Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.2 Valley Christian Center C-3220 (2) ~ ttll 0) J)LlJJlJ./f . . AGEJIDA S T k TEJ.',~h T \ ~---~- --- -- . -- - - - ':' C{~ (O""e I" - "'----,"i J':eeting Date: August 23, 1982 SUBJECT Reviel'l of Valley Christian Center - t':odification to Conditio~al Use Permit UH]SllS fdT,i.CiJED - J<e':lJ,-andum fl-om Planning Director dated ".ugust 20, 1982 _ Letter from Valley Christian Center dated ".ugust 16, 1982 _ i<.,,;,oi-andum from City Attorney dated August 20, 1982 _ I_etter from Zoning Administratol' dated June 19, 1981 _ Letter fl-om Valley Christian Center dated June 16, 1981 _ Resolution No. Z-3255 of Zoning Administl-ator _ Envi,-olw;ental Impact Findings, C-3220 - {,dd,"ndum ErR, January 5, 1978 _ Draft EIR, Valley Christian Center, C-3220 f:i:CCC,:-:r:r;DATlON Consider options and pl'ovide policy direction an assurances that conditions are met. if I' i:,!.,';C If,L 5 T:.,n::';,Jn: ,:one DESCRIPfIO~ : Vall~y Christian Center was granted a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a church and related school and support facilities. A condition of app,'oval \.:as the p,-eparation of a landscaping plan to Illitigate visual impacts. The landscaping was to be in place before any occupancy of the facility. Valley Christian Center is now requesting hom the Council a modification to the land- scaping condition to allow phased landscaping over a 16 Illonth period. They have also submitted an application to the Staff to allow the same phasing. The Staff has identified two options available tq ~be Council: 1. Di,-ect the applicant to fo110\1 the existing application procedures. Notices \.:ould be sent out. The Staff would act on the request to modify or I'laive any condition of the Conditional Use Permit. The Staff decision would be appealable to the Council. 2. As i nd i ca ted in the City A ttol-ney' s memo, Council may take action on the reques t. If Council decides to grant the request, Staff suggests that some means of assurance be included in the action. Possible assurance mechanisms include: A. Cash or certificate of deposit B. Letter of Credit C. Performance Bond D. Lien E. Letter from Applicant F. Oral Agreement r'~echanisllls A and B pl'ovide the most assurance, incentive, and ease of implementa- tion within a short amount of time. ~echanism C provides some assurance, but may require court action,' attorney's fees, and substantial a!,lOunts of time. t':"cLanism 0 p,'ovidcs reasonable assurance, but I'lOuld require at least 2 yea,-s to enfOl-ce. ~~chanism E and F would be difficult and time consuming to enforce. . 1m'. NO. r '..J . /-J Copies To: - -----.--.------ 'THE CITY OF DUBLI( 1'.0 B"x 2340 Dul.dlJl, C.-\ ~l-;SG6 (415) 829.3543 MEl\lORAl\'DUM Augus t 20, 1982 TO: City Co"ncil I FRO;.l: P131ining Director t=r SUBJlCT: Valley Christian Center, ~odification to Conditional Use Pel-'lli t, C-3220 ----. -- - - ---- ---.---- --_._--------------------_._~_._.- ----. --------------------- --------------- - - .------..------------- GE!:[?r\L ltiFOFYJ.I T10!~ ['J>Jlli.c:~.!l1 : Valley Christian Center P-,"0 5",c.1:: I'~odify a landscaping condition of Conditional Use Permit to allO\~ phased landscapin~ over a 16 month period. Location: _..- .-- 10300 Dublin Blvd., Dublin Ass~ssor Parcel ~~mber: 941-22-2-4 -- -.. --- ------ Size: 49 aues Exi?_t.i.l1.9_!'.QJ1_in'1: 1iew, unoccupied sanctuary building, classroom building & power building; water tank; 3 double loaded rows of parking; remainder of site is undeveloped. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: ---north and \'~est - A; undeveloped land" South--~-A;-Jnterstate 580 freeway and undeveloped land E~- R-l-B-E (Single Family Residential); Water tank, single family ----.- dl'lelling units, undeveloped land .Sjt.e_ Hi sJ:9D'.: January 25, 1978: Conditional Use Permit C-3220 was granted to construct al1d-clperate a church and rrlated school and support facilities with conditions including a specific landscaping condition (see Resolution No. Z-3255). An EJR (Environmental I~pact Report) was certified with findings that, under conditions of approval, the significant visual impacts will be substantially mitigated (see :nvironmental Impact Findings, C-3220). . June 16, 1981: Valley Christi,an Center applied for a building permit \,ith ilu,'-eques-Ctiiat they be found to meet the intent of the Conditional Use Pennit even though they had not prepared the required landscaping plan (see letter dated June 16, 1981). ,June 19, 1981: The Zoning Administrator allO\'led the building permit to pl-2ce~fe' -tlie-preparation of the required landscaping plan, but \,ith the stipulation that "the plan must be appl-oved and implemented prior to any occupancy of the facility" (see letter dated June 19,1981). ~ugu.s!_l},__l_9.~~: Valley Christian Center applied for a.Conditional Use Permit to modify the landscaping condition to allow phased landscaping over a 16 month period. Hearing scheduled for August 26, 1982. >, ~ (' " t ( " " Valley Christian Center, Modification to Conditional Use Permit Page 2' ,Spjll_ica .b]eJ~g.uJa_tign~: Section 8 _ 90.0 of the Alarceda CO'Jnty Zoning O,-din"nce says that zoning approval on a building permit for a conditional use is subject to all conditions of approval of the conditional use. Section 8 _ 94.2 of the Alal~,eda Coonty ~oning C,-di,,:,nce says H,at an application to J;',oJdify or I',aive a condition pr\Cviously h;posed on a conditional use should be heard by the Zoning ;',d;,inist,-"tor under the sa,,-,e procedures and regulations as for a condition"l use. Env i I-OI1l,lonta 1 Rev i el'l: -- u-Tiie--sTjfeuCt"QA-(Cal ifornia Envirol1l:H,tal Qual ity Act) Guidel ines, Section 15067 (a), indicate that, \Ihere an EIR hos bQ2n p,-cp'3J'ed, no additional EIR need be prepared unless subsequent changes are proposed which will require iJ~portant revisions in the EJR, due to new significant environmental impacts not previously considered. i //' : "/_,//.-' . , . -- " ,.<~ . , '{ ~~ t~ :.., , ~ " 'il- , POBox 2601.11883 Dublin Blvd, Suite A-140. Dublin, California 94566. (415) 828-4549 RECEIVED AUG 1 61982 chris CITY OF DUBLIN . "' . f f; fg August 16, 1982 Dublin City 6500 Dublin Dublin, CA Council Blvd. 94568 Dear Members of the Council: As you know Valley Christian Center has for the last several years been pursuing the processes necessary for permission to build on its new site here in our community. In the past couple of years actual, physical activity has been taking place and we now are within a few days of completion of the buildings. The site has required considerable work and expense as its development has progressed. We are excited about the way we believe it will compliment the bright future of our new city. The building project, as all projects do, has exceeded our budget in a variety of areas. As you are aware, these are difficult times in which to complete such construction projects. In addition, due to certain circumstances beyond our control, the building project has also taken more time than anticipated. It should also be pointed out that during this period we have been uniquely caught in a building project that has transitioned from Alameda County to the City of Dublin. During this transition there has been some confusion on the part of Valley Christian Center as to exactly which governmental agency was in charge of the various building permits, etc. This has resulted in some "slowness" in filing any kind of modification to our use permit application. The opening date of Valleyview Christian HighcSChOOLwas chosen more than a year and a half ago. It is now upon us, September 7, 1982 we are scheduled to open freshman and sophomore classes and will then proceed to add the junior class in 1983-84 and the senior class in 1984-85. The buildings and all safety/health regulations will have been complied with. The only thing lacking is a completed landscape program. We have retained the services of a landscape architect, completed plans for the proposed project and these have been approved by the County of Alameda. However, because of unforeseen time/financial constraints I am requesting "relief" from our city Council that will enable us to occupy the facility in advance of a completed landscape project. -2- OUr organization has proposed the "phased" development of the landscape portion of our new campus, thus allowing immediate occupancy of the other- wise completed facility. The landscape project has been physically begun and a major portion of it will be completed within a few months. A pro- posal of the phasing of this extensive project is in the hands of the City Planner, Mr. Larry Tong. The proposal is simple: Phase 1 would be completed on or before a 6 month extension date from the time of permission to occupy. Phases 2 and 3 would be completed on or before December 31, 1983. Maps portraying the suggested phasLlg are available at the City offices. There are several revelant facts relative to this request: 1) Valley Christian Center presently occupies temporary facilities at Dublin High School on a week to week rental basis and needs the immediate occupancy of their new facility 2) landscape plans are complete and approved, no significant change is requested, only a time interval consideration 3) none of the landscape requirements will be visible by off the site residents (excepting the tree lined drive to the parking area) due to the geographical location of VCC's campus 4) inability to occupy will severely inconvenience between 60-80 families of children who are scheduled to begin classes on September 7th on this site 5) no safety/health factors are involved in the proposed request. All of these considerations will be completed and approved by the appropriate officials before occupany 6) 8-10 school employees would be faced with unemployment if VCHS were not permitted to open 7) 1,000-1,200 family members who comprise Valley Christian Center will be adversely affected by the inability to occupy the worship facilities 8) work on completing landscape requirements has already begun, under the direction of a committee of.professional experts, and is proposed to continue using primarily volunteerism within the congregation 9) failure to occupy the buildings erected at the considerable effort and expense of the members/ friends of VCC will severely impair the financial ability of the congregation to respond to the mutually desired completion of the landscape due to added rental fees, etc. 10) security of an unoccupied, unused facility will be jeopardized. On behalf of the members friends and official Board of Valley Christian Center, I preent this appeal for "temporary relief" to the members of the City Council. We are an organization of longstanding in this community. Our goals are in keep- ing with the best interests of our City and its surrounding area. We believe that members of our congregation together with some 80 full or part-time employees representing both Church and School staffs have been and will continue to make a" most significant contribution to the economy of our community and the quality of life we enjoy here. -3- I would respectfully request consideration of this matter at your next City Council meeting on August 23rd. I will be happy to be present and responsive in any way you would desire. We have in the past worked through many significant problems together to get to this point. I am sure there must be a way to assist us in the difficulty with which we are now faced. Thank you for your interest. w~' senior Pastor WMT:jr ro' ..' /'1 ") '. .tHE CITY OF DUBLIN' " P.O. !lox :L~\.1O !Juhlin, CA ~).15GG H 15J 829.~J543 MEMORANDUM August 20, 1982 TO: COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY MANAGER, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: PROCEDURE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR ACTIllG U:rON LETTER REQUESTS OF VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER AND ST. PHILLIP'S LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR ~10DIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERP1ITS Valley Christian Center and St. Phillip's Lutheran Church have submitted communications to the Council in which they request modifications to conditional use permits which require completion of landscaping prior to the opening of church schools. The schools are scheduled to open prior to the September 13, 1982, regular council meeting. Thus, there is an urgency factor involved in the two requests. Dublin Ordinance No. 13 adopted the Alameda County Zoning Ordinances. section B-9~2 provides that: "The Zoning Administrator shall receive, hear and decide applications to renew or extend the term of a conditional use or to modify or waive any condition previously imposed upon a conditional use, or upon a use permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Every such applica- tion shall be subject to the same procedure and regulations as set forth herein for a conditional use." Section 8-92.0 provides for the usual appellate procedure when someone-rs aggrieved with a decision of the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission: "Upon written application setting forth the grounds for appeal, the Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals alleging error in any order, require- ment, permit, revocation, decision or deter- mination made by any official of the County, other than a member of the !'lanning Commission, or Board of Supervisors in the administration or enforcement of Planning Commission rules, or of the precise plans or zoning regulations of the County; provided, however, that all . ( ) ~J , . . - appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator which are required to be made following noticed public hearing and those appeals from the decision of the Planning Director on a site Development Review which also requires affirmative action on a Variance in order to be implemented shall be governed by the procedure contained in Section 8-102.0. The order deciding such appeal shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of such order unless notice of appeal is filed pursuant to section 8-102.0 within said period of ten (10) days." Section 8.102.0 provides that the Board of Supervisors determines all appeals from the Planning Commission. Adoption by the County Ordinance makes the Council the place of final appeal. The urgency created by the scheduled opening of school makes compliance with the usual course of action difficult, if not impossible. Thus, there is some justification for the Council to permit the two churches to by-pass the usual mode of processing a modifica- tion request, and to place the matter before the Council for a decision. Government Code ~ 65801 provides that formal rules and procedures need not be followed in zoning matters so long as no party is prejudiced thereby and, in the retrospect of a court (if a legal challenge ev~r were filed) the result would be no different had the usual procedures been followed. The case of Mack v. Ironside,' (1973), 35 CA 3d 127 held that ~ 65801 was sufficient to permit the Menlo Park City Council to consider, on its own motion, the merits of an application of a use permit granted by the City Planning Commission as long as the applicant had an opportunity to be heard. The parallel between the Mack case and the requests of the two churches is obvious. Inasmuch as the churches are asking for the Council to act, and are given a chance to fully present their case at the meeting, it is my opinion that the Council may shortcut the usual procedure and grant'or den the re uested modifications of the use permits, permits, su Ject to any 0 t e securlty con ltlons lscusse e ow. Alameda County Ordinance Code ~ 8-94.4 provides that a use permit may be "conditioned on guarantees as to compliance with the terms of approval, including the posting of a bond." In addition, Government Code ~66499 provides that whenever a local ordinance authorlzes the furnishing of security in -2- . (' ~ (' ~ / ." ~ -" connection with the performance of 2ny act or agreement, such security shall be one of the following at the option of and subject to the approval of the local agency: "(I) Bond or bonds by one or more duly authorized corporate sureties. (2) A deposit, either with the local agency or a responsible escrow agent or trust company, at the option of the local agency, of money or negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing deposits of public moneys. (3) An instrument of credit from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal govern- ment and pledging that the funds necessary to carry out the act or agreement are on deposit and guaranteed for payment, or a letter of credit issued by such a financial institution. (4) A lien upon the property to be divided, created by contract between the owner and the local agency, if the local agency finds that it would not be in the public interest to require the installation of the required improvement sooner than two years after the recordation of the map. (5) Any form of security, including security interests in real property, which is acceptable to the local agency and specified by ordinance thereof. " since Dublin does not have an ordinance specifying a form of security, alternative (5) is not available. Alterna- tive (4) could be available if the Council determines that it could wait two years for the landscaping work to be completed. If this is a viable solution, the contract could be recorded, and it would give Dublin a lien against the church property in the amount necessary to complete the landscaping and reasonable attorneys fees. Government Code S 66499.9. Alameda County reports that they sometimes use performance bonds (alternative (1)), but more typically use cash or certificates of deposit (2) or letters of credit (3) to secure the performance of permit conditions. Whatever security alternative is used, Government Code S 66499.3 re- quires that the security shall be in an amount not less than 50% nor more than 100% of the total estimated cost of the improvement or act (landscaping) to be performed, and the security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the act or agreement. As mentioned above, Government Code S 66499.4 provides that, in addition to the fact amount of the security, there shall be included an additional amount for -3- ,~ ~ (~ , costs, reasonable expenses, and fees, including reasonable attorneys fees. CONCLUSION The City Council may act upon the requests of the two churches for modification of their respective conditional use permits, and may require either no security for performance of the landscaping, or may require security in any of the alternative methods enumerated above. -4--- '. ': ,1C (1( June 19, IJ81 \lr. Patric'( L.::le'nents ,\ssociate r'asDr - Administration '1allcy'::~rjsti:1n Ce:ltcr P. O. Box 2()OI 11383 0u~lin Blvd., Suite A-I~O Du~Ii:1, CA 9~56G Su!>ject: Valley Christian Center,Conditional Use Permit, C-3320 Dear 'Ar. Cle:nents: Please be advised that the issuance obf the bWlding permit for the subject structure may prcc~de the submittal and approval of the hndscape phn requird by ':::on:lition :'-lumber 2 of th~ subject ;nrcnit. HO'Never, t~e plan must be approv,ed ann impl=ment:d prior t':l Clny occupancy of the facility. Sincerely, Richard P. Flynn Zoning Administrator R?F:trny cc: Buildi"g Inspection '. , -- c 1- ('" ( )" .i ; /'/ ./ ; .//, ','. n ." ,.' t (t -. ~ / "" Dt'~>:::iE1I ~'i Ij~r<'i1~~lJ ::nr-,:J i.J I II U . ...:,~:. tg j 'll [j] l:l:H~ -,; ?'~1.';:':l~" .,~ ~: -;.~~; - fll~a . .~L~ ~): :.:;a 1\ ','\ /J':'- \~/ ,V P,O, Box 2601 . 11883 Dubl;n Blvd" Suite A-140. Dublin, Cal;fornia 94566. (415) 828-4549 June 16, 1981 }:;> , ~ ;:;5 EB ~ ::D c:;~ <- (T1 c:: ~J- :z: () -':::0 J-~O rn ;.-:1 c:: <.0 :;: ~S -< f:=:-< ?: :-':::'-0 .:- rn -l, <P- O ;::. (J1 .:- ~ 0 ~ .-- Mr. Richard P. Flynn Zoning Administrator Alameda County Plannin~ Department 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544 RE: Valley Christian Center Conditional Use Permit C-3220 Dear Mr. Flynn: At the present time, Valley Christian Center is applying for a building permit for their church/school construction, subject to the Conditional Use Permit C-3220. We have submitted complete site plans showing the intended drainage system in conformance with Item 2 of th~ Use Permit. The archi- tectural drawings show building elevations and the intended landscaping areas. \'Ie are presently in the process of selecting a landscape architect to design our irrigation system and planting layout. For purposes of receiving a building permit, we request that we be found in conformance with the intent of the conditional use permit at this time. Thank you for your consideration. PLC: dr FilE COpy ~ l RESOLUTION NO. z-n" OF THE ZONING ADMINlSTRA TOR OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ADOPTED AT THE HEARING OF JANUARY 2.5,1978, CONCERNING C-3220 WHEREAS Hubert E. Frazier and Valley Christian Center have filed an application for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, C-3220, to construct and operate a church and related school and support facilities in an "A" (Agriculture) District, located on a 53-acre parcel at the westerly terminus of Betlen Drive and adjacent northerly to the 1-580 right of way, Dublin, Assessor's No. 941-2-22; and WHEREAS it satisfactorily appears from affidavits on file that proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and .. WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing at the hour of 1:30 p.m. on the 7th day of December, 1977, and continued the matter to the 11th day of January, 1978, and continued the matter to the 25th day of January, 1978, in the Alameda County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and WHEREAS this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and an EIR has been prepared with respect thereto; and WHEREAS the ZonIng Administrator does certIfy that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State EIR Guidelines and that he has reviewed and considered the information contained in said EIR; and WHEREAS said EIR indicates significant environmental impacts could result from the project, particularly with respect to grading, storm water runoff, energy consumption and visual impacts; and WHEREAS CEQA and State and County Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto requires specific findings where the EIR Identifies one or more sIgnIfIcant effects which would or would likely result from approval of the project; and WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator does find that under conditions contained in this Resolution, the above-noted impacts will be substantially mitigated; and WHEREAS the statements of environmental effects, findIngs and facts relied upon are set forth in the attached document, "Environmental Impact Findings, C-3220, as required by CEQA and Alameda County Guidelines, January 25, 1978," which is incorporated by reference in this Resolution; and WHEREAS a Pre-Hearing Analysis was submitted recommending the application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS the applicant and his representatives appeared at said meetings and presented testimony in support of the application; and WHEREAS, neighbors appeared at said meetings and presented concerned testimony on the applicatIon; and ' WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; Now Therefore .. ':. . Resolution No. Z-3255 Hubert E. Frazier and Valle, ':hristian Center Page Two 8E IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator finds that: (a) The use is requIred by the public need as the applicant has submitted data and public testimony supporting the need for aJarge central COI'l'lPklC for Valley Christian Center due to growth of the organIzation and exten- sive space and facilities' demands that are currently dispersed throughout the community in leased spaces and various buildings. (b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity as facility would be generally well located relative to the Dublin community for local and regional access, and near or adjacent to major inter-county and inter-city thoroughfares and freeways. (c) The use, if permitted, under all the circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons resIding or working in the vicinity, or be materIally detrimental to the public welfare or injurIous to property or improvements in the neIghborhood as potential temporary adverse effects during con- struction phase can be mitigated by controlled methods of sIte development operatIon. Major changes of landforms as indicated would have an irreversi- ble permanent visual impact which will be mitigated by extensIve landscape and erosion control as contained in the conditions of this Permit. (d) As approved, the use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located. 8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator does hereby con- ditionally approve said application as shown by materials labelled Exhibit "A" on file with the Alameda County PlannIng Department, subject to the following condItions: 1. PrIor to any earthwork or grading, provide detailed technical report, upon which construction, grading plan (operations), includIng erosion and sediment control shall be based, and to be approved by Elgod Control and County Geologist to assure minimum negative impact, erosion, or other adverse affectto air, water quality, and adjacent residential neigh- borhoods. No augmented runoff or erosion to be measurably perceptible along Tracts abutting 8etlen Drive. All grading shall be in the dry months; May through September only. There shall be I]o_!2!ast!!l&Jls a means of earth moving. 2. Provide landscaping plan by registered landscape archItect and drainage plan by RegIstered Civil Engineer for soil stability and effectIve erosIon control and drainage on all altered (graded) cut and fill slopes including: 1) entire access road, and 2) entire east and north sides of all parking lots with documented (data) indicating reason for choice, spacing or depth of all organic planting or (inorganic) surface materials, and/or calculations. Plan shall utilize native or drought-resistent landscaping and/or plants self-sufficient (not requiring frequent watering or irriga- tion) once established. Landscaping shall effectively screen parking lots (from off-site view), and parking bays shall be visually divided and softened by landscaping, choice of trees, spacing. 3. All parking lot spaces shall have 4" minimum curbs and/or wheel guards. No space shall exceed 2% slope to the rear. All other spaces shall be downhill to the head-in direction, or perpendicular (sideways) to the length (axis) of the space. 4. BuildIng and sIte shall include energy and conservation-oriented design solutions to heating, ventilating, water and landscaping: a) any south facing windows shall be designed to minimize summer sun and maxmilze 'Wiri er sun: 1 s or u e- zin shall be used; c) provide wInd and sun screen reak Ian creening on south and west side of major structures (Phase fstructure at southwest of facility, and Phase III sanctuary); d) utilize natural light and ventilation (summer) to capitalIze on moderate climate, temperature, and major wInd patterns. Resolution No. Z-3255 Hubert E. Frazier and Valley Christian Center Page Three 5. Provide documentation from Valley Community Services District verify- ing their capability (capacity) to provide the necessary public sewer and water service requIred by County Health and meet approval of Regional Water Quality Control Board in accordance with proposed use capacity for each phase of project. Portions of project completed prior to comple- tion of sewer connection shall be limited to worship service at a maximum occupancy as approved by County Health, and office use. No school meeting State compulsory education requirements shall be established on site prior to connection of facilities to public sewer. All connections must be made wIthin 90 days of availability. 6, There shall be no vehIcle access from Betlen DrIve. 7. No "Tower" is hereby approved. The intent of this condition is to render this structure subject to subsequent application when a specific proposal is repared for review. Said Permit shall remain revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. RICHARD P. FLYNN - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, C-3220 AS REQUIRED BY CEQA AND ALAMEDA COUNTY GUIDELINES January 2', 1978 ThIs document Is a portIon of the Alameda County Zoning Administrator ResolutIon No. Z-3255, which conditionally approves C-3220. Pursuant to the CalifornIa Environmental Quality Act and State and County Implementing guidelines, this document Is intended to present findings and statements of facts, based on the public record, as to reasons the ZonIng AdmInistrator Is taking thIs action in light of significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the project. I. Significant Effect: Grading poses problems of dust and noise productIon, increased or redirected storm runoff, slope erosion and siltation. Finding: Changes or alteratIons have been required In, or Incorporated into, the project which mitigate the significant environmental effects thereof. Statement of Facts: The Project EIR indicates varIous means which would mitigate these measures and these measures have been incorporated as conditions of approval. 2. Significant Effect: Blasting not carefully controlled could result In damage to nearby structures. FIndIng: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the sIgnificant environmental effects thereof. Statement of Facts: Blasting is prohibited by condItIons of approval. 3. SIgnIficant Effect: ConstructIon and operation of structures on the site will consume relatIvely hIgh amounts of energy due to Its hilltop location and the necessity of pumping water. FInding: Changes or alteratIons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the signIficant environmental effects thereof. Statement of Facts: Energy conservation measures have been indicated in the EIR and have been required as conditIon of approval and multiple use of the structures is proposed as part of the project. 4. Significant Effect: The project involves the placement of substantial structures and parkIng facilities on a promInent knoll visible from virtually all of Dublin. FindIng: Changes or alteratIons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mItigate the significant envIronmental effects thereof. Statement of Facts: The EIR identIfied various mitIgation measures relating to <;:haracteristlcs and extent of landscaping that substantially mitigate this Impact and these have been imposed as conditions of approval. Finding: Specific economic, social or other consideratIons make infeasible mitIgation measures or project alteratIons Identified in the Final EIR. Statement of Facts: TestImony at the January II, 1978, public hearing demonstrated that the proposed grading, parking and building plans were a careful synthesis of site limitations and institution requIrements; that the plans result in a blendIng of the project wIth its settIng and background to the maximum possIble extent and that no other lands are available for this needed communIty facility. . {{yj 1- I( -?l 'PIl-I:::. c- 3;2.::2-0 ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JANUARY 5, 1978 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER C- 3220 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA . This Addendum incorporates the 4 written responses received by January 3, 1978, on the draft report, and comments made during the public hearing of December 9, 1977, on this project. The original 30 day deadline for comment on the draft EIR which ran to December 7, 1977, was extended four weeks to allow additional time for community response. Planning Department Staff comments on responses to the draft report are contained herein. This Addendum is intended to supplement the draft report released November, 1977, and together with the draft report constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. _...L~_,_..~,. ,. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY INTER.DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE NOVEMBER 17, 197,7 BRUCE C. FRY, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR PAUL DEUTCH, PLANNER II HARRY R. KOLANDER, CHIEF, SUBDIVISIONS AND BOUNDARIES SECTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO H'b% SUBJECT: Refere~ce is made to your communication dated November 7, 1977 transmitting for ' review and comment, a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Conditional Use Permit C-3220, submitted by the Valley Christian Center for the construction of a church and related school and offices, located at the westerly end of Betlan Drive and northerly of Interstate 580, Dublin area. The proposal will not materially effect the traffic generation in the immediate area. -- It is noted that on page 12 of the Draft EIR, statement is made in paragraph D.l.a., that the frontage road is not open to public use; this is in error, as the road is now open to public use and access is accorded to this property. HRK:mdb !iJJ l (iJ ^'> ,> !f/J If ~' g/ ii: /J~ ~l4Iv,f-' , · /9// ''''"I!J /YIlt'A, D4 C "vG Or. DE/) v/Y/'y ~1?7"", '~IE/y7' ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE DECEMBER 2. 1977 TO WILLIAM H. FRALEY" PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM PAUL E. LANFERMAN. ENGINEER-MANAGER SUBJECT, VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER (C-3220) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT We have reviewed subject EIR and would appreciate consideration of the following comments: ' Page 8. iast paragraph - In order to avoid a situation where an erosive site can be graded and thus exposed to severe erosion without an erosion'contro1 plan to' mitigate such impacts, it is recommended that an erosion and sediment control satis- factory to this District be completed and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Because of the potentially severe erosion hazard on the site, it is also recommended that grading operations be restricted to,the dry season (May through' September). ' We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this EIR. t2~/k PAUL E. LANFERM ENGINEER-MANAGER PEL:PEB:mdb cc: Inter-Agency Coordination Section Water Resources Iffi [,~; ~ ~ ~nm ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ." '_'~'_~~'_~"_."_" _".~,___"'~___'__-"'-"""____?'~ .......-'"0,'''''.,____'.,,""",..______ ALAMEDA COUNTY HEALTH CARE SERVICES AGENCY STEWART B, GROSS, M.D., Agency Oirector ~~ ~" Decenber 6, 1977 3730 Hopyard Road, Room 102 Pleasanton, California 94566 (415) 462.5IT5 , Alameda County Planning Department 399 Elmhurst St. Hayward, CA Attention: P3ul Deutsch, Planner II Gentlemen: Subject: Draft E1R fo~ Volley Christian Center for Conditional Use Permit C-3220, located at Betlen Dr., & 1-580, Dublin. We are in agreement with the conclusions dra,m by the E1R End would hope that the "portion of the project" planned for completion prior to sewage hookup stated on page 14 to be served by a holding tank would be limited to worship services and offices and the planned elementary school would not be incorporated into the site unt~l public sewer is available. Taank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this E1R. ver,Y truly yours, ,/~~ ;(j~i tf//~//fv:/ct1./;/ Bill E. Nasir Senior Sanitarian BEN: jre cc: Hubert E. Frazier Vclley Christian Center 7400 San Ramon Rd., Dublin , STATE OF CAUFORNIA-aUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. IROWN JR., Go..mw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. o. lOX 3366 RINCON ANNEX SAN FRANCISCO '.4119 (.IS) SS7.11~ December 7, 1977 Alameda County P1ahning Department Attn: Paul Deutsch, Planner II 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 i:J17 PLA~~~~~E~~~~~rNT 4-Ala-580 Your Ref. No. Valley Christian C3220 e Center This is in response to your referral of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Christian Center to be located on Bet1en Drive, north of newly constructed Interstate Route 580, approximately 1.2 miles west of Route 680, in Dublin. We have reviewed the Draft and have the following comments. The DEIR, on page 12, refers to the construction of Dublin Boulevard by Ca1trans. On October 28, 1977, Ca1trans informed the County that all work had been completed on this portion of the freeway project, that the road was open to the public, and that, accordingly, responsibility for control and maintenance, including the processing and issuance of Encroachment Permits outside the limits of freeway right of way, of the portions of such local roads and appurtenances \'Ii thin the area of the County of Alameda is hereby transferred to the County as of the date of this notice. It was further stated that where subse- quent title is to be transferred to the County, the transfer will be effected by a separate Resolution of Relinquishment. The DEIR, also on page 12, refers to revised topography and drainage facilities in connection with the new freeway con- struction. It is requested that Caltrans, District 4, be given an opportunity, as indicated, to review and comment on grading and drainage plans for the project, prior to approval of such plans, in order that \1e may evaluate the effect, if any, on State highway drainage conditions. Also, since there is no data presented to show magnitude movement mentioned, the conclusion sho\in on page 12 that should not be a traffic problem appears to be intuitive. our opinion that this matter should be discussed in more and supported by factual information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. of any there It is detail Sincerely yours, T. R. LAJvI1-IERS District Director By /hJ{ ~- B. l!;,~~OLD Deputy District Director .' .' , THE ALAMEDASOUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING f MINUTES DECEMBER 7,1977 HUBERT E. FRAZIER AND VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER, CONDITIONAL USE CONT. PERMIT, C-3220, to construct and operate a church and related school and support TO facilitIes in an "A" (Agriculture) District, located on a 53-acre parcel at the westerly Ullf78 terminus of Betlen Drive and adjacent northerly to the 1-580 right of way, Dublin, Assessor's No. 941-2-22. Mr. Flynn re,viewed the application and noted this project has been the subject of an Environmental Impact Report. This document is still in the draft phase and is within the review period that is required by the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of this hearing is to accept testimony regarding the draft EIR but testimony may also pertain to the project in general. Mr. Flynn requested that if any complex testimony is to be submitted today con- cerning any of the engineering data that is represented in the EIR, that this be reduced in writing and submitted to Mr. Paul Deutsch. The application cannot be concluded today because of the constraints of CEQA. Mr. Flynn called for testimony. Mr. Dick Karn of Bissell &. Karn, Inc., Civil Engineers representing the applicant, stated he would confine his comments to 'a few small items, none of which will be of a technical nature. One of the impacts that came out in the Draft EIR was with respect to the aesthetic impact of the development located on the top of a hill. It was described in the report as having an appearance of a truncated, cut. off hill. The mitigation measures suggested are that they attempt to overcome this type of an appearance. Both our office and the architect spent a great deal of time working with different grading plans and shapes of the hill. They came up with something that greatly mitIgates any potential problems in order to avoid the type of description contained in the EIR. They plan a parking lot sloping over 30' across the entire surface of the lot in a slope that corresponds closely to the shape of the hill. The visual impact from the 1-580 side would be one of basically the same hill. It will remain almost entirely intact. The only significant change would be in the acceSs road which will be worked into the side of the hill. As In- dicated in the staff report, this road will have an average of 10% slope but that is the maximum slope. They went through some efforf tomake theroadaslliit as poss16Ie;-"There'is'mention of concerns in the staff report regarding the possibilHy of blasting. The soil's engineer's analysis clearly indicates it was his opinIon that the material on the site can be excavated using heavy equipment. They do not plan on using any blasting. Mr. Karn further added that it was recommended that additional geologic reports be undertaken because of two potential problems and they would also like additional geologic reports. , Zoning Administrator Minutes December 7, 1977 Page 2 Mr. Karn added that they tried to work out the grading of the parking in a manner that creates the ieast amolilnt of cut and fill where possible and because they do have a sloping parking area, they think with the 30'-40' of fall across it, it will deter from the fiat, truncated look. We have proposed in the grading plan that the siopes for some of the fill areas are to be 3:1. This decision was made based on the aesthetics. The access problem has been provided for and satisfactorily met by bringing the road off the frontage road. Vehicles will not be traveling on the streets that stub out to the property. ? Mr. Flynn called for addItional testimony. Rev. Tanneberg, Senior Pastor of Valley Christian Center, adressed himself to the first finding in the Pre-Hearing Analysis. Valley Christian Center has found itself expanding and growing. They have provided a new ministry that has a re- gional impact in that many families are coming to the church and its related facilities. At present, they are meeting in public and private facilitIes including their existing chapel on San Ramon Road. They have ieased school facilities for worship. They have a private Christian educationai school that does provide an educational alterna- tive. At the present time, they have approximately 400 children from pre-school to junior high and thi,s represents about 250-300 families in the community. The congregation ministers to about 900. They maintain an active outreach program to the community during the week. Some of their programs involve counselling. About 60% of our families are outside of their sphere of normai church infiuence. They serve a sociai need in the community. They are finding it difficult to find an adequate worship center and they feel the approval of this use permit will enable them to develop and adequate worship center. At present, their office space is located in a medical center. They are forced to lease this space becuase they do not have adequate facilities. He stated that they also satisfy a significant economic Impact in the community. On their staff they have over 40 full and part- time staff members. Most of the staff live in the community and do their shopping in the community. They have developed their program over the past several year;; based on priority, first being to develop sufficient staff to provide the programs ' and then to provide facilities that are adequate. They will not be able to address themselves to the full building project in one initial phase. They will have to do the work in stages. They have tried to relocate at least four different times but because of different reasons were unsuccessful. We feel the subject site will mee't both community need and the need of the Center. There were approximately 50 people in the audience in support of the application. Mr. Flynn called for concerned testimony. Mr. Pete Hagerty stated he has not had a chance to review the EIR completely and he felt that there were many people in the immediate area who were not really aware of the impact of this project. He stated that he called a meeting of the residents in the area on another rezoning matter and at that time they discussed this project. The citizens were concerned, about the trafficthis project would cause. The residents on the hill are not as informed about this matter as they shou.ld be. He stated that they are aware that the property adjacent to the subject site has been purchased by another church and they indicate they will build a church and school and other related facilities on that property. He was concerned that ';~,..,..... - ~~.....--- _._"....."'.......,~ ~-'_.." ,...,.' , ,'--- , Zoning Administrator Minutes December 7, 1977 Page 3 two very similar facilities would be located on top of this hill. He asked that of the 1200 people that will be using the subject site, how many of these people actually live in Dublin. Mr. Hagerty was also concerned whether or not the site would be annexed to VCSD. Me stated that right now there are no sewer permits available and when they are to become available, there are other sites that may have priority because they have requested these permits earlier. He asked that a night meeting be scheduled in Dublin, to enable the residents to attend and know what is going on. , Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Hagerty has indicated that there has been insufficient exposure to the community on this project. By this hearing, and throughout this application process, I am eliciting comments from the community as to the impact of this proje~ on the community. I would only take actions tha: would tend to be in line with the intent of the EIR procedure. I have been adVIsed that the dead- line for the receipt of public comments is this coming Friday. Based on the sub- mitted testimony, I feel this is too short a time. However, I will not schedule a night meeting on this matter. If there is adequate exposure of the environmental documents and ample opportunity to respond, either verbally or in writing, the concerns of the community will be known. Mr. Flynn called for additional testimony. Dave Burton, Vice-President of Dublin Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber reviewed the EIR. He submitted a letter to the record which recommended approval of the project after the Chamber reviewed the EIR. He stated that the church is already in the community only at several different locations. It would just be a matter of the church meeting at one place. The visual impact is a consideration. Obviously if you put a building on the top of a hill it will be seen and more than likely, this is one of the reasons they selected this location. Properly landscaped and designed, it will be a benefit to the community. The Chamber is not looking at thIs project from a negatIve view. He stated that the architectural plans they reviewed were very good. He stated regarding the traffic, they could not have thIs facility in a better location because, there is no traffic generated beyond Silver.. gate. He stated that the church has made attempts to find other sites in the com- munity but there are no other sites suitable. There is one site on Amador Valley Boulevard but it is in a terrain that would not logically work for thIs facility and also it is zoned for commercial. He stated that the Chamber feels it is an important, institution and they would like to keep it in Dublin. He stated that the Chamber discussed grading, and that the mitigation measures contained in the report and are fine with them. They would ask that the access road to Dublin Boulevard not be changed. Mr. Flynn called for additional testimony. Jim Houts asked if the citizens in Dublin will have a chance to review the EIR. Mr. Flynn answered in the affirmative and told Mr. Houts to stop In the staff office of the Planning Department to pick up as many copies as he needed after the meeting" .' .' '. .~ (...'W,.,';,.....,~."."'.-:. ~,.'"'..._~'IIiB..,.,. ~__~...,-'=..~.......,..~.;:n~.,.'R ....~;",-:7.uil11,-=.,"~__..~.J'iolII.~...,..~..~...n.-.,;",JI",~'Ern~t..~~_~-.-.~..:...2~""":C:~~_~ ", , , Zoning Administrator Minutes December 7, 1977 Page 4 Mr. Flynn called for rebuttal testimony. , Rev. Tanneberg stated they have attempted to keep in close touch with the Briar- hills and Silvergate Homeowners Associations on this issue and a couple of weeks ago after the EIR was published he contacted Mr. Hagerty as he thought he was stIli president of the Briarhills Association. I received the name of the current president from Mr. Hagerty and my administratIve assIstant called and the Briar- hills Association stated there were no problems. At first the Association was con- cerned with the questIon of Betlen traffic but after it was satisfied in the EIR, there was no problem. As far as their project is concerned, Rev. Tanneberg stated it is not theiL!n!~ntio_n to .!Ise Betl~n. Mr. Flynn stated that Rev. Tanneberg has made an attempt to proceed in good faith. It does appear there has been some sort of block between the organizations who received the documents and their people. Mr. Karn stated that there is 09 residential use proposed for the site. ~ood deal of ,the-p~oper.ty_will"rer.nai!LOp_~~pace as is requirell:-TFiey have been before tile" VCSD Board of Directors and petitlOiied--ror annexation and by unanimous vote, the subject property will be annexed when available. The Board is awaiting comple- tion of the final EIR. He urged Mr. Flynn to handle this matter as quickly as possible and continue this matter to December 14, 1977. No additional testimony was offered. Mr. Flynn stated that a one-week continuance period was not sufficient time to enable community input. He added that this facility will be in the community for a long time so it would be better to give the community time to submit their feelings on the project. He added that LAFCO will be involved in this the first part of next year. He stated he would not take an action that could even be thought to frustrate the intent of these procedures. Mr. Flynn continued this matter to Janu<lrj U, 1977. " ~~ - '_.'- . o~.~. ~......." ~ ..~....,.:.-..._..-~ ' , ReSPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED , A. The response of the Alameda County Public Works Agency, Subdivisions and BoundarIes Section, is acknowledged. The determination that the project will not materially affect traffic generation in the area is in agreement with the assessment contained in the draft EIR. The frontage road is now open to public use. B. The response of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Is acknowledged. We concur with their assessment of erosIon and sedimentation impacts and with theIr suggested mitigation. Approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan by the District would be an appropriate mitigation measure. C. The response of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency is acknowledged. No additIonal comment appears necessary. D. The response of the California Department of Transportation is acknowledged. Regarding their first comment, it is correct that the frontage road providing access to the project site is now as:_ountYJJ1<l~pen to l1ubJ!~u~e. The recommendation that Caltrans District 4 be consulted in connection with grading and drainage plans for the project is contained in the draft EIR and no further comment appears necessary. RegardIng Caltrans' last comment, ~ maximum of 60!l.Y.e_b,Qles may be expected for a peak function at the Center, which would be well withIn the capacity of the frontage road and San Ramon Road. Present traffic on the frontage road is virtually nil, thus conflicts with ex~sting traffic caused by l!l_aneuvers { (such as the_.reguired left turn exifrrofift e !'!:9ject)wourcroe minimal. See -+--~ ~- --._+ ---'~'----- ---. -_.,- - .- -"'-'---~'_..~-~"._--'----'-._--_.._.,- ~also Comment A above. ----, -,- E. The comments of Mr. Dick Karn as presented during the public hearIng on this project proposal of December 7, 1977, are acknowledged. Mr. Karn took issue wIth aesthetic impacts as discussed in the draft EIR. He does not believe that the hill will appear truncated and claIms it will appear almost untouched from 1-580. Comment: Whatever sensitIvity may have been applied to the grading scheme, the draft EIR noted that about 17 acres which now constitute a twin hlllcrest of 718 feet and.l!f2.t~t wiltPe_g[!!!teJL"lrtua!!y flat,""(to about 700-705 feet) involving cuts of up to 40,.ke_t. The main-viSlJaJeffect from 1-580, as noted in the draft, will result from not only the grading but also the prominence of buildings on this hill, which would be the highest structures in Dublin. An additIonal impact, as noted in tllecfraft, would be a 90 foot high fill face (reduced somewhat from an earlier grading plan) orIented toward the community. , Mr. Karn's comments on the potential for blasting and the need for additional geologic reports are in agreement with the draft EIR's statements. . Mr. Karn indicated that the parking area was designed to fall with the contour and represents the least amount of cut and fill, so that a truncated look will be alleviated. Comment: A clearly artifIcial appearing truncated lool< will remalr:!,~~pecially viewed from theJ1orJ~~~~!.. In that dIrectIon, the parking lot lSproposecftOS1ope from 702 feetto _6.90 feeL~_c[ji~rel1ce of 12 feet) where the present natural contour slo!,es from 740 feet down to- 658 -feet-Ca- differehce- or&2-feet):-- The-exIsting-slope- aver~ges 19% anals proposed to be reduc:~c!.!<?I8~JI1_tbi.s.1l:~~, ~aslgnificant llattenmg:--- 'l.............__ -.. F. The comments of Mr. Pete Hagerty as presented during the public hearIng of December 7, 1977, are acknowledged. He expressed concern over the traffic the project would cause. Comment: Traffic generation is discussed in Comments A and D of this Addendum. Project traffic would not utilize residential streets. .' "!.~ --, rite. C.-3::2-?-o f , . I .,....[)raft...w..Envil'onmenlal.. ... .. ..........,..:..:->...-:.-:...;.:...::..<.:. :.:-:.:-:-:.." ImP@Qt~t '" .. :,: : Valley Christian Center C-3220 Alameda County Planning Department 399 Elmhurst Street. Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401 - ,--...-'-'- / DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT C-3220 V ALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1977 I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARy............................................................................................ .. INTRODUCTION.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................ ............. ... ....... ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................ ... A. Region ........................ B. Vicinity and Site.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. C. Physical Environment................................................................. I. Geology, Soils, Seismicity, Drainage a. Setting .............................. b. Impacts. . . . . c. Mitigation .. 2. Biotic Conditions a. Setting .... b. Impacts... . c. Mitigation ........ 3. Air Quality. . . . . a. Setting . b. Impacts.. . ...................................... c. Mitigation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " ~ 4. Energy ... ........................................ a. Setting .... .................................... b. Impacts.............................................................. c. Mitigation ..................................... , PAGE 1 2 3 3 3 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 J] 11 11 11 IV. V. MABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUEL D. Cultural Environment................................. I. Transportation/Circulation a. Setting................................................................................ b. Impacts................................. .. ...................... c. Mitigation .......................................................................... 2. Visual/Aesthetic ................................... a. Setting ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. b. Impacts........ . ............................... c. MitIgation..... . ............................... 3. Public Services and Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting ... a. ..................................... b. Impacts...... . ................................. 4. Archaeology.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. a. Setting . ....................................... b. Impacts.. . ..................................... c. Mitigation.......................................................................... 5. Public Plans and Policies. . . a. General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Zoning............................................ c. Local Agency Formation Commission UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . AL TERNA TIVES .......................................... A. B. C. D. No Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project in Another Location ........................... Reduced Project.......... Alternative Design of Project.......................... , PAGE 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 ]6 16 17 17 17 VI. VII. Vlll. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT. .... . . . . . . . ..... . .. . .. . .. .. . . ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT AND TO WHICH THE REPORT WAS REFERRED. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS TO WHICH THE REPORT WAS REFERRED.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . , PAGE 17 17 REFERENCES.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19 18 INITIAL STUDy............................................................................ 20 ILLUSTRATIONS: Regional Map.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Vicinity Map................................................................................ Site Plan....................................................................................." 4 5 / o , SUMMARY An application has been filed with the Alameda County Zoning AdminIstrator for a Con- ditional Use Permit (C-3220) to permit construction and operation of a church and related educational, recreatIonal, and support facilities in an "A" (Agriculture) District, located on a 49-acre parcel at the westerly terminus of Betlen Drive and adjacent northerly to the Interstate 5&0 right of way, Dublin, California. Applicants are Hubert E. Frazier (Land Owner) and Valley Christian Center (Option Holder). SignIficant impacts identified in this Draft EIR, and mitigation measures which could reduce the impacts to acceptable levels, include: . CreatIng an artificial-appearing landform by grading a natural hili to create a large, relatively level area to accommodate the project. PartIal, but not complete mItigation can be achIeved by following the natural hill contour more closely in the grading scheme. Impact of site transformation on a visually prominent site adjacent to a scenic route would remain. Increasing on-site energy consumptIon. Most of the increase cannot be mitigated, but some measures are available to reduce this impact, such as utilizing building desIgns and techniques with energy conservation In mind. Specific measures are suggested in this report. Creation of downstream sedImentation problems through erosion of on-sIte soils during construction. Satisfactory mitIgation can be achieved by requiring approval of a grading, erosion, and sediment control program by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Alameda County Engineering Geolo- gist prior to granting a Building Permit. Damage to nearby structures and noise and alarm to nearby residents could occur due to blasting which may be necessary to reach design grades. Best mitigation would be prohibition of excavation below such grades, after the grades are esta- blished by a detailed geotechnical examination. Dust and noise from construction operations may impact area residents. Mitigation can be achieved by watering for dust control and limiting hours of construction operations. Possible growth-inducing impact if project is not built after annexation to Valley Community Services District. The project is relatively lackIng in major impacts; most can be mitigated through application of measures listed in this report, with the exception of energy and visu2J impacts described. An alternative of building the project in another locatIon in Dublin (a flat land location) would best reduce impacts and eliminate those caused by the hili location: visual, energy, and erosion! grading problems. This EIR is also intended for consideration by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which must approve annexation of the site to the Valley Community Services District if sewer, water, fire protection, and refuse collection services are to be provIded. I , I. INTRODUCTION The Alameda County Planning Department has received application for a Conditional Use PermIt, C-3220, to permit construction and operation of a church and related educa- tional, recreational, and support facilities in an "A" (AgrIculture) DIstrict, located on a 49-acre parcel at the westerly terminus of Betlen Drive and adjacent northerly to the Interstate 580 right of way, Dublin, California. Applicants are Hubert E. Frazier (Land Owner) and Valley Christian Center (Option Holder). This Environmental Impact Report is being prepared by the Alameda County Planning Department In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and State and County implementing guidelines, for consideration by the Alameda County Zoning Administrator and Local Agency Formation Commission prior to action on the project. Bruce Fry and Adolph Martinelli have respon- sibility for overall supervIsion and editing of Environmental Impact Reports. Text and graphics are by Paul Deutsch, project manager. The geology, solis, and seismicity sections were prepared by David W. Carpenter, Alameda County Engineering Geologist (C.E.G. 11I35). Pursuant to CEQA and State implementing guidelines, as recently amended, this EIR will discuss project impacts in proportion to their significance, and will focus upon the most important issues and impacts as identified in the Initial Study for the project, Included in an Addendum to this report. 2 , II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of construction and operation of a chapel, sanctuary, school, offices, gymnasium, playing fields, storage/maintenance structure, and a parkIng lot on a 49- acre site at the westerly terminus of Betlen Drive, adjacent northerly to the Interstate 580 right of way, Dublin, California. Construction and operation would take place under the auspices of Valley Christian Center, an interdenominational ChrIstian institution serving the Livermore-Amador Valley. The proposed facilities would be multipurpose and encompass uses including worship, counseling, training, banquets and assemblies, Sunday School, elementary school (Christian Center SchooI), office space, storage space, and recreation. The worship center Is proposed to seat 600-700 people on flexible seatIng. The parking lot is proposed to eventually accommodate 675 vehicles. The project is proposed to be constructed in four phases to accommodate expected future growth of the Center. Only Phase I would be constructed immediately, encompassing 36,000 sq. ft. of buildings (to eventually total 102,000 sq. ft.); 300 parking spaces (eventually 675 spaces, about 5.5 acres); 43,800 sq. ft. of landscaping (eventually 101,800 sq. ft.); and 48,000 sq. ft. of recreation and play area (eventually 102,000 sq. ft.). Refer to Site Plan on page 5 for proposed layout and grading. The buildings would be grouped around a plaza with a tower near the top of a hill. A semi-circular parking area would fan out to the east, as shown on the Site Plan. Most of the structures and parking would be sited on a graded elevation of 700'-705', with some laterstage buildings at 725'. Access to the site would be via a new road constructed from the recently completed extension of Dublin Boulevard just north of 1-580. Current- ly, Valley Christian Center utilizes an existing facility on San Ramon Road and a varIety of community facilities to carry out the various activities which the proposed structures would accommodate. III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Region Dublin Is an unincorporated community in the Upper Amador Valley extendIng north from Interstate 580 to the Alameda-Contra Costa County Line. The Amador Valle; is a large intermountain valley separated from the Bay PlaIn and the Central Valley by the highlands and upland terraces of the Diablo Range. The Livermore Valley adjoins the Amador Valley to the east and although the two valleys can be distinguish.,:d on the basis of watershed and drainage patterns, practically they are generally thought of as one, the largest intermountaIn valley In the Bay Area. The Livermore., Amador Valley, wIth its three population centers of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin (the first two incorporated cities), has steadily, sometimes spectacularly, grown in population since 1940. The greatest surge of growth occurred in the 1960'3, when the average annual population Increase exceeded 10%. From 1970 to 1976 1 the population climbed from 77,655 to 102,000, an Increase of 31.3% or 4.7% annl12c)!Y. Dublin was a small agricultural crossroads communIty until the early 1960's when the Amador Valley underwent rapid subdivision and urbanization. Its population soared from about 200 in 1960 (exclusive of government housing near Camp Parks) to 15,041 in 1970. A special census showed a population of 14,zq4 in 1976, a decline of 5.3% probably due to the trend toward smaller family size. 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I "' .11 ~ ~ I!.!;l H3 ~ ~ , >>- _c 8~ 00:: ~~ ~c l!!~ o:('E c l'll zs;: .- - (J) ~ .- :- .... .r.:: .... U ,(;) C1l ~ I"'l ... :>. eN 41 (\) .Q - ~ E ..fa I .!! C\. ~~ {.) . 41 W 4 i September 1977 Vicinity Map:, Alameda Couniy Planning Department 5 " SCALE: 100' 200' 300' Valley Christian Center C-3220 ~, I j Site Plan September 1977 Alameda Counly Planning Departmen( 6 . B. Vicinity and SIte The project site is a rectangular 49 acres of vacant, hIlly land. Elevations range from a low of 535' near the southwest corner of the site to 820' in the northwest corner. Twin hills (elevatIons 718' and 742') are located near the center of the site where development is proposed. C. Physical Environment I. Geology, Soils, SeIsmicity, Drainage a. Setting . The Valley ChristIan Center site is underlain primarily by sandstone beds of the Miocene Briones Formation. Some clay shale beds occur interbedded with the sandstone unIts beneath the flanks of the ridge on which the complex is proposed to be constructed. The crest of the ridge is underlain b~ the hard, fossil-bearing, middle member of the Briones Formation. Slopes on the site generally appear quite stable and no major landslides are apparent. Some of the steeper slopes show evidence of surface soil creep particularly where underlain by expansive clay soils bel4eved to have been derived by weathering of underlying clay shale beds. During wet periods minor amounts of groundwater may exIst withIn the bedrock fracture system beneath the site. However, the rocks beneath the site do not constitute significant aquifers and the property is not regarded as a r.fcharge area for the Livermore-Amador Valley groundwater system. Soils on the site are thin along the crest of the ridge and locally non- existent where the middle of the Briones Formation forms rock out- crops. Soils thickeg on the flanks of the ridge and are mapped as the Diablo Clay (Db D). This unit typically occurs on 15 to 30 percent slopes, as at the Valley Christian Center site, and consists of silty clay and calcareous silty clay loom overlying relatively shallow bedrock. Shrink-swell potential of this soil Is moderate to high and some area~ of highly expansive soils were identifIed by Judd Hall and Associates blanketing the southerly and northeasterly portions of the property. The Valley Christian Center site would be strongly shaken by a major earthquake on any of the prIncipal, active, Bay Area fault systems. These are the San Andreas (approximately 25 miles to the west), Hayward (approximately 5 mileg west) and Calaveras (closest trace about 3,000 feet east of the site). Groundshaking will also be experienced as a result of an earthquake on one of the lesser, active, faults, located in the southern and eastern Livermore Valley. An example is the June 1977 earthquake which occurred on the Greenville Fault. 7 . A fault separating the Briones Formati~ from the late Tertiary Orinda Formation was identified by Engeo Inc. in a trench excavated northeast of the Valley ChrIstIan Center site. This fault trace appears to trend south and passes east of the Valley Christian Center property. This fault trace may be an older branch of the Calaveras Fault system; evidence bearing upon recency of movement along the Fault is inconclu- sive. Secondary seismic effects such as soil liquefaction, lateral spreading and subsidence are not expected at thIs site. MInor ravelling of cut slopes may occur as a result of earthquake shaking. b. Impacts Physical impacts associated with the project are primarily related to grading. Some Increases in surface storm water runoff will result from covering portions of the presently natural site with buildings and parking areas but these increases will be relatively small because of the present low infiltration capability of the clay soils and cemented sandstone bedrock which underlie the site. An increase in erosion of slopes and resultant siltation of downstream watercourses is a potential impact during construction. )6> c. Mitigation Because of the amount of grading for the proposed project, a detailed geotechnical investigation would be required by applicable provisions of the Alameda County Building Code before building permits are issued. The geotechnical investigatIon would provide an opportunity to more @ adequately establish grades below which the use of explosives could 3, be anticipated, and a clause could be included in the Conditional Use PermIt prohibiting excavations below such grades. Some adjustments in the site plan mIght result but the potential hazards associated with use of explosives near a residential area would be eliminated. Erosion and sedimentation impacts can be mitigated by requiring sub- \ mittal of an erosion and sediment control plan, incorporating such W measures as revegetation of graded areas and silt retention basins, to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and District approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 8 Temporary dust and noise impacts can be partially mItigated by water- Ir:::] ing for dust control and limitations on hours of equipment operation. \?~, 2. Biotic Conditions a. SettIng The site is almost entirely grassland with the exceptIon of small areas of woodland at the perimeter and is used for grazing cattle. Located at the border between urban and rural land uses, the site probably sup- ports somewhat reduced numbers of wildlife associated with the grass- land habitat compared with grasslands further from human encroachment. b. Impacts Grading and structures would cause the loss of about 35 acres of grass- land and a very small amount of woodland. This impact is not considered significant. The range of wildlife associated with this habitat would be somewhat curtailed; grazing of cattle would cease. c. Mitigation The woodland habitat which would be lost due to fill placement in the northeast portion of the site could be retained by reducing the height of fill. This could be accomplished by terracing the parking lot so that its perimeter elevation was lower than is proposed, discussed in Section III.D.2.a. of this report. 3. Air Quality a. Setting The LIvermore-Amador Valley is an area of high air pollution, one of the worst in Northern California. "Smog Season" generally occurs from April to October, when temperature inversions and wind conditions combine to create a blanket of stagnant, readily contaminated air over the Valley. The contaminants in this area are generated almost entirely by the automobile. At least 50% of the Valley's pollution appears to originate within the Valley itself; the remainder being "imported" from areas to the west by prevailing westerly winds. The major pollution components in the Valley are hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, which combine to form photochemical oxidant (the traditional California smog), and particulates, including natural dust as well as lead from gasoline, asbestos from brake linings, and rubber from tires. b. Impacts The project's major long-term Impact on air quality will result from the amount of vehicle miles it will generate. The project will function as a regional church and school complex and as such may be expected to draw users from the entire L1vermore-Amador-San Ramon Valley area. However, the key factor in attempting to predict effects of the project on air quality is that these vehicle trips are currently being generated by the sponsor's exIstIng, scattered facilities. The project would "relocate" the trip ends but would not significantly change the 9 . total vehicle miles involved. As a result, it would appear that impacts on air quality will be minimal. It is possible that a benefIcial effect will be achieved by centralizing the sponsor's facilities on one site rather than accommodating expected growth by continuIng to utilize scattered facilitIes. For example, three Sunday actIvitIes which are now located in scattered sites in Dublin - church services, Sunday School, and BIble class -- would be located on one site. Families which now must drop off and pick up members at various locations would be able to drIve to one location for all these activities. Because of these factors, project related impacts were not quantified sInce they would Indicate a very small change In air quality, the results would be highly dependent on assumptions made, and in any case would add little to the Information necessary for an informed decision on the project. Construction of the project will produce a significant short-term air quality impact, with earth moving and delivery of materials producing the greatest effect. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District stations have recorded particulate concentrations exceeding Federal and State air quality standards in the vicinIty of construction actIvities. Prevail- ing westerly winds may carry dust to residential areas immediately to the east of the 'site. Perhaps the major Impact of the project from an air quality standpoint Is its contribution to reliance on the automobile as the transportatIon mode for the area. Its relatively isolated location is convenient for areawide auto access but is not likely to be near any future transit lines. Furthermore, the hilltop location will strongly discourage both pedestrian and bicycle access. c. Mitigation The overall automobile dependence of the Livermore-Amador Valley is a function of historical development patterns and cannot be mitIgated fairly or satisfactorily on a project level. Focus should be placed upon more stringent enforcement of vehicle emissIon standard timetables, as set up in the National Clean Air Act. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) generated by the project could be reduced (wIth corresponding reduction in pollutants emitted) through establish- ment of a church-operated shuttle bus or van service to bring children or adults to church activities. The church should also encourage car pooling by matching attendees who live near each other. Mitigation of construction related impacts can be accomplished by , implementation of strict dust control measures. Earth moving should be minimized and handled effIciently. Frequent sprinkling over raw surfaces should take place, especially on windy days. 10 r 4. Energy a. SettIng The site is presently unused and as such consumes essentially no energy resources. The Valley Christian Center uses a building on San Ramon Road for some of its programs and also uses various community facili- ties, including Dublin High School, a bank community room, Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, and a Catholic church, for its activIties. b. Impacts Construction and operation of structures on the site will consume rela- tively high amounts of energy due to its hilltop location and the necessity of pumping water. Energy will also be consumed at a relatively high level because automobile access to the site is almost necessary; the steep access road will discourage pedestrians and bicyclists and no public transportation near the site is available. To some extent, this transportation component of energy demand exists now due to trips made to the church's existing facilities. The key difference is that alternative modes of transportation are available to these facilities, due to their flatland locatIon, which cannot be readily utilized in con- nection with the proposed site. @ ~t!) c. Mitigation MitigatIon of energy consumption during construction can be accom- plished by mInImIzing the amount of earth to be moved, use of proper machinery, and proper maintenance of machinery. A shuttle bus provided by the church could reduce the number of auto- mobiles attracted to the site. Gasoline consumption could be propor- tionately reduced. If sufficient would-be drivers used shuttle buses instead, parking area could be reduced, thus reducing energy consump- tion needed for grading and other site preparation. A wide range of mitigatIon measures can be utilized in desIgn of and specifications for structures which are of reasonable first cost and can be expected to pay for themselves over the life of the buildings. These include: shading of wIndows to exclude summer sun, but let in "\. winter sun; providing extra insulation; avoiding paving adjacent to V,\ \ buildings; providing natural ventilation and light; provIding a wind break; '-.L planting of deciduous shade trees near buildings; utilizing native or other drou&~t-resistant landscaping; and specifying energy-conserving appliances. Solar heating and cooling rapidly are becoming competi- tive with conventional systems because of increasing gas and electric costs. One mitigating measure is proposed as part of the project: multiple use of structures to maximum feasible extent. 11 D. Cultural Environment I. Transportation/Circulation a. SettIng There is presently no vehicular access to the site. An extension of Dublin Boulevard has recently been constructed by the State Department of Transportation (CaITrans) to serve as a frontage road for 1-580 In connection with widening of the freeway. This road has not been relin- quished to the County nor is it open to public traffic as of this wrIting. Access to the sIte is proposed via a private road which would lead off from Dublin Boulevard extension and climb to the parking area in a northeasterly direction. (See Site Plan, page 5). b. Impacts No major transportation or circulation impacts of the project can be identIfIed. Increased traffic along Dublin Boulevard may be noticeable for a few homes backIng on the street. The traffic generated by the project is within the carrying capacity of Dublin Boulevard. Topography and drainage facilities planffd by CalTrans in conjunction with freeway widening have been revised and should be checked by the project engIneer and coordination established. 2. Visual/Aesthetic a. Setting The site is a prominent knoll vIsible from virtually all of Dublin. At present, it is undeveloped and covered with annual grasses. As such, it blends into the landscape of Dublin Canyon visible from 1-580 and also forms a portIon of the hilly backdrop to the communIty on its western border. Route 1-580 is a designated County Scenic Route and is eligible for State Scenic Route designatIon. Because of these factors, any change in the site's visual form is of particular local interest. b. Impacts Visual impacts will result from two aspects of the project: the grading scheme and the size and configuration of buildIngs proposed. The twIn peaks of the site, at 718' and 742', would be cut to form a flat area at elevation 705' for development. Fill from this area will be placed to the east to create a fairly uniformly flat area for parking, ranging at its highest point from 692' towards the north to 662' at the southernmost portion of the parking area. The overall appearance would be that of a truncated hill. A fill face nearly 100 feet high would be visible in the ravine in the northeast portIon of the site. In the first stage of development, a cut face about 28' high would loom over the northwest corner of the developed area. ThIs face would be filled at a later stage of development to accommodate a playing field. 12 , i i I \ t) I I I \ i , I I , , . First phase structures include a chapel and an office buildIng as separate structures and one much larger, two-story structure which would include classrooms, a day care facility, a kitchen, and an audItorium. The three buildings would be grouped around a plaza, the focal point of which is proposed to be a tower of some undetermined design. A maintenance/ receIving/storage structure and a small maintenance yard is shown for the north-central portion of the sIte. A second, two-story classroom structure, playing fields, and a gymnasium are planned for future expan- sIon. The appearance of the site after development would be sharply altered. Prominent buildings would be seen atop a relatively flat area of about 17 acres, buttressed by a large, unnatural appearing fill face oriented toward Dublin and visible from most of the community. Although per- haps a church facility with such a vIsual form and impact is not as objectionable to many people as other land uses would be, the communIty should be aware that the project most likely would be the most prominent human-made landmark In Dublin. It would also be highly visible to commu- ters and other travellers on 1-580 between the Valley and the Bay Plain. The site will appear given over to urban uses from its present rural state. ' /"'. -1 \ l' c. Mitigation Mitigation of transformatIon of the site from rural to urban appearance cannot be accomplished, but measures are available to aesthetically soften the visual impact of the project. A grading scheme more sensi- tive to existing elevations of the site and thus better contoured to fit the land would,materially reduce the artificial "flat-top" appearance which would result from the proposed plan. One way to accomplish thIs is to provIde greater differences In elevatIon among the different buildings and areas of the site. Ramps and steps could connect these areas. Both cut and fill could be reduced In this manner. In addition, split pads could be used for some of the buildings, especially the long, multipurpose building, if internal circulation could remain viable. The parking lot could be more sharply terraced to conform better to the hill contour. The more sharply terraced the parking area is designed, -,.-.~,,, the less fill would be needed in the ravine in the northeast corner of the site. The limiting factor of the steepness of terracing is the distance 1; uphill to the buildIngs people would be willing to walk. If the northeast corner of the parking lot were lowered to the elevatIon proposed for the southeast corner, the fIll face would be lowered by almost 40 feet. A walk uphill of 40 to perhaps 75 feet (if the building elevations ranged from 700 to 735 feet) would be necessary dependIng on the destination. This would be the maximum uphill distance at full development; the climb from most of the parkIng area would be significantly less. Exten- sive landscaping to both screen the parking area and to break up its expanse would greatly soften the project's contours. Enough trees and shrubs should be planted between parking bays to screen the bulk of the project from view from the community. If the parking area were terraced more sharply, retaining walls could be used between one or more bays which could be planted with overhanging vines. Particularly important is planting the fill face which is visible from Dublin. Also, the slope of this face could be finished at a flatter angle to lend a more natural appearance. 13 " WIth care and attention to landscaping detail, the project's appearance from below could be that of a hanging garden. Judicious use of land- scaping should also be employed to screen and/or enhance the proposed buildings. Building materials and design should be of high quality as befits the visibility and importance of the site. //\ tc' The tower proposed for the plaza area would dominate the project and be visible from much of the Livermore-Amador Valley. As a landmark to accentuate the hill site, a tower is not an inherently unaesthetic or inapproprIate structure for the project, but because of Its promi- nence, Its design should be subject to careful scrutiny by the community. 3. Public Services and UtilitIes a. Setting Gas, electric, and telephone service is available to the sIte. Police protection for the site is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection is currently provided by the State Divi- sion of Forestry, but this service is not adequate for urban development. Annexation to Valley Community Services District is necessary to obtain structural fire protection as well as water, sewage, and refuse collection services. b. Impacts Project impacts on most services, with the exception of water and sewer, are minor. Some increased police surveillance may be necessary at night If the parkIng area, wIth its panoramic view of Dublin, should become a popular congregation spot. There is no reason to believe this would be a particular problem. Annexation of the site to Valley Community Services District has been requested. The District will not be able to provIde sewer capacity to serve the project for the foreseeable future. Service is impossible until plant capacity expansion is completed in 1979. Additional capacity to be available at that time will primarily serve the City of Pleasantoni negotiations between the City and Valley Community Services District are currently underway to'determine precise allocations. It is doubtful that the project could be accommodated until even after the plant expansion is completed because the prruect is low on the District's priority list, as it requires annexation. Projects now In the District and in more advanced stages all have higher priority. An Indetermin- able, but probably significant, number of residential (or other land use) hookups would be pre-empted at the time of sewer connection to the project. A portion of the project is planned for completion prior to sewage hook- up capabilitYi it would be served by a holding tank. Sewage would be conveyed to a holding tank which is pumped out into a truck at intervals and disposed of at a treatment facility. These systems are regulated by the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Bureau of Environ- mental Health Services. After Valley Community Services District gives approval to use a holding tank system, design of such a system by a registered engineer must be approved by the Health Agency. A monthly report must be furnished to the Agency with information 'l3 to the system's usage, maintenance, service, and changes in status. When sewer capacity becomes available, connection must be made within 90 days. Operation of holding tank systems is expensive and thus hookup to municipal systems is usually accomplished as rapIdly as possible. 14 Initial costs of sewer and water hookup will be paid by the project sponsor, along with annexation fees. Continuing costs of providing services to the site, to the extent which they are funded through pro- perty taxes, will in effect be subsidized by the rest of the community since churches and related facilities are exempt from payment of pro- perty taxes. 4. Archaeology a. Setting Dublin Is an archaeologically sensitive area. No archaeologicallnvesti- gation of the site has been performed. Subsurface archaeological objects may be present on site. b. Impacts Construction activities could unearth and destroy archaeological remains. c. ,Mitigation All personnel connected with the project should be informed of the possiblli ty of findIng archaeological remains and should such an encounter occur, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should be halted and a qualified archaeologist familiar with the provincial pre-history should be consulted. 5. Public Plans and Policies a. General Plan The Alameda County General Plan designates the site Suburban Residen'tkJ land use. However, this plan is about to be superseded by the Livermore~ Amador Valley Plan revision, now before the Board of Supervisors. The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors would permit a church/school on this site. b. Zoning The site is presently zoned "A" (Agriculture) District. Construction and operation of a church and related facilities requIres a Conditional Use Permit in this District. Other churches in the area, particularly on Dublin Road, have been granted Use Permits for associated schools. This proposal differs in scale from these existing facilities and also in that a separate office building is to be constructed. Granting a Conditional Use Permit requires certain findings of fact. The use pro,- posed must be required by the public need; the use must be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities In the vicinity; the use must not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; and the use must not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the Zoning District in which it Is to be located. 15 . c. Local Agency Formation Commission Among the purposes of the Local Agency Formation Commission, as set forth in the State enabling legislation are the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation and de- velopment of local governmental agencies based upon local conditions. The Agency is charged with the responsibility of developing a "sphere of influence" for each local government agency within the County, defined as a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of the local government agency. In 1975 Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission adopted a single sphere of influence for the Amador Valley which placed Dublin in the City of Pleasanton's sphere. The project site is included in the CIty sphere, indicating that the Local Agency Formation Commission feels it is of concern in long- range planning and development. The designation does not necessarily define the ultimate boundary of the city or the extent of urbanization, although it does carry that implication. The project's conformance with the Local Agency Formation Commis- sion policy of discouraging urban sprawl is open to question. Although the site is adjacent to, and would represent a logical extensIon of an urbanized area, sites exist within the already urbanized portions of (j+ the community which are capable of accommodating the proposed use. \ The potential problems of allowing urbanization to be extended prior to full utilization of presently undeveloped parcels which have services more readily available would be most acute if the site were to be an- nexed but the project were later to fall through. Pressure for other, more intensively urban uses would then be felt on a site not as well suited for such uses because of difficulty in providing water and sewage service. IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Assuming all applicable mitigation measures identified in this report are incorporated as conditions of granting a Use Permit, remaining unavoidable impacts would include increase in energy consumption on the site and change in visual character of the site from a rural, open space area to an extension of urbanized Dublin. Application of miti- gation measures would reduce other impacts to an acceptable level. V. AL TERNA TIVES A. No Project If the project were not built, none of the impacts identified In this report would occur, with the possible exception of adverse air quality impacts which may occur due to increased travelling between existing scattered sites. 16 , B. Project in Another Location \.. If the project were built in a flatland location elsewhere in Dublin, a number of impacts would be lessened. Energy Impacts would be reduced, because pumping of water and extensIve grading would not be necessary. Visual impacts would be greatly reduced on a less prominent, flatland sIte. Impacts associated with mass grading, such as dust, noIse of earth-movIng machinery, visual scarrIng, etc., would be minimized. Beneficial impacts on air quality would result if the project were built on a more centrally-located site accessible by foot, bicycle, and public transit. Although such sites are likely to be more expensive, the environmental costs of site development would be minimal. C. Reduced Project Reduction in the scale and scope of the project would somewhat reduce visual and grading impacts. It should be noted that many years may pass before full develop- ment, upon which thIs report is based, is attained. Opportunity exists in the Condi- tional Use Permit procedure to grant the permit for a portIon of the project, requiring the applicant to reapply for any contemplated future expansion. After a portion of the ultimate project is completed, some impacts will be more evident and appro- priate mitigation measures can be required. D. Alternative Design of Project Some mitigation of grading and visual impacts can be gained by fitting the grading plan better to the site's contours. This alternative Is discussed in detail in Section I1I.D.2.c. (mitigation of visual impacts). VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT The project is not expected to induce growth either by generating demand for additional development or by removing present constraints to growth. Sewer lines will only be extended to serve the property and water holding facilities will be sIzed to serve the project only. If, after annexation, the project should not be built, a growth-inducing impact would then occur in the form of pressure for residential development of the site. All urban services would then be available, and It is unlikely that another church/school use would be available to go on the site. VII. ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT AND TO WHICH THE REPORT WAS REFERRED Alameda County Planning Department, Zoning Administration Division Alameda County Road Department Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Alameda County Health Care Services Agency Valley Community Services District Briarhills Homeowners Association Silvergate Homeowners Association Pacific Gas &: Electric Company Pacific Telephone Company California State Department of Transportation Valley Christian Center Bissell &: Karn, Inc. 17 i VIII. OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS TO WHICH THE REPORT W AS REFERRED Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission Dublin Library Bay Area Air Pollution Control District Dublin Chamber of Commerce City of Pleasanton Association of Bay Area Governments 18 " REFERENCES 1. Alameda County Planning Department, Planning Polley and Research Division, Special Census data, 1976. 2. Ibid. 3. Judd Hull and Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical InvestiRation for 49+ Acres West of Dublin, Alameda County, California, Report to Bissell &: Karn, Inc., by Judd Hull &: Associates, Hayward, CA, 1977. 4. IbId. 5. California Department of Water Resources, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources, Livermore and Sunol Valleys, Bulletin 118-2, Sacramento, CA, 1974. 6. Welch, L.E., et. al. Soli Survey, Alameda Area, CalifornIa, Series 1961, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 1966 7. Judd Hull &: Associates, op. dt. 8. Ibid. 9. ENGEO, Inc., GeoloRic and Seismic Hazards InvestiRation for Nielson Parcel, Dubllnz. Alameda County, California, Report to Harold and Robert NIelson by ENGEO, Inc., Berkeley, CA, 1976. 10. Judd Hull &: Associates, op. cit. II. Little, Arthur D., Inc. and Thomas Reid and Associates, Environmental Impact Report Supplemental Analysis: Population Growth and Air Quality in the Livermore'~ Amador Valley, 1974 12. Interactive Resources, Inc., Energy Conservation: Guidelines for EvaluatinR I'Jew Development in Contra Costa County, California, Volume 2, prepared for the Contra Costa County Planning Department by Interactive Resources, Inc., Point Richmond, CA, May 1976. 13. T.R. Lammers, District EngIneer, CalTrans, letter to Alameda County Planning Department, April 20, 1977. 14. Paul Ryan, General Manager, Valley Community Services District, telephone com""~'~- sation with Paul Deutsch, Alameda County Planning Department, September I, 1977. 15. Bill E. Nasir, Senior SanitarIan, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Division of Environmental Health, telephone conversation, September 7, 1977. 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (To b. filed with the Cuunly Clerk) Project C-3220 Valley Christian Center, Dublin Diile Received April 12, 1977 MJlyst Paul Deutsch . ErR Required? Yes 5 Hubert E. Frazier & Valley Christian ponSor Center Negative Declaration? No A. Description of project: Ccnditional Use Permit C-3220 to construct and operate a church and related school, recreation and support facilities on a 53 acre site at the westerly termL~us of Betlen Drive, adjacent northerly to the I-SSO right-ot-way, Dublin, unincorporated Alameda County. (102,000 sq. ft. of buildings, 238,200 sq. ft. of parking for 675 cars.) B. Review the ~roject 2'nd consider its environmental setting. Respond to the following statements by checking the appropriate space: V.. No 1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short term to the disadvantaae of long term environ men.: X tal goals. 2. The possible effects of the project are indivi. X dually limited but cumulatively considerable. 3. The envitonm~ntal effects of the project will cau-.e substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. X 04. There is. or is anticipated to be. a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consi- der the effect of thp project to be adverse. X 5. The project is in conflict with environmental plans al1d goals that have b~l:n adopted by Alameda County. -2- 6. The project may lead to a noticeable change in the ambient noise lever for a substantial number of people. X 7. It may disrUPt al'! established neighborhood or community sllch as by displacing residents, reducing levl':ls of public service or increasing X congestion to an appreciable degree. 8. The project may substantially affect the visual Of aesthetic quality of an area or the natural, teo:ogical cultural, scenic or recreational reo sources of National, State or Local signifi- --1L cance. 11. It could substantially alter the pattern of be- havior for a species or interfere with im. portant breeding, nesting, or feeding grounds. 12. Substantial amounts of vegetation. including ground cover, will be removed. or topographi. cal features including drainage courses and patterns materially altered. Flooding, erosion X or sedimentation may result. 13. The project is in an active fault zone or area of other identified major geologic hazards. 14. The effects of the project may conflict with National. State or Local standards and policies relating to the environment including wUer. air quality, solid waste or litter control. 15. The ploject may significantly affect the poten- tial use, extraction or comervation of a natural resource, including effects on ground water and damage to or loss of agricultural lands. 16. The project will involve the application. use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials or the reasonable possibilitY of contaminal;on of a public water supply. 17. The project may have significant effect on the economy of the area, including employment and tax base. 18. The project may make substantial demands on infra.structure systems including water. power supplies, sewage facilities, highways, airports, and public services. Yo. No X X J_ -L. -1L _-L 9. It may alter an historic or archaeological site or the appearance of its surroundings. -L _ 10. The project could affect substantially a rare or 19. The projet:t may have other significant effects endangered species of plant or animal, Or on the environment: habitat of such a species. _ -L {state) X C. If'y!! has been checked for statement 1. 2 or 3 then a finding that the proil~ct will have a significant effect on the environmen~ mandatory. If.:ill has been checked for any of statements 4 to 19 but you think the project still will have no significant environmental impact indicate your reasons below or on back of sheet. D. Oetermination . '0 I find Iho ptopoU'd prai.ct ....ill n01 h3vt I lignifican: efft'C1 on the .nviron,"enl. .nd In'l 'n,li.1 Sludy '1 10 bo Med IS . N~lIljV'll OlCIIr.1110". m I find 1h" propot.l'(f prc-jee! will or may hav. . 1'9n.fi"nl af'<<t on Iht ,nvironml'nt ilr.d ..n Envlronmen.,,' Inl113;:t lit'cort mUlll'le flied. The 119nll,e.'"1 ellolclI on Ih" cnVlfor,n\tI'lIlnt;l"d" Out .r. not nKuullly hmmrd 10 Ih, .t.ml ch.e'~ 'ytl" on th.llnili.1 Study. ~ _ -..:C 4/18/77 DIIIJl