit tions pis reduce the costs Otherwise all CC7Nn d motives may ��.. �' toi F k•' �� sswN int[) Peter �senfeld water By ? for vegeta% lion a nir TAM STA"wwarrsR cid�vildiife du> the su Contra Costa County's Public me Local officials told the Board Works Department estimates public aof Supervisors last month they and private developers will the San Francisco Re- have to pay$ expectmillion to$300al Water Quality Control million annually to comply with new clean water requirements. Board s amend the qty's per- The coupty also will have tomi this summer. Based on measures recently i spend up tO 30 million annually +ad ted in'Bc+uthern Catsforcua ttiid main ,, ' ; to enforces inandate� San dose;the the draix�a federat. OR likely reclulre onysite fa sea Ip by the in tf I l to an inters is eanae'or stare a drain per lotions,according cent to 90 percent of the runof memo. on new developments. These projected figures un- eats are eked to Re derscore county fears that quirem amendments to its storm water apply to commercial and private developments, redevelopment discharge,,permit could have p rove- ra cts and capital imp wide-riidi kcal effects, P. azi acre,going "I knew it would be severely menta larg { down to 5,000 square feet aftdr expensive,but even this surprises me," said Supervisor Gayle three years.lic Works Director Mau- Uilkema of Lafayette. My hope ; is that as people realize the ft- gee WATER, page 4 ,,..-..,ai irr,rxact. there may be Water staff time,"Shiu said."Obviously we have to train the staff so they FROM PAGE 3 knowhow to inspect the facili- rice Shiu said his staff based ably Some of that cost will prob-ties , their projections on antics ated y go to the property owners. county growth and a Caltrans es- haThough Contra Costa officials timate that building the storage ve not received official word tanks typically comes to between about the changes, the regionalti. 1 1 Q percent and l5 percent of a water board has formally noi- a c total cost.p fied San Mateo and Alameda Contra Costa's cost to over- counties, Shiu said. see d*standards"wilt continue Peter Felsenfeld covers Contra to increase as new facilities come Coster County government. on line,"the.memo states. Reach him at 925-977-8506 or "We're basically talking about Pfelsenfeldrn cctime�xorn. E3 � = �yM cn r s. 1r r 'n G yir. 6. d � � � J `°� U �9�� t3•"•'. G �. ice` ,.z � � r d l6 ✓ d �• rG � J'y' eC, w jr e. S G S1+ �rdr dl G Wt �. $OA L"• d �: ✓,r�+ � S.' �y to'u�cY+ y yi1 CS ',�` t6 Cd �"'i y 43 G7 � � G�•' + �..+ v � 'J" � as �-��„ � cs'�s nc�� "�.'.� ••� � ��.�, � � �' P��S=1'�r ryG w y4 d? G dy r0 A cC d� eSr'd � o ✓ ::& � G GU Asn � a; aid ca tr. Ul '. '' ' tG ✓ G t4 Ed y} U U N v i? p 1Z. , t+ Gr 0 yy a •,.t 05 N yO tz 013 is� y CY � 0 . G"✓r3 ai.fl G' w. 00 . w zaCczk� to T/} 6 O"G � � YY.A N O � "S e3 G � `��� d G�w��rvj W 67�dus tiI sr'✓d to 0 � �� ' C�) t7 s e � � � r y d Us eri q� �s � 0 — r vts w y, a> ? Cs v L a G m cs Ca+1w ql d d GS 6)"d ✓ r}{j�" i '' i y C4 y..` 'G 7 ..-. ,. as G tom.. t'S O ;C .-. r w e4' d i CHMHY MS AS A 3CRT M OF 1 ATER POLLUTICK* by Dr. F. We J. Van Haaren Summary' In the first Dart of this article the possibilities of the decay of organic materials from a corpae in the soil of a churchyard are discussed. An approximative calculation is given for the time necessary, for a complete ozydation of these materials) In the second part of the rola played by drainage has been taken into considerations and results of analyses of ground and surface waters from several churchyards are given in detail. The conclusion is reached that these craters in every Mase under investigation were heavily polluted. In accordance with legal regulations after ten years the remains of a body that had been interred not be dug up and removed from the r churchyard. Little is known as to ghat happens to the body and the surroundings, as tar-as we can tell# From an onvi.romiental sanitation standpoint, hcam rover, it is of interest to know what influence a chard (in which bodies are buried) has on the adjacent surroundings and particularly we are interested in the changes is the adjacent ground water and surrounding surface water. In order to obtain an understanding of this there follows first* whether theoretical consider- ations can ascertain Jest how far the or crani c matter that originates *'Translation by J. H. Austin, Robert A. Taft Sanitary gnginemring Center, June gvs uy�ne 15 59, of original paper in Water,rDen Haas, (lb)t 1 7 (6 Aut�, 195"1). r�rrrrirs � 2 from the buried cadaver in the ground can be stabilised, and second, on the basis of some experimental results it will be attempted to show whtoh circumstances arise in practice. In the first section the following will be ooraideredt 1. The average content of oxidisable organic material in a body. 2. Quantity of oxygen nece3sarf for oxidation. 3. The possibility of additional sources of oxygen (far use in itm 2) from certain types of ground. !e, The time required to stabilise the organic material• 5. Factors which influence the time (item W, 6, The value of the total ti.ms of stabilisation on the basis of calculations and experimental data, The human body has roughly the foUowing compositions(1) Fater 64% Albumen 20% Fat 10% Carbohydrate 1% Mineral salts The average body wmight of on adult Dutch man is about 68 kg (150 lbs).(2) The average weight of a body, however, would be lower because _ in mortality figurns childron sire includod and because after sickness the body is more or less emaciated. 'Weighing these considerations, the averW. Sretvht of a body is taken as 50 kg (110 lbs). The surface area of a grave is taken as 2m2 and the surface area of a body as 1m2. From the burial of a body the following quantities or organic material are added to the ground. (0.20) (50) ., 10 kg albumen (0.10) (50) „ 5 kg fat (0.10) (50) = 0.5 kg carbohydrate In order to calculate the quantity of oxygen that is necessary r for the mddation, we must first know the composition of the three kinds of compounds. For albumen ve can take the roughly accepted composition of protein for a starting point.(3) This is s 50-55% carbon, 6.5-7.3% hydromn, 15-18% nitrogen, 21-24% oxygen, 0-2.4% sulfur and a little ash. If we assume that the nitrogen is completely oxidised to nitrate, certainly the calculated quantity of oxygen will be on the safe side. Using this supposition, we can oalculate in a wimple manner that for complete oxidation of 100 grams of albumen to carbons, water and nitrate about 200 grams of oxygen is necessaryi that is about twice the original weight of albumen. «» 4 ,. For 10 kg albumen, 20 kg of oxygen am necessary. Fat can rouchly be given as a certain member of CH2 with carboxyl groups, From this it is P.Uily seen that about 85% of the wraight for calenlation purposes is from CH2 groups. Now the melting paint of human fat is lower than tristearine, so that the carboxyl bond is mora easily broken 4M thus a somewhat lmmr percentage is found for the CH2 groups. Our example is thus certainly on the safes side, i.e., tho}re will most likely be less rather than more oxygen necessary for the oxidation. For each CH2 group (W ,w 1 ) 3 atoms of oxygen are used. 1�* requimd quantity of oxygen is as follosae WO) l x 3 x 16 a WOO 8"r oxygen rounded off to 14 is kg oxygen. For 5 kg of fat; 15 kg of oxygen is necessary, i.e., 3 times its wrei ght. The Composition of the carbohydrate can be given as {CH20} x for each group of CH20 two atones of orogen are necessary. Tho molecular weight of CH2O is 30. Thirty grams of carbohydrate thus require 32 gram of oxygen. That is thus about the sasm weight. For 500 gram of carbohydrate, 500 grams of oxygen ars necessary. In this cash this quantity can easily be forgotten. In total then about 35 kg of oxygen will be necessary for the oxidation of the organic material sof a body. There is no data available for the calculation of the time required for the penetration of this quantity of oxygen into the ground. However„ there is data on the amount of CO2 gas which escape* froom a unit area of ground surface over a definite time intergyral.{�) Thi a it a starting point arca we must take that for each molecule Of 002 that escapes from the grounds, one molecule of 02 must have penetrated into the ground. In re-lity somewhat less oxygen is necessary but in proving this theory YA relationship of It l will be accurate enough. Now we ask hear this gas #%change takes placep and it appears that it occurs substantially by diffusion. r All other factors that have some influence here may be neglacted for our purposes without objection. However this diffusion is dependent on variotis exto-rnal circumstances of vhich the most important is the free pare vola of the soil. In Khat follows we must from necessity make the following simplifying suppose.tionst 1. The free pore volume of the anti.re ground arena under consideration its homogenous. Z. The free pore volume is arrays constant. - d -. From Rormll (quoted by Nuer) we see that with normal aeration in the ;:round th,t 7 lttern Otis p"r m2 per dAy escape. They think that the gnicknat aeration is possible in the unm..r layers. In the tipper 20 as Df the F;rouni the air is completely replaced each hour. The oxygon concontrntion, however, decreases with depth, the 002 concentration incren3es as a consequence of the microbiologi.cAl activity in the sail. 'Thus we a nn speak of an oxyren rmadient sand a 002 gradient. They ars compliments. Should the CO2 content in a localised Around area increase for one reason or :mother than the concentration relationship with depth (gradient) increases. Then more CO2 can escape in proportion with the decrease in concentration. This increase is however dependent on a limit. The maximum CO2 concentration is calculated as that which can replace the total available oxygenf i.e.' 20% CO2 by volume (the rest is ni trogen). The ma 'EM CO2 gradient that 'can occur is thus betneen 20 and 0.03` (the last is the normal CO2% in sir). `ram the research of Buckinghan(4) the valt= of CO2 which diffuses out of the ground is 10 liters/m2/day for a fres pore volume of 0.4 (that is the pore volume of the type of ground we are considering) and a gradient of 0.1% per inch (i.e.f 4%/ttaster). It is easy to see that anarobic conditions ars reached at a depth of 20,4,1 a 5 met6re with a gradient of l%, assuming in this supposition that the gradient is constant. In reality this will probably occur sooner. � 7i Let us assure now that in a soil of similar pore volume a bony is buried at a drpth of 2.5 mi. One can safely suppose that after some time anarobic conditions will prevail at the location of the, 'nocly. ►re nowhave again a CO2 gradient between 20 and (pract3 tally) sero, now over a distance of 2.5 m. The decrease is noir 8$/meter. Also twice as much CO2 will escape, i.e., 20 liters per a 2 per day. Subtracting the normal amount of 7 liters, therm remains 13 liters CO2 from the body. Therefore 13 liters of 02 must penetrate into than ground. Thins is 13 x 143 a 17 grams 02/m2/day. 35 kg of oxygen arra necessary Per cadaver. Thos for complete oitidati,on 3� w 2100 days., i.e., about 6 ,years for the process. Tre must remember that these rehults were arrived at by the earlier simplifying suppositions, It is assumed above all in the reasordng, that the results of Buckingham w-re derived for agricultural, problems and are suitable only for the upper layers of soil and are used here for extrapolating to great+-r depths. However it appears from the values obtained that the error is not great enough to change the results very such. It must also !'se remembered that the gars exchange is calculated per a over the body and not per a2 of Churchyard. AppzvAm ately oxsly 35% of the total churchyard surface in used as a cemetery underlaid with bodies.. Contrary to this as far as we know there are frequently cases with two layers of bcU93, and somsti.mes throe. Thus the quantity of orj;nntc mi%torial, must be inarensed and depth below the surface decreased. For the first arkse we have made a simple assmption, namely that theyers buried in only one layer. Now we remember that we must consider the circumstances in conjunction with those already considered which influence the stabilisation time. Ilia most tmportsnt are triose which control the diffusion and those which affect the quantity of drainage. Au already statAd, the diffusion is in principle controlled by the availablo free pore volun9in the specific ground area. The pare volume can be reduced by compaction and if lar permeable layers are formed in the mound, and the penetration of water. Quattitativly there is little to say about the firwtj with water it is known that 40% saturation of the pore volume decreases the diffusion by 4M. With 80% saturation the diffusion practically stops. Thus rainfall wf.11 frequently effect the diffusion unfavorably, and with heavy rainfall the ground will be sealed off. 'there are not complete data at our disposal to make a reasonable accurate estimation. Romell(4) assumed pwroolating crater could lower the diffusion coefficient by 1/2 to 1/3 of the noraal values Tf we take the first value as the most probable then the stabilisation time will be twice as great or it will take 12 years before all the organic material is converted in a body. __ _._.. .. g It is still moro difficult to fret an idea of the effeact the dratnnro -71.31 have on carrying; array quantitihs of organic material. In the t,ns--1nn1nr, tits x111 bo small. but a►fterwnrds ss decomposition procnels more rt ll mo into sol.utton. In so far as the big molecules ants concerned, they will be held fast by the ground. The pollution will sproad like+ a rlrop of oil on papearf where on account of the incm.ase in nvtiilnbls surf-%co the oxidation will increase, Once it sats..iratoa the area and bncso ns anr4robic at greater depth than the matori al +h:et is completely soluble is carried away by they ground water. 'hre quantity of this which arrives in the surrounding water course3 i.s not to be found in experimental data. It to clear that the stabilization tip in the ground of a ohurebyard will be shortened. r With a net procipitation of 40 cm there is per m2 per year 0.4a3 or 4002iters avail-Able. Especially in' the middle of the stabilisation period will there be a fairly lame quantity of material carried away. With a s olub i li fey of 1% this amounts to L kg/m2/year, Vor to the results from practical experience. From personal observation we know that a half year after burial body shows very fewer external sins of decomposition. However this weans a healthy person who was killed by violence. Bodies which were dug u after 13 years burial reared as skeletons for the most part. A zinc plate which had lain on the bottom of a canket was badly corroded especially in the middle• An unidentified type of metal handle on .» 10-10 the aide of the o."Imt, wan hoxavar only slightly attacked. Although the ,joints of the casket wr-re more or lass separated by the weight of the earth the word appeared to be still strong. It could be removed for the nnost'r4rt as whole planks without sppeial precautions. The bottom plank was however permeated with decomposition products and less strom, From this fact it follows that the sideways spreading of the organic material was originally only limited. rrds can occur beneath the eackot and probably is first cloar in the neighborhood of the ground grater surface. From persona, communication from a third party we krow that after 21 years a body was so little charsrd that it was still clearly reccgni.s-ible: However in the same churchyard, in the same ground and at the same depth there were at the name time many bodies already in excessive stages of decomposition. The correlation of this difference with the origin of the bodies is not knrm. We were repeatedly assured that the bodies sof persons who had died in a hospital had decomposed lose quickly. Probably this is determined together with the medicines used in the hospital. cn CA m ri g 91 to ea p ,r� w s a a esu,, sa CA 4-0 W �f cis ;r► o o o a a n w co W ft co CO • � 0 9 a W tj to 0% 0 0 0 � 8 � _ C3 C3 p a 0 c FA ,� � W ems► � ... ,, w � J r o Wi 4� p tiii rE"3 Or C • O 8 VIA :J O zo , VNR •3 O W TJ f CA d -i 1-0d O O O 'Clio a i3 © V1 W C fi CS vt • O -•1 1144A1 1 c� v't 6 N i/ 6 L— vi _ O N d 06 �- A W � to fir ; 11AO, +n w � pry o to vt I-A o VL Xm co CD % a w N � 4t - O W VI IA C) ♦ i i ♦ � '�asn %Ki 0 0 vt G , c djQ m H+ o o 0 _. _ All the rersulta taken from the above comments can be boiled dv►vn to say that the time necaBs.u7 for oxidation of the a rgaric ma'ter of A body in windy, ground at a depth of 2.5 metmrs will take about 10 years. Now we will ask ourselves the question that if in this course of time can not a considerable quantity of material be loosened into the surroundings, which from varioue viewpoints such as danger or annoy-Annce say affect the water supply. Mere we must thinly of the precipitaVon porools+ting through the cadaver and picking up naluble material, which is stili not completely stabilised. Experimental data can only !;Lve the answer, fiv►refore samples were collected in a churchyard (hereafter cemetery Z) after obtaining p-rmission from the administratLono Samples were taken front the ground *rater in the cemetery as Well as frac the su,frounding water courses. The ground of the cemetery consisted for the most part out of (dug up) T clean sand. Manure has nmr been used. See the map for the location of the sample points. ,lhe ground water seriphs were taken a few meters from the nater course as well as in the (T) on the 'highest place of the phreaetio surface. The results of these analyses an found in Tables 10 2s and 3. Ground tater samples are indicated by "g" and frust surface water by *w". All were taken after a period of heavy rain, except 15 March 1951, _. . 12 In the estahlDhing Of sample paints an attampt was made to find bodica in v•-rrious stages of decompositions Point A was in the old pmt, paint B war graves f ran 1941-1943j, paint D near graves fram 1946-•1947, while print C was chosen array from any grove and close to xt pond in the rmw part of the cemetery which was not yet in use. Those four points were sampled on 5 October 1950. The results of this study are disused separately below (see Table 1). The expectation that point C would serve as a comparison point dial not work out. The M4 use was of tie same order as points D and Bt whilb., the quantity of free ammonia was the highest of all than samples taken that days If one tdrws the points# each by iteelfp one can easily see that the ground water in the churchyard is highly polluted. The high permanganate use, the hio color and the high conductivity are adequately shoan. The high chloride content of the ground water from points 3 surd D were very striking jut as the high bi carbona to value f which combined with the proportionately low pH suggested a high content of free CO2. The sulfate was also high in the ground water. In this oonneoti on it is of interest to nate that all of the gromd water samples had man or lose of a strong '925 smell. Y 13 • The water from the surrounding surface, grater had a lower conductivit.7 in comparison with points B and D. The sulfate content was lower than in the ground waters but the color (except point D)e permanganate use and the albuminoid ammonium vers point for paint of the same order of ma titude as the ground water in the same spot* then these results war* asaemblsd, it was clear that no conclusions could be drawn concerning the intensity of the drainage except for the very roneral interferences mentioned a'txnne. That there was a noticeable drainage area was va ll shown by the higher quantity of orrmAe material in the neighbourhood of the graves, In the hope of finding a better comparison point and in cantrolling this reproducibility of the results now samples were taken on 13 actobsr. See the map for the location of the sample points. Point g was about 150 m from point Dr, point F about 54 a. The saMle from the surface water at point H was taken again as well an the two samples from point D, and moreover another sample was taken at a point only 3 motors east of the original point D (see Tsb1s2). The results of the ground water sample at I speak for themselves. This water is vory greatly polluted, The very low sulfur content points out the anerobic conditions. The water had a strong R2S smsU# .................................. lei - The sample from the surface at the same spot was much less polluted. The composition here gives good arJreerment with the game water source at point F. The ground water at this last point is again clearly more polluted than tho surface mater. The results of sample Hw vary a bit on 5 and 13 October* the saws is true with sample Dw. However, the ground water samples at D char good agreement an berth dates, while the point Dogs 3 a** seat# also showe agreement. In a weeks time it arrears that the composition of the ground water around point D her changed very little,, while the surrounding surface water has varied. Point g which was taken for comparison purposes shows in a remarkable way the most pollutedt water. This strengthens our opinion that the whole under ground area of the r churchyard is polluted. At 'last an attempt was made to gain an understanding of the difference between the water on the churchyard side of the wager course and a point directly opposite on the other bank. The samples were taken r on 24 October 1950 (points S and G). gee Table 3 for the results. Again from there results it appears that the ground water in the neighborhood of point $ is highly polluted. The ground water from point 0 is considerably lose polluted. But it still has a high permanganate use. The surface water at point 0 contained no free ammonia. EXHIBIT D Responses to Public Hearing Testimony on Reconsideration Request April 20, 2004 RESPONSES TO TESTIMONY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING(APRIL{ 20'x",2003) Comment 1. Carol Dwinell states that the site vicinity is accessed by traveling 7 miles on small windy narrow roads. There is little water,there are endangered and threatened species in the area, and there is an agreement with the eight cities that surround the area. In response, these subjects are fully addressed by the Initial Study and were commented upon at the two hearings held before the County Planning Commission ('December 16`h, 2003;January 13`h, 2003)and at the appeal hearing held before the Board of'Supervisors on March 23rd, 2004, Comment 2. Carol Dwinell states that the cities were not notified. In response, the County followed its Noticing procedures. For additional information, see response comment letter of Benjamin T. Reyes (Responses to Comments#I and#2.) Comment 3. Carol Dwinell asserts that the decision of the Board of Supervisors relied on information that is faulty,incorrect and incomplete. In response, the opponents of the project brought forward a range of issues and concerns which were fully considered by the County Planning Commission of Board of Supervisors. That testimony resulted in modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Comment 4. Carol Dwinell states that the water study was flawed and the expert provided by Briones Hills Alliance was not just ignored but denigrated. Previous Reference: The,groundwater resources effects of the project are presented in the Initial Study,pages 21 through 29. The Technical Appendices of the Initial Study included the following: Appendix C Pump Test Report(Engeo, ,lune 20`h, 2043) Hydrology.Discussion of Groundwater Issues (Engeo, February 19', 2003) Appendix D Groundwater Monitoring&Mitigation Plan (Engeo, September 22"d, 2003) Site Plan (Engeo, September 2003) C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.1tt5\M(iVZTKN\LP0220dft-TeshsnonyR.esponsts.wpd(5/11104) 1 Appendix E Review of Comments of Dr. Thrupp (S.S. Papadopulos &Assoc., September 4t' 2003) Appendix F Peer Review of Engeo Pump Test Report (Geonconsultants, Inc., September 30' 2003) Appendix G Responses to Comments (Engeo, September 25', 2003) Public Comments: Public comments(letters included in stgffreports andlor testimony were received on the subject of water resources: Carol and Roger Dwinell, CPC, 12/16/03 Frank Nunes, CPC 12116103 John Fouhy, CPS 12116103 Lynn Sugayan 12116103 Allan C. Moore, Gagen et. al., 12116103 Gordon Thrupp, S.S. Papadopulos, CPC, 12116103 Chris Bearden, CPC, 12116103 Petition (2 74 pages) Frank Nunes, CPC, 1113/04 Chris Bearden, CPC, 1/13/04 John Fouhy, CPC 1113104 Gordon Thrupp, SS. Papadopulos, CPC 1113/04 Chris and Carol Bearden, CPC, 1/13104 Stephen L. Cali &Bonnie Brown-Cali, CPC, 1/13104 John Maltsberger, CPC 1113104 Hetty Dutra, CPC, 1113104 John Pereira, CPC 1/13104 Carol Dwinell, CPC, 1113104 Paul Brooks, CPC, 1113104 Summary: This comment does not provide any new information. Similar comments were made as a part of the appeal that was heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 23rd 2004. With regard to the letters and testimony provided by the expert retained by the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, those comments are a part of the record. They were considered by the County's peer review hydrogeologist, who agreed that there were significant impacts to groundwater resources. The reports and testimony of the hydrogeologist were also considered by the County Planning Commission and the Board CANVINDON M\Temporary Intemet Piles\Content.IE5\MGV7JKIV\LP022068-TesdmonyRespor-ses.wpd(5/12/04) 2 of Supervisors. The hydrogeologic data led to the identification of five mitigation measures which were translated into Conditions ofApproval#21 through#25. . Comment 5. Carol Dwinell asserts that the traffic study is flawed. Public Comment: The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors received testimony comment letters on traffic addressing: a) remote location of the site; b) rural character of the road; c) use of the road by children, equestrians, hikers, bikers and joggers; d) accident history; e) emergency response time;f) visitor traffic, especially on holidays, such as Memorial Day; and g) hazards posed by funeral processions. The commentors on traffic included the following: Allan Moore; Cagen, McCoy,McMahon, CPC, 12/16/03 Lawrence Nunes, CPC 12/16103 John Fouhy, CPC, 12116103 R.J, Walters, CPC, 12116103 Matt Taylor, CPC, 12116103 Al Humbert, CPC, 12116103 Tom Lease, CPC, 12116103 Evidson &Joan Riggall, CPC, 12116103 Cathy Felder, CPC, 1113104 Hetty Dutra, CPC 1113104 Todd Burlingame, CPC, 1113104 Lawrence Nunes, CPC, 1113104 Louis &Ken Cunningham, CPC, 1113104 Angeline and Gerry Riopelle, CPC, 1113104 Stephen Cali &Bonnie Brown-Cali, CPC 1/13104 Ed Schofield, CPC, 1/13104 Summary.' The technical data provided by Abrams&Associates and evaluations of traffic issues by the Public Works Department, in combination with the comments of the public, provided the Supervisors with data upon which their determination on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and action on the project. Comment 6. Carol Dwinell asserts that the Environmental Conditions omitted reference to the steelhead trout. In response the biologic studies performed for the site were documented in reports prepared by LSA Associates. The LSA report identifies steelhead trout as a species of concern in the Pinole Creek watershed The LSA report documents as number of biologic resource CANVINDOWSITmpoiary Intemet Fifes\Content.ISSMGV7JKINLP022068-TesinnonyResponses.wpd(5/11/04) 3 15 .. On the other nide this is differrent, This no doubt is dependent on the high ammonia contont in the ground at point E, At last in order to fret an idea of the variation of the results with tire, ground rater samnlas were taken again on 15 Uaroh 1951 at points D and E in churchyard X (ass Dg and Eg in Table 3). The difference is readily apparent. The electrolytic quality is clearly greater than in October as determined by the conductivity test. The lower values of chloride and bicarbonate are in accordance with this# This high variation moreover points out the very recent pollution. Probably the higher valuers of October 1,950 ars due to the heavy rainfall during which much material wash down into the ground wat-r, it in knoamthat the increase in salt content in the snmmmsr is carried a ray in the fall by the rain. In order to obtain an overall impression (accepting the risk of using average values from such divergent values of October 1950 ars can consider the follaring sumrvaryr Average Valuas in the Usual Units Surface 'dater Oround Water Colter TO 75 Conductivity 1500 2300 DbO4 use 55 95 Chloride 250 500 Sulfate 200 30D Bicarbonate 30D 450 ++ 16 - Color This probably originated from material which is difficult to breakdown, therefore both types of water show only a slight difference in calor. It can be shown that iron contributed only small quantities to the colon. X04 Use The ground water showed an extremely high value. This leads one to believe that the nitrogen compounds were slightly attacked by the M04. Been from most viewpoints the low percentage of nitrogen compounds compared with the high M04 we can lead to the surmise that a measurable quantity of detached nitrogen compounds are not yet present. Otherwise the pallutironal effect of the carbon compounds must be more distinct than those of the nitrogen compoundsi a body is composed of about six times as such carbon as nitrogen. Conductivity,, Chloride and Bicarbonate "Tris conductivityi especially in comparison with chloride it very high. The water is fairly wolf buffered. Where low pR values ocecur, then there must be high 002 values and th+as high pollution from the soil. ............ _. 17 Just as with high chloride content — the high variation in sulfate content in the ground watter is puzzling. One would expect a lower sulfstta content as a result of sulfate reduction. To polish up-t'hess praliminary impressions samples were taken from two other churchyards (sho rn as T and Z) on February 1951. 'These were chosen after a study of various grave yards because they appeared on first sight to be the ones most likely for comparison, Howevers this did not work out. The surrounding water courses were very polluted (see Table 4). In churchyard T point A was main in a(Talud 7?7) of a crater course right next to graves which were placed between 1930 and 1950, point g right next to older graves among which we some from the period 1945-50. In church Z point A was chosen in a(Talud ???) of a water course right next to graves of the period 1937-1948. Point H was located a fes maters outside the churchyard on the other aids of a small shallow border canal. The general impression is again the same as from churchyard It high values for color and KHnO4 uses high variation in chloride and sulfate content and high values for Ucarbonate in ground water with relatively lour pH. All data pointed out that also in this churchyard with its surroundings intensive decomposition was taking pLssej and __ thornfore it was probable that organic material was carried along in the mound wat-r thst was still in an early stags of decomposition. If onn will At last take a more .fluid look at the problems then one maty takes the case of the deaths in au city of fdr instance, lotOOO }people. If it has n death rate of 1% them 1000 bodies smart be buried each year. Ild.s amounts to 5D tons of organic material which is spread over a ourf+ace of 2000 m2. Assuming one layer of bodies, they will be completely decosaposed in ten years. Also it x111 take ten years before the churchyard will be back in equilibrium with the original conditions with otherwise constant conditions, toots after this time the organic material cominv, in equals that going out. The calculation of this equilibrium is expressed as a line, just as an adsorption-isotherm. If there are two layers of bodiesp then a difficulty arise9 t There is a neer eequilibrinm and the cemetery container more organic material than formerly; and less sta#ilisation takes place per w2. Aowavert one can not continue to add neer layered as the working space is limited at a depth of - 2.5 a (possibly, the ground water lever and a level of - 65 ca below the surface. Leas than 65 cm is not possible for obvious reasonst It is clears, that in theory, the bodies will decompose quicker in the upper layered and this is confirmed by experience. On the other hand also is the unfortunate fact that bodies which are buried the deepest wi11 have the longest decom;xmition time. � 19 � In this ground layer 50 tons of organic material are deposited yearly. It is true that a city of 10 fOpp inhabitants will arranp for more than one cemetaryr but in the long run these will all be filled, It will derpnd chiefly on the pre-burial Availablo area of the cemetery as to whe th-r the concentration of organic material will increase; relatively small cemeteries will show the highest pollution. It is clear that conclusions must be drawn with reservations because of the mappitude of the question and the limited number of results. The small number of observations and the limited tiros of the study make this necessary, Calculations based on equivalent data can not be mads, We are verb* conscious of the persuasive demonstration of the lack of explanation of the great pollution of the surrounding surface .water by the cemetaryt The composition tion od the ground water however is adequately explained, The expectation that the nitrogen compounds had a point in common was not fulfilled* Neither was a calculation possible using carbon as a starting point. It is clear that the chloride high chloride content must be wholly attributed to the cadavers than ons can surmise further with this information. It can not be doubted that it also depends an the Pact that chloride was not absorbed in the ground, If the ground is freed of its graves and allayed to rest for a year than the original chlorides will be washed out, » 20 — Thoaorstical.ly phosphate is a verf suitable indicator* but this ion is held so fast in the ground that in practics it is not usoable. An oelerant but .not simple solution of the drainage problem would be the we of radioactive materialso One could feed an animal with food that contained laboled carbon. The body could be buried in ar s ui table lysrime ter mid the actLvi ty datermfned from the drainage water. The cooperation of other laboratories would be indispensable and would consume a lot of time bofore the studies were finished. Returning to the results that yrs have in reality: we can mks the following summaGrye Tte t:Ype of materials and their (riantities which flaw out of a cemetery by drainage can not be aerrertai.ned. On the basis of chemical tests it could be adequately Bete mined that the ground water in th* comotery as well as the surrounding surfaces water was highly Polluted. Assuming that the cemetery is in equilibriums than it is known that the water of the previo w ,given average composition must; more or lasso, flow regularly from the cometery. Neglecting the aesthetic valuep then the remainder depends on the expected dilution or whether or not a similar water roan be toler%ted in the neighborhood of a water supply. Separating the cemetery by mans of canals it tis a 21 .* special exfluont to outside the protectAd area will in any case havo a f;ovd erfect. However,, thio is not conclusive. This rc:,ainitia ohsnction Faust be weighod arainat rather co.�idarationa, This Lent ht rover ,t11a outside tlw scope of this articla. '.'e a rmhil.o we hope we have s tim Sated Vioas who Will have the opportunity to sample mom settable cemoteries for Us continuation of this study and at hart to alight on a more Cmwral impression of the pollution of xator by oometeries. At last let us thank Prof, D. A, C. Schuff'elen of Wagordngeri {State Agricultural Collei«e) for his help in the study. Roferences 1. Via nb+srk; Nederl. Learb. der PhysiologLo I. Amsterdam (1942) b1za 60. 2. Zio ook: G. A. dussenhoven; Di.ssertatie Leiden 1949, 3. Karrer; tbhrbuch der oreanischan Chemis. Z6arich 1946. 4. Daver; Soil Rvoicso Now York • London 1947s bis, 249.266. EXHIBIT H Correspondence Received From Applicant since April 20, 2004 05/13/2004 11:31 FAX 19259306620 ARCHER NORRIS 19002/003 ARCHERUNORRIS 2033 North Main Street,Suite 800 CALIFORNIA CIFFICES PO Box 8035 Walnut Creek Walnut Creek,CA 94598-3728 Las Angeles 925.930.8800 Richmond 925.930.8820(Fax) Corona May 13,2004 EDwRR➢L.SHAFFER eshafferCarche rnorria.corn X25.952.5409 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re. Gan Shalom Cemetery— City of Pinole Comments Honorable Members of the Board: On April 20, 2004 the Board opened its hearing on the request for reconsideration challenging approval of Gan Shalom Cemetery. The Board continued the hearing to May 1 S'h,to give the City of Pinole time to review the project and submit its comments. The City sent a letter on May 10th objecting to the County's environmental review and conditions of approval. We urge the Board to reject Pi.nole's objections and its new conditions. Staff correctly pointed out on April 20th that the County already has approved the project. Reconsideration should be limited to asking if any new information has been presented that might alter the Board's decision. Nothing in Pinole's letter constitutes material"new information". There is no justification to reopen the hearing process or question approval of the cemetery. Please also see my letters of April 19th and May 6th on this topic. • Public agencies are supposed to limit their comments on projects to issues within their jurisdiction or concern. The County should disregard comments on topics that cannot be of legitimate interest to the City of Pinole (e.g., fencing and building design). * The design of fences and buildings is not a proper issue for Pinole. The City is wrong to say that the perimeter fence will be solid and may block movement by amphibians. Only the cemetery entrance will be solid; the remainder of the fence will be open,with no obstacle to movement by frogs, snakes or other species. + Given the extensive fail-safe groundwater mitigations adopted by the Board,there is no credible risk that irrigation pumping will lower groundwater levels or otherwise harm Pinole Creek. The cemetery property is a very small percentage of the drainage basin supplying the creek, and that the cemetery's short frontage along the creek means only minimal recharge of the creek comes from the site. A Professional Law Corporation e 60139001/353688-1 U5/1311UU4 10:45 M_& 925 2555975 ARCHER NUKK1S LgJUU3/uU3 Board of Supervisors May 13, 2004 Page 2 • Pinole apparently missed that Gan Shalom agreed not to use pesticides on the property, and the Board added this restriction as a condition of approval. + There is no credible risk of runoff contaminating the creek. There will be minimal impervious surface on the 83-acre property: only some small buildings and narrow driveways. Vehicle activity will be very limited. The creek will be.protected from pollution by well-established.County and State regulations and planning requirements that will control design and operation of site improvements(BMPs, SWPPP,NPDES). • There is no credible risk that funeral processions or other traffic will ever cause impacts on Pinole Valley Road. The cemetery will serve the East Bay's Jewish population,which is concentrated outside of Pinole and West County. Funeral processions will come from Jewish mortuaries,none of which are in the vicinity of Pinole. Processions will be infrequent--perhaps once per week—and few if any will ever come via Pinole Valley Road. Given the distribution of the region's.Jewish population,very few if any funeral participants and cemetery visitors are expected to use Pinole Valley Road—and most or all of such limited use would not occur during peak traffic hours. This is different from the situation with Happy Valley Road,which comes from an area with more potential to generate travel to the cemetery, and a similar restriction on use is not justified here. • The City misreads state law by suggesting that SB 610 might require the County to evaluate Briones area groundwater resources as part of the General Plan. Nothing in the Water Code or the Government Code would restrict the cemetery's ability to pump water for irrigation, or would require the County to conduct a large-scale study of the region before approving the cemetery. SB 610 and SB 221 address very large water-consuming projects (the equivalent of 500 dwelling units) and require studies and plans for urban water supply agencies. Groundwater is only an issue if some agency is relying on a groundwater basin to serve its customers. None of this is relevant to Gan Shalom. • The City also misreads CEQA law by suggesting that the phrase`°sign scant adverse impact"can only be used for impacts that cannot be mitigated and should not be mentioned in a negative declaration, The City is confusing this with the term."significant unavoidable impact', which is covered in EIR.s. In fact,it is common and typical for a mitigated negative declaration first to identify various potentially significant adverse effects of a project, and then to conclude that mitigation measures will•reduce those effects to less-than-significant levels—just as the County has done for Gan Shalom. The City misreads CEQA and wrongly brands the County's program of mitigation measures and conditions of approval as improper deferred mitigation. They make it clear that future phases of the cemetery will not be built unless Gan Shalom proves an adequate water supply. There is no risk that these measures will allow some unmitigated significant impact to occur. CEQA does not forbid future technical evaluation of later project phases where safeguards are in place—as the County adopted for Gan Shalom, 601390011353688-1 U01Ia16UU4 1U.I*J rAA 7&J LJi7J.7'1J Board of Supervisors May 13,2004 Page 3 + My May 6`h letter to the Board addressed the false claim that decomposing bodies somehow will measurably contaminate the creek or groundwater. There is no credible evidence to support this overly speculative fear. Any byproducts released into the environment over time will be so diluted by the vast quantities of soil and water involved that they likely will not even be detectable, let alone the cause of any significant impact. + As part of this reconsideration process,County planning staff recently consulted the County Health Services Department and the Regional Water(duality Control Board. Both agencies confirmed that they see no water quality or public health issues, do not require followup testing of groundwater or creek water, and consider the cemetery well designed. They recognize that requirements for use of Best Management Practices and preparation of a SWPPP will provide sufficient water quality protection. + Pinole is wrong to claim that approval of the cemetery violated County Water Resources Policy$-75 and Policy 8-77. The design and operational criteria for the cemetery will be more than adequate to protect surface and groundwater resources. The mitigation measures and conditions adopted by the Board strengthen that protection. No credible evidence has been submitted to show otherwise. + None of the six conditions proposed by Pinole are needed or justified. Pinole has not supplied any significant new information to support claiming that they are necessary. These requests do not warrant reopening the cemetery approval. L. The conditions already call for County staff to review cemetery plans before approving permits—including technical details for the water recycling system. We question what valid role Pinole can play in this design review process. 2. The conditions require that Gan Shalom record a deed disclosure preserving the 140-foot buffer along the creek in perpetuity. This and other mitigation measures and conditions give the County sufficient control and adequately protect the creek. The cemetery could not expand into new areas of the property without a new application process,making Pinole's wording unnecessary. 3. The Board already added a condition prohibiting pesticides. The conditions require staff review and approval of the landscaping and irrigation plans. 4. The County's staff'and consultants devised groundwater protection mitigations and procedures using their technical expertise. Pinole has not offered any evidence to support applying the City's requested wording. 5. Pinole has not shown any evidence to support mandating testing of groundwater for contamination. County staff and the"Water.Board will require the procedures they deem necessary as part of the"Best Management Practices"and other water quality control measures already required by the conditions of approval. 60139001/353688-1 __ __ Ub/13/1UU4 IU:4b rAX UZZ ZaODY13 AWInca itiv:oatiu - Board of Supervisors May 13,2004 Wage 4 6. There is no credible evidence to support reopening the public hearing to add a condition discouraging cemetery traffic on Pinole Valley Road. We urge the Board to resist pressure to reopen the hearing process. No credible new information has been presented that requires new study or would change the Board's decision. Sincerely, ARCHER.NO S Lel- Edward L. Sh fer cc: Community Development Dept. Darwin Myers Cram.Shalom Cemetery Sinai Memorial Chapel G0139001/3536$$-1 05/13/2004 11.45 FAX 925 2565975 ARCHER NORRIS LP002 rA7RCCCH ERNNORRIS 2033 North Main Street,Suite 600 CALIFCAMA OFFICES ?O Box 6035 Walnut Creek Walnut Creek,CA 94598-3728 Los Angeles 925.930.8600 Richmond 925.930.6620(Fax) Corona May 6, 2004 Eowmo L.UAFFER esha fferCa rchernorris.com 925,952.5409 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Can Shalom Cemetery—Water Contamination Issue Honorable Members of the Board: On April 20, 2004 the Board opened its hearing on the request for reconsideration filed by Carole Dwinell and the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance, challenging approval of Cyan Shalom Cemetery. The Board continued the hearing to May 18''. We urge the Board to deny the request and let the original approval stand. No new information has been presented to justify reopeninthe hearing process or questioning approval of the cemetery. Please see my letter of April 19t on this topic. Opponents are focusing on the accusation that decomposing bodies may contaminate Pinole Creek and groundwater. They claim this subject was not previously addressed. However, County staff,the Planning Commission and the Board all previously heard these concerns during the County's long public review process. Much is being made of the fact that the concrete vaults will not have bottoms. The applicants have never said otherwise. There are three reasons that cemeteries use concrete vaults with tops: keep soil from falling in and crushing the casket; create a uniform ground surface without slumping; and allow more efficient use of space(requiring less land per burial). Vaults without bottoms are a requirement of Jewish burial practice in keeping with traditional religious beliefs. It would not be appropriate for the County to interfere with the right to observe this practice. Neither the Water Board, State Cemetery Board,nor County Health Department regulates how far gravesites must be from groundwater or creeks. All three agencies were contacted regarding Cyan Shalom Cemetery, and none of them have expressed any concern over the proposal or its proximity to Pinole Creek. A Professlonal Law Corporation a G0139i74I113§2551-1 ................................................. .. 05/13/2004 11:45 FAX 925 2565975 ARCHER NORRIS 1 003 Board of Supervisor May 6, 2004 Page 2 The opponents submitted an undated two-page document claiming that Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.found 167 chemicals of concern in the human body. There is no information about how much of each chemical was found—likely minute in most cases. There is no evidence supporting the claim that bodies decomposing over time would release any chemical in concentrations high enough to even be measured—let alone cause harm—in the huge volume of soil, groundwater and rainwater surrounding the cemetery. Another submission was a seven-page partial copy of a 1948 reciting details from some undated court case about a cemetery polluting a brook. Leaving aside how old this information is (it mentions cutting ice.from the brook for use in winter),the basic facts of the case do not apply to Cyan Shalom. In that case, apparently the cemetery planned to build a brick sewer beneath gravesites that would empty into the brook. Gan Shalom's french drain-type system will end in a sump located more than 100 feet from the top of bank of Pinole Creek.. From that point any collected water that is not pumped back for irrigation recycling will percolate into the soil, undergoing substantial soil filtration before it reaches the creek—if it ever does. The opponents also delivered a 1951 article in Dutch that relied on references from the 1940'x, studying a cemetery in Holland. The translation is imperfect and incomplete. There is little to suggest that this report has any relevance to Gan Shalom or should be relied on as "evidence"of contamination. Besides its being so out-of-date, it involves completely different conditions. On the first page it admits that in Holland at the time,regulations required removing remains after ten years and reusing the grave--suggesting that over time each gravesite would be subject to multiple burials and decomposing bodies. On page eight it says that there are frequently cases of two or even three layers of bodies buried! Thus any data from this location could not be compared to Gan Shalom,which will have one layer of one-time burials. Finally, the report essentially treats mere organic material released over time as "pollution"; it does not mention artificial chemicals or other contaminants. Woods, fields and streams all are subject to decomposing plants and animals as a natural part of the environment—which is not considered pollution by the scientific community or the general public. I found one submission by the opponents interesting; a.newspaper article about UC. Davis settling litigation regarding water pollution.violations. It states that U.C. Davis agreed to "stop hosing down livestock yards and barns unless they drain into the sewer system, and manure must be removed monthly." We question if the commercial horse stables and other properties in the area with horses and livestock follow these practices and use care to avoid.harming Pinole Creek and the groundwater basin? We have identified the following simple and clear reasons for dismissing this claim that decomposing bodies will contaminate Pinole Creek or neighbors' groundwater supplies. First, the drainage system sump and any graves will be at least 100 feet from the top of bank. In fact most of the graves will be many times further away. County Health Department regulations only require septic fields to be 100 feet away from water bodies, and otherwise impose few other GOi.34001/352551-1 ... ..... .... ..... _. ... 05/13/2004 11:45 FAX 925 2565975 ARCHER MORRIS Z1004 Board of Supervisors May 6, 2004 Page 3 restrictions. Septic systems handle large quantities of human waste and other materials,that pose much more serious risks of bacteria and other contaminants polluting water sources than the cemetery. Apparently septic system regulation assumes that subsurface soil filtration across that 100-foot zone will provide enough cleaning action to ensure water safety. The same assumption can apply for Can Shalom Cemetery. The claimed risk of chemicals leaching out of bodies to contaminate the water also is unreasonable. There is no medical evidence that bodies contain toxic pollutants in concentrations high enough to cause any concern. Furthermore,Pinole Creek and the groundwater supply currently are exposed to much more serious sources of pollution: runoff from local roads carrying oil, gas,rubber and other toxics; and contaminants from stable operations and other activities on properties in the area. By comparison the cemetery will be relatively benign. We also note that Clan Shalom does not expect the drainage system to experience large quantities of water. Most irrigation water will be captured in the 20-inch layer of soil above the graves to be used by the grass, or evaporate, or flow downslope along the surface. Careful irrigation practices will avoid overwatering that might send much excess water below the vaults. Of the irrigation water that does reach the drain system,when the pump system is not operating most of it will percolate immediately, even further away from the creek. When recycling is needed and the pump is running,water will be collected and returned to a holding tank, leaving little in the sump to percolate toward the creek. Of the rainwater,because of the clay soil in the area most will flow along the surface as it now does; the cemetery design will preserve the current grade and will reuse the native clay sail to cover gravesites. It is important to note that there will be NO OUTFALL PIPES INTO THE CREED; all runoff will be via surface flow or percolation into the soil. We urge the Board to resist this pressure to reopen the hearing process. No credible new information has been presented that requires new study or would change the Board's decision. Sincerely, ARCHER NO S Edward L. Shaffer cc: Community Development Dept. Darwin Myers Gan Shalom.Cemetery Sinai Memorial Chapel 60139001552551-1 EXHIBIT I Conditions of Approval Adopted By Board of Supervisors On March 23, 2004 For LP022068 (Gan Shalom Cemetery) .................... _._. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT FOR A CEMETERY (GAN SHALOM INC, APPLICANT & OWNER) FILE #LP022068 AS APPROVED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MARCH 23, 2004 FINDINGS A. Cemetery Ordinance 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 2 security service will be hired to be on the premises from sunset until employees arrive for work at 5:00 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 ofpolice, ambulance, orfire 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.m., 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 924). .5. The proposed cemetery is consistent with the general Plan of the County and will not interfere with the orderly development and growth of the County. The Land Use Element does not specifically speak to the siting of cemeteries in Contra Costa County. However,the Land Use Element contains an Urban Limit Line Map,and General Plan Policies 3-5 through 3-14 pertain to implementation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and Urban Limit Line-related goals. These policies are intended to preclude extension of urban services into 3 agricultural areas,especially growth-inducing infrastructure. A 30-acre cemetery project inside the ULL would be competing for land with the range of land uses that are specifically restricted to the urban area. Establishing cemeteries outside of the ULL allows the vacant land within the ULL to be retained for urban land use. It should also be recognized that the Gan Shalom Cemetery does not require any growth-inducing infrastructure. 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 6, 7 and 8). 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 46 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 flan. 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 #1 requires security precautions and COA#27 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 4 features and physical setting that meets the applicants objectives for a Jewish cemetery. 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 #41-45 address other drainage requirements. No aboveground 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 #28). 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 #1), 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) 5 D. Variance Findings 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 feet 6 inches tall at the pillar caps and gate of the wall (maximum 6 feet allowed within the required front and side yard areas), and the related project finding for this proposal (ref. C.C.C. Ord. Code Section 26-2.2006). 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. Protect Finding — The proposed variances do not constitute a grant of special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on otherproperties 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. 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 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. Proiect 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. Sources: 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. Project Finding — 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 6 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 84-36.4 of the Ordinance Code; site visit; 1/6/2004 letter from the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. 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 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 each night. If this does not provide the necessary protection, a security service shall be hired. This security program shall be done in conjunction with the Sheriffs Department, and the security service shall 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 shall be no burials on Saturdays and no burials commencing after 3:00 p.m. on any day. 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 7 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. Variances 3. Approval is granted to allow for(a) variance to fence height standard in the structure setback zone that meets the requirements of Section 26- 2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 6 feet allowed by zoning ordinance 7 feet approved (7.5 feet approved for pillar caps) Compliance Report 4. At least 60 days prior to requesting grading or building permits or constructing any improvements, submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department,the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the conditions of approval may be available on computer disk, to try to obtain,contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The Zoning Administrator may reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$500 which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. Administrative Reviews 5. 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. 8 The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and materials charges, with an initial deposit of$1,000 which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. General Provisions 6. 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. 7. The conditions contained herein shall be accepted by the applicant, his agents, lessees, survivors or successors for continuing obligation. 8. 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 9. 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 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. Funeral Processions 10. A. 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 I 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 ##5. B. When there is a northbound funeral procession on Bear Creek Road, a temporary traffic sign must be placed north of the Bear Creek Road entrance to give adequate warning to southbound traffic of the procession making left turns into the cemetery. 9 Landscaping 11. A. At least 60 days prior to the issuance of the first building or grading permit or installation of any onsite 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 comer 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 comer 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 hater Conservation Ordinance, 82-86. B. The irrigation system shall consist of an overhead-type irrigation system with equal to or greater than 75 percent uniformity and shall use an automatic self-adjusting irrigation controller. Input data should be from either an on-site weather station or from CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System). Applicant shall provide documentation to the Zoning Administrator that landscape and irrigation plans have been reviewed by EBMUD, and that the plans have been revised in response to EBMUD comments. C. Provide a letter from the landscape architect describing the turf recommended for use, and characterizing its water demand. The turf recommended shall be selected chiefly on its drought-tolerant characteristics, and shall be the most water efficient turf. D. There shall be no pesticide use for any of the landscape plantings. Fencing/Signs/Lighting 12. A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permits,submit a fencing plan program for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10 B. The design,color and location of any project sign at the entrance to the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. C. Generally street lighting shall not be allowed. Any proposal to install security lights shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Department for the review and approval. The purpose of this review shall be to assure that lighting is minimal and does not shine on/toward adjoining properties. Construction Conditions 13. 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. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise- generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of initial grading or construction, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,title,phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. 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.) 11 D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until,if necessary,an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits,the proposed internal access road to the building site shall be constructed. This shall include provision for an on- site area in which to park earth moving equipment and commute vehicles of construction workers. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. Archaeology 14. 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 12 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 fond Turtle 15. 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. 16. 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. 13 Table 1 RED-LEGGED FROG MITIGATION MEASURES a) A 100 foot setback shall be established from Pinole Creek's top-of-bank to the edge of project grading. This 100 foot buffer shall be preserved in perpetuity for biological resources. No grading,ground burials,formal landscaping or other intrusion shall be allowed within this 140 foot wide buffer zone. A Revised Site Plan for the cemetery shall accurately show(and label)the 104 foot setback line. b) The 100 foot buffer zone shall be fenced(permanent fencing),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 shall be installed along the portion of setback line within each area that is about to be improved prior to issuance of the construction or grading permit for that area. The permanent fencing in each area must be installed after completion of site improvements,and immediately after removal of the construction fencing. Once installed,the permanent fence shall be maintained over the life of the project. c) Prior to any grading and construction that affects land adjacent to the 100 foot wide buffer zone,a frog exclusion fence shall be installed near the top-of-bank along the entire length of Pinole Creek on the project site. The fence,constructed of 3-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) Preconstruction surveys for the California red-legged frog,consisting of one day and one night survey,shall be conducted within three days of any grading or construction-related activities that affect lands adjacent to the 104 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. 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. j During the hot summer and early fall months,the morning surveys shall not be necessary since frogs are not migrating during these periods. Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak 17. 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 of compliance with all components of the mitigation measure. 14 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 bufferzone 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. b) After site improvements are completed in the vicinity of the tree,the construction fencing can be removed. However,no surface or subsurface disturbance,no turf or other plantings shall occur within this buffer zone(1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of the tree)for the life of the project. Therefore,permanent fencing shall be installed on the boundary of the buffer zone of a design approved by the zoning Administrator. The permanent fencing must be installed after completion of site improvements and immediately after removal of the construction fencing. Furthermore, the grading plan shall identify areas to be fenced and the General Notes shall specify no access or earthwork within the fenced area. Any trees proposed for removal shall be shown on the grading plans. c) Although Gan Shalom's plans do not proposed removal of any of the larger trees; neverthe- less,if removal 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 1- gallon seedling for each 6 inches in diameter of the trees removed(i.e.,an oak tree 30 inches in diameter 4 feet 6 inches 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 I of each year for a three-year period. If survivorship falls below 85 percent,replacement trees shall be planted and monitored for an additional three-year period. d) To preserve the species composition of the project site's native oak woodland and riparian habitats,the landscaping plan prepared for the project shall consist entirely of tree and shrub species native to the Bear CreeklAlhambra Valley area. No non-native,ornamental trees or i shrubs shall be planted. Nesting Raptors and Loggerhead Shrike 18. Prior to construction in the southern valley, submit evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Nesting Raptor and Loggerhead Shrike mitigation measure in Table 3, presented herein. The submittal 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. 15 Table 3 NESTING RAPTOR ANIS LOGGER HEAD SHRINE 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 oak forest. This survey shall be conducted between the , months of April and June in the year that construction is planned. The surveys should encompass the area on the project site within approximately 3 mile radius of the proposed improvements and follow accepted protocols. If the area to be surveyed extends off-site,and permission for access by the biologic monitor is not allowed,the biologic survey of such areas j 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 I". 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 r Seep 19. 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. i b) Prior to any construction in the Phase 4 area,a qualified biologist shall re-evaluate the seep to accurately establish its limits and set stakes 20 feet from the seep. 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. 16 Alameda Whipsnak+e 20. 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 WIIIPSNAKE 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 specify 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 specify the timing and procedures of any such surveys,following generally accepted protocols. Survey results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and to any other agencies as may be warranted by the survey results. Water Resources 21. Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the wilding Inspection Department,submit"baseline"data on water levels in the production well and monitoring wells to the Zoning Administrator to establish any seasonal fluctuations. 22. 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. Semi- annually submit reports to the Zoning Administrator(on or before January 30th and July 31st), presenting all data collected on water table levels in observation wells and the production well. During the first five years of operation, the applicant shall submit reports to the Community Development Department at six--month intervals and at the end of the five- year period to monitor water table levels in the observation wells and production wells. For the respective reporting period, the report shall evaluate at that time if reporting should be continued twice a year or on an annual basis. If water levels approach the thresholds specified in COA #25, weekly monitoring shall be required until commencement of the winter rainy season. The semiannual report shall also provide flow meter data and records of power consumption. 17 23. Each future phase of the Clan Shalom cemetery shall require a hydro- geology report that provides data on the experience gained during the preceding phase(s) and analyzes the water demand for the next phase, establishing that there is an adequate water source. Furthermore, the report shall verify that production of the water for the next phase is consistent with applicable County,Regional,State and federal regulations in effect at that time, and that increased water usage by the next phase will not compromise then-current needs of adjacent/nearby property owners. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Adminis- trator. (The decision of the Zoning Administrator is appealable to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days,pursuant to the provisions of Article 14-4 of the County Code. The requirements for filing a valid appeal are contained in that article.) The burden is on the applicant to prove that an adequate water supply exists prior to approval of the next phase and that documentation on the adequacy of the water source shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 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. 24. If the water table level in observation well P4 is drawn down 10 feet or if P3 is drawn down 6 feet below baseline levels,the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 72 hours and hydrology re-evaluation shall be performed. These levels of drawdown do not constitute an impact,but are considered an early notice that the situation warrants study. The required report shall evaluate the data to determine the relationship of the water levels to pumping, and provide measures to protect water levels from drawdown considered excessive under the circumstances.The cemetery is not required to cease pumping in the interim, but shall attempt to reduce pumping as much as feasible while continuing to maintain irrigated areas. The cemetery shall implement such additional measures as the Zoning Administrator may require after reviewing the report. 25. Should any of the following conditions occur,the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 72 hours. 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 24. 18 In addition to the preliminary baseline data submitted under Condition 20, 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 26. 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. Endowment Care Fund 27. 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 28. 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 29. 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. 19 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code.Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan submitted to Community Development on October 10,2002. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE PROPOSED LINDER THIS PERMIT. General Requirements 30. 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. Road Dedications 31. 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 1.5:1 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. 32. 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 20 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. Sight Distance 36. 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 37. 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. 38. 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 39. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the 21 Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Utilities/Undergrounding 40. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk and driveway in a concentrated manner. Exceptions 44. Applicant shall be permitted an exception to allow discharge of storm water to roadside ditches provided the applicant verifies the adequacy of the downstream ditch system. Creek Structure Setback 45. 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 22 46. The applicant shall comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance(Ord.#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 shall be developed in conjunction with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. BMPs to be considered shall include, but not be limited to: • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces. • Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems. • Stenciling advisory warnings on all catch basins. • Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. • Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities. • All vehicle and equipment maintenance and storage of vehicle fluids shall be within a building, or on a paved surface that is covered to prevent exposure to precipitation and where run-on of storm water has been minimized (elevated pad, berm, etc.). Drips and spills shall be absorbed(grease sweep)with absorbent materials and then disposed of properly. • Provide covered storage for hazardous materials,pesticides,fertilizers, etc, to prevent discharges into the storm drain system. • Vehicle/equipment washing shall occur off-site at an appropriate vehicle wash facility. • Develop an employee training and education program to inform employees of the need for the reduction in pollutants leaving the site, and to inform them of appropriate methods of handling potential contaminants. • Other alternatives, equivalent to the above,as approved by the Public 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 23 APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. This project maybe subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. Itis 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 Came 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.99-35)as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. E. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District or the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. F. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets ofbuilding 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. 24 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. DM/ss G:\Current Planning\carr-plan\Staff Reports\LP022068rpt-COAFindings-March04##2FINAL.doc DM\RD\ Rev.4/1412004 CONSIDER WIM s mi n e on Fj J cjj� iL r1_1 'S� 7� Development Services Department ,p► t 2131 Fear Street Tel : (510) 724-9014 Pinole,CA 94564 Fax : (510)724-4921 May 10, 2O04 Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Reconsideration of Land Use Permit 022068, County File, ##LP 022068, Gan Shalom Cemetery Honorable Board of Supervisors: The City of Pinole is providing comments on the Gan Shalom project as this proposal is within the Pinole Creek watershed, and feels there are several key issues that must be addressed within the environmental documentation. This is the first opportunity afforded to the City of Pinole to respond to any aspect of this development proposal. The City of Pinole has no record of receiving notification of the project, or being given the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for this proposal. While the City regrets providing comments late in the review process, we feel these are crucial issues that must be raised prior to any final administrative decision that is rendered by the Board of Supervisors. The City of Pinole wishes to acknowledge that we do not appose the proposed project, rather there are areas within the environmental documentation that we feel need to be strengthened to better understand the potential environmental impacts that may result from this project. EXEC:TUIVE SUMMARY- REASONS TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT The City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate document to discuss the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed Gan Shalom cemetery for traffic and water quality impacts. The reasons are listed below, and discussed in detail within this letter: I • No discussion of the impact of nitrogen to the Pinole Creek for Phase I or all five (5)phases of this proposal • No discussion of how the applicant and the County complies with General Water Resources Policy 8-75 and 8-77, respectively • Best Management Practices (BMPs) as discussed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System does not preclude the use of pesticides. Use of pesticides should not be allowed for this proposal, and there has been no discussion of how the use of pesticides could harm the Pinole Creek in the environmental documentation prepared for this proposal. • No discussion of the potential for contaminated water from the decomposition of bodies, and the ability of any cistern to contain this water, and prevent this water from entering the Pinole Creek • Should the Gan Shalom project be approved, a range of between 5,304 — 7,560 gallons of well water per day for Phase I of the project is required for irrigation purposes. For all five (5) phases, a range of 27,132 — 40,302 gallons per day is required for irrigation purposes. The use of this land for a cemetery use rivals an agricultural use at this location. The range is based upon 1,200 --- 1,800 gallons of water per day as discussed in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Application of mitigation measures after project approval and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) yet this is how underperforming conditions or approval/mitigation measures are handled for the water supply related to this proposed project. • The traffic analysis focuses only the first year operation of the proposed project, and does not address the perpetual operation of this use, where 150—200 funerals per year are anticipated to be held. There is no discussion of additional automobile traffic to the site by prospective clients who are making arrangements for this service. • Many references to this project focus upon Phase I, and it appears the total cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed cemetery operations have not been addressed within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. L WATER QUALITY/STORMWATFR RUNUFFARRIGATION ISSUES A. USE OF FERTILIZERS AND WATER QUALITY The summary of cemetery operations, a document submitted with the application, and Page 10 of the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission, indicates that 175 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year will be used to maintain the turf areas of the proposed cemetery. For Phase I of the proposed cemetery, this translates to 773.5 pounds of nitrogen per year for a 4.42 gross acre area. There is no discussion of the impact of this compound on the water quality, runoff, water table and recharge of the aquifer to the Pinole Creek. The addition of nitrogen, to a waterway encourages the formation of algae that not only can harm the aquatic creatures that live in the waterway, but also can significantly reduce the flow of the waterway and thereby irreparably harm 2 the health and viability of the waterway. The Biological Resources section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses the potential impact of the proposal on federally listed endangered species, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and movement of any fish or wildlife species. There is no discussion, however, about the potential impact to the Pinole Creep from the addition of 175 pounds of nitrogen per year for Phase I of this proposed project. Should the project be approved, and all five (5) phases are constructed, 3,956.75 pounds of nitrogen per year on 22.61 net acres of developed burial spaces will be applied to the cemetery grounds. As this has not been included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report roust be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new information"exists. B. STORMWATER AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY Table 4 on Page 24 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration lists four(4) policies on General Water Resources. All four(4) apply to the proposed project,however the City of Pinole cannot determine how these policies are being maintained and supported by the proposal. Specifically, the City of Pinole believes the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with policy 8-75 to, "preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resources", nor has the County met the intent of policy 8-77 to, "provide development standards in recharge area to maintain and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies". Additionally, the December 16, 2003 staff report discusses traffic and drainage considerations for LP022068. Table 4 on Page 13 of this report indicates that, "compliance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance will require all storm water entering or originating on the subject property to be collected and conveyed to an adequate storm drainage facility of natural watercourse". As this proposal is outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL), no growth enduing infrastructure is proposed (and presumably allowed), such as a storm drain system, therefore Pinole Creek, as the natural watercourse, is the method to collect and convey excess water from this property. Condition of Approval ##46 of the April 20, 2004 Appeal to the Board of Supervisors staff report (7#43 within the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission) requires compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As an aspect of the NPDES program., Best Management Practices (BMPs) are to be achieved should this project be approved. It is not discussed within either the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or the December 16, 2003, January 13, 2004, March 23, 2004 or April 20, 2004 staff reports that pesticides are prohibited from use by the applicant. Runoff from automobiles (oil, grease, and other contaminants), roofs of buildings, litter, chemicals and other miscellaneous compounds may find their way either into the groundwater or waterway and potentially negatively impact the Pinole Creek watershed and groundwater. For these reasons, the City of Pinole strongly encourages the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report so a discussion of alternatives to this project can occur. 3 Lastly, there is no discussion on the ability of a cistern or other facility to contain water from the proposed french drain system to prevent water runoff from entering into the creek system. If this water holding system were to become exposed to the by-products of decomposition, which is likely when irrigation occurs, is there any effect during aerial spraying? Would a holding facility be overwhelmed by an increase in the sheetflow of water due to oversaturation of the ground`? Would the holding facility contain the contaminant and by-product (ammonia and carbon based) overflow and keep this water from entering the creek`? As neither of these matters have been included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new information" exists. C. IRRIGATION DEMAND AND WELL WATER SUPPLY The City of Pinole is greatly concerned about the use of well water for on-site irrigation. While it is informative, Table 5, Comparison of Water Demand for Potential Agricultural Use of Site, in the December 16, 2003 staff report does not depict an accurate portrayal of the amount of well water required by Gan Shalom for irrigation purposes. The following table is based upon the information described on Page 14 of the December 16, 2003 staff report regarding the daily consumption of well water for irrigation purposes. Based upon these figures, and when comparing these numbers to those listed in Table 5,it is clear that the water use for a cemetery, even for Phase 1,rivals water needs for agricultural uses. 5 ESTIMATED GALLONS ESTIMATED GROSS NET GALLONS PER DAY PER GALLONS GALLONS PER PHASE ACRES ACRES PER DAY ACRE PER DAY DAY PER ACRE 7.6 4.42 1200 5304 1800 7560 = 5.3 4.51. 1200 5412 1800 8118 5.09 4.11 1200 4932 1800 7398 � = 5.2 4.5 1200 5400 1800 8100 6.57 5.07 1200 6084 1800 9126 X30.36 22.61 27132 40302 It is not known if the draw down of water from the natural underground aquifers can support the irrigation of the cemetery effect the flow of the creek during the dryer parts of the year. This has not been discussed within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor have mitigation measures been prepared for this matter. 4 The City of Pinole'believes that an Environmental Impact Report is required in order to address the cumulative impacts that will result should this use be approved by the Board of Supervisors. On page 14 under '`Nater Supply of the December 16, 2€03 staff'report, it is stated that, "...performance criteria are provided to see that Gan Shalom does not create a significant adverse impact (emphasis added) on nearby properties..." The use of the words "significant adverse impact" are generally reserved for impacts that cannot be mitigated and are usually discussed in the context of an Environmental Impact Report. On the top of page 28 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following sentence is used: "If shortages do occur in the future, more stringent mitigation measures shall be imposed, in connection with grading and building permit needed for future phases of the project". Application of mitigation measures after project approval and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15126, Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts, states that, "All phases of a project must be considered when evaluation its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and. operation." Section 15126.2(c), Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts states, "Uses of non- renewable during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources mares removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely...Irretrievable commitments of resource should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified". Relying upon not only the language, but intent of these provisions of CEQA, the City of Pinole again urges the Board of Supervisors to table any decision of the proposed project, and direct the Community Development Department to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for this proposal. D. IMPACT ON BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Have any effects to the lower creep from the project construction or operation now and in the future been addressed? Will the bio-diversity of the area and creek be disrupted or altered by the construction of the cemetery, and from any of storm water, runoff and irrigation issues? Have any potential mitigation measures been prepared to address this issue? What effect would a solid type of fencing have in denying a potential migration path to amphibious creatures? What would the cemetery do to mitigate and promote migration across the site and the creek for this species? How would be the construction scheduling be revised to avoid conflicts should this migration occur? Have any potential mitigation measures been prepared to address this issue? The City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, ;`significant new information" exists, and for the cumulative effects this project may have within this region of unincorporated Contra Costa County. 5 H. TRAFFIC The City of Pinole believes that the traffic impacts that will result from this proposal have not been fully analyzed. Again, citing the summary of cemetery operations and Page 8 of the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission, the applicant anticipates that 75-150 burials per year for the first year, and 150-200 burials per year thereafter will occur. The traffic report briefly discusses the first year of operation, but does not mention the increase in traffic in perpetuity for the operation of this use in the traffic analysis. Additionally, there is no mention of any increase in traffic due to prospective clients coming to the cemetery to discuss the range of services provided by this business. Appeal point#9 in the March 23, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors discusses the potential traffic impact that will be created by this use. It is explained by County staff that, "...trips will be distributed throughout the day...However, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that visitors to the cemetery will significantly add to traffic or would lead to unsafe conditions on the local road network". This statement appears to more declarative that no significant traffic impacts will occur, rather than relying on an objective traffic analysis to determine the cumulative impacts that may result should this project be approved. The City of Pinole believes that an EIR should be prepared to address the cumulative traffic impacts for all phases of the Can Shalom project pursuant to Sections 15165 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Access to this site also occurs from the west along Pinole Valley Road. It is at the intersection of Bear Creep Road that Pinole Valley Road becomes Alhambra Valley Road. Residents along Happy Valley Road specifically asked that use of this road not be used for funeral processions. A new condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission to incorporate this request (new condition of approval #9, March 23 20044 staff report to the Board of Supervisors). The City of Pinole requests that additional language be included as condition of approval #10(c) of the April 20, 2004 staff report so that traffic will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley Road as a way to access the proposed Gan Shalom project. IH. APPARENT TECHNICAL, DEFICIENCIES I. The December 16, 2003 staff report does not discuss a proposed variance, whether request by the applicant or found to be required by staff, for the perimeter fence height of seven (7) feet where six (6) feet is allowed for this proposal. There is no mention of the requested variance in the introduction of the staff report or within the findings. The variance is discussed on page 7 in the January 13, 2004 Planning Commission report. It is more full discussed in the March 23, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors beginning on Page 15, and again in the April 20, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors beginning on Page 5. The City of 6 Pinole did not receive any public notice on this project, and cannot therefore say with certainty how this project may have been noticed. however, if the variance had never been noticed, included in either the discussion of the December 16, 2003 staff report but not within environmental documentation, it would seem the project should be renoticed to accurately reflect this variance. 2. The November 2003 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates on page 32, Public Services, the proposed project is to "provide a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute". The 24 hour pump test indicates that 10 gallons per minute is expected. This seems like an error that should be corrected in this document to prevent any misunderstanding that public infrastructure is being constructed outside the Urban Limit Line. 3. On Page 23, under the section entitled, State Law of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), there is a brief discussion of new legislation that goes into effect in 2006. SB 610 requires the Land Use Element of all local jurisdictions to, "inventory existing and other groundwater resources, assess existing and future water needs, and then develop policies and implementation measures to integrate water demand with land use planning". The proposed MND states that as an open space area, the new law "does not appear to be applicable to lands outside the Urban Limit Line, such as the Briones Hills". It would be helpful to know whether this is a decision that has been rendered by County Counsel or the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). This decision should be included as a resource in the bibliography for the proposed MND or Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Gan Shalom project. IV. REQUESTED ADDITION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHOULD THE PROJECT BE APPROVED Should the Board of Supervisors approve the project, the City of Pinole requests the following language be added as conditions of approval: 1. Gan Shalom must construct a recycled water facility on site. The location, size and capacity of this facility must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permits for this facility. If Design Review is required prior to establishing this facility, that process must occur before the installation of this feature. The City of Pinole requests reviewing the site plan with this facility on the plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site. 2. Identify on plans submitted for building permit issuance that the 100' buffer from Pinole Creek be maintained as a permanent conservation easement that precludes any permanent or temporary structure, roads or other improvements that are related to the use and operation of the cemetery. Additionally, a conservation easement shall be established for the hill area, and areas not specifically identified 7 for cemetery. Should Gan Shalom require expansion beyond the five (5) phases as allowed by #LP 022068 into the conservation easement areas, an amendment to the land use permit shall be required to remove the easement. Replacement of the easement for the same size and use must be provided by Gan Shalom. Proof of the procurement of this easement must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to any decision at a public hearing for the removal of the easement. The City of Pinole requests reviewing the site plan with these easements on the plans prier to the issuance of any building permit for the site. 3. No pesticides shall be used to fertilize turf and other areas of the tan Shalom area. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a weed abatement and landscape maintenance program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Building permits shall not be issued until this report has been reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator. 4. Revise the fourth sentence of Condition of Approval #24 to read, "The cemetery is required to cease pumping immediately to allow the aquifer to recharge. Use of stored water or purchasing of water must occur to allow the daily operations at the cemetery to continue. if neither of these options are available, the cemetery operations,burials and daily business, must cease immediately." 5. To ensure that there is no groundwater contamination, at the internment of the 201't body and before additional bodies are interred, a sampling of groundwater must be conducted by a qualified hydrologist to be selected by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department (County) and paid for by Gan Shalom.This report must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Subsequent tests shall occur at the internment of the 401", 601$t, 801" and 1000`' body. At any point should there be groundwater contamination, no further burials shall be allowed until the hydrologist hired by the County can determine the source of contamination, and methods to prevent continued contamination. 6. Add language to condition of approval #I 0(c) of the April 20, 2004 staff report so that traffic will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley Road as a way to access the proposed Can Shalom project. V. CONCLUSION The City of Pinole is submitting three letters as Attachments, which address the existing horse facilities and contamination of Pinole Creek from the effluent from these uses. The City of Pinole believes an Environmental Impact Report is prepared to address this on- going issue as a cumulative impact to the Pinole Creek with the proposed cemetery use. The City of Pinole believes there is substantial evidence to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Can Shalom project. Pursuant to Section 15384(a and b) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), substantial evidence is defined as, 8 "enough relevant information and reasonable inference from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions, predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts". Additionally, there are many references within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that address only Phase I. As this is to be a project with five (5) phases, the City of Pinole believes that a program Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15165 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be prepared. Lastly, the City of Pinole reminds the Board of Supervisors the general concepts of CEQA as described in Section 15002 of the Guidelines for the California.Environmental Quality Act. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: 1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.. 2. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency find the changes to be feasible. 4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. Again, the City of Pinole does not wish to stop the proposed project. We understand the need for this kind of use, and acknowledge that Gan Shalom is trying to provide a service for its parishioners. However,based upon the information contained within this letter, the City of Pinole urges the Board of Supervisors to table any decision on the proposed project, have staff prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and more fully address the environmental issues raised in this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 9 Sincerely, Belinda Espinosa City Manager c: Pinole City Council Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attachments W:\Plannmg\Letters\051004 Gan Shalom Letter.doc 10 2004 April 07 To Mayor Peter Murray and Council Members, This is an expansion of the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed concerns as noted in the attached letter mailed to Darwin Meyers,of the Contra Costa Community Development Department in December of 2003. Pinole Creek is a seasonal creek entirely dependent on rainfall for recharge during all the months of the year.This recharge is absent during the summer months and is directly related to the success of Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed efforts to restorer our creek. In order to facilitate that restoration it is important that any large scale use of groundwater be lurked at over the entire year. SteelheW,a recognized endangered species has been reported along this creek. Burt Mulcahaey,a Pinole resident and fish biologist,in his letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 2,2004 states that"It is well documented that a significant amount of Mater flows back and forth Between(creeks or rivers and groundwater] in both directions. Groundwater,in fact,in the dry months is the main source of water for creeks such as Pinole...Groundwater levels need to be high enough sea that they can interact with (contribute water tea)the stream channel.In a smaller watershed like Pinole,it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows."He indicates in the letter that there are case studies,examples of overdrafting of groundwater supplies.He further states that j,,,we might see the creek with reduced flows and may see it go dry earlier or longer than usual.This could present significant problems for steelhead and red-legged frogs which have been documented in the watershed. Rainbow trout and steelhead juveniles that live year-round in the creek are particularly dependent on the coral water temperatures in the summer..." �at In the list of Conditions of Approval (Page I Findings A.2 Bullet#l),it is stated `fiAll caskets will be set in concrete vaults with concrete tops installed.'What it does not state,is that the coffins should be of woad,with holes in the bottom and the vaults have concrete tops and sides,no base.. Furthermore,as described in the original application,there is a plan to scrape the meadow acre by acre to a depth of 2€3" ,pint down drainage material and pipes for recycling facility with gaps between each vault filled with drainage material.Winter rains will inundate this layer with water,along with any herbicides,fertilizers or drainage from the caskets and this material has to gra somewhere.Whether it is taken out of the creels recharge and pumped to tanks,or allowed to run off into the creek,it will contain that material. During heavy rains,the water will run.toward Pinole and the bay. * In the Gan Shalom presentation, they said that there was,upon their own investigation,tenn acres available at Rolling Hills Cemetery,located where appropriate access roads already exist, with utilities including water,and sewer lines already+est, and experienced staff are on hand. 1 irJoseph ariotti Vx Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed P.O. Box 46, Pinole, CA 94564 December 8, 2003 Darwin Meyers , - Community Development:Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor, Martinez,CA 94553 r 0 Dear Darwin Meyers: =' z„ The Friends of Pinole Creek Waterhsed wants to go on record in opposition to issuance of a Special Land Use Permit(County File#LP022068) to Gan Shalom, Inc. for the construction of a cemetery at the corner of Bear Creep Road and Hampton Road. We support the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve residents' group in this regard because of serious concerns about locating a cemetery at that site. We believe it is inappropriate. The issues are complex and require further in depth study. First there would, of necessity, be large amounts of water withdrawn from the aquifer for landscaping.This would have a negative impact can residents of the area who depend on well water. There would be possible impacts on wildlife (including California rel-legged frogs and steelhead trout) as well as water quality from runoff and concentrations of landscaping additives, and salts if the water is treated. Second, the very nature of the area would be destroyed. Historically a dry farming area,to add a large area'that is formally landscaped would not be fitting to agricultural surroundings. And third, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed supports placing a cemetery in a location where utilities and appropriate access reads already exist, not in a location that would irreversibly change the nature of the surrounding rural area. The Friends of Pinole Creels Watershed is a community organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing Pinole Creek and its watershed and to improving the health of San Pablo Bay. The group's members include citizens from Hercules, Pinole,Briones Valley and the surrounding area, local educators and students,EBMUD biologists, and representatives of local government. Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is devoted to the protection and enhancement of the entire Pinole Creek Watershed including the upper watershed ----- and the portion that dunes the north boundary of the cemetery site. We therefore ask that all possible problems be investigated with a full Environmental Impact Report. Thank you, 4 r. Ice Mari�i� or Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed w; Scott W. Compton 1115 Bear Creek Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 23 April 2004 Deceived Mayor Peter Murray City of Pinole APR 2 7 2004 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Office of the City Cleric Tear Mayor Murray, Your concern about the potential for pollution of Pinole Creek from proposed development in this area (Contra Costa Times, 21 April, page A5) is commendable. If you have visited the site you would of course have noticed, as can any passerby, that there is already more immediate potential for stream contamination from neighboring properties also bordering Pinole Creek. To the west of the site is a watershed parcel, zoned A-2, which has been largely paved over with used road asphalt grindings, and is currently actively occupied by an apparent contractor's yard with heavy equipment, construction vehicles and trailers, machinery, materials, and storage containers. To the north of the site is a 55-stall equestrian center which, contrary to the conditions of the land use permit, stockpiles its manure and stall litter in one exposed cumulative pile very close to the creek bank throughout the rainy season. Be assured that the Contra Costa County Pla. ning Commission and Property Conservation Division are aware of these matters. However, there hasn't been any apparent abatement of the conditions. And these are just two immediate examples. Who knows what might lie upstream? It is hoped that you will personally demonstrate at least as much concern about the existing potential for pollution to Pinole Creek, and the County's ability to act, as you show for future conceivable conditions. Sincerely, .. Scott W. Compton 05/13/2004 11:31 FAX 925 2565975 ARCHER NORRIs i�rjuUareiv�s iWARCJH-_i' ER NORR! 5 NSDEOR rT ....�.. 2033 North Main Street,Suite 800 CALIFORPtw OrF:C[5 PC)Box 8035 Walnut Croak Walnut Creek,CA 94598-3728 Less Angeles 925.930,e604 Richmond 925.930.8824(Fox) Corona May 13, 2004 EDWARD L.Siiwrm eshaffarQ_archernorris.com 925.957.5409 Centra.Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: bran Shalom Cemetery—City of Pinole Comments Honorable Members of the Board: On April 20, 2004 the Board opened its hearing on the request for reconsideration challenging approval of Fran Shalom Cemetery. The Board continued the hearing to May 18t', to give the City of Pinole time to review the project and submit its comments. The City sent a letter on May 1 Oth objecting to the County's environmental review and conditions of approval. We urge the Board to reject Pinole's objections and its new conditions, Staff correctly pointed out on April 201h that the County already has approved the project. Reconsideration should be limited to asking if any new information has been presented that might alter the Board's decision. Nothing in Piaole's letter constitutes material "new information". There is no justification to reopen the hearing process or question approval of the ceinetexy. Please also sec any letters of April 19t1i and May Cts' on this topic. • Public agencies are supposed to limit their comments on projects to issues within.their jurisdiction or concern. The County should disregard corn encs on topics that cannot be of legitimate interest to the City of Pinole(e.g., fencing and building design). i The design of fences and buildings is not a proper issue for Pinole, The City is wrong to say that the perimeter fence will be solid and may block movement by amphibians. Only the cemetery entrance will be solid; the remainder of the fence will be open, with no obstacle to movement by frogs, snakes or other species. * Given the extensive fail-safe groundwater mitigations adopted by the Board, there is no credible risk that irrigation pumping will lower groundwater levels or otherwise hent Pinole Creek. The cemetery property is a very small percentage of the drainage basin supplying the creek, and that the cemetery's short frontage along,the creep means only minimal recharge of the creek carnes from the site. A F'rofwmionat Law Corporation G0139001/353688-1 05/1:3/2004 10:44 PAN IVZOUODUbZU ,en.. Board of Supervisors May 13, 2004 Page 2 • Pinole apparently missed that Gan Shalom agreed not to use pesticides on the property, and the Board added this restriction as a condition of approval. There is no credible risk of runoff contaminating the creels. There will be minimal impervious surface on the 83--acre property: only some small buildings and narrow driveways. Vehicle activity will be very lin- ted. The creek will be protected from pollution by well-established County and.State regulations and planning requirements that will control design and operation of site improvements (BMPs, SWPPP, NTS DES). + There is no credible risk that funeral processions or other traffic will ever cause impacts on Pinole Valley Road. The cemetery will serve the East Bay's Jewish population, which is concentrated outside ofPinote and West County. Funeral precessions will cone fro.in Jewish mortuaries, none of which are in the vicinity ofPinote. Processions will be infrequent--perhaps once per week—and few if any will ever come via Pinole galley Road. Given the distribution of the region's Jewish population, very few if any funeral participants and cemetery visitors are expected to use Pinole`galley Road—and most or all of such limited use would not occur during peak traffic hours. "Phis is different frond the situation with Happy Valley Road, which conies from an area with more potential to generate travel to the cemetery, and a similar restriction on use is not justified here. * The City misreads state law by suggesting;that SB 610 might require the County to evaluate Briones area groundwater resources as part ofthe General Plan. Nothing in the Water Code or the Government Code would restrict the cemetery's ability to pump water for irrigation, or would require the County to conduct a large-scala study of the region before approving the cemetery. SB 610 and SB 221 address very large water-constimirtg projects (the equivalent of 500 dwelling units) and require studies and plans for urban water supply agencies. Groundwater is only an issue ifsome agency is relying oil a groundwater basin to serve its customers. Nene of this is relevant to Clan Shalom. e The City also misreads CEQA law by suggesting that the phrase "sr`gnf fieant adverse impact"can only be used for impacts that cannot be mitigated and should not be mentioned in a negative declaration. The City is confusing this with the terns "significant unavoidable impact", which is covered in EIRs. In fact, it is cerumen aiad typical for a mitigated negative declaration first to identify various potentially significant adverse effects of a project, and then to conclude that mitigation measures will reduce those effects to less-than-significant levels--just as the County Inas clone for Gall Shalom, The City misreads CEQA and wrongly brands the County's program of mitigation measures and conditions of approval as improper deferred mitigation. They make it clear that future phases of the cemetery will not be built unless Gan Shalom'proves an adequate water supply. There is no risk that these n3easures will allow some ulnnitigated significant impact to occur. CEQA does not forbid. future technical evaluation of later project phases inhere safeguards are in place—as the County adopted for Gan Shalon). G0139001/353689-1 UJ:',(.0/ZVU-4 I—J; 44 VAA 1Ui:4;1.SVU04V sill FS L'.ii -NVAA10 y,vva: vtv Board of Supervisors May 13, 2004 Page 3 + My May 6'h letter to the Board addressed the false claim that decomposing bodies somehow will measurably contaminate the creek or groundwater. There is no credible evidence to support this overly speculative fear. Any byproducts released into the envirownent over time will be so diluted by the vast quantities of soil and water involved that they likely will not even be detectable, let alone the cause of any significant impact. • As part of this reconsideration process, County planning staff recently consulted the County Health Services Department and the Regional Nater Quality Control Board. Both agencies confirmed that they see no water quality or public health issues, do not require followup testing of groundwater or creep water, and consider the cemetery well designed. They recognize that requirements for use of Best Management Practices and preparation of a SWPPP will provide sufficient water quality protection. • Pinole is wrong to claim that approval of the cemetery violated County Water Resources Policy 8-75 and Policy 8-77. The design and operational criteria for the cemetery will be more than adequate to protect surface and groundwater resources. The mitigation measures and conditions adopted by the Board strengthen that protection. No credible evidence has been submitted to show otherwise. • None of the six conditions proposed by Pinole are needed or justified. Pinole has not supplied any significant new information to support claiming that they are necessary. These requests do not warrant reopening the cemetery approval. 1.. The conditions already call for County staff to review cemetery plans before approving permits—inctuding technical details for the water recycling system. We question what valid role Pinole can play in this design review process. 2. The conditions require that Gan Shalom record a deed disclosure preserving; the I00-foot buffer along the creek in perpetuity. This and other mitigation measures and conditions give the County sufficient control and adequately protect the creek. The cemetery could not expand into new areas of(he property without a new application process, making Pinole's wording unnecessary. 3. The Board already added a condition prohibiting pesticides. The conditions require staff review and approval of the landscaping and irrigation plats. 4. The County's staff and consultants devised groundwater protection mitigations and procedures using their technical expertise. Pinole has not offered any evidence to support applying the City's requested wording. 5. Pinole has not shown any evidence to support mandating testing of groundwater for contamination. County staff and the Water Board will require the procedures they deem necessary as part of the "Best Management Practices" and other water quality control treasures already required by the conditions of approval. GO!39001!353688-t 05/13,,,2004 10:45 I-AX 1UZaU;JUbt9ZU AK(Alth AUIUO� +-.Ivvj/ VV0 'BQ.ard of Supervisors May 13, 2004 Page 4 6. There is no credible evidence to support reopening the public hearing to add a condition discouraging cemetery traffic on Pinole Valley Road. We urge the Board to resist pressure to reopen the hearing process. No credible new information has been presented that requires new study or would change the Board's decision. Sincerely, ARCHER NO IS Edward L. Sha fer cc: Community Development Dept, Darwin'Myers Gan Shalom Cemetery Sinai Memorial Chapel GO) of CONSIDER WITH . Pninole CE a dDevelopment Services Department Mao � 2131 Pear Street Tei : (510)724-9014 Pinole, CA 94564 Fax : (510)724-4921 May 10, 2004 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Reconsideration of Land Use Permit 022068, County File, #LP 022068, Gan Shalom Cemetery Honorable Board of Supervisors: The City of Pinole is providing comments on the Can Shalom project as this proposal is within the Pinole Creek watershed, and feels there are several key issues that must be addressed within the environmental documentation. This is the first opportunity afforded to the City of Pinole to respond to any aspect of this development proposal. The City of Pinole has no record of receiving notification of the project, or being given the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NUI) for this proposal. While the City regrets providing comments late in the review process, we feel these are crucial issues that must be raised prior to any final administrative decision that is rendered by the Board of Supervisors. The City of Pinole wishes to acknowledge that we do not oppose the proposed project, rather there are areas within the environmental documentation that we feel need to be strengthened to better understand the potential environmental impacts that may result from this project. EXECTUIVE SUMMARY: REASONS TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT The City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate document to discuss the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed Gan Shalom cemetery for traffic and water quality impacts. The reasons are listed below, and discussed in detail within this letter: 1 • No discussion of the impact of nitrogen to the Pinole Creek for Phase I or all five (5)phases of this proposal • No discussion of how the applicant and the County complies with General Nater Resources Policy 8-75 and 8-77, respectively • Best Management Practices (BMPs) as discussed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System does not preclude the use of pesticides. Use of pesticides should not be allowed for this proposal, and there has been no discussion of how the use of pesticides could harm the Pinole Creek in the environmental documentation prepared for this proposal. • No discussion of the potential for contaminated water from the decomposition of bodies, and the ability of any cistern to contain this water, and prevent this water from entering the Pinole Creek • Should the Clan Shalom project be approved, a range of between 5,304 — 7,560 gallons of well water per day for Phase I of the project is required for irrigation purposes. For all five (5) phases, a range of 27,132 — 40,302 gallons per day is required for irrigation purposes. The use of this land for a cemetery use rivals an agricultural use at this location. The range is based upon 1,200 — 1,800 gallons of water per day as discussed in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Application of mitigation measures after project approval and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) yet this is how underperforming conditions or approval/mitigation measures are handled for the water supply related to this proposed project. • The traffic analysis focuses only the first year operation of the proposed project, and does not address the perpetual operation of this use, where 150—200 funerals per year are anticipated to be held. There is no discussion of additional automobile traffic to the site by prospective clients who are making arrangements for this service. • Many references to this project focus upon Phase I, and it appears the total cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed cemetery operations have not been addressed within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. I. WATER QUALITY/STORNIWATER RUNOFF/IRRIGATION ISSUES A. USE OF FERTILIZERS AND WATER QUALITY The summary of cemetery operations, a document submitted with the application, and Page 10 of the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission, indicates that 175 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year will be used to maintain the turf areas of the proposed cemetery. For Phase 1 of the proposed cemetery, this translates to 773.5 pounds of nitrogen per year for a 4.42 gross acre area. There is no discussion of the impact of this compound on the water quality, runoff, water table and recharge of the aquifer to the Pinole Creek. The addition of nitrogen to a waterway encourages the formation of algae that not only can harm the aquatic creatures that live in the waterway, but also can significantly reduce the flow of the waterway and thereby irreparably harm 2 the health and viability of the waterway. The Biological Resources section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses the potential impact of the proposal on federally listed endangered species, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, and movement of any fish or wildlife species. There is no discussion, however, about the potential impact to the Pinole Creek from the addition of 175 pounds of nitrogen per year for Phase i of this proposed project. Should the project be approved, and all five (5) phases are constructed, 3,956.75 pounds of nitrogen per year on 22.61 net acres of developed burial spaces will be applied to the cemetery grounds. As this has not been included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(x)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new information'. exists. B. STORMWATER AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY Table 4 on Page 24 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration lists four(4) policies on General Water Resources. All four(4) apply to the proposed project,however the City of Pinole cannot determine how these policies are being maintained and supported by the proposal. Specifically, the City of Pinole believes the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with policy 8-75 to, "preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resources", nor has the County met the intent of policy 8-77 to, "provide development standards in recharge area to maintain and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies". Additionally, the December 16, 2003 staff report discusses traffic and drainage considerations for LP022068. Table 4 on Page 13 of this report indicates that, "compliance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance will require all storm water entering or originating on the subject property to be collected and conveyed to an adequate storm drainage facility of natural watercourse". As this proposal is outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL), no growth enduing infrastructure is proposed (and presumably allowed), such as a storm drain system, therefore Pinole Creek, as the natural watercourse, is the method to collect and convey excess water from this property. Condition of Approval #46 of the April 20, 2004 Appeal to the Board of Supervisors staff report (#43 within the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission) requires compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As an aspect of the NPDES program, Best Management Practices (BMPs) are to be achieved should this project be approved. It is not discussed within either the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or the December 16, 2003, January 13, 2004, March 23, 2004 or April 20, 2004 staff reports that pesticides are prohibited from use by the applicant. Runoff from automobiles (oil, grease, and other contaminants), roofs of buildings, litter, chemicals and other miscellaneous compounds may find their way either into the groundwater or waterway and potentially negatively impact the Pinole Creek watershed and groundwater. For these reasons, the City of Pinole strongly encourages the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report so a discussion of alternatives to this project can occur. 3 Lastly, there is no discussion on the ability of a cistern or other facility to contain water from the proposed french drain system to prevent water runoff from entering into the creek system. If this water holding system were to become exposed to the by-products of decomposition, which is likely when irrigation occurs, is there any effect during aerial spraying? Would a holding facility be overwhelmed by an increase in the sheetflow of water due to oversaturation of the ground? Would the holding facility contain the contaminant and by-product (ammonia and carbon based) overflow and keep this water from entering the creek? As neither of these matters have been included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new infonnation"exists. C. IRRIGATION DEMAND AND WELL WATER SUPPLY The City of Pinole is greatly concerned about the use of well water for on-site irrigation. While it is informative, Table 5, Comparison of Water Demand for Potential Agricultural Use of Site, in the December 16, 2003 staff report does not depict an accurate portrayal of the amount of well water required by Gan Shalom for irrigation purposes. The following table is based upon the information described on Page 14 of the December 16, 2003 staff report regarding the daily consumption of well water for irrigation purposes. Based upon these figures, and when comparing these numbers to those listed in Table 5, it is clear that the water use for a cemetery, even for Phase 1,rivals water needs for agricultural uses. ESTIMATED GALLONS ESTIMATED GROSS NET GALLONS PER DAY PER GALLONS GALLONS PER PHASE ACRES ACRES PER DAY ACRE PER DAY DAY PER ACRE 7.6 4.42 1200 5304 1800 7560 5.9 4.51 1200 5412 1800 8118 5.09 4.11 1200 4932 1800 7398 5.2 4.5 1200 5400 1800 8100 6.57 5.07 1200 6084 1800 9126 30.36 22.61 27132 40302 It is not known if the draw down of water from the natural underground aquifers can support the irrigation of the cemetery effect the flow of the creek during the dryer parts of the year. This has not been discussed within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,nor have mitigation measures been prepared for this matter. 4 The City of Pinole'believes that an Environmental Impact Report is required in order to address the cumulative impacts that will result should this use be approved by the Board of Supervisors. On page 14 under Water Supply of the December 16, 2043 staff report, it is stated that, "...performance criteria are provided to see that Gan Shalom does not create a significant adverse impact (emphasis added) on nearby properties..." The use of the words "significant adverse impact" are generally reserved for impacts that cannot be mitigated and are usually discussed in the context of an Environmental Impact Report. On the top of page 28 of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following sentence is used: "If shortages do occur in the future, more stringent mitigation measures shall be imposed, in connection with grading and building permit needed for future phases of the project". Application of mitigation measures after project approval and deferral of mitigation measures is specifically prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15126, Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts, states that, "All phases of a project must be considered when evaluation its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation." Section 15126.2(c), Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts states, "Uses of non- renewable during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely...Irretrievable commitments of resource should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified". Relying upon not only the language, but intent of these provisions of CEQA, the City of Pinole again urges the Board of Supervisors to table any decision of the proposed project, and direct the Community Development Department to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for this proposal. D. IMPACT ON BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Have any effects to the lower creek from the project construction or operation now and in the future been addressed? Will the bio-diversity of the area and creek be disrupted or altered by the construction of the cemetery, and from any of storm water, runoff and irrigation issues? Have any potential mitigation measures been prepared to address this issue? What effect would a solid type of fencing have in denying a potential migration path to amphibious creatures? What would the cemetery do to mitigate and promote migration across the site and the creek for this species? How would be the construction scheduling be revised to avoid conflicts should this migration occur? Have any potential mitigation measures been prepared to address this issue? The City of Pinole believes that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5(x)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act when, "significant new information" exists, and for the cumulative effects this project may have within this region of unincorporated Contra Costa County. 5 11. TRAFFIC The City of Pinole believes that the traffic impacts that will result from this proposal have not been fully analyzed. Again, citing the summary of cemetery operations and Page 8 of the December 16, 2003 staff report to the County Planning Commission, the applicant anticipates that 75-150 burials per year for the first year, and 150-204 burials per year thereafter will occur. The traffic report briefly discusses the first year of operation, but does not mention the increase in traffic in perpetuity for the operation of this use in the traffic analysis. Additionally, there is no mention of any increase in traffic due to prospective clients coming to the cemetery to discuss the range of services provided by this business. Appeal point #9 in the March 23, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors discusses the potential traffic impact that will be created by this use. It is explained by County staff that, "...trips will be distributed throughout the day...However, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that visitors to the cemetery will significantly add to traffic or would lead to unsafe conditions on the local road network". This statement appears to more declarative that no significant traffic impacts will occur, rather than relying on an objective traffic analysis to determine the cumulative impacts that may result should this project he approved. The City of Pinole believes that an EIR should be prepared to address the cumulative traffic impacts for all phases of the Gan Shalom project pursuant to Sections 15165 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Access to this site also occurs from the west along Pinole Valley Road. It is at the intersection of Bear Creek Road that Pinole Valley Road becomes Alhambra Valley Road. Residents along Happy Valley Road specifically asked that use of this road not be used for funeral processions. A new condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission to incorporate this request (new condition of approval #9, March 23 2404 staff report to the Board of Supervisors). The City of Pinole requests that additional language be included as condition of approval #I O(c) of the April 20, 2044 staff report so that traffic will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley Road as a way to access the proposed Gan Shalom project. III. APPARENT TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES 1. The December 16, 2043 staff report does not discuss a proposed variance, whether request by the applicant or found to be required by staff, for the perimeter fence height of seven (7) feet where six(6) feet is allowed for this proposal. There is no mention of the requested variance in the introduction of the staff report or within the findings. The variance is discussed on page 7 in the January 13, 2004 Planning Commission report. It is more full discussed in the March 23, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors beginning on Page 15, and again in the April 20,2444 staff report to the Board of Supervisors beginning on Page 5.The City of 6 Pinole did not receive any public notice on this project, and cannot therefore say with certainty how this project may have been noticed. However, if the variance had never been noticed, included in either the discussion of the December 16, 2003 staff report but not within environmental documentation, it would seem the project should be renoticed to accurately reflect this variance. 2. The November 2003 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates on page 32, Public Services, the proposed project is to "provide a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute". The 24 hour pump test indicates that 10 gallons per minute is expected. This seems like an error that should be corrected in this document to prevent any misunderstanding that public infrastructure is being constructed outside the Urban Limit Line. 3. On Page 23, under the section entitled, State Law of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), there is a brief discussion of new legislation that goes into effect in 2006. SB 610 requires the Land Use Element of all local jurisdictions to, "inventory existing and other groundwater resources, assess existing and future water needs, and then develop policies and implementation measures to integrate water demand with land use planning". The proposed MND states that as an open space area, the new law "does not appear to be applicable to lands outside the Urban Limit Line, such as the Briones Hills". It would be helpful to know whether this is a decision that has been rendered by County Counsel or the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). This decision should be included as a resource in the bibliography for the proposed MND or Environmental Impact Deport(EIR) for the Gan Shalom project. IV. REQUESTED ADDITION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHOULD THE PROJECT BE APPROVED Should the Board of supervisors approve the project, the City of Pinole requests the following language be added as conditions of approval: 1. Gan Shalom must construct a recycled water facility on site. The location, size and capacity of this facility must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permits for this facility. If Design Review is required prior to establishing this facility, that process must occur before the installation of this feature. The City of Pinole requests reviewing the site plan with this facility on the plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site. 2. Identify on plans submitted for building permit issuance that the 100' buffer from Pinole Creek be maintained as a permanent conservation easement that precludes any permanent or temporary structure, roads or other improvements that are related to the use and operation of the cemetery. Additionally, a conservation easement shall be established for the hill area, and areas not specifically identified 7 for cemetery. Should Clan Shalom require expansion beyond the five(5) phases as allowed by #LP 022068 into the conservation easement areas, an amendment to the land use permit shall be required to remove the easement. Replacement of the easement for the same size and use must be provided by Gan Shalom. Proof of the procurement of this easement must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to any decision at a public hearing for the removal of the easement. The City of Pinole requests reviewing the site plan with these easements on the plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site. 3. No pesticides shall be used to fertilize turf and other areas of the Gan Shalom area. prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a weed abatement and landscape maintenance program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Building permits shall not be issued until this report has been reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator. 4. Revise the fourth sentence of Condition of Approval #24 to read, "The cemetery is required to cease pumping immediately to allow the aquifer to recharge. Use of stored water or purchasing of water must occur to allow the daily operations at the cemetery to continue. If neither of these options are available, the cemetery operations, burials and daily business,must cease immediately." 5. To ensure that there is no groundwater contamination, at the internment of the 201't body and before additional bodies are interred, a sampling of groundwater must be conducted by a qualified hydrologist to be selected by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department (County) and paid for by Gan Shalom. This report must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Subsequent tests shall occur at the internment of the 401 st, 601 st, 801" and 1 OOOth body. At any point should there be groundwater contamination, no further burials shall be allowed until the hydrologist hired by the County can determine the source of contamination, and methods to prevent continued contamination. 6. Add language to condition of approval #10(c) of the April 20, 2004 staff report so that traffic will be strongly discouraged from using Pinole Valley Road as a way to access the proposed Gan Shalom project. V. CONCLUSION The City of Pinole is submitting three letters as Attachments, which address the existing horse facilities and contamination of Pinole Creek from the effluent from these uses. The City of Pinole believes an Environmental Impact Report is prepared to address this on- going issue as a cumulative impact to the Pinole Creek with the proposed cemetery use. The City of Pinole believes there is substantial evidence to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Gan Shalom project. Pursuant to Section 15384(a and b) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), substantial evidence is defined as, 8 "enough relevant information and reasonable inference from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions, predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts". Additionally, there are many references within the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that address only Phase 1. As this is to be a project with five (5) phases, the City of Pinole believes that a program Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15165 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be prepared. Lastly, the City of Pinole reminds the Board of Supervisors the general concepts of CEQA as described in Section 15002 of the Guidelines for the California.Environmental Quality Act. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: 1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency find the changes to be feasible. 4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. Again, the City of Pinole does not wish to stop the proposed project. We understand the need for this kind of use, and acknowledge that Gan Shalom is trying to provide a service for its parishioners. However, based upon the information contained within this letter, the City of Pinole urges the Board of Supervisors to table any decision on the proposed project, have staff prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and more fully address the environmental issues raised in this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 9 Sincerely, Belinda Espinosa City Manager c: Pinole City Council Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attachments W:\Planning\Letters\05l004 Gan shalom Letter.doc 10 2004 April 07 To Mayer Peter Murray and Council Members, This is an expansion of the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed concerns as noted in the attached letter mailed to Darwin Meyers,of the Centra Costa Community Development Department in December of 2003. • Pinole Creek is a seasonal creek entirely dependent on rainfall for recharge during all the months of the year. This recharge is absent during the summer months and is directly related to the success of Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed efforts to restore our creek. In order to facilitate that restoration it is important that any large scale use of groundwater be looked at over the entire year. Steelhead,a recognized endangered species has been reported along this creek. Burt Mulcahaey,a Pinole resident and fish biologist,in his letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 2, 2004 states that"It is well documented that a significant amount of water flows back and forth between[creeks or rivers and groundwater] in both directions. Groundwater,in fact, in the dry months is the main source of water for creeks such as Pinole... Groundwater levels need to be high enough so that they can interact.with (contribute water to)the stream channel.In a smaller watershed like Pinole, it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows."He indicates in the letter that there are case studies,examples of overdrafting of groundwater supplies.He further states that",,,we might see the creek with reduced flows and may see it go dry earlier or longer than usual.This could present significant problems for steelhead and red-legged frogs which have been documented in the watershed. Rainbow trout and steelhead juveniles that live year-round in the creep are particularly dependent on the curl water temperatures in the summer..." �at in the list of Conditions of Approval(Page 1 Findings A.2 Bullet#1),it is stated "All caskets will be set in concrete vaults with concrete togs installed."What it does not state,is that the coffins should be of wood,with holes in the bottom.and the vaults have concrete tops and sides,no base.. Furthermore,as described in the original application, there is a plan to scrape the meadow acre by acre to a depth of 20" ,put down drainage material and pipes for recycling facility with gaps between each vault filled with drainage material.'Winter rains will inundate this layer with water,along with any herbicides,fertilizers or drainage from the caskets and this material has to go somewhere.Whether it is taken out of the creek recharge and pumped to tanks,or allowed to run off into the creek, it will contain that material.During heavy rains,the water will run toward Pinole and the bay. • In the Gan Shalom presentation,they said that there was,upon their own investigation,ten acres available at Rolling Hills Cemetery,located where appropriate access roads already exist, with utilities including water,and sewer lines already exist, and experienced staff are on hand. ///Cr- oseph ariotf s Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed P.O. Stix 45, Pinole, CA 94554 December 8, 2003 71 CD Darwin Meyers C-) ` Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, forth Wing,4th Flour, rJ " Martinez, CA 94553 "tel w Dear Darwin Meyers: n r The Friends of Pinole Creek Waterhsed wants to go on record in opposition to issuance of a Special Land Use Permit (County File#LP022068) to Gan Shalom,Inc. for the construction of a cemetery at the comer of Bear Creep Road and Hampton Road. We support the Briones Hills.Agricultural Preserve residents' group in this regard because of serious concerns about locating a cemetery at that site. We believe it is inappropriate. The issues are complex and require further in depth study. First there would, of necessity, be large amounts of water withdrawn from the aquifer for landscaping.This would have a negative impact on residents of the area who depend on well water. There would be possible impacts on wildlife (including California red-legged frogs and steelhead trout) as well as water quality from runoff and concentrations of landscaping additives, and salts if the water is treated. Second, the very nature of the area would be destroyed. Historically a dry farming area., to add a large area'that is formally landscaped would not be fitting to agricultural surroundings. And third,Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed supports placing a cemetery in a location where utilities and appropriate access roads already exist, not in a location that would irreversibly change the nature of the surrounding rural area. The Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is a community organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing Pinole Greek and its watershed and to improving the health of San Pablo Bay. The group's members include citizens from Hercules, Pinole, Briones Valley and the surrounding area, local educators and students,EBMUD biologists, and representatives of local government. Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed is devoted to the protection and enhancement of the entire Pinole Creek Watershed including the upper watershed ---- and the portion that defines the north boundary of the cemetery site. We therefore ask that all possible problems be investigated with a full Environmental Impact Report. Thank you, r r. Joe Mari i i Far Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed Scott W. Compton 1115 Bear Creek Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 23 April 2004 Received Mayor Peter Murray City of Pinole APR 2 7 2004 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Office of the City Clerk Dear Mayor Murray, Your concern about the potential for pollution of Pinole Creek from proposed development in this area (Contra Costa Times, 21 April, page A5) is commendable. If you have visited the site you would of course have noticed, as can any passerby, that there is already more immediate potential for stream contamination from neighboring properties also bordering Pinole Creek. To the west of the site is a watershed parcel, zoned A-2, which has been largely paved over with used road asphalt grindings, and is currently actively occupied by an apparent contractor's yard with heavy equipment, construction vehicles and trailers, machinery, materials, and storage containers. To the north of the site is a 55-stall equestrian center which, contrary to the conditions of the land use permit, stockpiles its manure and stall litter in one exposed cumulative pile very close to the creep bank throughout the rainy season. Be assured that the C'ontm Costa County Planning Commission and Property Conservation Division are aware of these matters. However, there hasn't been any apparent abatement of the conditions. And these are just two immediate examples. Who knows what might lie upstream? It is hoped that you will personally demonstrate at least as much concern about the existing potential for pollution to Pinole Creek, and the County's ability to act, as you show for future conceivable conditions. Sincerely, W,4"-10 , Scott W. Compton Dennis Barry,ACCPCommunity Contra Community Development ©hector Development Costa Department County County Administration Building .....,_.x 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)3354214 9 °rA 6o--- May 13, 2004 Belinda Espinosa, City Manager City of Pinole 21.31 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Dear Ms. Espinosa: Re: Notice of Hearing Before the Board of Supervisors on a Motion to Reconsider a Board of Supervisors' Decision to Grant a Land Use Permit for a Proposed Cemetery (Gan Shalom) County File #LP022068 On April:20, 2004, the Mayor of the City of Pinole testified before the Board of Supervisors on a motion filed by Carole Dwinell and the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance to reconsider the Board's March 23, 2004 approval of a land use permit application filed by Gan Shalom. The proposed cemetery is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Bear Creek and Hampton Roads in the Martinez/Briones Valley area. After taking testimony, the Board continued the review of the motion to reconsider to the Board's May 18, 2004 hearing. This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors will consider the motion to reconsider again on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at Room 107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The item will not be considered before 10:00 a.m. Enclosed is a copy of the staff report. Office Hours Monday- Friday: 3:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month 2 Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214, or the project planner, Darwin Myers, at (925) 370-9330. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 5/18/2004 Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors Cc: Darwin Myers Clerk of the Board File \\fs-cd\users$\bdrake\Personal\lp022068-c.ltr.doe RD\ Paul D. Brooks, V450 Bear Oaks Dr., te Martinez, Ca 94553. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Re: Gan Shalom cemetery water use, county file#t_P022068 May 18, 2004. Contra Costa County Supervisors, I would like to draw your attention to the attached part of the conditions of approval for the land use permit 2068-02 as approved by the planning commission on January 13, 2004. 1) Item#20 does not specify how long the baseline level will be monitored before pumping can start. Mote that since seasonal fluctuations are to be established, this should be at least one season, and preferably more. In item #24 a period of two years is suggested for"refined baseline measurement". Therefore it seems reasonable that two years should be required for the initial baseline measurement. a 2) Item #24 states that data shall continue to be collected to establish a refined baseline using two years of measurement. This is not technically possible once pumping has started. This clause should be removed and if the water table in monitoring well P4 is drawn down below the baseline establish before pumping, then pumping must stop. 3) It is clear that if well water is used for irrigating acres of turf in a valley where most residents don't have enough water for lawns, then any drop in water table will be blamed on the irrigated turf. Therefore it is important that residents can assure themselves that the water table in the monitoring wells is being reported correctly. It would therefore seem prudent for all parties to agree on a schedule where a county official, accompanied by a chosen resident, can measure the monitoring wells periodically and determine that the water table is being accurately reported. This should be part of the permit requirements. 13 Alameda Whipsnake 19. Prior to the commencement of each phase, submit a plan/methodology for compliance with the Alameda'Whipsnake mitigation measure in'fable 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 activio} a qualified biologist shall survey the intended grading area to determine ifa temporary snake exclusion fence is required.If a fence is required,the biologist shall specify the type,height and other details of design and installation. f bl. The biologist also shall determine:f 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 sped the timing and procedures of any such surveys, following generally accepted protocols:Survey results shall be submitted to the Zoning •+ Adnministrator and to any other agencies as may be warranted by the survey results. Water Resources w S 20. Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the Building Inspection 'Department,submit"baseline"data on water levels in the production well How 10;19 V ` J and monitoring wells to the Zoning Administrator to establish any }fit€ e({yllt� 6e w ,� }, seasonal fluctuations. 21. Prior to the issuance of the first permit by the Building Inspection Department,establish anew 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 6 feet below baseline levels,the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 72 hours and hydrology re-evaluation shall be performed. These levels of drawdown do not constitute an impact, but are considered an early notice that the situation warrants study. The required report shall evaluate the data to determine the relationship of the water levels to pumping, and provide measures to protect water levels from Drawdown considered excessive under the circumstances. The cemetery is not,,required to cease pumping in the interim, but shall attempt to reduce pumping as much as feasible while continuing to maintain irrigated areas. The cemetery shall 'implement such additional measures as the Zoning Administrator may require after reviewing the report. 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 i f S ki 0 6 the preliminary baseline data submitted under Condition 22, data a shall continue to be collected and submitted to establish a refined baseline usin t8 0 t Ca two years o measurem.enfi,to more closely reflect seasonal fluctuations. The refined baseline levels for the production well and monitoring wells 1 ;M to be used for future monitoring shall be agreed upon by the Community t Development Department and Health Services Department using the two M UIYW 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. Contra Costa County http://www.co.contra-costA.ci.usi q a ry 9 g on tra Costa V T yyp�.q..ca keg Information CSyR�+��1 +¢� ?ey5:, • 9.JY[2RS 3Bfi. 1ffo matin�3 ont -Search-No Frames Title 2 ADI lhfl sTMT"lON ...s...,a,....uxmsuav,:mva..w.eu.«..w.smavc+cmrexx�zrcrwnvaxxas.:xax+.aaxwxanew-e�. Home Chanter 25-2 PLANNING A ENCY a Contra Costa County Cade Pr tai 26-202408 Appeall—Reconsiderabon. Title 1GcIERA€r F'Rtl € lONS A motion for reconsideration may be filed in writing by an Title 2 Aid €NLI aTRAT'ION appellant within the time allowed to appeal alleging pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the attention Tftg$ INNEL of the division rendering the decision. Such motion shall be title 4HEALTH Al t3 SAFETY i decided by the division at its next meeting on the basis of the 1 information presented in writing. if the motion is denied; the time Title 5 GENERAL MLFARE AND to appeal shall be extended only the number of days required Rt l�lNQ _REGt3LAT€C t iiS ?, to hear and decide the motion. if the motion is granted, persons recording their appearance at the initial hearing shall be givers I 5 RE gNUE ARt7_INA%E" # mailed notice of the time of the new hearing. (Orris. 77-33 § 15 - (part), 1975: prior code § 2205.40: turd. 917). Tit] 7BUILE)llti REGULATIONS Title 8 ZrJNIIC Title SUi DIVI�ICNS* l itle 10 PUBLIC MRK AND l i.00D �3ttil'R�l., Title 11 INSTITUTIONS AND ERO ERT Y Files listed below require Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0. 74TWA 0=10k.- Statutory Re#erences 6 CrassN#�eference-`table Ordinance List and Dis ition Ta ie 1 of i 412/(74 3:11 ?'M Reasons for a Motion for Reconsideration 1. CEQA-QE, a.) Can Page 1 of CEQA Handbook., in.a sidebar chart,quote. "- To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects" Because the Briones Hills Agricultural Agreement wraas a ec unty-initi b.) According to a Jewish'Publication entitled "Dimity for the Body,Peace for the Soul/An Introduction to Jewish Burial Customs",(See Attachment#02)quote: "Wood is the only material allowed and several holes are opened at the bottom to fasten the body's return to the earth. When vaults are required, they too should be open at the bottom." B�foare any graves are dug at the proposed location of the Gan Shalom Cemeler)y there should he to tent at an existing cemetery where the aract,sauce site conditions ns cars described above are submitted for a deep soil test, one that gores below the level(if the vault. See.Metra C.forr the reason. c.) At-->The University of Minnesota Extension website abstracts [http://www.extension.umn.edu- > search "cemetery" ->first citation is "groundwater contamination" -> "Cemeteries and Livestock Burials"]This is a series of readily understood articles relating to wells, streams, turf, contaminants and cemeteries. Note particularly Attachment#03 showing graphically the problems that directly relate to the proposed cemetery at the corner of Hampton and Bear Creep Roads.Under the Heading: Cemeteries and Animal Burials, it says, Quote "Contamination :Evidence: Detection of high bacteria levels in nearby well water tests. Causes: High water table. Prevention: Avoid high water tables for burial sites. Use watertight caskets in cemeteries with high water tables. Contaminants: Bacteria,viruses." Unquote. It has an accompanying graphic showing the layout of land susceptible to the problem.It also shows as an example a poor site for animal burial that Contra Costa County does NOT allow in the agricultural preserve. These articles show thatthere is distinct poassibility*ft-ar contamination. Obviously the county is concerned about contamination already,since it is illegal to boar oa grazing oanimoal.such as ra horse or wattle that crave fair+ less viralil catl?ogen inhabitaticaraas hu marm As:stated above, ca similar site sail text should also be part ofa wo m lete EIR ..d.) Supervisor.John Gioia added an adjustment to the Conditions of approval relating,to water baseline data prior to the production well being tapped. Monitoring time frames were improved for a better recording of data in the post-pumping period(though this was not stated), however,nothing was stated about when, or how,or how long the baseline would be determined. There i4; lirtaiteti water supply in,the area. Pzis is what h a5 prevented ca y extensive deve leywnent< There is not enough water to.suppa y an'v concentrated development. The mitigation measures in the report simply staters 'Obtain "baseline" data with,monthly ly me asure, z.ent of ground'woater levels in existing observation wells.'However, it doves not say over whatperiod the baseline data should be taken and whether pumping is allowed while the baseline measurements are recorded, Baseline data water table measurements must be taken in observation wells Jbr period of at least two years prior to the beginning offpurr ping and this used as the baseline -data. The bases line data should reflect the.seasonal variations and should be used as the baseline comparisons as related to the season. The conditions under which the baseline data is acquired needs to be part oaf'the Conditions ns,a,f Appr ov al candler anV IR tarata'must be determined by using the highest level four each season. e.) In speaking with Eppie Berntsaum (sp?), a proponent of the cemetery project after the Appeal denial, I questioned the ability of the conservative water volume stated by the project plans to generate enough water to support an irrigation recycling system and he said that he knew that. and that the system was to capture rainwater for storage. In aaH public documents the systema of'pipes and underground gravel has been descri ed as a recycling system for irrigation water. Removing rainwater tom the aqufer will seriouslyaffect the groundwater levels and the recharging cf Pinole Creek. Since there are documented sightings of Steelhead( nekingered), Reg-legged Frogs(Endangered)and Western Pond Turtles and other Threatened species downstream, and their hrabitcas,lies totally along the upper watershed of Pinole Creek, the cemetery proposal, in fact, requires a fall Environmental Impact Report to dissuade all opponents to the project that proper procedures for the creek. and its residents, as well as groups such as Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, Aquatic have been raddresseel. f.) The Endangered Species Act particularly addresses the issues of creek.maintenance/restoration. "Groundwater, in fact,in the dry months is the main source of water for creeps such.as Pinole that have no snowmelt. Groundwater levels need to stay high enough so that the can interact with(contribute water to) the stream channel. In a smaller watershed like Pinole,it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows." See the attached letter Appendix# . In a letter describing the Affect of palling rainwater out 4ythee recharge, it is clear that it is likely that the groundwater interaction with ,Pinole Creek is an issue. 7-here is (,ase references and reference to the fact that issues maay not surface while the cemetery is small but the use of°the Endangered,species Act will protect these species whether they inhabit the cemeter.v site or are downstream. An -expert hydr ogeologist, one €er,sead in creek-impact(available at 1JC' Davis)will be able to look at the anticipated impacts to the creek and advise biologists to the e§ct on endangered species noted the length o f the creels.An EIR mars°t be dune. 3. TRAFFIC ISSUES a.) Our point here is that the Traffic Report is sloppy and inaccurate.The Abrams report states that; "services would have approximately 35 to 75 people in attendance,with approximately 15 to 25 cars at each service" (this is in contrast to the seating capacity proposed by the cemetery, which states it will accommodate 90), with"25% arriving in procession." The numbers assume that the number of people in a single car will range from 2.3 to 3.0. Given the 2.3 estimate and a possible attendance of 90 people, the projected number of cars traveling the roads is 39.1. See Appendix#� The report given by Abrams & Associates is weak. The methodology is not nested, nor is the length of time the traffic was studied in "March 2='. 2" it is not clear the number of hours rear~the number of days which trrzafac was ussessa dfor when the report calorie is read. Data given ky Abrams &Associates shows that traffic was measured'for one duv:March 27, 2(ff)2 for a period of only two hours (I to 3 in the afternoon). This trcVFic report was generated on a part o f the road that did NOT INCLUDE UDE the area where residents live and use their cars nor did it include the roadway from Orinda.stated in the proponents material that would be the main access. b.) Abrams stated in his testimony before the Board of Supervisors. Quote: ;`The.. CHP provides data on accidents on all of the roads in the county, and we looked at this through the county.We looked at five years of data at that time. ..There were some on Bear Creek Road,I duresrav that there were nofatalities during the period that we looked at this data.And there were also..... every one of these accidents was a single occupant vehicle, single vehicle involved in it,the majority of them at night and a lot of those are also noted as alcohol as a factor." See Appendix#____. Our comrnuni�y has been hard hit with fatal accidents, we are ver y familirar with there, av stated in the testirrotq at the planning commission neighbors have carte upon these accidents and waited .for heli to arrive. CHP data,j'c rfive.year indicates there were.f rt;al accidenst ire. 1999 and '003 on Bear geek Road andel the surroumlingo area within, two mller of the cemetery location, six in 2003 alone,,Abrams &Associates looked only at earlier data. lVhy? The above citations show that the CEQA is irreparably flawed, including conflicting water experts (which under CEQA) demand an EIR in order to consider data uncompromised by desire.Traffic studies should be done on days when there is recorded statements of increased use,particularly Sunday, during the period when the cemetery will be open and including ALL traffic,not just cars, but motorcycles, bicycles, hikers and horseback riders and should be done on the corner of the proposed cemetery entrance. It is documented(Oct.3,2000) in a letter to the Board of Supervisors titled "Program to Streamline and Improve the Mitiation to Creeks and Wetlands" that the county is aware of and supports the restoration of creeks, even publishing a Contra Costa Watershed Atlas. It is our contention, given the work in progress by the county,Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and other groups, that the proposed cemetery project is in direct contradiction to that purpose. See Appendix#06. FINALLY, should an Environmental Impact Report be generated we ask, that should it still pass, that the in-place mitigation, and the current Conditions of Approval be intact with additions such as: the cemetery access should be on Hampton Road rather than Bear Creek for safety reasons,that the cemetery be limited to 15 acres to lesson the impact, that the "private" open space be donated to the Muir Heritage Land'frust or other Land Trust to guarantee that it remains open space, that there is onsite night security and that there be no continuous night lighting that does not conform with current regulations for other properties. Appendix#01 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT(CAL.WATER CODE,DIVNION 7)EFFE.CUVE JANUARY 1,2004 §13204.Regional board meetings §13208.Executive officer conflict of interest Each regional board shall hold at least six regular (a) No regional board executive officer may snake, meetings each calendar year and such additional special participate in making,or use his or her official position to meetings or hearings as shall be called by the chairman or influence,any decision of the regional board,or shade on any two members of the regional board. behalf of the regional board,affecting any person or entity subject to waste discharge requirements under this division if tate regional board executive officer has §13205.Member compensation received, during the previous two years, 10 percent or Each member of a regional board shall receive one more of his or her income from that person or entity. hundred dollars (5100) for each day during which that member is engaged in the performance of official duties, except that no member shall be entitled to receive the one (b)"Income„”for purposes of this section, has lase same meaning as in Section 82030 of the Government Code, hundred dollars ($,100) compensation if the member otherwise receives compensation from other sources for performing those duties. The total compensation received ARTICLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING by members of each regional board shall not exceed, in TO L'O'WERS AND DUTIES OF REGIONAL any one fiscal year, the sum of thirteen thousand five BOARDS hundred dollars ($13,500). A member may decline compensation. In addition to the compensation, each §13220.Organization member shall be reimbursed for necessary traveling and Each regional board shall do all of the following: other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. (a)Establish an office. §13206.Eligibility of public officers (b) Select one of its members as chairman at the first Public officers associated with any area of government, regular meeting held each year. including planning or water, and whether elected or appointed, may be appointed to, and may serve (c) Appoint as its confidential employee, exempt from contemporaneously as members of,a regional board, civil service under Section 4 of Article Val of the California Constitution,and fix the salary of,an executive officer who shall meet technical qualifications as defined §13207.Conflict of interest by the State Water Resources Control Board. The (a) No member of a regional board shall participate in executive officer shall serve at the pleasure of the regional any board action pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with board. Section 13260) of Chapter 4, or Article 1 (commencing with Section 13300)of Chapter 5, of this division which (d) F-nzpley any other assistants which may be involves himself or h� mossy waste discharger with determined necessary to assist the executive officer. which he is connected as a director, officer or employee, or in which lie gL,% kJias a §13221.Oaths and subpoenas financial interest alis decisinn within the meaning of Section a 1 ? of the Government Code. Members of the regional board shall be empowered to administer oaths and issue subpoenas for the attendance (b)No board member shall participate in any proceeding and giving of testimony by witnesses and for the before any regional board or the state board as a production of evidence in any proceeding before the consultant or in any other capacity on behalf of any waste board in any part of the region. The provisions of Chapter discharger. 3(commencing with Section 1075)of Part I of Division 2 of this code shall apply to regional boards within their (c)Upon gWequest of any person,or on 10-,J'qgAUg1UQ own regions,where they shall have the same power as the ��own initiative,the Attorney General may file a state board within the state. complaint in the superior court for the county in which the regional board has its principal office alleging that a §13222.Regulations board member has knowingly violated this section and the Pursuant to such guidelines as the state board may facts upon which the allegation is based and asking that establish, each regional board shall adopt regulations to the member be removed from office. Further proceedings carry out its powers and duties under this division. shall be in accordance as near as may be with rules governing civil actions. If after trial the court finds that the board member has knowingly violated this section it §13223.Delegation shall pronounce judgment that the member be removed (a) Each regional board may delegate any of its powers from office. and duties vested in it by this division to its executive officer excepting only the following: (1) the promulgation of any regulation; (2) the issuance, -.17- Board Members http://www.swreb.c.�.govlrwgcb?PMemberrs.htm + �f 3tome �i1s�r�i� #� � ^!# rttas� ratter uFFRANICOCOBAY R969MAIL _ search Board M"Unos Board Int' Moon Adopted Ordon Monthly Board Report Drag ms Avaliab a Docunwats RGAWSUMMAE OrrM S l�4eons List Etnolovmmen# UR Water Education s�eeriq ea 9515 Clay 5t. Suite 1400 Oakland,CA 94612 Phone#(510)622-M Fax#(510)622-24W Small;ls'ebma � 1 of 3 4/1/04 6:42 PM Beard Members http://www.swreb.c t.gov/rwgcb2/Members.him Clifford Waldeck,of Mill Valley,currently serves as Chair of the Regional Board. He is the Board's appointee to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and also serves on the Regional Airport Planning Committee_ He was elected to the Mill Valley City Council and currently serves as Mayor. He serves on the Executive Commifte of the Marin Telecommunications Agency and is the Council liaison to the city's Community Emergency Preparedness Committee. He is the Prudent and owner of Waldecles Office Supplies in San Francisco.. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Mary Vice Chairof p of The Bof ocurrently serves s ard.She brings to an this position her expertise and experience with county goverrxnent She has been the P�ovemment relations consultant for Warren and K ' Azsociates since 19W and HMS Associates N, since 1987, representing private-sector clients before elected officials,boards,and commissions advocating-issues relating to iand use,permits,zoning,and contracts. Ms.Warren has served as vice president of the Coalition of Labor and Bsisiness for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa,Napa,and Steno,and was end official on the Board of Directors of the wast Bay Municipal Utility District, having served from 1982 to 1990. She has also been vice president of the Alameda County Medical Center Foundation Board and a board member of the 100 Club of Alameda County. Me,Warren became the first woman chair of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce from 1992 to 1994. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Immaculate Heart College and then served six years in the United States Navy, Kristen P. Dowd Addicks,of Stinson Beach,has served as a development r' officer at Audubon Canyon Ranch,a nature preserve,since 1998.In this position,she facilitates education and research programs and oversees community relations. From 1990 to 1991,she worked with the Environmental Defense Fund in promoting their projects and functions. Ms.Adi icks earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Santa Clara and a teaching credential from the University of Cambridge. {'V z; p Me.Dorren Chiu,47,of Fremont,is the Prudent of Allied Technology Group, * Inc. Allied Technology Group is a low-level radioactive waste management firm,serving the Department of Energy,the Department of Defense,and various Fortuna 500 companies, Ms.Chiu is a member of the Alameda ' Economic Development Advisory Board,the Angel Island Foundation,and the Northam California Minority Businesis opportunity Committee. She earned a ' Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin. x ~ Mrs.Josephine Do Lund of Redwood City =r� presently serves as a Board member.of the r,: Regional Board.She is an independent education consultant and served as Special Education Affairs to Assemblyman Wilt ant far William 8 x Dupizesaa in 1989. She also served as elected Trustee of the Bolmont School District from 1978 try 19M,a director of the Experience Corps and is tpa rnomber of the'Wine institute Research and �lr, us Education Committee,She is a founding member of the San Mateo Central County Communities Coalition. Puts.DeLuca earned a Bachelor's degree in English literature from Lone Mountain College in 11959 and her general elementary credential in 1361 and served as a teacher in the San Francisco and San Mateo School Districts. Her graduate studies were undertaken at Stanford University. .: Shalom Elishu,73,of Lafayette, is the principal of SE Consulting,a r experience as engineering gconsulting rojectma ga d r technical resource manageronon lears ige 2of3 Burd Members http://www.swreb.ca.gov/nvgcb2fMembers.htm geotechnical and civil engineering projects. Mr. Eiishu`s expertise includes the design of levees,dams, and other water retaining structures. He is the former vice president of the Engeo Inc.,an engineering corporation that provides a full spectrum of geotechnical and environmental services from planning through the design and construction phases. During his tenure with Engeo Inc., Mr. Eliahu designed levees,canals,water supply systems,and flood control for the Dead Sea Works project in Israel,as well as residential pians for the communities of Canyon Lakes, Blackhawk and West Pittsburg. He earned a Master of Science degree from the University of California, Berkeley. m y Mr,John Muller of Half Moon Bay currently serves as Board member of the Regional Board,Mr.Muller is the owner and operator of Daylight Numery i since 1991. He was the w-owner of the nursery from 1970 to 1991.A r <, Republican,Mr.Muller is a past director of the National PromoFlor Council,a x< member of the Agricultural Technical Advisory ConvTOme for Fruits and Vegetables,and a director of the California Agricultural Education and Foundation. Mr.Muller is a former member of the Secretary of Agriculture's y Special Committee to Streamline Management of the united States x Department of Agriculture and former chairman and member of the Society of American Florists Government Relations Committee.He is a past president of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau 1955-86)and continues to serve on its Board of Directors. A veteran of the United States Navy,Mr.Muller is a ¢. graduate of the California Agricultural Leadership Program and a past president of the program's Alumni Association. John Reininga,65,of San Francisco,is the founder and President of Reininga Corporation,a San Fran dsco-based real estate develo went company.He is an active participant in the shopping center industry.Mr. Reinings is the past Chairman of the International Council of Shopping Centers,the past President and current member of the Board of Directors of the California Business Properties Association,and an elected member of Lambda Alpha,an honorary land economics society. He is also a member of the Sonoma County Alliance and California Trout,as well as the Sonoma Land Trust.Mr.Reininga earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Colorado,and a Master of Business Administration degree from Stanford University. Wiliam Schumacher,63,of Daly City,is an attorney in San Mateo County. He is a former member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors,having served from 1981 to 1993. Mr.Schumacher is the Me or and City Councilman of Daly City. He served as the chairman of the Nonni San Mateo County A Sanitation District and is a former member of the Peninsula Water Agency, Mr.Schumacher is a former police officer and Deputy District Attorney in San Mateo County,as well as having served in the United States Army- He also served as chairman and trustee of the Jefferson School Distict and was the coordinator of the police salience program with the College of San Malmo, {0 f3' k to Tod of_Par�e (c)2003 State of CaHfomia Condftm of Use Privacy Nky 3 of-3 4/I/014 6:42 PM EINGEO I Full Service Consulting Engineers http://www.engeo.com/history.asp MIR �IN t x ENGEO Incorporated is a team of geotechnical engineers engineeringu � r : geologists environmental Specialists and c construction inspectors with offices in Sang' !� N Ramon, f X !San Jose Tracy Vacaville Vallejo d Roseville and San Francisco California. ENGEO delivers geotechnical and environmental consulting with unsurpassed ' quality and integrity. We are dedicated to our clients and believe in building solid * v . relationships based on a clear understanding of their needs. Since 1971, our staff has provided a full spectrum of geotechnical, geologic, environmental and inspection and testing services from planning through the design andconstruction phases. Our 1 experience and commitment brie g innovation, expertise, service and value to our clients' projects. ENGEO serves a wide market spectrum with � q a diverse mix of clients including commercial, Industrial and residential developers, public agencies and financial Institutions. We µ:pi provide planning, study and analysis, then engineer cost-effective site solutions and mitigation plans. ENGEO also provides the quality control needed during the crucial construction phase to verify the effective Implementation of the project's geotechnical and environmental plans. I of 1 411104 6:45 PM Appendix#42 ti yj. F W .......:. :•':::::::is;:i•i;•::=::;::.•:::.....::y::.;.F .....:.::::...;:::::::.�:.;;v.:. y,y::..:Ly ..:.::,.:. ....:.:is;,•.:i:is° _.__ ... _...._. . _ __ I".:'�:-:-: ': - ......,.. ::�:�:':`::: ., - ...... , , . , ! - �- --" '"'*......* " '""'' """",-...... 1*1111*111* .....1-1-1- . '.:-1--l-'.......... ... i-`,�� "�.i*.."", .."'... :,':-',-'-",--,-'.?':�:�:; ....:': :;::� �l.'�.�.�ll.�,�,�..�,-�.......�...,..,.,......"...�.......-..,-...-.....� ' :., �:� .R.-.-- -- ."I I :: ,�"�' ',....---. .-- I ..::. .. X.:.' , :::: -- :.:-. ' - . , -- -:':�- ...........*—...—'' : .. `:*: :� ��i��i;i��:�i��i���:*" , �����������������:�i����i�����ii��i��i :i*—ii. .. .: .�' ,:��i���i;;�i�����iii��������iiii������ li�i�i� :.i::,.::....:-,�* � .�',,'::::;:::: � ..-I.... a;>:. ::;;t'1. - .: _:.:';;•:;::•;;.:i;•:;::o-;::;::i• i'<'j`.P:Y:'<'f<:iito-'': ':..::::::;;<:::iC,::;::,:::.'>::..:.::':;<:::.:::.:::;::::>;::;;::::4;::....'::I:::;a:: :r.:;::::;•:i :g:•:::::.:;a::.::C`;',.>..;.';:..:.:.., :.. .i ::;:::i>::>::: :f>:; ;::ii:::::i5:::;::<:>^; 2<d;i•i�i;":%i:;:;;:::: l.isa;':i::i:;i::pis'2;v,.;>isk:::::;;:;;;:;i::g;::ii.:;i:;;;::;;:•'t;:;i::;:;•ri:;;i:::%2:;;::::::::;;::::::is::::>:_:;;.: ::: :.. .:'.' :::>ii :.:- '; '- :'..::<ii`< iii:;::::>3> i3>i's ;' 'E: " i�'l� � rht� Ptt :>:. the # [t p�ia'it' tk1; M.1111-1-11.1 . u � '. c . :,. .....:.....:::::.::::.:.:::.:.:.;:::.. : ;.<;;. . ►....................................... ...::......::.::::::.........::'; ...............................................:...::.:..:::..... .......................... 0.... .. i:i k � � 1 :XX # Irrer __ c 1 _ � M�M!�;..—''—'.'�;]...—.;,�'..;.::i *. d f � � ; III # ` .:.... . : .:.:...::::. .:::;:.:>:::...:.:.::::::.::::..::::.::.::.::..:::...:<:::.::..::.. .:::::::.. , �41 .......... ............ ..:..:.:..::::.:::.:::.::.::::::::::: .:............:.:.::::::::::::.:::::::::. :::::::- '+gyp>:;+> :.�:..:; :: >:>.:::. �.; .:. >: .::: :.;:;:>::::> :>:�:>: I iiii Cemetzrit;s and Animal Burials http://wv�,w.exter sionatmn,edtildistribution/nattir-ilresotirces/comix-)n.,. Groundwater Contamination Cemeteries and Animal Burials Contamination Evidence: • Detection of high bacteria levels in nearby well water tests Causes: • High water table Prevention: • Avoid high water tables for burial sites • Use watertight caskets in cemeteries with high water tables Ur drag W*"a W*WW INA" i�ar a� s +�� Contaminants: • Bacteria, viruses _Qontents Next: Atmosheric Pollutants H 1 2prch 1 Prrrduct Catal2g t tiews 1 tt2r s o 1 Online_ hopping ebgut g ctensjon l C2unty Offices t eprLn rs Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Lease contact the University of Minnesota Extension Service Distribution Center at (800)876-W536, The university of Minnesota Extension Service is cornmitted to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without. regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age,marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 2 of 2 4/1(04 12.:52 PM Construction Excavation http l/www.extension.0 n.edu/distiibutionln-ititraire urce,-/cco pon... F0-058iC Reviewed 1996 Igrder Groundwater Contamination Construction Excavation Contamination Evidence: • Spills • Changes in color, taste, odor, turbidity of water in nearby wells Causes: • Fuel, chemical spills • Road dust control runoff • Excessive and/or improper use of chemicals Prevention: • Skill containment and cleanup procedures • Follow recommended practices for safe use of fuels and outer hazardous substances wale aw •YVst� � @ ; a +s I Contaminants: • Herbicides • Wash water Oil/gas spillage • Calcium chloride Contents Next: Cemeteries and AniMW ljurials 1 of 2 411/04 12.51 R Natural Substances http://www.extension-timn.edrildistributionlrtattirilresotircesfcompc)n... UMWAISITTV ffir N1t T Extamion Y ' FO-05866 Reviewed 1996 j Order Groundwater Contamination Natural Substances Contamination Evidence • Bad taste or odor in well water • Stains on water fixtures • Detection in well water tests Causes • Natural origin Prevention • avoid areas where natural groundwater problems exist, if feasible • C.,7se water treatment devices • Change to public water supply, if feasible WA ta'�t Contaminants: • Sulfur • Salt • Iran • Manganese • Barium • Radon • Others c ntents .Next: References C urti \Env! on int Effign ly\-aL \fiar-d n\ LAi0 I of 2 411104 12:53 PM Appendix#04 Appendix#04 April 2004 To Whom It May Concern Wile my main area of expertise is fisheries biology, we in the field, have to understand the basics of hydrology, so l can say a little about the subject. I can not, however, make specific estimates of flow changes that would occur in the creek due to the project. I can speak to the subject of general effects that would be expected from such a project. The interactions between creeks and groundwater have been studied quite extensively in recent years (i can help you find some references if needed). New technological advances have helped hydrologists to actually measure the amount of interaction between creeks or rivers and groundwater. It is well documented that a significant amount of water flows back and forth between the two, in both directions. groundwater, in fact, in the dry months is the main source of water for creeks such as Pinole that have no snowmelt groundwater levels need to stay high enough so that they can interact with (contribute water to) the stream channel. In a smaller watershed like Pinole, it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows. It is up to the hydrologists to determine ghat the extent of the impact will be. As biologists, we could then help determine what that will mean to fish and other species in the creek. To me, the biggest issue is how much water will be pumped .and how much of an effect will it have on groundwater levels (ie. will the levels get too low to contribute water to the creek in the dry season?). There are plenty of examples of overdrafting of groundwater supplies causing significant impacts. One of the most striking examples is the Salinas Diver near Monterey which goes dry much sooner and longer than it dict historically. Data has shown that there are very few direct diversions from the river and the extended drying up of the river is almost exclusively the result of depletion of groundwater in the area. Another extreme example is the entire city of Alviso in the South Bay which l believe has sunk about 10 feet in elevation due to depletion of aquifers. While problems of this scale might not be expected for Pinole geek, similar problems may develop. Particularly, we might see the creek with reduced flows and may see it go dry earlier or longer than usual. This could present significant problems for steelhead and red-legged frogs which have been documented in the watershed. Rainbow trout and steelhead juveniles that lure year-round in the creek are particularly dependent on the cool water temperatures in the summer in a spring-feel creek like Pinole. I think that the biggest problem is that the county ward probably doesn't understand the impacts that groundwater deficits can have on a creek.. In addition, the monitoring they proposed will not likely show impacts for the first few years because the cemetery project will be small. As the project grows. however, the problems will be exacerbated and by then it will be too late because the company will claim hardships if the water is turned off. I think the best way to go From Dere would be to use the Endangered Species Act as it was intended, to protect these species. But in order to do that, you will need to have an expert in hydrology look at the anticipated impacts to the creek. Then as biologists, we can make the proper arguments for how those changes will effect endangered species, dope this helps. Bert Mulchaey Pinole Resident AppgndLx#03 From a concerned citizen; The San Francisco garter snake that lives across the bay, mostly near the Airport, is endangered precisely because it was geographically isolated on the 5F peninsula long enough to develop an individual species genotype (i.e., evolve into a subspecies). Similarly, the Alameda whipsnake has undergone similar evolution within the East Bay scrub habitats, differentiating it from the more southern chaparral snake that has a larger range. 1t is also a subspecies. There are no San Francisco garter snakes across the Golden Cate in Marin, and there are no Alameda whipsnakes across the Carquinez Straits in Solano County, although there are chaparral snakes both north and south. To my knowledge, there is no genetic work to show that the Alameda whipsnake is different in Pinole Valley, which may be the farthest extent of its range, than it is south of Hwy 580 where it visually may begin to show intergrades (results of interbreeding) with the chaparral snake. There is some anecdotal information from experts that the Pinole Valley whipsnakes are more brightly colored (i.e., "more coral than orange") than other Alameda whipsnakes, but that interesting observation has not yet, to my knowledge, been investigated through genetic studies. However, there is little doubt that such populations, near an isolated limit of the species ranee are valuable to the total gene pool (you might liken there to the "deep end" of the gene pool because they appear to be the most differentiated). I mention the example of the whipsnake because the redlegged frog population in Pinole Valley is novo also isolated. Whether it represents an important genetic component is less likely than the whipsnake, but it is a distinct population nevertheless. As a federally listed species, all of the overall population segments are important to species' recoveries in the wild. Roger Hartwell Apr 02 04 01 : 25p Watershed HQ 9252546320 p• 2 ::.•:. gtotrxt3�tut+er LLtMriaxtrrs�bN�suaaeve'ta;er•;��mss Sustainable groundwater Management: Concepts and Tools Characterization of Groundwater Systems key concepts and frequent misconceptions Authors(GW+MATE Core Group) Stephen Fostetf Albert TnirhoP Karin Kemper Hector Gardutio Marcella Nonni ( Plead author Zmain supporting alttl;ot) How rdo aquifers differ from one another? An aquifer is a geological formation capable of yielding useful groundwater supplies to wells and springs. All aquifers have two fundamental characteristi= a capacity for groundwater storage and a capacity for groundwater flow.But different geological formations vary widely in the degree to which they exhibit these properties(Figure l) and their areal extent can vary with geological structure from a Few ktn'`to many thousands of kral. * The most significant elements of hydrogeological diversity(Figure l)are: • major variarion of.aquifer unit storage capacity (storativity), between unconsolidated granular sediments and highly-consolidarcd fractured rocks w wide variation in aquifer saturated thickness between different depositional types, resulting in a wide range of groundwater flow po=dzl(trans tnissivity). Figure I* Summary of key properties of the most widely-occurring aquifer types f €tEGiC3NAi.__.. i GROUNDWATER STORAGE GROUNDWATER FLOW _.__...Small medium _._._..__...._........_large ___...... very large ------------------ minor tjr s tx ib ,i+IE�+'jlsti�; moderate r. t tlai�y liypl&:'r�,':lir3°'f major J i'✓i'crdsrss[Giy�n;UrnK `t Jttrmttpnrttl .'I»ter-rl+lnnnt»s�.__�...+ fnxiolidaud ��A�ajar.41&rvial � Bndcmtrnt C Gintrrtti7n' vrrllr J.-ill 1 Sewlimen:.rro Apifm frarm�ttianr j dcep!•vwnthered coni Hr4arone and- uncon. i x d. i windstoamor uncnnsrtlieittwxl igneoust skeletal detritus f sediment%1pthbla, ( hrncstooes with wd'smcna fgra4d" mctnmorphic rockv often unty ltwsefyravrla,sands). i c snsolidation and 1 san[Le,ziltv),ar ily = Producing a thin j s=eated;fringing ; snmcrimes with i Cr;eluting inctmasiris tYfensive and of j l ts..ic of lvw w:udines or iA vnds 'Vohuln'sc lavasttuf s virEt depihlal x iarge thickness perntcabilim.mry i .and lacxesntinc cktys: I variable.but cap. i v Yctssive Inw• 1 'ntoav ale extension ktr';thick•aquifers� � yieldiogugnircr ( i bot cati'be.ltick. t "' l Apr 02 04 01 : 25p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p• 3 :.._ world.bairik ggSS}} , .. �. ON giarwater partnaro:tigr a;,*aoi�ww;a¢�gsssara How does rgrt unclwater flow 0 The vast storage of many groundwater sy sterns(much larger than chat of the biggest man-;Wade reser- voirs) is their most distinctive characteristic. In consequence most groundwater is in continuous slow movement(figure 2)from areas of narural aquifer recharge(fram rainfall excess to dant requircrnents) to areas of aquifer discharge(as springs and seepages to ware rcourses,wetlands and coastal zones). i�' AMB .10- `groundwaicr Mormally flows In tirldetgruund rivers' t.ltLi't"Y l this h,the eviceptilinaf care, restricted to certain limestones and other rocks wirh.rolurinz caverns,and flow generrtlly takes place in it myriad of`interronneated pores or frarture * Aquifer storage transforms highly variable natural recharge regiones into more stable natural discharge reginies,It also results in groundwater residence times that are usually counted in decades or centuries (Figure 2) and sometimes even in millennia, with large volumes of so-called 'fossil groundwater' (a relic of past episodes of different c€{snare)still being held in storage. * Where aquifers dip beneath much less permeable strata, their groundwater becomes confined (to varying degrees) by overlying layers. This .results in a corresponding degree of isolation from the immediately overlying land surface, but not (roan the groundwater system as a whole. Drawdown induced by Bumping from the confined section of an aquifer is often rapidly propagared to the unconfined section. In various hyerogeological settings, shallow unconfined and deep confined aquifer layers can be superimposed (figure 2)with leakage downwards and upwards between layers according to local conditions. —MYTH �k, 'icy drilling wei?s duper new grounc:tvaster resources crap be tapped' ;;R-lL(yY"�� do:per Ireshauaater forniwielns ntay be en,ounrered,but abstracting their grorsndwater more often resides in induced n ,. leakage frusta overlybtg axjuiferr than interception of major independent groundwarer o,w at depth Figure 2: Typical groundwater flow regime and residence times of major aquifers under semi-arid climatic regimes aquifer reoharge area minor parenniaal - - groundwalee table Ira discharga area upper aquifer layer i :ard agwt V (low permeability strata{ lPI i- ... (virtually impermeable strata) UNCONNNED c " SE CkFI flVfiNED, ._.... M3U_eN IA ----•.p.... haU;PEn anyw+ w++ to .moi,. `s• rrglz'j{ c { rx 2 Apr 02 04 01t25p Watershed HQ 92525489207 p. 4 r. d bank .. Ji46r1 gs n mom grOhrti W:tt�OK p�YtaaM'�Efip�,9Ca�ry±YRt[ir+l+3r'�:lM What is t.ae relationship betr-jeer S,.rouradiwater and surface at ir? 0 Diagnosing the relationship of surEace water to an underlying aquifer is an important component of groundwater system characterization.It is important to distinguish between: • streams and rivers on which an aquifer is dependent as a sign if)can c source of its overall recharge • rivers that in turn depend significantly on aquifer discharge to sustain their dry-wearher flow. The three most common relationships are presented in Figure 3, although it should be noted thar in some cases rivers may fluctuate seasonally between two of the conditions depicted. Figure 3: Spectrum of possible relationships between surface watercourses and underlying groundwater systems 1v 3t`:FF'A6r..t=1,01'+,i LOSING,STREAM l.U::�If lG{,t�:Ft.t7�;`fY1 515?rA:vi yir.i.'3#N Ll if-FFI."UEM1).?,V4CAM Nyhy is the estiniatiotl of equitcrr replenishrrsent IMP*rtant? Contemporary aquifer recharge rates are a fundamental consideration in the sustainability of ground- water resource development. Furthermore, understanding aquifer recharge mechanisms and their hokagrs with land-use is essential for integrated water resources management, The quantification of natural recharge, however, is subject to significant methodological difficulties, data deficiencies and resultant uncertainties because of: • wide spatial and temporal variability of rainfall and runoff events • widespread lateral variation in soil profiles and hydrogeolog,ical conditions. deveaheless,for most practical purposes it is sufficient to make approxirnare estimates,and rehire these subsequently through monitoring and analysis of aquifer response to abwaction over the medium term. 3f%lt1 is `aver�gje rates of aguifor roctrarge are conertant` J7L 3L17'Y :'. m rbir can be false and lrael to<rrirlw double rerource accounrrttg in more and Tgjon.--recharge rates timy rvith riuerj1ow&version or crintr*4 nzaafificativrtr to nufae zivvr i»zparivn,changer in natured netation or errsp t pe in recharge arra:, reduction in?tatage from urban water-supply networks and in-situwartervater perrcnlrttion,lowering of rlt'atrr trrhle,etc. A number of generic observations can be made on aquifer recharge processes: s areas of increasing aridity will Leave a mt:clz lower rate and frequency of downward flux to the water- table, with direct rainfall recharge generally becoming progressively less significant than indirect recharge from surface runoff and incidental artificial recharge arising from human activity • esrimates of the direct rainfall recharge cornponcric are almost always more reliable than, those for the indirect component from runoff recharge. 3 Apr 02 04 01 : 25p Watershed HQ 5252548020 py5 r f1d nk 04 1t1tV( 1 � lir" � global.aular pnrir++ar*thi s uu+eac,n;a;rrtpr+r errrm �i c«un 1�he dsafe yields of an aquifer be defined? e All groundwater flow must be discharging somewhere, and abstraction will reduce these discharges. But the source of groundwater pumped can be complex (Figure 4). So-called 'safe yield' is clearly bounded by the current long-term average rate of aquifer recharge,alrhoug h should.also consider: • value judgements about the importance of maintaining(at least a proportion of)some of the natural discharges from the aquifer system to consideration of consumptive use and catchment export,as opposed to local tion-consumptive uses which result in the local generation of an effluent. 1� tfie average rats o9 aquifer recharge can be tauten as its safe yield' this 'rather perrivent fantarry'does not consider the need to maintdin aquifer direbarge•or:eater lrslet an r6tc interest.o f z thrr uxtter niers,aquatirlterrestrial ecosystems an4or preventing coastal saline intsr,,sion,anel the expression .`safe yield'is ofien interpreted fhr ton simplistically Nevertheless maximum tolerable rates of abstraction need to be defined,and thus resource evaluation must distinguish between: • discharge to freshwater systetns required to sustain downstream water-supply or river ecosystems • discharge via natural vegetation,including;that sustaining ecologically attdlor economically valuable fresh wau„r werlands and brackish lagoons • discharge to saline areas, including coastal waters, salt lakes and pans and make allowances for those Barts of these discharges which need to be conserved. Figure 4: Conceptual effects of abstraction on the groundwater resource balance a R. c« ti O $ y rift#dt. TtAeLE: UNiUSTAINABLE CONDITIONIS OfIC)UNDWATER PUNKPING GROUNDWATER PUMPING In the tori}term A=D, o is eclovaient to reduction fn Q+is greater than A+plus D—«(which reaucas to 0) arra 5 is constant D and S,plus increase in n and S--decreases continuously When can an aquifer said to be 'overexploited'? rfi The term 'aquifer overexp]Oita ria n' is an emotive expression not capable of rigorous scientific definition. But it is a term.which water resource managers would be wise not to abandon completely, since it has clear register at public and political level, Some regard an aquifer is [icing overexploited .when its groundwater levels show evidence of`continuous long-term' decline. 4 Rpr 02 04 01 : 26p Watershed HQ 9252546320 P• 6 + MET';ill , # .. ...._.u_ �l►t�rld bank 11 il�ltl i Siaks ver p rertn r.>i�i+ nasrucEat pr r _-rti9Y` 'tl ^1 'falling Proundwater levels allinnys imply aquifer overexploRption` 15[tG1.7.Y all groundwater development involves drdwdoum and this process can have ra time-lag o,f many years before a new equilibrium is established in large aefuifers Qfleto transmissivity1storativity rratirr—his could he mistaken fur contimuous64eclining groundwarrr levelr its some cases 1 S Others cake it to:Wean that the long-term average rate of groundwater recharge is less than ahsrmction. Even this definition may not be workable because of-, • the problem of specifying over what period and which, area the groundwater balance should be evaluated,especially in more arid climates where major recharge episodes occur once in decades and pumping effects may also be very unevenly distributed • -note genera) uncertainty about aquifer recharge mechanisms and rates, as a result of hydro eo- logical complexity and inadcquare field data • cbe fact that major temporal variation in aquifer rechargee components can occur, such as those associated with lowering water-table,long-term climatic trends and human activities. 9 In practice, when speaking of aquifer overexpoiration we are invariably much more concerned about _ the consequences of intensive groundwater abstraction (f=igure 4)than in its absolute level.Thus the most appropriate definition is probably an economic one. rhat the 'overall cost of the negative impacts of groundwater exploitation exceed the net benefits of groundwater use',but of course these impacts can be equally difficult to predict and to cost, 0 It is important to stress, in this context, that some of these consequences can arise well before the groundwater abstraction rate exceeds long-term average recharge. Thus the ~,way in which a given situation is interpreted will vary tivich the type of aquifer system involved—that is with volume of exploitable storage and susceptibility to irreversible side-effects during short-term overdraft. s Amongst the most critical of potential impacts from intensive aquifer development (.figure 5) is groundwater salinixation. This will be terminal for both potable water-supply and agricultural irrigation uses, However,, it is important to diagnose the cause of groundwater saliniLation since it can be caused by various mechanisms(.Figure 6),only some of which are aquifer pumping related. Figure 5s Consequences of excessive groundwater abstraction {,...._..___....__.._.,__....._._......._.... ..._ y r REVERSIBLE INTERFERENCE IRREVERSIBLE DEGRADATION • pumping iifalcosts increase • phreatophytic vegetation stress + saline water intnssion • borehole yield redt:ction (both nacua:wl and agricultural) • ingress of polluted water 4 • aquifer compacvpn and (from perched aquifer or river) [ springflowtbaseflow reduction. transmissrvity reduction • land subsidence and relared impacts(aclilitard compacrioau) _......_,.._..... _.._.......__. ___,__.......__, �...... .___._.__....__,._.._..._....____.__..�._,___._....,..__._____..__.,......... 5 Apr 02 04 01 : 27p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 7 _._ .. _._ __ ........ ._ .......... .� world.bank. iii` ,#a� 5tifarhas srzalmr tsarEtsgr$hd;s tt$aacie:at til'ilrft�#r%f `�! Figure 6: The possible origins of groundwater salinity and mechanisms of aquifer salinization at W-tr. FCRM4TION WATER aagaat.wr and .Sr+;tw:a 5'Mreex .: RtsmRsc ARIn xaNc FNRrNY/C YVAt+aMT1aN! 'a:3+A+g ham Yw SIrA•WXf'EP MTPUSKIN v tpdnie mne CURRENT IPPI3AT@tJ $AlT FRAC9rtXlAiION S L FAAC51aNAYittN nsFyr wgar teak dun b aaecoaawa Inrxt+auA try7rraaa 5ra0b+n due;a<xcanal•s kv burr!na fdpmk:MnaGr+gaxtedMn:,ge p,anpk plaora±Imex layaina acauntj l/ T aadeae xner �t VxTYYt'`!'6151.&�w � INFLB W ar SAL NE• '" I I �•} MUNa1YATE11 �~♦ 'r~ ... + fmm ngm>ent xrt-gtlasa .atawihl reav!txxrae,c only triose marked with an asterisk are iNYPUEwN Or rAceC- + ( PotantJARY refined to groundwater abs'.radlan 3AUr.'E CROUN17WATUR I::;:.:,:Y brnohish And Saline wate, p .na'.randaptt, . aaa ro•aaasa3ra g+xmm�q �(Meh water 0 Groundwater is never a strictly non-renewable resource,but nor is it twerywhere Fuller renewable in the risme-frame of current development.There are thus some circumstances where exploitation on non- renewable groundwater resources(mining of groundwater reserves)may be considered(or has occurred unexpectedly;and requires systematic evaluation. Further Reading Bredehoeft,J.D. 1997 Safe i ielzi and the Water Budget Myth. Ground Water 35: 929. Custodio, E. 2000 The Complex Concept of Gverexploited Aquifers Papeles Proyecto Aguas Subterraneat Serie A:2 Fundacion Marcelino Borin: Santander,Spain. Faster,S„:hiltan,J.,1Qaench,M,cardy,F.and Schiffler,M.2000 Groundwater in Rural Development:pacing the Cbrrflenger of Suprp6,and Rczoterce Sustainabilht y,World Bank Technical 17aper 463:Washington D.C.,USA, Foster, S., Lawrence,A.and Morris, B. 1998 Groundwater in Urban Development.-Assessing Man a emenr Aleerl and formulating P(dhy Strategies.Wirrld Bank Technical Paper 390:Washington D.C,, USA. Simmers,T., Hendriks,). M. H.,Krusernan,G. P and Rushton,K. R. 1997 Reebmge ofPbre atirAquifers in Sensi-Aridzlquiferr. TAH international Contributions to Hydrogeology 19. I Publication Arrangements i I I'lie GW-1vIATE Briefing Nott Serres has been du3igned by Words and Publications,Oxford,UK,and published by 1 the World flank,Wishingron D.C:.,USA.It is ilso available in electronic form an the World Bank warer resources f website(m NvvA:-warldbanl.o4gwrnatc)and the Global Dater Paxwcrship website(iwcsa:gwpfbn.lm.org). { 'I"hc fnxlinFa,inrcrprmtiana,nn<i for+duaiaas rxirrrstcvi in-oris(attar art cntrrrir thoae aFnc�aut.+rora and shndd ear br nrtr'tbNrcd in any manner rn the , [ Wnrtd rVank,n,iu atTil iatcvl nraantxatinna,nr rcr nrtmhva ai ire Itanrd ar F:accurivc F)ircctara nr thr ro;:ntriar the)•roprtscyt. i Funding Support i � GW•IvtATE(Ground;v:tter Management Advisory Team) i bn r� i is a component ofthe Dank-Netherlands War€r Partnership Program (BN%VPP)using rrust Funds morn the Dutch and British governrr imm 6 Apr 02 04 01 : 27p Watershed HQ 8252548320 P• 8 water facts No.N Groundwater Management 'inCalifornia-- Six Methods Under Current Law Groundwater and surface water are not treated alike 'i• Overlying Property Rights under California law.The permit application process {overlying property rights allow anyone in California fora ro rutin surface water in California is con- to build a well and extract their correlative share of rained.in the C�zlzj"�rnia LY/at�r Grade. By contrast, rights ' groundwater,—which isnot quantified unless tlxe groundwater basin has been adjudicated. Historically to use groundwater.have evolved through a series of landowners used groundwater to develop a local court decisions dating back to the late 1800s. economy.As the economy grew, the demand for water increased. To meet this increasing water de- Although surface water and groundwater suppies have mand, water projects were built to provide more been regarded as separate water resources in California, surface water.Although groundwater management they are the same resource—water. may not be closely coordinated under this method; some consider this a form of management. In some pasts of California the relationship between 2. overlying landowners that extract groundwater and �. Statutory Authority There are 22 kinds of districts or local agencies with local water management agencies is not clear. specific statutory provisions to manage surface water This situation has complicated relationships betweert identified in the California Water Code. Sorne of landowners who use groundwater, and local waterthese agencies have statutory authority to exercise r some forces of groundwater management. Some agencies and districts which import surface water agencies have dans so;others have not. This Wavr Reran describes the six methods of managing 3. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins groundwater used in California. The methods are Some California groundwater basins have been listedd in the chronological order in which they were adjudicated.After a lawsuit is initiated to adjudicate a developed, groundwater basin, the court decides the groundwa� ter rights of all the overhers and appropriators, The court decides who the extractors are,how much groundwater those well owners can extract, and who the Watermaster will be. T he Waterrnaster ensures that the basin is managed according to the court's decree and reports periodically to the court. There W August 2000 Apr 02 04 01 : 28p Watershed HCS 92525483201 p. 9 E are 18 adjudicated groundwater basins in Califor- 1 Shasta,Ventura and Yolo Counties have adopted nia. For a description of adjudicated groundwater ordinances.Other counties are considering ordinances. basins see Water Facts No. 3 '.`Adjudicated Ground- However,the full nature and extent of the power of ' water Basins in California." cities and counties to regulate groundwater remains uncertain. 4. Groundwater Management Districts For More Information orAgencies ` For more details about groundwater law,refer to doer In some parts of California,special legislation has been I Ca6fomia'Water Code or DWR Bulleain 118.-CCaOrnia enacted to form groundwater management districts or Groundwater: You may also want to contact your local agencies. This legislation allows these districts to adopt water agency or contact an attorney who specializes in ordinances to limit or regulate groundwater extraction. water law.See DWR's Web page at There are nine groundwater management districts in wwwdpla.,2ter.ca.gov/r- z bintsupply/gw/n=mgement/ California,and they have had varying degrees of success at hghnain.pl,or contact any of the following- managing groundwater.The statutory authority of three other water districts has been modified to grant them Division of Planning and Local Assistance powers similar to legislative groundwater management Headquarters agencies. For a description of groundwater management 1020 Ninth Street districts or agenciesseeWater Fac&No.4"Gmuudwater Sacramento, CA 95814 Management DirtriaxsorAgencies in California. Carl Hauge,e-mail: chauge@water.ca.gov Telephone: 9161327-8861 5. Groundwater Management Plan (AS 3034 Plan) Northern District Section 10750 etseq.,of thel forma Water Code 2440 Main Street (AB 3030, 1992)provides arAternatic procedure:for an Red Bluff, CA 960813-2398 misting local agency to develop a groundwater manage- Toccoy Dudley, e-mail:rdudley@water.ca.gov went plan. 'leis section of the Water Code provides such Telephone: 5301529-7383 an agency with the powers of water replenishment district. This allows the agency to raise revenue to pay for Central District Facilities to manage the groundwater basin(extraction, 3251 S Street recharge,conveyance,quality). About 160 agencies have Sacramento,CA 95816-7017 adopted AB 3030 groundwater management plans. Bob Niblack, e-mail: bniblack@water.ca.gov Telephone: 916/227-7601 5. City and County Ordinances California courts have upheld the right of cities and San Joaquin.Disi.Tir..t counties to regulate groundwater under their police 3374 East Shields Avenue powers.In.Bak vvin v Tehama County(1984),the Fresno,CA 93726-6990 Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the ordinance Al Steele,e-mail:asteele@warer.ca.gov was pre-empted by State law.The court reasoned that Telephone: 9161445-5100 State law does not occupy the field of groundwater management acrid does not prevent cities and counties Sou-tltent District from adapting ordinances to manage groundwater.The 770 Fairmont Avenue California Supreme Court declined to review the Court Glendale, CA 91203-1035 of Appeal's Teha rm decision.The Tehama County Bob Pierorti, e-mail: pierotti@watenca.gov ordinance remains in effect.Burne,Glenn,Imperial, Telephone: 818/5434646 Irnyo.Kern,Lake,Napa,San Diego,San Joaquin, � 5tato of Cztttornia Z The Reyaurcm Af.2ncy " Dopartmamt of Water Resources Rpr 02 04 01 :2$p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 10 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECI... Page 1 of� MITIGATION FOR.IMPACTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES— FROM PECIESFROM POTENTIAL,FLOW DEPLETION IN THE LOWER.PLATTE RIVER, NEBRASKA Gregory L.Howick David H.Stous Fired C.Pinkney Burns&McDonnell,Inc. Kansas City,Mil Kevin Tobin Metropolitan Utilities District Omaha,RE ABSTRACT The Metropolitan Utilities District(District)has proposed to construct,in the alluvial aquifer of the Platte River,west of On aha,Nebraska,a drinking water supply well field with an annual average capacity of 56,000 acre-feet.operation of the well field will induce infiltration into the alluvial aquifer and thereby reduce the flow in the Platte River.The amounts of infiltration and flow reduction will vary seasonally as demand for water varies from low in the winter to high in the summer. Transient groundwater modeling predicted an average annual depletion from the Platte River of 40,700 acre-feet. _ i i The affected portion of the Platte River contains the federally-listed endangered pallid sturgeon and the sturgeon chub-a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),in previous opinions, as stated that any further depletion of flow in the Platte River during the critical period of February through July is a,jeopardy to the continued existence of these two fish species.The groundwater model predicted the Platte gest well field would cause j an average depletion during this period of 18,560 acre-feet.Nebraska water rights lags prevent the District from replacing ' this flow b, purchasing existing water rights.Instead,the District negotiated with the USFWS to pay a one time depletion fee of$54.00 per acre-foot.This fee would be used by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to restore a backwater habitat along the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte River.The resulting improvement in the biological productivity of the Missouri Diver is intended to compensate for the Mass of habitat for pallid sturgeon and sturgeon chub in the Platte River.This method of mitigation is unprecedented for the lower Platte River and may serve as a basis for establishing USFWS policy regarding future flow depletions in this river. http://w-wNv.naep.org/ARCHIVES/1999/Howic'k.html 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01 : 29p Watershed HQ 9252546320 p. 11 Endangered Species page 1 of 5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ,. BACK 7G SRLAMA.NDER DOCUtb1EHT Endangered Species: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Letter September 5, 2000 Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1445 Ross Avenue, Ste, 1200 Dallas, Texas 752032-2733 Colonel Gordon M. Wells, Fort Worth District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 75102-0300 Dear Mr. Cooke and Colonel Wells: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requests your assistance to prevent the extinction of the Barton Springs salamander(Eurycea sosorum), a federally listed endangered species. The purpose of this letter is to raise the level of awareness of the current conservation status of this salamander. We believe that current and future threats to the water quality at Barton Springs may be jeopardizing the continued existence of the salamander. This letter is addressed to Federal agencies responsible for implementation of the Clean Water Act and is also being provided to ether Federal ageneses whose programs or actions could have a positive or negative influence on Barton Springs salamander conservation. Federal regulations (50 CFR 402.02) implementing the Endangered Species Act define the term "jeopardize the continued existence of"to mean: "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." Based on our current review of the water quality data from surface waters, groundwater, sediments, and Barton Springs, we believe that any action that further degrades water quality in this watershed may significantly affect the survival of the salamander. Serious attention and significant resources need to be directed to this watershed to ensure its protection and preservation. http://www.re-,aor_line.corn/docs/endangered_itr.htm.l 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01 : 29p Watershed Hp 9252549320 p. 12 Endangered Species Page 2 of 5 Background Everything occurring on the Barton Springs watershed that degrades the quality of surface or groundwater has the potential to impact the Barton Springs salamander. Karst aquifers, such as the Edwards Aquifer, are very sensitive to water pollution and once degraded with toxic levels of contaminants, there is little possibility of cleaning the aquifer. The Barton Springs salamander occurs only in Barton Springs in Zilker Park in Austin, Texas. The ecosystem, upon which the Barton Springs salamander depends, is the Barton Springs watershed. This ecosystem includes: (1) four spring outlets with surface habitat (collectively referred to as Barton Springs), (2) the underground aquifer that provides water to the spring outlets, (3) the surface water streams in the recharge and contributing areas of the aquifer, and (4)the land within the watersheds that contribute to Barton Springs. The water that flows from Barton Springs originates as rainfall on the lands in the contributing and recharge zones of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer(Enclosure One). This 354-square mile drainage makes up the Barton Springs watershed and influences the - quality of water flowing out of Barton Springs. Good water quality is essential to the health of the salamander. Because of its restricted distribution and location at the end of the aquifer system, the salamander may be subjected to water quality pollutants that reach the aquifer. The final rule to list the salamander as endangered (April 1997) considered the best available scientific information as of 1995. Since that time, studies and detailed analysis of water quality trends have lead to a significant body of new information. This new information indicates that there is a relatively high incidence of toxic chemicals in toxic amounts in the surface waters, groundwater, sediment transport system, and at Barton Springs. Heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and sediment have been found in and near salamander habitat. Given the threats of continued water quality degradation from increased urban development, increased risk of hazardous materials spills, and increased groundwater pumping, the Service believes that the continued existence of the Barton Springs salamander may be in jeopardy. Our review of this information has made it clear that the existing water quality regulations, including the State's water quality standards and local water quality protection on the aquifer, are not adequate to prevent long-term water quality degradation associated with the urbanization of the Barton Springs watershed. A review of the conservation status of the species, including a summary of the existing water quality information, is attached (Enclosure Two). In our ongoing coordination with private developers, private citizens, local governments, and state agencies, the Service has drafted water quality protection recommendations to minimize water quality impacts on the Edwards Aquifer (Enclosure Three). These measures are not rules or regulations, they are only recommendations. The measures are designed to offer http://wxnv.recaonline.com/docs/endangered_ltr.htrni 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01 . 30p Watershed HQ 8252548320 p. 13 Endangered Species Page 3 of 5 water quality protection that is reasonable and provides protection for the salamander. These measures are designed for maintaining water quality, however, additional steps may need to be taker to improve the water quality at Barton Springs. Federal Government Responsibility We believe that ultimately private citizens, local governments and the State of Texas can solve this water quality problem through comprehensive regional planning. However, it is the responsibility of every Federal ,agency to ensure that Federal programs and Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the salamander (directly, indirectly, or cumulatively). In addition, Federal programs need to be used to further the conservation of the endangered Barton Springs salamander and the ecosystem upon which it depends. i All Federal agencies have a positive responsibility under the Endangered Species Act to use their programs to further the conservation and protection of listed species. Section 7 (a)(1)of the Endangered Species Act states that: "The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, In consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities In furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act." The Service recommends, as part of your agency's ongoing responsibilities under section 7(a) (1), that you consult to ensure that your authorities are being used to carry out programs that further the conservation of this listed species. The Federal government needs to support programs that will enhance and protect water quality in this watershed. To improve the chances for the salamander's continued survival, the Service requests that your agencies carefully review potential benefits or impacts of any federal permits, funds, or ether actions in the Barton Springs watershed. Any actions that may affect the salamander or its habitat should not be authorized without completing formai consultation, as required under section 7(a)(2)of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. We would appreciate the opportunity to brief you and your staffs on the salamanders' current conservation status and discuss how to partner our resources to help Central Texas put this species on the road to recovery. By copy of this letter we are also notifying other Federal, ! State of Texas, and local agencies of our serious concerns for the survival of the Barton Springs salamander. Please contact Matthew Lechner, or me, at 512/490-0057, to further discuss this matter. - http://www.recaonline.com/docs/endangered_ltr.html 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01: 30p Watershed HQ 5252548320 p. 14 Endangered Species Page 4 of 5 Sincerely, Is/ David C. Frederick David C. Frederick Supervisor Enclosures cc: Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM i Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, San Antonio, TX U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Chairman, Farm Credit Administration Administrator, Farmers Home Administration Chairman, Federal Nome Loan Mortgage Corporation Managing Director, f=ederal Housing Finance Board Director, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Administrator, Small Business Administration - USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Division Administrator, Federal Highways Administration District Chief, Austin Office, U.S. Geological Survey Superintendent, National Park Service, Midwest Support Office Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice U. S. Attorney, Western District of Texas, Department of Justice Governor George W. Bush, State of Texas Jeffrey Saitas, Executive Director, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Andy Sansom, Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Susan Combs, Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture Robert Buckley, Executive Director, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Craig Pedersen, Texas Water Development Board Mike Regan, Executive Director, Railroad Commission of Texas Charles Heald, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation Jahn Johnson, Executive Director, Texas Transportation Commission Joe Beal, General Manager, Lower Colorado River Authority Craig Smith, Chairman, Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District William C. Garbade, P.E., Austin District Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation Dianna F. Noble, Environmental Affairs Divislon , Texas Department of Transportation Mayor Kirk Watson, City of Austin Sam Biscoe, Travis County Judge Jim Powers, Hays County Judge Mike Aulick, Director of Capitol Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Mayor Wayne Smith, City of Dripping Springs Mayor Caroline Murphy, Village of Bee Caves littp://www.recaonline.com/docs/endangered_ltr.html 4/2/2004 _. Apr 0204 01 : 31p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 15 Endangered Species Wage 5 of top at p&::4, The Real Estate Council of Austin, Inc. 58 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin,TX 78701 5121320-4151 FAX 512 320-4152 info r recaonline.com Back in Top 0 2003 Real EM ate COUncil of Aus1n,Inc.All Rights Reserved. I i http:/itivww.recaonline.com/does/endaingered_ltr.html 4/2/2004 Appy-xdix#05 Trip Generation "The standard ITE guidelines do not provide any information when calculating the trip generation characteristics for a land use such as a religious non-profit cemetery. Such a situation must be established based on its own individual characteristics.'%-Abrams& Associates Abrams therefore had the sole task of this assessment, open only to his opinion, which he based on a small number of employees who would work in the area. I propose this is a flawed assessment, there will be a large number of funerals which will occur at the site, this is a dramatic traffic impact and the concern on the community, not the employees on site daily. It is stated in his report"services would have approximately 35 to 75 people in attendance, with approximately 15 to 25 cars at each service"(this is in contrast to the seating capacity proposed by the cemetery,which states it will accommodate 90), with "25%arriving in procession." The numbers assume that the number of people in a single car will range from 2.3 to 3.0. Given the 2.3 estimate and a possible attendance of 90 people,the projected number of cars traveling the roads is 39.1. However, it seems logical that the number of people per car may be closer to 2, due to the remote location, and this would raise the number of cars to 45. Furthermore, with 90 people in attendance, a projection of 23 cars in a processional can be made based on estimates provided by Abrams & Associates. This is a traffic impact. Furthermore,these cars will most likely be arriving within a short time frame impacting the area's traffic. Abrams states that the"total arnount of new traffic generated by the project,even during the times that the services would be conducted, is not an issues,since these numbers are well below the threshold where traffic capacity can be measured," Trak is easily measured when it equates to a increase of 9%of total volume for an area. This is with the estimated 90 in attendance, and the current rate of traffic given in the report by Abrams &Associates. It is hard to believe nearly a '10% increase would not be measurable, especially given the clustered time of arrival for cars and the added issues of processionals and drivers who are distraught and unfamiliar with the area. The report given by Abrams &Associates is weak. The methodology is not noted, nor is the length of time the traffic was studied in"March 2002"it is not clear the number of hours nor the number of days which traffic was assessed for when the report alone is read. Data given by Abrams &Associates shows that traffic was measured for one day: March 27, 2002 for a period of only two hours(I to 3 in the afternoon). I compared this data from a traffic study conducted by Contra Costa County(June 5,2002). From the study done Contra Costa County the"peak traffic.hours"are derived and these are in contrast to Abrams & Associates "peak."hours from 4:30-5:313 pm. The Contra Costa traffic study was a much larger study and conducted for a 24 hour period and found conflicting"peak"hours. This "peak" hour determined by Abrams&Associates is in direct contrast to the"peak"hours determined by Contra Costa County,which states North Bound Peak is from 5:306:30 and South Bound peak is from 4:00-5:00 pm. This is an example of the limited data and flawed methodology which was used by Abrams& Associates and the need for a full EIR for the project to fully examine what impact a large cemetery will have on the area. The study is flawed for additional reasons. Abrams &Associates testified at the Planning Commission on the results of their study. The testimony was flawed.at best, false at worst. This was a public hearing, one which the county bases their decision on. Experts are held to ethical standards, I believe these were intentionally broken. At the planning commission Charley Abrams testified "The.. CHP provides data on accidents on all of the roads in the county, and we looked at this through the county. We looked at five years of data at that time. .. There were some on Bear Creek Road, 1 daresay that there were no fatalities during the period that we looked at this data. And there were also..... everyone of these accidents was a single occupant vehicle, single vehicle involved in it, the majority of diem at night and a lot of those are also noted as alcohol as a factor." Our community has been hard hit with fatal accidents, we are very familiar with thein, as stated in the testimony at the planning commission neighbors have come upon these accidents and waited for help to arrive. CHP data for five years (see attached data)indicates there was a fatal accident in 1999 and 2003 on Bear Creek Road. Abrams & Associates would have looked at an earlier data set; however 1999 data would have been included. Additionally, there have been more fatalities this year on Bear Creek Road. As for the testimony stating that the majority of accidents occurred at night: this is simply not true. ?done of the accidents reported in 1998 or 1999 occurred at night, only one third of those in 2000 occurred at night, 16.7% in 2002, and none in 2003. Mone of these numbers constitute amajority. Even more important, neither of the fatalities occurred at night. If the hours of proposed cemetery operation are examined(10 am to 2 pm)it is found accidents do occur during this period. The majority of accidents occurred during these hours in 1999(a year which Abrams & Associates would have examined), and 33.3% of all accidents occurred during these hours for 2000 and 2002. Clearly, these hours are important hours in the traffic patterns of Bear Creek Road. It should also be noted that the cemetery hours listed are only four hours of the day, 16% of the total hours in a day, therefore these hours account for a higher percentage of accidents (if it were representational it would be 16°lir of all accidents during these hours for the length of time given). Data was not examined for Alhambra Valley Road; however this is an important route for the cemetery to examine given the close proximity and mention of the use of the.road in both the traffic report and by members of the organization at the Planning Commission meeting. Data for Alhambra Valley Road shows fatalities during the years examined for 2000 and 2003. In 1999 27.3%of all accidents occurred during proposed cemetery hours and in 2000 half of all accidents occurred during proposed cemetery hours. The report and subsequent testimony by Abrams & Associates is not reliable and a full, non- biased, correct assessment of the traffic impact of the cemetery should be demanded as past of a full EIR to ensure the safety and integrity of the area. Abrams & .Associates incorrectly testified to the Planning Commission on a very important issue which judgments were trade based upon. As a member of the community I do not have faith in the reports that were presented by the Gan Shalom group. A full EIR will address these inconsistencies and must be done. Data given by the CHP for the five year period from 1998-2403 for Bear Creek. Road and Alhambra Vallex Load. Time '03$hju r >038 Injury "38 FaW 038 4iry InMy a ry y 038 Faw a Ityury WP.. ht to lam 1 �fi r ia= !1 to 2 �to d to 5 am 15 to 6 am 1 r f; a u 7ta$am t 3y ndaietry# stos. tc,D Stn . ; 5X 1 dM ✓+., ff 2 1'N�L�m ,� .t 8 +.' Ks 'fls tx,3• i' I SSY}, � �M 2 Y"' • "# .r.:.ti #3 , zti .,tiM1'a Feu•?. 3,a4 pM a< 3 1 1 2 O to 5 pm 1 < •' fi h . y >. I WEz 2 1 tallpm IsinrI !Total ow" a: 12 fi 1 12 1 *023 is Bear Creek _. *438 is Alhambra Valley Beer Creek Traffic Accident Times 1995-2002 (n=20) cemetery 40.0% f .. f� I; 'I right f, f� not cemetery-day 50.0% v, M', �4 Sou"CO:CHP data Alhambra Valley Traffic Accident Times 1998-2002 (n=63) cemetery 25A% night not cernetery-day 63,5% A l,"Sr""n),''.-;a -5A-10,Ws ',"i highe.! ..uombe„r d.:,'aC.C,&-,ntS r.tnnl mul"d I N, t. .'? Alhambra Valley and Bear Creek Road Traffic Accident Times 1998-2002 (n=83) cemetery 28,9% ",night 10.8% not cemetery-day 60.2% on e++, t.A;ur:' +"fetus-enled for each;"�(": are l a7'a'n j"n4- iG"G sY5, t*)X, — SCF m ,"at.. fa,f tTti_.e 0-� f ,t: lou hours i 36 gip of V e d .,y, ���:�.£, �t fi�c;'x€s account R e,:i3C?az 30% of Int. Source:CHR Data Additional Information: I spore with Charlie Abrams of Abrams +& Associates as well as his contact at the Public Works Department, Jerry Fahy. I was able to obtain the data which his report was based on. This data is in direct contrast to the data I obtained from the CHP. The data set above represents the one I was given by the CHP. Data used for this report was not correct for traffic, what other reports are based on incorrect data? This incorrect data appears to be from the Public Works Department. .Pear hours remain questionable as the hours given by Abrams do not match the hours given to him by the County. On speaking with.Mr. Abrams it was indicated he used peaks known to those who work in the area of traffic in Contra Costa County,not necessarily the peaks of the road in question. The issue of traffic outlines the discrepancy in data., reports, and opinions presented to the County. The only wav to reconcile these issues is to address them in a full EIR. Appendix#06 _... TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, A1CP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAURICE SHIU PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 3,2000 SUBJECT: Program to Streamline and Improve the Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks and Wetlands SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND ANIS JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION A) AUTHORIZE the Community Development and Public Works Departments to conduct a two year pilot program to streamline and improve the mitigation of impacts to creeks and wetlands. B) AUTHORIZE County staff to apply for grants from appropriate sources to cover part of the administration costs of the mitigation coordination program. C) DIRECT County staff to report back to the Board in two years with an evaluation of the pilot protect,Including information on how the program was used,how much it cost to administer,and how much restoration was funded through the program,and a recommendation on continuing the program. FISCAL IMPACT Staff costs to implement the two year pilot protect are estimated to be$5000 per year. Funds to cover these coats will came from the approved budgets of the County's Water Agency and the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE I bkig�p' �. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATIOW OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD ON -o & 3, 2QW. APPROVED A5 RECOMMENDED JL OTHER v VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A"TRUE UNANIMOUS(ASSENT______) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOVM. Contact: John Kopchik(925)335-1227 ATTESTED October 3 2000 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF County Administrator(CAC)) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Contra Crista Watershed Forum BY ,DEPUTY 0:iJohn mainWmitigationboardordendoc 4 Program to Streamline&Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks 8 Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 2 BACKGROUNDJRFA;t?NS FOR RF ECOMMENDATIONS 4. Overview The pilot mitigation coordination program being recommended by staff includes the following two components: 1) Creation of a fist of proposed creek and wetland enhancement projects that need funding in order to proceed. Developers and others needing mitigation could use this list to more quickly find mitigation opportunities satisfactory to regional,state and federal regulatory agencies. Restoration projects would receive greater exposure to funding opportunities and mitigation actions could be partially coordinated to achieve better environmental results. 2) Creation of a County-managed trust account to receive funds from developers and others whose projects have small impacts and require only minor mitigation for creeks and wetlands: These small mitigation payments would be pooled in the trust account and aggregated to pay for creek and wetland enhancement at a meaningful scale. County staff would manage the program with guidance and input from the Contra Costa Watershed Forum. The Contra Costa Watershed Forum assisted with developing this proposal and has endorsed it. In addition to local support,the cooperation of regional, state and federal regulatory agencies will be essential to the success of the program. These agencies have expressed interest in and conceptual support for the proposed mitigation coordination program. However, uncertainty remains as to exactly how the proposed program can be integrated with specific enforcement mandates of these agencies. A one to two year pilot effort is recommended as the best way to test feasibility and effectiveness. 2. Background on the Current Mitigation Process There are public and private projects throughout the County that require some sort of mitigation in order to proceed.The type of mitigation required of these projects can vary from tidal wetlands replacement to landscaping to creek restorationlenhancement to fresh water wetlands creation to habitat acquisition. Typically, project proponents and their environmental consultants work with the regulatory agencies to establish the extent of the project impact and the type, quality and quantity of mitigation that will be necessary to comply with.regulations. The consultants then search for actual lands and projects that may satisfy the regulatory agencies. Often, staff at the County, cities, the Fast Bay Regional Park District and the regulatory agencies are consulted for suggestions on suitable mitigation sites. The process can be long and cumbersome and is generally repeated for each new project. An available alternative approach to project-by-project mitigation and so called "spot" mitigation is to use officially-approved mitigation banks. Mitigation banks are specific properties which have received approval from regulatory agencies to sell mitigation credits. Mitigation banks,however,ate few and far between and are very difficult to set up. There Is only one established bank in Contra Costa County:a tidal wetlands mitigation bank on Brown's Island. Another mitigation blink for freshwater wetlands and upland habitats is nearing approval on Pleasanton Ridge in Alameda County. 3. Defining an Alternative Program With the Contra Costa Watershed Forum . __. _ Program to Streamline&Improve Mitigation of Impacts to creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 3 Over the past six months,County staff has worked with the Watershed Forum to develop and refine an alternative approach to mitigating impacts(the Watershed Foram is an open committee of creek organizations, government agencies, and other groups which was initially recognized by the Board of Supervisors on August 3,1999 and is proposed for final recognition in an companion to this staff report). The guiding principle identified by the group as it worked on a proposal was to focus on"mitigation for success." The Watershed Forum also reached the following general conclusions regarding the need for improving the mitigation process and the shape these improvements should take: a) The current process for mitigating projects can sometimes be inefficient and Ineffective. Developers and ethers often need to"recreate the wheel"every time they mitigate off-site,calling agencies and non-proftls over and over for advice on mitigation options. There is no assurance that mitigation dollars will be spent wisely or locally (or even within the County). Likewise,the biological benefits of this mitigation can be questionable,particularly if it results in disconnected,postage-size habitat areas,or if the mitigation fails to support the habitat or skies for which it was intended (i.e., a created wetland that doesn't performs due to improper soils, etc.). Projects with small mitigation requirements are especially problematic. b) Providing some kind of county-wide coordination for mitigation could streamline the regulatory process, help to retain mitigation dollars within the County, keep mitigation as close to the place of impact as possible,and improve the ecological effectiveness of mitigation by enabling comparison,evaluation,coordination,and aggregation of potential restoration projects. c) Working to match developers with suitable mitigation projects would be relatively easier than banking developers` mitigation funds. The former task should be conducted and implemented first while the details of implementing the latter task can be worked out. 4. The Mitigation Coordination Proposal The proposed program would have two parts. The more basic of these would strive to improve coordination through development of a list of potential mitigation projects. The more complicated component involves pooling of mitigation funds from projects with small impacts that are difficult to mitigate independently. The more basic task would be implemented first. Both tasks are described in more detail below. Developing a list of restoration projects: The Watershed Forum would solicit restoration proposals and develop a master list of all restoration projects in the county that wished to be considered for funding. A subcommittee of the Forums would review and screen funding applications as they came in. The Forum would rely on the subcommittee recommendations to ratify and possibly prioritize the restoration project lis-L The list would be provided to cities,County departments,developers,sped districts and others seeking mitigation(mitigation seekers"). Mitigation seekers would be free to use or riot use the list as they chose, and any rankings contained in the list would be .advisory only. The regulatory agencies could tacitly reinforce the list priorities by making their interests known to mitigation seekers. Pooling mitigation funds and granting collected funds to restoration projects: In addition to the coordination/clearinghouse component,the program would also include a grant program. Implementation of this second program component may depend on successful completion of the first program component. Funding to support this grant program would come from mitigation seekers with mitigation requirements that are very small anti likely to result In unreliable or ineffective restoration unless their mitigation actions are combined with actions performed by others. Funding might also come from Program to Streamline&Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 4 fines imposed by the Regional Board for violations of water quality regulations. The Watershed Forum would select from the master list of restoration projects the four top projects in the County, one in each of four geographical regions of the County; north- central,south-central,east and west County.These top projects would be pre-designated to receive funds from the grant pool. If a mitigation seeker paid an in-lieu fee toward a restoration project,In say Bast County,then those monies would go to the top East County project.The same could occur with Regional Board fine money. The money would be held by the County and combined until enough money had come in to fund the priority project in-full.Once a priority project was fully funded,the Form would choose another project so that a list of the top four projects by region in the County is maintained. To make both the coordination and grant aspects of the program successful,a key task for the Watershed Forum would be to continually solicit restoration proposals and to effectively advertise that the program exists. The program should be considered and assessed as a two-year pilot effort. After a two-year test,the program should be evaluated to determine if it should be continued, modified,or dropped. 5. Objectives of the Mitigation Coordination Program • Make mitigation funds more available to restoration projects. • Reduce the hassle and difficulty of finding a place to spend mitigation dollars. • Improve coordination of mitigation expenditures, thereby improving the effectiveness of mitigation requirements • Aggregate small mitigation expenditures to achieve substantive environmental benefits • Strive for equity in the distribution of mitigation dollars • The program is not intended to increase the occurrence of off-site mitigation. Project proponents will still be required to avoid and minimize impacts before being allowed to mitigate. As is the case now,regulatory agencies shall have final discretion on the acceptability of mitigation proposals and an the acceptability of off-site mitigation. 6. Work Plan for Initiating the Mitigation Coordination Program The fallowing steps were discussed to establish the proposed 000rdination/grant program: i) Solicit proposals for restoration projects • Advertise the potential availability of grant funding applications using the Watershed Symposium mailing list,newspapers,etc. • Use a simple(two page maximum)application form • Create a data base to stare and manage the project list ii) Application Screening • Establish a technical subcommittee of the Forum • Subcommittee will develop categories for sorting Me restoration projects so treat like projects may be compared(categories to be ratified by the Fbrum� Some potential categories are: • Geographic areas of the county(north-central.south-centraf,east,west) • Urban/rural character (to help assure that impacts to urban creeks aren't mitigated only with improvements to rural creeks) + Type of habitat to be restored • Subcommittee will develop criteria for evaluating restoration projects by category (criteria to be ratified by the Forum) • Subcommittee will screen applications so that only those projects judged to meet some minimum standard of quality are included on the master list(Forum to ratify Program to Streamline&improve Mitigation of impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 5 screening) • Subcommittee may prioritize applications on master list(Forum to ratify) III) Selection of priority projects to participate in grant program(grant funds to come from. development projects with small mitigation requirements and possibly also from Regional Board tines). • Subcommittee recommends one top project for each of the four geographic regions of the county • Watershed Forum ratifies recommendations and selects priority projects iv) Advertise the availability of master list and priority projects to mitigation seekers. Put it on the web in interactive format. v) Manage the master list and the grant program • Establish contact person--someone needs to provide staff function to the program • Identify who will receive and deposit monies. Manage and track the flow of money from the four County sub-areas and distribute to priority projects when enough funds are accumulated to fully fund the priority project. v€) Monitoring • Identify entity to monitor and track the projects for at least the first one year assessment period, particularly the priority projects In the grant program. Monitoring reports will be submitted twice per year to the Watershed Forum for review. 7. Institutional Structure The County would administer the program with guidance and input from the Watershed Forum. There would be no formal memorandum of understanding with the regulatory agencies at this point.The program would proceed on an Informal basis for a period of two years, at the end of which time we would assess its success, and consider actions to formalize. It is likely that the small development projects contributing funds to the grant program would be coming through the Department of Fish and Game.As a result,there may be a need for a more specific understanding with Fish and Game, Any action to formalize this process would require approval from the Board of Supervisors 8. Considerations and Issues The group discussed a number of other points that should be considered or addressed as the program is developed. Some of these are the foilowing; Focus on creeks and wetlands restoration. The;program should:address any type of mitigation for and restoration of wetlands and creeks, including seasonal wetlands,tidal wetlands,permanent fresh water wetlands,vernal pools,permanent fresh water wetlands,permanent and seasonal streams and creeks,ether water bodies, and riparian habitat. Mitigation for non-water related impacts (i.e. oak woodland, grassland, etc.) will not be addressed by the program. . Likewise, projects that are wpeci#iccally educational,interpretive,or artistic will not be included. The program will also emphasize wetlands restoration rather than creation. Public or private lands may be considered for restoration. Determining the maximum mitigation size that could be accepted by the grant program. The Watershed Forum agreed that only mitigation seekers with small Program to Streamline$Improve Mitigation of Impacts to creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 0 mitigation requirements would be eligible to pay into the grant program(ail would be welcome to use the master list of restoration projects directly). Defining this threshold is difficult,but will need resolution.Several potential descriptions of small" were discussed, and the Forum agreed that "small" should be defined by the acreage to be mitigated rather than by a dollar amount. The current working definition of the cutoff for contributing funds to the grant program Is less than Y2 acre of impact". Converting mitigation requirements to a dollar figure. The Army Corps and the other regulatory agencies typically address mitigation in terms of acreage and habitat quality,but these requirements will ultimately need to be converted to a dollar figure for the grant program. That is,the developers with smaller relitigation requirement will need to know how much to pay into the grant program to satisfy the regulatory agencies. The Forum discussed three potential means for doing this; ❖ The restoration project to receive the grant funds establishes the conversion factor by indicating how much It will cost to construct the restoration project on a per acre basis. The regulatory agencies will of course need to be sure that they are comparing apples to apples,that Is,that the restoration project would provide the same type and quality of habitat improvement that the developer is impacting. 4* A general formula,that is accepted by the regulatory agencies,could be used to establish the value of mitigation. :• The mitigation seeker could establish the equivalent value through a consultant, in concurrence with the regulatory community. Operational costs.The two-year pilot will help us to better definer operational costs. Currently we estimate these at$6000 per year. Participation in the Watershed Forum. Participation in the Forum by mitigation seekers and others should be reviewed.to insure that an appropriate range of interested parties are represented and a balance of perspectives and influence"is maintained, Conflict of interest. The issue of conflict of interest should be explored during the pilot project with a recommendation at the end of two years. Scientific basis for screening restoration projects. Criteria should be established to make sure that restoration sites(mitigation projects)are successful.For example, make sure soils are compatible with dation of a wetlands. We should use existing, successful relitigation sites as models for future work. Resource assessments. The group generally believed that we should rely on existing information on resources to evaluate proposed restoration projects and the best placers for restoration. Conducting a new resource assessment would be controversial and time-consuming and would delay our proposed two-year test of this experimental program. Pfio y projects to be funded through the grant program need a track record.The Forum should focus not only on the quality of the proposed restoration project when choosing the four priority projects,but also on the reliability and experience of the organization performing the work. This Is especially important to the regulatory agencies. These agencies are charged with ensuring that mitigation seekers mitigate fully and appropriately for their Impacts. Allowing mitigation seekers with small mitigation requirements to pay into a pool rather than performing actual mitigation is a leap of faith for these agencies,a leap they may be willing to take if aggregating small mitigation efforts can achieve greater environmental benefits. However, we should minimize the risk by selecting established restoration organizations to receive funds. Program to Streamline&Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wettands October 3,2000 Page 7 Contingency strategy. The forum should Identify one or more restoration organizations to receive any funding left-over at .such time as the program is discontinued. Monitoring projects funded through the grant program. Programs funded through the grant program will be required to perform monitoring. The Watershed Forum and County staff will be required to oversee this task. Application for outside grant funds to kick-start the grant program. County staff and the Forum may consider applying for restoration grant funds to help get the grant program going. Funds received in this manner would augment mitigation funds and help get the program underway. D,Uohn mainWrnittgationboardorder.doc ==08 April B, 2004 Dear Supervisors, As you know a motion for reconsideration of the appeal to the cemetery approval has been filed containing new information. A main concern is the containment of the corps within the vaults. County staff repeatedly stated the vaults would be sealed but documentation could not be found to confirm this claim. After a face to face meeting with Mr. Myers at his office and examination of the Conditions of Approval it only stated what was already known. It stated that there would be "concrete vaults" but it did not state that they would be sealed. As you also must know it has been found through research that Jewish custom requires wood caskets and if concrete vaults are required they are to be bottomless. A phone call to Oakmont Cemetery confirmed this regarding the Jewish section of their cemetery. This creates a ground water contamination problem and a greater threat to water wells and endangered species in the creek. New information was also provided showing gross inaccuracies of the traffic study, the water report and incomplete and unclear reporting from various agencies. All that is being asked is that a thorough and accurate study be performed with an EIR. Several mitigations could be included in that report as conditions of approval that would significantly reduce the impact of this project and satisfy area concerns. If phase one were to start where phase two is planned it would create a greater set back from the creek and less impact. Phase two could then be adjacent to phase one and keep the whole project in the small valley in the south area of the property. Keeping the overall project to only two phases or about fifteen acres would also create much less overall impact. This has been done with the Gateway Valley project successfully allowing the same approximate four or five to one ratio of open space to developed land. This is over twice the size of the current Queen of Heaven cemetery site in Lafayette. This new location and size will also allow for more privacy and security to the cemetery as well as less visual impact to the surrounding area. The main entrance to the cemetery would be safer and have less surrounding impact if the proposed maintenance entrance is used off of Hampton Read. Safety improvements to Sear Creek Road between Garcia Ranch Road and Hampton Road such as road widening and sign improvement would also create safer road conditions along their main approach. Transferring the remaining area from proposed private open space to public open space will guarantee its preservation. If East Bay Municipal Utility District were to acquire this area it would satisfy this goal and a couple more. They could better monitor a greater portion of Pinole Creek containing the Federal Endangered Steelhead Trout and Red Legged Frog. East Bay Regional Park Districts would police the property, which would literally surround the cemetery and satisfy their security needs. The restriction of herbicides and fertilizers could be added to the pesticide restriction. Current horse stable conditions of approval restrict lighting during certain nighttime hours and the cemetery should fallow the same rules. Finally, regular inspections of the cemetery would ensure compliance with these conditions of approval. It is hoped that you will reconsider the approval based on this new information and require a full EIR with these suggested conditions of approval. Sincerely, Lawrence E. Nunes 100 Via Domingos Martinez, CA. 94553 Home 925228-5004 CellNoice Mail 925-200-8961 2 April 2004 Carole Dwinell Briones Hills Preserve Alliance 201 Bear Oaks Court P.O. Box'1562 Martinez, CA 34553 Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 34553 To the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors: Request for Appeal of the County Planning Commission Decision/13 January 2004 As a representative of the Briones Hills Preserve Alliance,(BHPA)1 am formally requesting a Appeal--Reconsideration Hearing regarding the Proposed Clan Shalom Cemetery,County File#LP022068 for,but not limited to, the following reasons: A motion for Appeal reconsideration is necessary to presentthese and other new 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. Mo Sincerely, Carole Dwinell Attachment: Filing Fee Payment: Briones Hills Preserve Alliance Check# :)ntra Costa County http:llwww.co.contra-cosLt.czt.us/ as �9`}J�1�{ � ,,., dry �,.'� c4•+gai'2 �^ ��: b a .z,� "� Government Informatiou Contents-Search- o Frame Title 2 ADMINISTRATIQ14 S Home ter 26-2- PLANNING AGENCY* Contra Costa County Cade 26 -2.2408 Title I CaENERAL PROVISIONS A motion for reconsideration may be filed in writing by an Title 2 ADMIN11TRAT€ON appellant within the time allowed to appeal alleging pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the attention T Itle 3 P.E R aQNNEL of the division rendering the decision. Such motion shall be .-itie 4 HEALTH AND SWETY decided by the division at its next meeting on the basis of the information presented in writing. If the motion is denied, the time Title GENERAL ML ARE AND to appeal shall be extended only the number of days required QQ_1NEa RgQj l ATl(�lalS to hear and decide the motion. If the motion is granted, persons recording their appearance at the initial hearing shall be given Tifie„g�REVE UE&ND FINANCE! mailed notice of the time of the new hearing. (Ords. 77-33 § 15 (part), 1975: prior code § 2205,40: Card, 917), Tit€e 7 BUILDING REGULATIONS Title€17C NTNG Tale 9 UBDIVJ SION* * Tial 1QPUg.,.1Qrw°QRKS Alii FLC D C2 KTROL EBQf"ESE I S Files listed below require Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0. west "ON deer i StattltgLyBelerences Crass-Re€ergngg &1e Qrclinanc_e hist and Dis sltion Table t of I 4i2/04 3:11 PM Reasons for a Motion for Reconsideration 1.. CE A-UENERAL. a.) On Page I of CEQA Handbook, in a sidebar chart, quote:. "• To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects" Because the Brirones Mills,Agricultural Agreement was a county-initiated agreement between the county and the eig=ht neighboring cities of Pinole, Hercules, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Lqfcyelte, Orinda, Sart Pablo and Richmond, tarul was there included in Contra Costa's GeneralPlan; any change, issuance cad a speciai brad use permit, or a dc�vekprnen t�Pe Project considered by the Contra Costa Planning Commission, then all eighi cities.should have been included in the progression of the pr(ject. b.) Can Pages I and 2 of CEQA Handbook,it says, quote: "CEQA applies to all discretionary activities proposed to be carried out,or approved by California public agencies, including state, regional, county, and local agencies, unless an exemption applies. CEQA applies to private activities that require discretionary approvals." On page 3, "Procedural Requirements. CEQA setsfcor-t ra series gfdetailed procedural requirements tsar ensnare that each of the laws objectives is accomplished. Theftin,-Iatty-ntsaliarerrta`.se on -which CEQA is base is that era:virsonrnental Protection can be ac:hicw-d through coni pliance with rigorous, ta,titJra.fo rcingprocedures. See Item .I c. c.) Eriones Hills Preserve Alliance, in citing water and other issues,hired a hydrogeologist,one having no connection with either the county or anyone in the group opposing the project in the interests of having an unbiased opinion on water issues. See Appendix Item. #01. In, contrea.s r, the proponent's choice ray'exper9ts included a ca�tnp atay which was fiou ded ky one qf the members of the Dara Shalom Board of Directors, whose.son is the president of that company and who also.serves on the Board sof the local Regional Water Qw2litv Control Board. (See p, ix Iters 01) According to the bylaws of the RW CB, antler.section §132'7, C oriflict ra f Interest ( a)No member c> `a regional board shall participate in canY heard taction pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 13300)ref Chapter 5, c,j this elivasion which involves himse�f or herse?f or arr.y waste discharger with.which he orshe is coo wected as a director, q cer or errplcog�,°e a,.�, .Since there was no c ocpy of the Sari Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board report in either the ste ff reports for the CEQA Initial Study, we shnply question, at this point in time, the association sof that member cof`those boards anti wish to see thein actual repor't or letter as well as any actual reports or letters fraena Fish and Gatne, 1'.,AFCO, and.an 9r other agencies that were not included in.staff reports or the initial steady.. 2. WATER.ISSUES a.) We continually reassured that the concrete vaults would be sealed. Darwin Myer repeatedly told us that that information was in the CEQA Initial Study under Conditions of Approval.We could not find that anywhere in the Initial Study. It took a face-to-face request asking Dr.Myer to show us where it was stated that the vaults would be sealed.However, he was unable to find that information. Before the permit is issuedfinally, this matter must he made clear, for thesake of all concerned. See Iters b.,)faor the reason that itshould he important to the s trraemay. It is important to yes because of contamination issues if b.)as caroted below and in the capper.d-Lr)is the case. b.) According to a Jewish Publication entitled "Dignity for the Body,Peace for the Soul/An Introduction.to Jewish Burial Customs", (See Attachment#02)quote: "Wood is the only material allowed and several holes are opened at the bottom to hasten the body's return to the earth. When vaults are required, they too should be open at the bottom." aP3-)ra,annv gave}are dug at tete proposed location of the Gan Shalom Cemetery, there should be a test at an existing cemetery where the exact sar'Y'ae site condinons as described above are .submitted to as deep sail test, one that goes below the level cif the vault. See Item CJor the reason. c.) At-->The University of Minnesota Extension website abstracts fhttp-//www.extension.urmi.edu- > search "cemetery" ->first citation is "groundwater contamination" -> "Cemeteries and Livestock Burials"]This is a series of readily understood articles relating to wells, streams, turf, contaminants and cemeteries. Note particularly Attachment#03 showing graphically the problems that directly relate to the proposed cemetery at the corner of Hampton and Bear Creek Roads.Under the Heading: Cemeteries and Animal Burials,it says,Quote "Contamination Evidence: Detection of high bacteria levels in nearby well water tests. Causes: High water table. Prevention: Avoid high water tables for burial sites. Use watertight caskets in cemeteries with high water tables. Contaminants: Bacteria,viruses." Unquote. It has an accompanying graphic showing the layout of land susceptible to the problem. It also shows as an example a poor site for animal burial that Contra.Costa County does NOT allow in the agricultural preserve. These articles show that there is distinct possyi ilit'vfi r contamination. vlcaa s4,the r:�ja�nl y is concerned about crrratarrairraxtlrara aalr eadt,,since r"t is illegal to bu a a gra,-ing earn mal such as a horse or carttle that have fear less virailpatlaogen inhabitation as hunians. As stated above, ra Similar site ,soil test sho ld also be parr of a complete EI .d.) Supervisor John Gioia added an adjustment to the Conditions of approval relating to water baseline data prior to the production well being tapped. Monitoring time frames were improved for a better recording of data in the post-pumping period(though this was not stated), however, nothing was stated about when,or how,or how long the baseline would be determined. There IS limited water saappy in the area. This is what has prevented arab=extensive deveh-,p raent. 1here is not enough water to suppy any concentrated development. The initigaztion--aw as res in the report sirralsly states 'Obtain "baseline" dcats.a.with monthly measurement o ra�undwater levels in existing observation weii s'.' i,,)wever, it di)es not sa'v over r�f hat period the baseline data should be taa en and whetheraampirrg is allowed white the baseline measurements are recorded. Baseline data water table measurements mast be taken in observation wells°fror period of at least two years prier to the beginning of pumpi g and this used as the baseline data. The base line data should reflect the s°eaa,orwl variations and:shr uk?be used as the baseline comp(,risons as related to the season. The conditions under which the baseline data is acquired needs to be part of the Condinons of Approval a aloe any EIR and must be determined by using the highest level fair each season. e.) In speaking with Eppie Bernhaurn (sp`I), a proponent of the cemetery project after the Appeal denial, I questioned the ability of the conservative water volume stated by the project plans to generate enough water to support an irrigation recycling system and he said that he knew that and that the system was to capture rainwater for storage. In all public documents the system ofpi es and Uraca'e��Tp~€u gra vel has been described as a„ec yc hn system,for irrigation water. Removing rainwater �-om the aquifer will seriously aflect the groundwater levels and the recharging of Pinole `reek. since there are documented sightings of Steelhead'Endangxered), Reg-legged Frogs(Endangered)and Western Pond Turtles and either Threatened species downstream, and their habitat lies totally along the upper watershed of Pinole Creek, the cemetery proposal, in fact, requires a full Environmental Impact Revort to dissuade,all opponents to the project that proper procedures for the creek, and its residents, as well as groups such as Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, Aq,?;<atic have leen addressed. f.) The Endangered Species Act particularly addresses the issues of creek maintenance/restoration. "Groundwater, in fact, in the dry months is the main source of water for creeks such.as Pinole that have no snowmelt. Groundwater levels need to stay high enough so that the can interact with (contribute water to) the stream channel. In a smaller watershed like Pinole,it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows." See the attached letter Appendix#_ In a letter desvrihingr,the e Lct of pulling rainwater out of that recharge, it is clear that it is likely that the groundwater interaction with Pir.ola Creek is an issue. There is cease re ferences and r?ference to the fact that issue.-I rr qy not surface while the cetnetery is srrrall but the use tZf the Endangered Species Act will protect these species whether they inhabit the cernete?y,site or are downstream. An expert hydrogeolog1st, one versed in creek impact(available at UC Davis)will he able to look at the anticipated impac=ts to the creek and advise biologists ter the effect on endangered species noted the length of the creek.An EIR trust be deme. 3. TRAFFIC ISSUES a.) Cour point here is that the Traffic Report is sloppy and inaccurate.The Abrams report states that 44services would have approximately 35 to 75 people in attendance,with approximately 15 to 25 cars at each service"(this is in contrast to the seating capacity proposed by the cemetery, which states it will accommodate 90), with 4625%n arriving in procession." The numbers assume that the number of people in a single car will range from 2.3 to 3.0. Given the 2.3 estimate and a possible attendance of 90 people, the projected number of cars traveling the roads is 39.1. See Appendix#____, .The rgport given by Abrams & Associates is weak.. The methode.,V 9gv is not noted, nor ale he le ngth qf time the trqffic was studied in "March 2102" it is not clear the number(,f hours nor than number of days which traffic was assessed for when than report alone is read. Data given by Abrams &Associates shows that traffic was measured for one dqy:J44arch 27, 2(X.)2 for as period of only two hours (I to 3 in the ajternoon). This tra�flc report was generated<rrt a dart of the road that dial NOT INCLUDE the area where residents live and use their cars nor did it include the roadway frorn OrInda stated in the proponents material that wraaald be the twin access. b.) Abrams stated in his testimony before the Board of Supervisors. Quote; "The.. CHP provides data on accidents on all of the roads in the county,and we looked at this through the county.We looked at five years of data at that tune. ..There were some on. Bear Creek Road,I daresay that there were nofatalities during the period that we looked at this data.And there were also..... every one of these accidents was a single occupant vehicle, single vehicle involved in it,the majority of them at night and a,lot of those are also noted as alcohol as a factor."See Appendix#�. Our community has been hard hit with fatal accidents, we are very fandliazr with them, as stated in the testimony at the planning commission neighbors have come upon these accidents and waited for help to arrive. CHP data for five year indicates there were fi tcal acc denst in 1999 and 2(X).3 on Bear Creek Road and the surrounding area within two milav of the Cemetery location, AT in ,21 °3 alone. Abrams &Assoc°laces looked only at earlier data. Why? The above citations show that the CEQA is irreparably flawed,including conflicting grater experts (which under CEQA) demand an EIR in order to consider data uncompromised by desire.Traffic studies should be done on days when there is recorded statements of increased use,particularly Sunday, during the period when the cemetery will be open and including ALL traffic,not just cars, but motorcycles, bicycles, hikers and horseback riders and should be done on the corner of the proposed.cemetery entrance. It is documented(Oct. 3,2000) in a letter to the Board of Supervisors titled "Program to Streamline and Improve the Mitiation to Creeks and Wetlands" that the county is aware of and supports the restoration of creeks, even publishing a Contra Costa Watershed Atlas. It is our contention, ,given the work in progress by the county,Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and other groups, that the proposed cemetery project,is in direct contradiction to that.purpose. See Appendix.#fab. FINALLY, should an Environmental Impact Report be generated we ask, that should it still pass, that the in-place mitigation, and the current Conditions of Approval be intact with additions such as: the cemetery access should be on Hampton Road rather than Bear Creek for safety reasons,that the cemetery be limited to 15 acres to lesson the impact, that the "primate" open space be donated to the Muir Heritage Land Trust or other Land Trust to guarantee that it remains open space, that there is onsite night security and that there be no continuous night lighting that does not conform with current regulations for other properties. Appeent-dix#01 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT(CAL.WATER CODE,DMBION 7)EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2004 §13204.Regional board meetings §13208.Executive officer conflict of interest Each regional board shall hold at least six regular (a) No regional board executive officer may make, meetings each calendar year and such additional special participate in making,or use his or her official position to meetings or hearings as shall be called by the chairman or influence,any decisions of the regional board,or made on any two members of the regional board, behalf ofthe regional board,affecting any person;or entity subject to waste discharge requirements sunder this §13205.Member compensation division if the regional board executive officer has received, during the previous two years, to percent or Each member of a regional board shall receive one more of his or her income from that person or entity. hundred dollars ($too) for each day during which that member is engaged in the performance of official duties, (b)'Income,"for purposes of this section, has the same except that no member shall be entitled to receive the one meaning as in Section 82030 of the Government.Code. hundred dollars ($100) compensation if the member otherwise receives compensation from other sources for performing those duties. The total compensation received ARTICLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING by members of each regional board shall not exceed, in 1 O POWERS AND DITTIES QP REGIONAL one fiscal year, the sum of thirteen thousand five BOARDS dollars ($13,5013). A member may decline compensation. In addition to the compensation, each §1.3220.tDrganization member shall be reimbursed for necessary traveling and Each regional board shall do all of the following: other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. (a)Establish an office. §13206.Eligibility of public officers (b) Select one of its members as chairman at the first Public officers associated with any area of government, regular meeting held each year, including planning or water, and whether elected or appointed, may be appointed to, and may serve (c) Appoint as its confidential employee, exempt from civil service u contemporaneously as members of,a regional board. under Section 4 0€ Article VII of ttre California Constitution,and fix the salary of an executive officer who shall meet technical qualifications as defined §13207.Conflict of interest by the State Water Resources Control Board. The (a) No member of a regional board shall participate in executive officer shall serve at the pleasure of the regional any board action pursuant to Article 4(commencing with board. Section 13260) of Chapter 4, or Article 1 (commencing with Section 13300)of Chapter 5, of this division which (d) Employ any other assistants which may be involves himself or h many waste discharger with determined necessary=to assist the executive officer, which he DLAkjs connected as a director, officer or employee, or in which he g as a .x ;. §13221.Oaths and subpoenas financial interest i�+ h e i�in*� within the meaning of Section Members of the regional board shall be empowered to :"w o r rt of the Government Code. administer oaths and issue subpoenas for the attendance (b)No board member shall participate in any proceeding and giving of testimony by witnesses and for the before any regional board or the state board as a production of evidence in any proceeding before the consultant or in any other capacity on behalf of any waste board in any part of the region. The provisions of Chapter discharger. 3(commencing with Section 1075)of fart I of Division 2 of this code shall apply to regional boards within their (c)Upon ILrequest of any person,,or on l €;Aev own regions.where they shrill have the same power as the Qct own initiative.the Attorney General inky file a state board within the state. complaint in the superior court for the county in which the regional board has its principal office alleging that a §13222.Regulations board member has knowingly violated this section and the Pursuantto such guidelines as the state board may facts upon which the allegation is based and asking that establish, each regional board shall adopt regulations to the member be removed from office. Further proceedings carry out its powers and duties under this division. shall be in accordance as near as may be with rules governing civil actions. If after trial the court finds that the board member has knowingly violated this section it §13223.Delegation shall pronounce judgment that the member be removed (a) Each:regional board may delegate any of its powers from office. and duties vested in it by this division to its executive officer excepting only the following: (1) the promulgation of any regulation; (2) the issuance, -17- -)arrl Members http://wwwesw'rcb.ca.gov/rwgcb2lMembers.htm 0'Oppme 'Xa'r `'`,ws,L`s.°h.�smi public Nt3CB7i SM FUKISK0 . WATER QUALM CONTWX BOARD .sgrc�, a�aam Mee�nst B,�ra fryttmg�tl4r, Adogkg Orders Montliiv 000rdeiKNt rams Available uei etnts 62Vlonal Mail 01319wad—ga Chart Phone List Lttltss idnre�+tretaYet LIM iNabsr Educa#tsts 9595 Clay St,Suite 4400 Oakland,CA 94692 Phone#1510)6.22-2304 Fox#{5'10)622-2464 Email)Sleixmas#a=2 1 of 3 4/I/04 6:42 PM aaW Members http:llwww.swreb.ct.gov/rwileb2lMembers.him Clifford Waldeck, of Mill Valley,curronttir serves as Chair of the Regional Board. He is the Board's appointee to Say Conservation and Development Commission and also serves on the Regional Airport planning Committee. He was elected to the Mill Valley City Council and currently serves as Mayor. x He serves on the Executive Committee of the Merin Telecommunications Agency and is the Council liaison to the city's Community Emergency Preparedness Committee. He is the President and owner of Midecx's Office " 4 Supplies in San Francisco.. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley, -anw Wan =k ars," Viace Cir of the Reof gional Board.Se brings loerves s f x ? this position her expertise and experience with m � g county govenwrWnt She has been the r + ggoovenrment relations consultant for Warren and Aseociatres since 19M and HMS Associates since 1987, representing private-sector clients s%r before elected officials,boards,and a commissions advocating rues relating to land use.i € y has served as vice resident and of the Coalition of Labor and Business for the courses of Alameda. Contra Casts,Napa,and Solano,and was elected official on the,Board of Directom of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, having served from 4882 to 1990. she has also been vice president of the Alameda County Medical Center Foundation Board and a board member of the 100 Club of Alameda County. Me,VVwmn became the first woman chair of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce from 1852 to 19", She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from immaculate Heart College and then served six years in ttte United States Navy, Kristen P, Dowd Addicks,of Stinson Beata,has served as a development officer at Audubon Canyon Ranch,a nature preserve,since 1558.In this position,she facilitates education and research programs and overseas community relations. From 1990 to 1991,she worked with the Environmental Defense Fund in promoting their project and functions, Ms.Addicks earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Santa Clara and a teaching credential from the University of Cambridge. Ms.Dorren Chiu,47,of Fremont,is the President of Allied Technology Group, Inc, Allied firm,serving the Department of is a low-level E ergy,themanagement Depa rtnmand rd of Defense,ann e N" j various Fortune SW companies. Ms.Chiu is a member of the Alameda Economic Development Advisory Board,the Angel island Foundation,and the Northern Caiifomia Minority business opportunity Committee. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the Univeralfy of Wisconsin, x ti t; Ms.Josep nine De Luca of Redwood City presently serves as a Board member.of the Regional Board,She is an independent education consultant and served as Special Assistant Por Education Af€alm to Assemblyman William Duplisma in 19135, She also served as eiecfad sa Trope of the Belmont School District from 1978 to 158.9,a dire, of tate ' Experience Corps and is a member of V%ne Inmate Reseamh and Education Committee.She is a founding member of the San Mateo Central County Communities Coalition. Me,DeLuca earned a Bachelor's degres in English literature from Lone Mountain College in 1959 and hoe general elementary credential in 1981 and served as a teacher in the San Francisco and San Mateo School Districts, Her graduate studies were undertaken at Stanford University. 5 h Shalom Eliahu,73,of Lafayette,is the principal of SE Consulting,a w yars of ,, �E exnicai experienceengineering as aprojeotmanageconsulting rad technical resource firm, He has more�managan 46ereon large 7 of 3 4/1104 6:42 pM card Members http:l/www.swrcb.ca.govlrwgcb2/Members.htm geotechnical and civil engineering projects. Mr.Eliahu's•expertise includes the design of levees,dams, and other water retaining structures. He is the former vice president of the Engeo inc.,an engineering corporation that provides a full spectrum of geotachnical and environmental services from planning through the design and construction phases. During his tenure with Engeo Inc., Mr, Eliahu designed levees,canals,water supply systems,and flood control for the Dead Sea Works project in Israel,as well as residential plans for the communities of Canyon Lakes„Blackhawk,and VWst Pittsburg. He earned a Master of Science degree from the University of California,Berkeley, hn Muller of Half Moon 5 ° Regioanal Board.Mr,Muller is the ownercurre�and and of Daylight serves as Board member Nursery � sery since 1981. He was the co-owner of the nursery from 1970 to 1981.A Republican, Mr.Muller is a past director of the National PromoFlor Council,a member of the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Fruits and Vegetables,and a director of the Cal"ifomia Mural Education and Foundation. Mr.Muller is a former member o the Secretary of Agriculture's Special} States DeCommittee partmentof Agriculture eand iUnitedne Management of the fonrrer c m» na and memberof the Society of American Florists Government Relations Commie.He is a past president of �i the San Mateo County Farm Bureau(1 t5 86)and continues to same on its Board of Directors. A veteran of the United States Navy,Mr.Muller is a graduate of the California Agricultural Leadership Program and a past president of the program's Alumni Association. Sohn Reininga,65,of San Francisco,is the founder and President of Reininga Corporation,a San Francisco-based real estate development company.He is an active participant in the shopping center industry.Mr, Relnirtsa is the past Chairman of the International Council of Shopping Centers,the past President "i== and current member of the Board of Directors of the California Business Properties Association,and an elected member of Lambda Alpha,an honorarry land economics society. He is also a member of the Sonoma County Alliance and California Trout,as well as the Sonoma Land Trust.Mr.Reininga earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Colorado,and a Master of Business Administration degree from Stanford University, wp xq ;rt P William Schumacher,63,of Daly City,is an attorney in San Mateo County. g He is a former member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors,having served from 1981 to 1993. Mr.Schumacher is the Me or and City Councilmen of Daly City. He served as the chairman of the North San Mateo County r i Sanitation District and is a former member of the Peninsula Water Agency. Mr.Schumacher is a fainter police officer and Deputy District At.tomey in San Mateo County,as well as having served in ft United States Army. He also served as chairman and trustee of the Jefferson School District and was the coordinator of the police science program with the College of San Mateo. Back to Top chef Eag-0 (c)2=State of Cetlforno Conditions of Use Pmmc v Pouchy of 3 41 D O4 6:42 PM NGEQ I Pull Service Consulting Engineers http://www.engeo.com/history.asp ENGEO incorporated is a team of {� t � fi geotechnical engineers, engineering �{ geologists environmental specialists and ,, construction inspectors with offices in San s m n 5 4 x � I I Ra o , San dose,Tracy, Vacaville,Vallejo, f � { ;.= ,•.w Rosevillen and San Francisco, California. ENGEO delivers geotechnical and 41 environmental consulting with unsurpassed quality and Integrity. We are dedicated two our clients and believe in building solid relationships based on a clear understanding <t a 4 of their needs. Since 1971, our staff has z provided a full spectrum of geotechnical, geologic, environmental and inspection and testing services from planning through the ; IIS design and construction phases. Our experience and commitment bring innovation, expertise, service and value toi� our clients' projects. a. ENGEO serves a wide market spectrum with a diverse mix of clients including commercial, industrial and residential developers, public agencies and financial Institutions. We provide planning, study and analysis, then engineer cost-effective site solutions and mitigation plans. ENGEM also provides the quality control needed during the crucial construction phase to verify the effective implementation of the project's geotechnical and environmental plans. '. Of 1 411/04 6:45 Phil Appendix M ` .... :. _......._............._..................:..:..::.............................................................................. . . ....I: .�. .::...: . . ..: - -, ", . "�.*,'i.,'��*�:�,.,.",��:�:....j ,. a :: ::: , ,�,' .... .. .,� .::,.,,*,, -!-..:.-.:. .::;::: - .:., : ,� .�::.:� .:-'-' - I ..i... - , ......::�":,',.,',,:,:,: -.1,- .,� -, .. .. , . :- :,.....-: .:I... ��i-:�....�� �i�.-:�i��i:��::� .. ;�: . : ........:::�.,'. ;... - �:...:.:.- :.:.:.:: :�.*, ;: .1 ... ..... :::::: ,, ...., . : -... .� ,. .. .. "I'--'�"--.-, , . .::::�: —.;::. . �_: .:;::: :,::: ::::..... .::: ,,'':::". - I., I-ii�ii-iii :--.�,.-... ..."I., .'..... : � ,:�...;::,I .,., 1-1 1111.1. :.:.::,.6,:....'...",..:;::";, ..... ...— : ... :: ,.. ,-:-.-::.',�:::; . , , ..'.. ; �. - I '.,.., .1.... ".,.,.,.. .: ,. 1; """' , , .!.--�. :,:1,, :::;� ... I I,"i:�:!i:�i,i*, .. -���:�i I .- -I ,"', !:x..' I M 1.11 _ { :. owl � �� _ _ _ 11 _ _ d 1 # 1.11 *j am'dsy]}��,i j}��awq 7iS} .................._. ...........................5.... a:::::: :<>:=:a::j<i'S:; r;>?s::z:i:: s;;'::•::<i i..::>:;:>;::•;i:; is::::;;;:5::5:;;t-: ::a:<:i;::;:;: r<.:>:%:->:.»s:;::::•:>;:<>:::°;:.:-?:>s:::i::•i:<:;:z:::.:::..:::::>;;;»:::::::z:•::•::::..;•:;;:>::.;>;.;»;:;;:si ::%:>:;as:;ttz:::.:::;r<:):ia::: :::.:; ... i:` !i?;i` agas?:.:: :::::=S::S> ::ci::::::::i:::Sg:`:::i>ii::io- i:;:;::;%;:?dri: :):::i::i::;;::>isi::::?;5:::ci:=S:::S:i:: :::ia<;:>i::i:::i;::ii:Sa:k::>:...:i`¢:3R�y::,`.::;;>:::::r;:::?>:::;:::;:;::5'i>.::i°?:>':::i::ji'::;::ii:;:;;::;<::;:;::;.:;;+:�a;;:p-::a:=:%:`•.v:;::'t?':::5:'tY::::: i?:i;i:ii:: ij " :% ".'.iii::':..::. ::i:i:ii:i:i:::i:�.�i::';::i 2 i;;:a:i:i is;i�i':4``i:i`;: :' :.' ,j'ii ?` :.:p.': ':is :.'k c; :;.;. ::,iii;'tiiiii <•.i'ai<ii:::: ::i::ii:::i:%(' ::::ii::::.i' ..:...... ........ .....:....... €i .L :;>:•o-;:•::: ,i:i::..... - -.Ci:S::::;^<:•:i'::';'i Yr:i •:.:.e>iJiv::.t•t`.`•>i:;: i::C:i:$:: 'i$ >' ;:i;i;:j<2> 'ia;` :`.'' . `'`:'a is%atit:<:``is fi:>isasi':i'asi:is<c:i:asii iijiir ii i:jiiii ii iji 3 i:iiii:i :a:i2 i:5:i '::).:::'�:';;i `1-1.1,11:S::!: '.:is<'!:`;P<yiiG:('<'ia: :`:i;ti i;f j:ii:.i if::`ii`.i ii:i:::i:::::.i:?i ff .;.1,1,.1,1,:: :....:.:.:.:: ...... ..: ....._:.::;:;.::::::.:a::<::;...::.:<:c>:;::<•r�:•::;:.t:.a:.:a::::::;o::::•..... ... ''r.:•. ....t. fi::z>%?;' .:: t � € €I the _ 1,;1,.1,;1:;: 1 ::»1,1,1,1,>:<:> ::>::;;::'.>::M.:>:: ,;1,1,1,1,::»;1,1,11,>:.;::.<:.:<:>;:::: % ; I. :.::,:, ; 1,1,;.1,1,::;>:':>;:.; >::>.:: I. :::<>.:z:::.:.:;:;,1,i�l1,11,::» ::':>:;;;:;::::::.;1,;1,.;1,1,:<:::.;:.;;...::::,::;:. ;':^:i';• .-.'.;—,.,.,...:::':::::':':':::::.:'.:":`.', :'}i'::i:::•::::.::::::: r::.::::y ?:?::?:::•:::•.i:::'i:ii�.::•i::i.:•:: i?ii.;:::•::•i:::>':+:i:':::i:i'+::;i::.. :{:•: :'i ::i q ...:::::.;1,1,1,1,:+5< syx'::+`::1,1,1,1,;:::;:::.::::::::•:>:: ::..::.::.:.::::.:: ::`::::::.. . >:.p.?:::i::i:::is?:::<:::S::y;r::.:.j:::i:::+:•:}1,1,1;1,:.:y:':.::',vi:1`'::SY:.'::.':i:':::::::i::::;:::i::::`f.:ii:::''.}'::i':. ::. :`. : .. '` ( :: '.:• 1..... 1. '•.:•' .:.:..:•.:•::::::::..:::•.::.. :':v...::.:... :r,•�f,,•,.,••,,•,.: .:..�.::•1.•,�,.�F � .:::. :•;•.:•:•vi::n::ii. .......: •:•1,1,1,1,•:: ;XX-. _ atY 'h 1,1,1,1..:.'. <.::::»1,1,1,1:<.:::::<:::<:::><.:.':: :::::: <::>> e ;; ::>::::. :.';:<::<::.::::::;>.><:::<:::.::>:::::<:>:: ::><::;;::::::>;::< ::>:<::: :::;.»>:>:<: >:::>: ::: <:>>>;:•:::<>;>::::>:.:.<::<:>: :>:<:: _::::,::>«:'.1,1,1,1,>>:: ::..>::<: : :: ,>;s;::< :;:: :<::::::»::>::::::»:::<.;:::>»:>::::.>>:>...:::::::..:::::..:...:::... : :. �... 1,1,1,1,:: _ __� vr _ :::::: :::.:.::.::.::::.::::.:::..::: .:.::::..:......,...:....,..::::::::::.:::::.:::.:.:...:.:.::::::.:. ..:.:::..:::... ;: :: 1,1,.1,1,::<.::::.::.::' :. : :::>:::::::::::::::::.::.::.::: :::<>.::: :...: ::.:; 1,1,1,1,::>::.::. .:. . . ::: : ::< :. ::. : : >:: ::.:::. .:.... .:. >::. :::�: :>:<:::: »: : :: No � � n 1,....1, .1, 1,::..::..::.;.::.::.:......... ... 1,1,..1,. .1, .::. .. :..:: : ........... .. .................. 1,.1,1,1,: _:.. ...:. :::.:::.::::..:.::::::........ .:...:................:.-....:.. . Ir :; :<:::..;:::: ::><:<>::::;: '::;::,.:;:::::::: : 1,11,;1,::*1,1,1,1,.; r _. � € the ..: :.. :: ::'.;:::::..:..:..:.::::::::.:::::.::.::::.::.:.:::.;.::.:.'.:::.>::,>:::.:.::::.:::.:.:.::::.:::>:<:: 11,1,.1: ::>'.::•:'::::.:.:....:;:•::;<:,<:::::::..::.:.::.::.::::::.:.. :.....::::.:::.::::.:::.:..:;.::.::.:...:.::..:::..::.::..::.•.:... _ __ 1,1,.1,.1,.,:.::>::.:::::::.,:<::.:.:.::::.::.:::.:.::.:.:..::.::.:....:..:.::::::.:.: ,. i ..;.:: . : 1,1,1,1,. ,..1,11,1,.: 1,1,1.1,.:<.::..... _. :.::::.:::.:::.•.:.:. :< :.:..:.:.:....:::: .::.,.::.. �... 1,.1,...1,. .1, ::.. ... 1,1,1,;1,:.. .....:....: .............,..............:..._..........,::....::::...................... 11 .............:..:..... ,.:::::...::..::..::::.....:::::..:.:...::.................:.........,....................,...:::.::.�.:.::::::..................::....._.......:....1,,..1,1,1,:�. ,.......... , ".., = .��'..'�,�..�...�..,....�-�.��'...... -.�!i - .... ., ..:;:`�[:.%::'::...!'.'i`i'i:j:;<i>2 i Sii "Jtii"rS 2%:'.'`i':%ai:.`:::'.''r'ri::i:ii%'.;#:.. ::. -:l:-i.''!;S%.'i:..'J£i k.:;::.:is 1,;1,1,1,.:•: - - ::.::: 1,1,1,....1,:. ...... ....:..:•.:.:. ..,,..:1,1,1,1,:.:::..::...:.:.;::.::::.::.:..:: ....:. :.... s. 1. 11 :::,,::... =:!�i��;��:�����:��]!�:�i��]��!]��!�3', , .� I � .......... .. ,:;���:�:����������������������]��:�j��������i����;���:�ii�����i� ,+ ib:.,.:'.`. i�:.'?:'::: C ::'i r:i:':i::Ci::;:i:i:ii•:`..`::::c`;. :. - ^:i:-,.;: ` ._. . i .. -. < � ,� ,©� t &. ± * , , ■ � . � , � : ■ , . < « * «#r . . = ? $ � �T � - « _ � ^ Taw , ; f # - » » i■ . w:# : � . R . � # ® ® v<f ■«« ** 2 «� ! 2 a * # : � ~ � � � � � � ># . J# «®< �■, �»# . :# , ^ #, ° � A: � . � � «:, #■»a» , � .vv�#y � 4 ©! . - *!;4 � . ; - : & « ¢f#■° «w ,»# «,#�#° :�# : ! ° 4 <J �Ta » #: » a»�» jma:#< �¥ �■ emeterivs and Animal Burials http.Jlwww.extensign.xi n.eduldistributionlnatLirilmsourceslcompon... Groundwater Contamination Cemeteries and Animal Burials Contamination Evidences • Detection of high bacteria levels in nearby well water tests Causes: . High water table Prevention: • Avoid high water tables for burial sites • Use watertight caskets in cemeteries with high water tables pow"WO, UYWOWW tares PM l� >. �r+�tn�irr,�rr . Contaminants: • Bacteria., viruses Qo tents Next.: Atmosheric Pollutants Btm1't6V'\€iLirC6it7aE'n \ \f Arm\fi#rofin\kiln tLoM\Search 1 Pratfuct C�t�1 N jws t LA�s oM l Ontine Shoging Abc+ C'Ourlfy Ma i Parttt rs Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension Service. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact the University of Minnesota Extension Service Distribution Center at (800) 976-M36. The University of;Minnesota Extension Service is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race,color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age,marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 2 of 2 4/1/04 l:'.52 PM .onstruetion Excavation http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/natttratresources/compon... 011 FAMEMMUNUM FO-05866 Reviewed 1396 D 9 Groundwater Contamination Constriction Excavation Contamination Evidence: • Spills • Changes in color, taste, odor, turbidity of water in nearby wells Causes: • Fuel, chemical spills • Road dust control runoff • Excessive and/or improper use of chemicals Prevention: • Spill containment and cleanup procedures • Follow recommended practices for safe use of fuels and outer hazardous substances N Hwtkwn OVU#h Contaminants: • Herbicides • Wash water • {til/gds spillage • Calcium chloride ,tis Next Cemeteries .rid r"�atitttal Duria.ls 1 of 2 411104 12:51 PM "Tatural Substances http://www.extensi.on.umn.e ti/distribiztiontnrttirratr€sources/compon... FO-05866 Reviewed 1996 Jb Qrdgr Groundwater Contamination Natural Substances Contamination Evidence • Bad taste or odor in well water • Stains on water fixtures • Detection in well water tests Causes • Natural origin Prevention • Avoid areas where natural groundwater problems exist, if feasible • Use water treatment devices • Change to public water supply, if feasible w t1'AM�1++Mt�k a►�a�F�dprt�R Contaminants: • Sulfur • Salt • Iron + Manganese • Barium • Radon • Others Coi2tents Next: ferences C mmu>E'1lity\gt'6yi r" ir!ent\ .1 \ rM\ .4r n 1 n" 3 of 2 xV 11 4 12:53 PM AMendrx#44 2 April 2004 To Whom It May Concern While my main area of expertise is fisheries biology, we in the Meld, have to understand the basics of hydrology, so I can say a little about the subject. I can not, however, make specific estimates of flow changes that would occur in the creek due to the project. I can speak to the subject of general effects that would be expected from such a project, The interactions between creeks and groundwater have been studied quite extensively in recent years (I can help you (find some references if needed). New technological advances have helped hydrologists to actually measure the amount of interaction between creeks or rivers and groundwater. It is well documented that a significant amount of water flows back and forth between the two, in both directions. Groundwater, in fact, in the dry months is the main source of water for creeks such as Pinole that have no snowmelt Groundwater levels creed to stay high enough so that they can interact with (contribute water to) the stream channel. In a smaller watershed like Pinole, it is quite likely that a diversion of this size from the groundwater will have an impact on stream flows. It is up to the hydrologists to determine what the extent of the impact will be. As biologists, we could then help determine what that will mean to fish and other species in the creels. To me, the biggest issue is how much water will be pumped and how much of an effect will it have on groundwater levels (ie. will the levels get too low to contribute water to the creek in the dry season?). There are plenty of examples of overdrafting of groundwater supplies causing significant impacts. One of the most striking examples is the Salinas River near Monterey which goes dry much sooner and longer than it did historically. Data has shown that there are very few direct diversions from the river and the extended drying up of the river is almost exclusively the result of depletion of groundwater in the area. Another extreme example is the entire city of Alviso in the South Bay which I believe has sunk about 14 feet in elevation due to depletion of aquifers. While problems of this scale aright not be expected for Pinole Creek, similar problems may develop. Particularly, we might see the creek with reduced flows and may see it go dry earlier or longer than usual. This could present significant problems for steelhead and red-legged frogs which have been documented in the watershed. Rainbow trout and steelhead juveniles that live year-round in the creek are particularly dependent on the cool water temperatures in the summer in a spring-fed creek like Pinole. I think that the biggest problem is that the county board probably doesn't understand the impacts that groundwater deficits can have on a creek. In addition, the monitoring they proposed will not likely show impacts far the first few years because the cemetery project will be small. As the project grows however, the problems will be exacerbated and by then it will be too late because the company will claim hardships if the water is turned off. I think the best way to go from here would be to use the Endangered Species Act as it was intended, to protect these species. But in order to do that, you will need to have an expert in hydrology look at the anticipated impacts to the creek. Then as biologists, we can make the proper arguments for how those changes will effect endangered species. Mope this helps. Bert Mulchaey Pinole Resident _ From a concerned citizen: The San Francisco garter snake that lives across the bay, mostly near the Airport, is endangered precisely because it was geographically isolated on the SF peninsula long enough to develop an individual species genotype (i.e., evolve into a subspecies). Similarly, the Alameda whipsnake has undergone similar evolution within the East Bay scrub habitats, differentiating it from the more southern chaparral snake that has a larger range. It is also a subspecies. There are no San Francisco garter snakes across the Golden Cate in Marin, and there are no Alameda whipsnakes across the Carquinez Straits in Solana County, although there are chaparral snakes both north and south. To my knowledge, there is no genetic work to show that the Alameda whipsnake is different in Pinole Valley, which may be the farthest extent of its range, than it is south of Hwy 580 where it visually may begin to show intergrades {results of interbreeding} with the chaparral snake. There is some anecdotal information from experts that the Pinole Valley whipsnakes are more brightly colored (i.e., "more coral than orange") than other Alameda whipsnakes, but that interesting observation has not yet, to my knowledge, been investigated through genetic studies. However, there is little doubt that such populations, near an isolated limit of the species range are valuable to the total gene pool (you might liken them to the "deep end" of the gene pool because they appear to be the most differentiated). I mention the example of the whipsnake because the redlegged frog population in Pinole Valley is now also isolated. Whether it represents an important genetic component is less likely than the whipsnake, but it is a distinct population nevertheless. As a federally listed species, all of the overall papulation segments are important to species' recoveries in the wild. Roger Hartwell Apr 02 04 Oli25p Watershed HQ 8252548320 p. 2 l k world is gtnlrtF.q mortar pu.�t.arRh"rfs a&adi•aCtscSatr rrr+ri;�a�rs Sustainable Groundwater Management* Concepts and Tools Characterization of Groundwater Systems key concepts and frequent misconceptions Authors(GW*MATE Core Group) Stephen Fosters Albert TnlrthoP Karin Kemper Hector Garduflo Marcella Nanni ( bead aut1wr 2main suppoctir%author) Hoar do aquifers differ freers one another!" T Au aquifer is a geological formation capable of yielding useful groundwater supplies to NveEs and springs.All aquifers have two fundamental characteristics: a capacity For groundwater storage and a capacity for groundwater flow.But different geological formations vary widely in the degree to which _ they exhibit these properties (Figure 1.)and their areal extent can vary with geological strucrure from a few kmi to many thousands of krn2, The most significant elements of hydrogeological diversity-(Figure 1) are- major variation of aquifer unit storage capacity (storativiry), between unconsolidated granular sediments and highly-consoiidared fractured rocks • wide variation in aquifer saturated thickness between different depositional types, resulting in a wide range of groundwater floe:potential(trams missivity). Figure'l. Summary of key properties of the most widely-occurring aquifer types REGIONAL # GROUNDWATER STORAGE GROUNDWATER FLOW j small medium large very large � ' rlrirlQr'`__._.,..__...... ___.._..__._.«.._...._�_._...' S"'_._... �ttgY __......_..,......_—_ 6 �...�.«._�_..._—i i ntraderatt i .major i tlYtthsrul Ciym:/drat ltsrrrrt o,,xtnl _ ,-Ixter-hfarurrnr..-...., C 111dosrd MA9aj»r,4tGruial i B+trrmtrrt Limnrtaarr Utllry ltidd Sra'irxr»e y t trsi)Fr l ormatiat r i �.....,__.. o dreisly tiettltterd cnml limcstoae and i uncoosolidatcd, undswaet,or itnCn ladkt{3tCd l ;gncoust '44 � skektai t#etticus sctfimet+tsdpc3th#ta, limcstoafs�ith l sedimcats(�t+syd#s, metamorphic rocks i ofren only loosely 1 gravels,sands}. cansolidation anti sal slti,sil s},it tI#y j Producing..titin cemented;frinttiag i intnedmes with 1 frauuring incrLasirig tuiittuivc and of I matetic of lulu co:u han or islands i vtslctnic lawrsltuffs moult kilsc}:tUVK � 14.41 thiCtuicsa 1 prrmcmkailit.;vrty j .and 1pwsttine clsty's; vntia#>!e.but c- 1. e wive low- I modtmi*cmcnsioa i t,tai d ick iquifnrs� I i pdclding aquifer !au can be-Jtick' i Apr 02 014 01 .25p Watershed HQ 92525483201 p. 9 r ol.ai water portne~rship 41% wciatte pra3rarn How does groundwater 11*W? & The vast storage of many g;rotindwatcr systems(much larger than that of the biggest man-made reser- voirs) is their most distinctive characteristic. In consequence most groundwater is in continuous slow movement(Figure 2)from areas of natural aquifer recharge(fro.m ra.iriEll excess to p{ant requirements) to areas of aquifer discharge(as springs and seepages to watercourses,werlands and coastal zones). t, ;39 »»,O� 'groundwater normally flows in une#erground rivers' f-l7'Y 0, this it flit exceptional arse, restricted to certain timertones and other rock with solurion cavenu,and flow genewIl y tales place in a myriad of`interconnected bores or fiarturi Pz Aciiiifer storage transforms highly variable natural recharge regimes intra snore stable natural discharge regimes.It also results in groundwater residence times&at are usually counter{in decades or centuries (Figure 2) and sometimes even in millennia, with large volumes of w-called 'fossil groundwarcr' (a relic of pasr episodes of different climate}still being held in storage. im Where aquifers dip beneath much less permeable strata, their groundwater becomes confined (to varying degrees) by overlying layers. This rests€es in a corresponding degree of isolation from the immediarely overlying lana surface, bur not from the groundwater system as a whole. Drawdown induced by pumping from the confined section of an aquifer is often rapidly propagated to the unconfined section. In various hydrogeological settings, shallow unconfined and deep confined aquifer layers can be superimposed (Figure 2) with leakage downwards and upwards between layers according to local conditions. ( , Y771� lyy drilling,wells deeper new groundwater resources can be tapped' 121•.r?LI Y�.� c�erper frtshtuater forniutr'mrt may 6e encountered, Etat a6straCting their gtcxtrtdtvttter more oftcm rtsrelrs in induced - leakage fmm overlying aquifers tkan interreptwn of major independent b#rourulwater flrtw at d-.pth Figure 2: Typical groundwater flow regime and residence times of major aquifers under semi-arid climatic regimes aqutter ret arge area minor perennial ---- groundwater table in discharge area upper aquifer layer } j aquitard ' 1: (low Permeability strata) 1 _.�....�.• 's;��� aquieiuda {� 't 'a' ?,w•. tvirtuaity impermeable strata) UNCONI'INED AOUIFEF7 41. SEMICOIVRNEG. ~•...� "••MlCLENNfA .......y..,•_.-" �si'�u'a85�ufu"�•,r ;gil � .9io.___•:akr: 2 Apr 02 04 01 : 25p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 4 tnk {ut gl*bul waNnr partnership l�Sa�'s,rR�Yeo rail What is tete retartionshin bett,:seen grountP.mater and surface water? 0 Diagnosing the relationship of surface water to an underlying aquifer is an important component of groundwater system characterization. it is important to distinguish between: • srrearris and rivers on which an aquifer is dependent as a significant source of its overall recharge • rivers that in cu.rn depend significantly on aquifer discharge to sustain their dry-weather flow. The three most common relationships are presented in Figure 3, although it should be noted chat in some cases rivers may Fluctuate seasonally between two of the conditions depicted. Figure 3: Spectrum of passible relationships between surface watercourses and underlying groundwater systems � 4�-,. 'ti, ,zy� ._-..:k �•.. J"�.�.�;./'tit. SF"F P,i; FROM,i.OSINi i c i HaAm LOSING 41FLUEM)STR-PAM � 1w."ONIN E'FLUIzPi i,S'Fi<t^AM �Jf jr is the ",timed n a? aquilor repler�ishme t important? w Contemporary aquifer recharge rates are a fundamenrati consideration in the sustainability of ground- water resource development. Furthermore, understanding aquifer recharge mechanisms and their linkages with land-use is essential for'integrated water resources management. The quantification of natural recharge, however, is subject to significant merhod.ological diffic:ilties, data deficiencies and resultant uncertainties because of * wide spatial and temporal variability of minfall and runoff events • widespread lateral variation in soil profiles and hydrogeological conditions. Nevertheless, for most practical purposes it is sufficient to make approximate estimates,and refine these subsequently through monitoring and analysis ofaqu'sfe.:response to abstraction over the medium term. z'Sl:i TH 3f� ° +,art}fle rate of aquitrsr rat-harge are conga zilt' s�RLiiLll'Y ?Is tkh cemmo~sly accepted pant&gm can be f&e and Excel to serious ikuble rea'aur_-e accounting'in morr and rz,�mnz•--reckwge mater vmy ntriah siarerflow diuenivn or ronrm4 modifuatiom w surface wearer irvioem chages in natural vegewrion or croup type in trohaTe arear, >'edurrion in trntngc from urban wrurr-supply rsetuorks sand in-sitrt lowering of*water-table,ear. ig A number of generic observations can be rnade on aquifer recharge proteases: s areas of increasing aridiry tiwill have a much lower rate and frequency of downward flux co the water- table, with direct rainfall recliarge generally becoming progressively less significant than indirect recharge from surface runoff and incidental artificial recharge arising from human activity r estimates of the direct rainfall recharge component are a.lrncsr always more reliable than those for the indirect component from runaff recharge. 3 Apr 02 04 01 . 25p Watershed HQ 9252549920 p. 5 Vbid fak n t global.i.sr pmrncrhfq cusoc'stb prrxv,trtn "i tine rsafe, yield' of an aquifer he defined? Ali groundwater flow must be discharging somewhere, and abstractions will reduce these discharges. But the source of groundwater pumped can be complex (Figure 4). So-called "safe yield' is clearly bounded by the current Iong-corm average rate of aquifer recharge,although should also consider: • value judgements alhouc the importance of maintaining(ac least a proportion of)some of the natural discharges from the aquifer system • consideration of consumptive use and.carchment export,is opposed to local non-consumptive uses which result in the local generation of all effluent. tr r Yl 1l 1 `the average rate of aquiter recharge can be taken as its safe yield' r h'fJlt.1 f'1' this rather er;irtent cant 'd4et not eowidrr the need to maintain aquifer dircha a or water-lapel in t�r interest o other water wen.dquatieltesr-estriai crosymvis ardor preventing roastul raline sntraxtion,and tiff expreuirm`sa}t-,yseld'is ofirn interpreted fiar ton sirnpAsrically 0 Nevertheless maximum tolerable rates of abstraction need to be defined,and thus resource evaluation must distinguish between: • discharge to freshwater systems required co sustain downstream wooer-supply or river ecosystems • discharge via natural vcgeration,including that sustaining ecologically andlor economically valuable freshwater wetlands and brackish lagoons • discharge to saline areas, including uaastai waters,salt lakes and pans and make allowances for those parts of these discharges which need to be conserved. Figura 4: Conceptual effects sof abstractions on the groundwater resource balance to€ R+ tz R+ c« ,l. o o- o-- s I � I NATURAL VASIX UNSUSTAINABLE cONEATiON"S OfJOUNDWATCR PUMPING GROUNDWATER PUMPING in the tong term R 0, 0 is equlvalont to reduction In Q+is greater than R+plus 0--(which reduces to D) and S Is constant n and 3,plus increase in A and S--decreases continuously When can ars aquifer said to be `csarerexPltilted'? 0, The term 'aquifer overexploitation' is an emotive expression not capable of rigorots5 scientific definition. But it is a term which water resource managers would be wise not to abandon completely, since it has clear register at public;and political level. Some regard au aquifer as being overexploited when its broundrmater levels show evidence of`concirxuous long-term'decline. 4 Apr 02 04 01 : 26p Watershed HQ 9252S48320 p- 6 _ tt �,._..: _.. . : .. .... world_b�r!'f!i[ v 011 Mat glbh i vrax�,r p trtttrwm3sip rtc�agct�Ce pr r4r4? � i. I P =fin{tinea ,groundviater levels always imply aquifer overexploitat"son,` all groundwater development involves drawdown and tbas process can have u tame-lag of many years before a new equidbrium is establivIted in large aquifers of lora transmissivi ylrtorativity ratio---this could be mistaken for cornan uously-declining gmunri ureter levels in some arses e Others take it to.Wean that the long-term average rate of groundwater recharge is less than a6str.crion. Even this definition may not be workable because of: • the problem of specifying over what period and whichh area the groundwater balance should be eva€umed.,especially in more arid climates where major recharge episodes occur once in decades and pumping effects may also be very unevenly distributed • more general uncertainty about aquifer recharge mechanisms and rates, as a result of hydro;eo- logical complexity and-inadequate field data • the fact that mayor temporal variation in aquifer recharge components can occur, such as those associated with lowering water-table,lorry;-term climatic trends and human activities. '; In practice,when speaking;of agtxifer overexpoiration we are invariably much.more concerned about the consequences of intensive groundwater abstraction (Figure 4) than in its absolute level.'Rhus the most appropriate definition is probably an economic one: that the 'ON-erall cost of the negative imp=ts of groundwater exploitation exceed the net benefits of groundwater use', but of course these impacts can be equally difficult to predict and to cost. ea It is important to stress, in this context, that some of:hese consequences can arise well before the groundwater abstraction rare exceeds long-term average recharge. Thus the way in which a givers situation is interpreted will vary with the type of aquifer system involved--that is with volume of exploinible storage and suscepti"oitivy to irreversible side-effects during short-terra overdraft. cwt Amongst the most criticai or'potential impacts from 'intensive aquifer development (Figure, 5) is groundtivater salinization. This will be terminal for both potable water-supply and agricultural irrigation uses. However,it is important to diagnose the cause of groundwater salinization since it can be caused 6y various mechanisms(.Figure 6),only some of which are aquifer pumping related. Figure 5: Consequences of excessive groundwater abstraction _...___.,..__.._...___.. ..._______....__......_....,._.._.._._.__.......__._..____.....__________......._...... REVERSIBLE INTERFERENCE IRREVERSIBLE DEGRADATION • pumping lifts/costs increase� �'Y phreazciohytic vegerarinn errGss ^°~saline water intn,sion __._._.__. • borehole yield redaction (both natural and agricultural) ingress of polluted water { springtflow1basrfla.w reduction • aquifer compaction and (frorn perched aquifer or river) transmissetin•reduction land subsidence and relayed i impacts(atluitard compaction) 5 Apr 02 04 01 : 27p idetershed HQ 9252548320 P. 7 �!Nb k WOi`Ii'� amtmtat wstmr pp,r4nf:rtstip asrrc+eiu»osror+n ��; Figure 6: The possible origins of groundwater salinity and mechanisms of aquifer salinization fGRMAT:CN WATER ta;,attur:s+�N i ...�`... SWLACLUN1UtAMM pgf{RA7SC IZVAKIM'Yi<fNl . 'r,'tl. ,�.�•. '�` leastkrxaAins.t,:.n7e,i CIINuR,wr•hsMing tmttrkA4hYitt}N rvsaNwrSlpAvat.U7:afNrANtAtaa*C,NkwtRtCkuHef,ALtYafCtiNRft"'Ma =LrRGddracrcairpsat" M:'.. c wa - im+u ngaaXni xrrmtaw t ..:,.,;-....,• .. _ twlewtq Mxv{pttT;iMtg': _ .. ... "w metks8 An an Asiadtk are // \\ potanNRfs/rsialsd to gromdwaiar abstraction 1NTR4iii6x 9F YAL"..rD� 9Ae}NE CtR0UNPIYATCn ".'.'.'.-<_'' blackish and sauna water a,enn!ag 1.k,:Certn Ew to tteastiat aNnrirnR �trezh w¢tat ` Groundwater is never a Strictly non-renewable resource,but not is it everywhere frilly renewable to rite thre•-fr me of current develciprnent.T here are thus some circumstances where expicztacion on non- renevvablc groundwater resources{raining ofgroundtaater resersesi maybe considrsed{ar has occurred uirexpccredly)and requires systematic valuation. Further Readiiig l3redehoeft,J•7J. 1997 Safe Yielrl and the Water Budget Myth. Ground Wager 35: 929, Custodio, E. 2000 The Complex Concept of Overexploited Aquifers Papeles Provecto Aguas Subrcrrancas Serie A:2 Fundacion Nlarcelino Borin:Santander„ Spain. Frasier,S.,Chilton,J.,h4oeach,IM,Cardy,F.and Schifflct,M.2000 Groundwater in Rural Develop tent;4Facing the C'halLnges afSup#6,and Resource Statainabibty Vlorld Bank'lechn'scal Paper 463:Washington 13.0,,USA. Fester,S., Lawrence,A.and Morris,B. 199£3 Groundwater in Urban Development:AsseuingManagemenr A'etds and 1 of-mulating Policy Strwtegies.World Bank 1'echnicai Paper 390:Washington D.(;., USA. Simmers,I., Hendriks,). M.H.,Kruseman,G. R and Rushton,K. IC, 1997 Reclrnsge afPhreaticAquifers in Sen i-Aridliquifers. TAH International Contributions to Hydrogeology 19. ---.._._...__.___.. Publication Arrangements 'Eic:GW-MATE Briefing Nutt Series has tuecn cicsii ned by Words mei I?k bhCatiDM.Orford,UK,and published by kthe NVorld Bank,Washington D-C.,OSA.It is also available in electronic fort can doe World Bank tvarer resources -A cbsitc(anvx;A urldbankorg/gwmRte;and the Global Water Puzncrship vvebshz{tvl;ti¢gwptorum org). "rke findinpy,intapterttinas,tnci rur,drutn.y exprcrxer�+n.rhis�rref err onsirci'v tkarz dthe atnh and sha ad not be xmib—d in nnv manner m tir: i Wold Ikttk,m 4—AN.-3 nt`}t3niGiri4ns.<ar m mrmhax of iu 3—d uf'txcrurirc Vi,cetart nr for mt:,rtries they tcpr—t, Funding Support j } GCG' vIATE(Groundmaer INtanogomenc Adyisory Team) j is n comimnent of the Bank-Netherlands Wacer Parrnership Program FDFI �"':'" f (3t A`v"PP)using trust funds from the l Lutdi and:British governments. 6 Apr 02 04 01 : 27p Watershed HQ 8252548320 P. 8 water facN No.8 Groundwater Management inCalifornia— Six Methods Under Current Lava Groundwater and surface water are not treated alike 1. Overlying Property nights under California law.The permit application process to property rights allow anyone in California for appropriating surface water in California is ton- ro build a well and extract their correlative shat:,of rained in the C�zlifomrrx Water Coctre By contrast, rights groundwater is not quantified unless the: groundwater basin has been adjudicated. Historically to use groundwater have evolved through a series of landowners used groundwater to develop a local court decisions dating back to the late 1800s. economy.As the economy gree, the demand for water increased.To meet this increasing water de- Although surface water and groundwater supplies have mend,water projects were buflr to provide more ' been regarded as separate water resources in California, surface water.Although groundwater management they are the same resource—water may not be closely coordinated under this method, some consider this a forth of management. In some parts of California rhe relationship between overlying landowners that attract groundwater and �. Statutory Authority There are 22kinds of districts or local agencies with local water management ageneses is not clear. specific statutory,provisions to manage surface water identified in the California Water Corte. Some of This situation has complicated relationships between these agencies have statutory authority to exercise landowners who use groundwater, and local water some forms of groundwater management. Some agencies and districts which import sutface water. I agencies have done so,others Dave not. This Tla&r 1 acrr describes the six methods of amiaging 3. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins groundwater used in Califorriva. The methods are Some California groundwater basins have been listed in the chronological order in which they were adjudicated.After a lawsuit is initiated to adjudicate a developed. groundwater basin, the court decides the groundwa- ter rights of all the overliers and appropriators, The court decides who the extractors are,how much groundwater those well owners can extract, and who the Warermaster will be. The Watermaster ensures that the basin is managed according to the court's decree and reports periodically to the court. There August 2000 __ _._.. __ _. _... Apr 02 04 01 : 28p Watershed HQ 8252548320 p. 5 are 18 adjudicated groundwater basins it. Califor- Shasta,Ventura and Yolo Counties have adopted nia. For a description of adjudicated groundwater ordinances.Other counties are considering ordittarices. basins see Water Facts Ale. 3 `Adjudicated Ground- However,the Rill nature and extent of the power of water Basins in California." cities and counties to regulate groundwater remains uncertain. 4. Groundwater Management Districts For More Information or Agencies For more details about groundwater law,refer to the In some parts ofCalifornia,special legislation bias been Califinztira'Water Code or DWR Bul/un 118.•Cdifornza's enacted to form groundwater management districts or GroundvAter. You may also want to contact your local agencies. This legislation allows these districts to adopt water agency or contact an attorney who specializes in ordinance to limit or regulate groundwater extraction. waiter law.Sec DWR's Web page at There are:tine groundwater management districts in wwwdpla.seater.ca.govkgi-bin/supply/gw/management/ California,and they have had varying degrees ofsuccm at hq/maimpl,or contact any of the following: managing groundwater.The statutory authority of three other water districts has been modified to grant them Division of Planning and Local Assistance powers similar to legislative groundwater management Headquarters :s agencies. For adescription of groundwater management 102.0 Ninth Street districts or agencies see Water prods No.4`Givundwater Sacramento,CA 95814 Management Districa or Agencies in C ali�rn n." Carl Hauge,e-mail:chaugc@water.ca.gov � Telephone: 916/327-$$61 5. Groundwater Management Plan (AB 3030 Plat) Northern.District Section 10750 etseq.,of the Calsfornia Water Code 244.0 Main Street (AB 3030, 1992)provides asystematic procedure for an Red Bluff, CA 96080-2398 existing local agency ttr develop a groundwater manage- Toccoy Dudley,e-mail: rdudley@water.ca.gov merit plan. 71iis section of the Water Code provides such Telephone: 530/529-7383 an agency with the powers of a water replenishment district. This allows the agency to raise revenue to pay for Central District facilities to manage the groundwater basin(exrracdon, 3251 S Street recharge,conveyance,quality). About 160 agencies have Sacramento, CA 958167017 adopted AB 3030 groundwater management plans. Bob Niblack, e-mail: bniblack@water.ca.gov Telephone: 916/227-7601 5. City and County Ordinances California courts'Piave upheld the right of cities and San Joaquin.Dastrtct counties to regulate groundwater under their police 3374 Fast Shields Avenue powers.In Baldwin v?Tehama County(1984),the Fresno, CA 93726-6990 Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the ordinance Al Steele,e-mail: asteele@warer.ca.gov was pre-erupted by State law.The court reasoned that Telephone: 9161445-5100 State law does not occupy the field of groundwater management and does not prevent cities and counties Sout cern District fpm adopting ordinances to manage groundwater.The 770 Fairmont Avenue California Supreme Court declined to review the Court Glendale,CA 91203-1035 of Appeal's Tehama decision.The Tehama County Bob irierotti, e-mail: pierotti@water.ca.gov ordinance remains in effects Bunte, Glenn,imperial, Telephone: 818/543-4646 lnyo,Kern,Lake,Napa,San Diego,San Joaquin, � $t��oft;alihamia 2 L, The Rescrui Arena• Oapartmentof WaterRnsourcea _ _ _ _........... Rpr 02 04 01 : 28p Watershed HQ 9252 5483207 P. 10 MITIGATION, FOR IMPACTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECI... Page 1 of I MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES— FROM POTENTIAL FLOW DEPLETION IN THE LOWER PLATTE RIVER,NEBRASKA Gregory L.Howick David H.Stous Fred C.Pinkney Bums&McDonnell,Inc. Kansas City,MO Kevin Tobin Metropolitan Utilities District Omaha,NE ABSTRACT The Metropolitan Utilities District(District)has proposed to construct,in the alluvial aquifer of the Platte River,west of Omaha,Nebraska,a drinking water supply well field with an annual average capacity of 56,000 acre-feet.Operation of the well field will induce infiltration into the alluvial aquifer and thereby reduce the flow in the Platte River.The amountso.f infiltration and flow reduction will vary seasonally as demand for water varies from lore in the winter to high in the summer. Transient groundwater modeling predicted an average annual depletion from the Platte River of 40,700 acre-feet. Tlie affected portion of the Platte River contains the federally-listed endangered pallid sturgeon and the sturgeon chub-a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act,The U.S.Fish and wildlife Service(USFWS), in previous opinions, as stated that any further depletion of flow in the Platte River during the critical period of February through July is a jeopardy to the continued existence of these two fish species.The groundwater model predicted the Platte west well field would cause an average depletion during this period of 18,560 acre-feet.Nebraska water rights laws prevent the District from replacing this flow by purchasing existing water rights.Instead,the District negotiated with the USFWS to pay a one time depletion fee of$54.00 per acre-foot.This fee would be used by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to restore a backwater habitat along the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte River.The resulting improvement in the biological productivity of the Missouri River is intended to compensate for the loss of habitat for pallid sturgeon and sturgeon chub in the Platte River. This method of mitigation is unprecedented for the lower Platte River and may serve as a basis for establishing USFWS policy regarding future flow depletions in this river. http://www.naep.org/ARCHIVES/1999/Hawick.htmi 4/212004 Apr 02 04 01 : 29p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 11 Endangered Species Page I of 5 ENDANGERED SPECIES SACK TC3 SALA1gpNDER E3QCUMEI� Endangered Species: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Le#ter September 5, 2000 Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 Colonel Gordon M. Wells, Fort Worth District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 75142-0300 Dear Mr. Cooke and Colonel Wells: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requests your assistance to prevent.the extinction of the Barton Springs salamander(Eurycea sosorum), a federally listed endangered species. The purpose of this letter is to raise the level of awareness of the current conservation states of this salamander. We believe that current and future threats to the water quality at Barton Springs may be jeopardizing the continued existence of the salamander. This letter is addressed to Federal agencies responsible for implementation of the Clean Water Act and is also being provided to other Federal agencies whose programs or actions could have a positive or negative influence on Barton Springs salamander conservation. Federal regulations (50 CFR 402.02) implementing the Endangered Species Act define the term "jeopardize the continued existence of""to mean: "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." Based on our current review of the water quality data from surface waters, groundwater, sediments, and Barton Springs, we believe that any action that further degrades water quality in this watershed may significantly affect the survival of the salamander. Serious attention and significant resources need to be directed to this watershed to ensure its protection and preservation. littp://www.recaonline.co-n/docs/endangered_itr.html 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01 : 29p Watershed H4 9252549320 p. 12 Endangered Species Page 2 of 5 Background Everything occurring on the Barton Springs watershed that degrades the quality of surface or groundwater has the potential to impact the Barton Springs salamander. Karst aquifers, such as the Edwards Aquifer, are very sensitive to water pollution and once degraded with toxic levels of contaminants, there is little possibility of cleaning the aquifer. The Barton Springs salamander occurs only in Barton Springs in Zilker Park in Austin, Texas. The ecosystem, upon which the Barton Springs salamander depends, is the Darton Springs watershed. This ecosystem includes. (1) four spring outlets with surface habitat (collectively referred to as Barton Springs), (2) the underground aquifer that provides water to the spring outlets, (3)the surface water streams in the recharge and contributing areas of the aquifer, and (4) the land within the watersheds that contribute to Barton Springs. The water that flows from Barton Springs originates as rainfall on the lands in the contributing and recharge zones of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer(Enclosure One). This 354-square mile drainage makes up the Barton Springs watershed and influences the quality of water flowing out of Barton Springs. Good water quality is essential to the health of the salamander. Because of its restricted distribution and location at the end of the aquifer system, the salamander may be subjected to water quality pollutants that reach the aquifer. The final rule to list the salamander as endangered (April 1990 considered the best available scientific information as of 1995. Since that time, studies and detailed analysis of water quality trends have lead to a significant body of new information. This new information indicates that there is a relatively high incidence of toxic chemicals in toxic amounts in the surface waters, groundwater, sediment transport system, and at Barton Springs. Heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and sediment have been found in and near salamander habitat. Given the threats of continued water quality degradation from increased urban development, increased risk of hazardous materials spills, and increased groundwater pumping, the Service believes that the continued existence of the Barton Springs salamander may be in jeopardy. Our review of this information has made it clear that the existing water quality regulations, including the State's water quality standards and local water quality protection on the aquifer, are not adequate to prevent long-term water quality degradation associated with the urbanization of the Barton Springs watershed. A review of the conservation status of the species, including a summary of the existing water quality information, is attached (Enclosure Two). In our ongoing coordination with private developers, private citizens, local governments, and state agencies, the Service has drafted water quality protection recommendations to minimize water quality impacts on the Edwards Aquifer (Enclosure Three). These measures are not rules or regulations, they are only recommendations. The measures are designed to offer http://vAv�v.recaonline.com/docs/endargered_ltr.html 4/2/2004 Rpr 02 04 01 : 30p Watershed HO 9252548320 p. 13 l✓ndangered Species Page 3 of 5 water quality protection that is reasonable and provides protection for the salamander. These measures are designed for maintaining water quality, however, additional steps may meed to be taken to improve the water quality at Barton Springs. Federal Government Responsibility We believe that ultimately private citizens, local governments and the State of Texas can solve this water quality problem through comprehensive regional planning. However, it is the responsibility of every Federal agency to ensure that Federal programs and Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the salamander (directly, indirectly, or cumulatively). in addition, Federal programs need to be used to further the conservation of the endangered Barton Springs salamander and the ecosystem upon which it depends. 1 All Federal agencies have a positive responsibility under the Endangered Species Act to use their programs to further the conservation and protection of listed species. Section 7 (a)(1)of the Endangered Species Act states that: "The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, In consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities In furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act." The Service recommends, as part of your agency's ongoing responsibilities under section 7(a) (1), that you consult to ensure that your authorities are being used to carry out programs that further the conservation of this listed species. The Federal government needs to support programs that will enhance and protect water quality in this watershed. To improve the chances for the salamander's continued survival, the Service requests that your agencies carefully review potential benefits or impacts of any federal permits, funds, or other actions in the Barton Springs watershed. Any actions that may affect the salamander or its habitat should not be authorized without completing formal consultation, as required under section 7(a)(2)of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. We would appreciate the opportunity to brief you and your staffs on the salamanders' current conservation status and discuss how to partner our resources to heir) Central Texas put this species on the road to recovery. By copy of this letter we are also notifying other Federal, State of Texas, and local ,agencies of our serious concerns for the survival of the Barton Springs salamander. Please.contact Matthew Lechner, or me, at 512/490-0057, to further discuss this matter. http://www.recaonline.com/does/endangered_ltr.html 4/2/2004 Apr 02 04 01 : 30p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 14 Endangered Species Page 4 of 5 Sincerely, /s/ David C. Frederick David C. Frederick Supervisor Enclosures cc: Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, San Antonio, TX U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Chairman, Farm Credit Administration Administrator, Farmers Home Administration Chairman, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Managing Director, Federal Housing Finance Board Director, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Administrator, Small Business Administration -. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Division.Administrator, Federal Highways Administration District Chief,Austin Office, U.S. Geological Survey Superintendent, National Park Service, Midwest Support Office Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice U. S. Attorney, Western District of Texas, Department of Justice Governor George W. Bush, State of Texas Jeffrey Saitas, Executive Director, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Andy Sansom, Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Susan Combs, Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture Robert Buckley, Executive Director, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Craig Pedersen, Texas Water Development Board Mike Regan, Executive Director, Railroad Commission of Texas Charles Heald, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation John Johnson, Executive Director,Texas Transportation Commission Joe Beal, General Manager, Lower Colorado River Authority Craig Smith, Chairman, Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District William C. Garbade, P.E., Austin District Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation Dianna F. Noble, Environmental Affairs Division , Texas Department of Transportation Mayor Kirk Watson, City of Austin Sam Biscoe, Travis County Judge Jim Powers, Hays County Judge Mike Aulick, Director of Capitol Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Mayor Wayne Smith, City of Dripping Springs Mayor Caroline Murphy, Village of Bee Caves littp://www,recaonline.com/docs/cndangered_ltr.htrnl 4/2/2004 _.. Apr 02_04 01 . 31p Watershed HQ 9252548320 p. 15 Endangered Specials Page 5 of 5 �i►top of "tact The Real Estate Council of Austin, Inc. 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin,TK 78701 512/320-4151 FAX 512 320-4152 info'lrecaonl ine.corn Back to Top 4.12003?deal Estate Council of Ausin,Inc.All Pights Rpsmed- http://Nvww.recaonline.com/does/endanger.-d—Itr.htm] http://www.recaonline.com/does/endangered_ttr.htm] 4/2/2004 AWend x#45 AV a dh#tK