Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07271993 - H.6 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa n. z o; County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � s DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•. '' o DATE: July 7, 1993 A courii~� SUBJECT: Request for Rezoning (3004-RZ) and Final Development Plan Approval (3009-93) for a Residential Project in the Pacheco Area (Former Pacheco Elementary School Site) Filed by Braddock & Logan .Associates (Appli- cant) and Mt. Diablo Unified School District (Owner) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS In accord with the County Planning Commission recommendation: 1. Accept the environmental documentation for the project as adequate. 2 . Approve the requested rezoning of the 6. 7 acre site from Single Family Residential, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1 as conditioned. (Conditions attached, Addendum B) 3 . Approve the requested final development plan application as conditioned. (Conditions attached, Addendum B) 4 . Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Applications for this project were filed with the County on March 26, 1993 . The applications consist of P-1 rezoning, final development plan and vesting tentative map approval requests. The applicant is seeking approval for a 7.1-unit single family residen- tial project on the 6. 7 acre site of the former Pacheco lementary School. The school operation was discontinued appro i ate a CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OFO D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON ji.11y 97T199'1 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See attached Addendum A for Board actions VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2091 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 27 , 1993 cc: Braddock & Logan Associates PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mt. Diablo Unified School District THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council D CO TY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept. County Counsel BY DEPUTY Contra Costa County Fire Prot. Dist. 2 . dozen years ago. The site is designated Multiple Family Residen- tial-Medium Density on the General Plan. Shortly after the applications were received, staff conducted an environmental analysis of the project which determined that there were no significant environmental impacts which might result from the project and a Negative Declaration was posted. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The project was heard by the County Planning Commission on June 22 , 1993 . After taking testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to accept the Negative Declaration determination as adequate; to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the requested rezoning and final development plan; and approval of the vesting tentative map. The approval of the subdivision is contingent on final adoption of the rezoning and final development plan approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Commission's review addressed a number of issues which were raised at the hearing. Request for EIR A letter dated April 30, 1993 from the Elder Drive Homeowners Association representing a condominium complex to the northwest challenges the adequacy of the environmental review, and requests preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The Commission reviewed the HOA's letter, the initial study prepared by staff and other environmental documentation including a traffic study prepared by the applicant. After reviewing these items, the Commission concluded that the environmental documenta- tion and determination are adequate. Community Center . Representatives of the Pacheco Town Council and Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council appeared before the Commission to request that the project be required to provide a community center on the site to benefit the local community. The applicant has been meeting with these groups and has offered to sell four lots at the north end of the site to the County which could be developed as a community center. The subdivision ordinance will require that park fees be paid to the County at a rate of $2 , 000/lot which would be due at time of occupancy of individual residences. In lieu of payment of these fees, the ordinance allows the applicant to receive credit against this obligation should he agree to dedicate land for park purposes to the County. Notwithstanding the applicant's offer to provide a portion of the site available for County acquisition, the community representa- tives requested that the existing auditorium and parking area ( in the middle of the site) be dedicated to the County. The applicant objected to this counter-proposal from the community representatives because it would require the elimination of too many lots from the project. After considering the matter, the Commission agreed with the applicant's approach. However, the conditions of approval require that the offer of land to the County must be based on actual development costs of the four lots. Further, the approval is conditioned to allow the County a one-year period to accept the offer. If the offer is not accepted, then the applicant can proceed with development of the four lots. (See C/A #16) . Compatibility with Airport A letter dated May 13 , 1993 reports on the review of the Airport Land Use Commission with regards to this project. The site is located one-half mile to the west of Buchanan Field and according to the Manager of Airports is beneath the airport traffic pattern. The Commission determined that the project is consistent with the Commission's Buchanan Field Airport Plan. At the same time, the Commission is concerned that the site will be subject to noise conditions associated with frequent aircraft overflight. Conse- quently, the Commission is requesting that any approval of this project be conditioned on the conveyance of a noise and avigation easement to the County. The applicant is agreeable to providing a disclosure statement in the CC & Rs but objects to a requirement to convey a noise and avigation easement. He feels that such a requirement would not be fair insofar as there is at least one nearby subdivision project that was approved without this requirement. After reviewing this matter, the Commission conditioned the project to provide the applicant a choice of providing either a disclosure statement or conveyance of a noise and avigation easement as a means of notifying prospective residents of the airport activity. (See C/A #13) . RD/aa BDVII/3004-RZ.RD 7/7/93 ADDENDUM A This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisor for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Braddock and Logan Associates (applicant) and Mt . Diablo Unified School District (owner) for approval to rezone approximately 6 . 7 acres of land from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (3004-RZ) and for approval of a final development plan for 71 single family residential units with provision for a community center (DP 3009-93) in the Pacheco area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed project, and he commented on the Planning Commission recommendation, and on issues including the concerns of the Elder Drive Homeowners' Association, the provision of a community center with this project, consistency with the General Plan, proposed modified conditions of approval, and he suggested that in addition to the recommendations above that the Board introduce an ordinance giving effect to the rezoning, waive reading, and set a date for the adoption of same . Supervisor McPeak commented on agreements that have been worked out between the developer, the community and the County for the Pacheco Community Center and Museum and she reviewed how the funds for the community were being raised. Supervisor McPeak also requested clarification on the inclusion of the application of the Child Care Ordinance . Mr. Barry clarified that it was condition number 11 on page 3 of the conditions of approval . Joe Raphel, Braddock and Logan, Managing Partner, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project, presented a brief history of the project and advised of the difficulty of completing the Pacheco Community Center at the time 75 percent of the homes were constructed. Supervisor McPeak suggested that from the time that the land is made available with approved drawings and a budget that Braddock and Logan will complete the construction of the Community Center within one year. Mr. Raphel concurred. Joyce Jones, 45 Rutherford Lane, Pacheco, spoke in support of the proposed project . Dan Helix, P.O. Box 6144, Concord, representing Mt . Diablo Unified School District, spoke in support of the proposed project . Supervisor McPeak moved approval of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission with the modification of removing a portion of item 16 where lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 would be made available, instead to reflect that this is approval of 71 lots for a PUD and approval for construction of 71 homes on those lots and to add to that the staff report just received with the modification of item 5 that the project will be completed within one year. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 with amended conditions, 3 with amended conditions, 4 are APPROVED; and Ordinance No. 93-50, giving effect to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, reading waived, and August 3 , 1993 is set for the adoption of same . ADDENDUM B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 3004-RZ,FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3009-93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7840 (Braddock & Logan - Applicant) per 7/27/93 Board of Supervisors Approval 1 . This approval is based upon the preliminary/final development plan, vesting tentative subdivision map and supporting plans dated received April 1, 1993, together with other supporting documents submitted with the application, for not more than 71 residential lots, subject to the conditions listed below. The approval of vesting tentative map for SUB 7840 is contingent on final approval of Rezoning 3004-RZ and Final Development Plan 3009-93 by the Board of Supervisors. The subdivision approval is subject to any requirements imposed by the Board of Supervisors in any approval of the Rezoning and Final Development Plan by the Board. The filing period of the Rezoning/Final Development Plan shall run concurrently with the time limits of the approved subdivision. 2. Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits described in Condition #1 above, the guide for development shall be the Single Family Residential (R-6) district, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building permits. A. Guide for minimum yard standards shall be as follows: Front: 16 feet from property line; 18 feet back of sidewalk. Side: 4 feet; total 10 feet between buildings; side yards adjacent to a street shall be not less than 6 feet. Rear: 15 feet. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, an overall plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator showing building locations and siting dimensions. Consideration shall be given to siting buildings angular to streets where feasible as indicated on staff modification of the typical lot layout plan dated June 6, 1993. Consideration shall also be given to separation of driveways to allow more convenient street parking. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the final design of the building shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility meter equipment, television..antenna, etc., or be screened from view. A. All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs and exterior materials. B. All garages shall be constructed with remote controlled automatic sectional doors. C. Construction plans shall indicate that each garage is equipped with a suitable electrical outlet that is dedicated for future potential use in recharging electrical vehicles. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall demonstrate how this design will be accomplished. Pacific, Gas, and Electric Company and/or the County Building Inspection Department shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed arrangement. D. Illuminated house numbers shall be provided for each residential unit throughout the development. 4. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The document shall establish design restrictions and parameters over yard space and exterior elevations. 5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted prepared by a qualified landscape architect that is certified in compliance with the County policy for drought-tolerant plants. The plan shall address road frontage and alternative frontyard landscape plans. All frontyard landscaping shall be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. A. California native trees shall be used as much as possible. All trees should be a minimum 15 gallon in size; shrubs should be a minimum of 5 gallon size. 6. Comply with the recommendations of the geologic report submitted with the application. Grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a grading permit. 7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 8. The existing tile mosaic wall mural presently located in the multi-use building of the former Pacheco Elementary School shall be safely removed and stored to the satisfaction of the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council. During the time prior to completion of the subdivision and home sales, the developer shall be responsible for its reinstallation in the event a new permanent location is determined by the Zoning Administrator as recommended by the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council. 9. Hours of exterior or interior construction that creates significant noise shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, except national holidays. All construction and transportation equipment shall be muffled in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Street Names and Addressing 10. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street name approval. Alternate street names should be submitted -2- for the proposed internal street in the event of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names and the assignment of street addresses. Child Care 11. Comply with the requirements of the Child Care Facilities Ordinance (Chapter 82-22). At least 60 days prior to filing a final map, submit two copies of a child care demand study and proposed response program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit evidence that the approved program has been implemented. Questions on administration ..of the ordinance may be directed to the Child Care Coordinator (646-2035). Transaortation Demand Management Program 12. Comply with the requirements of the County Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (No. 92-31) prior to filing a final map. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, submit two copies of a proposed TDM program to the County. The proposal shall consist of an ongoing program to notify residents of transit opportuni- ties in the area, and encourage and facilitate carpooling among residents. The applicant should contact the TDM coordinator (646-2131) in the Community Development Department office for direction on the preparation of a submittal. 13. With the filing of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall comply with either A or B as follows: A. A suitable aviation and noise easement covering the entire property shall be granted to the County. A model easement for this purpose has been provided to the applicant. Such instrument shall be granted concurrently with the recordation of the final map. B. A suitable disclosure statement suggested as follows, shall be added to the final map and concurrently recorded as a covenant to each of the lots with the recordation of the final map. "This property is in proximity to Buchanan Field, a public-use airport. The property is subject to overflight by aircraft and associated noise im- pacts." 14. A buyer disclosure document shall be provided advising prospective home buyers that the site is subject to airport overflight by aviation traffic using Buchanan Field. 15. New residences and the proposed community center shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the 1988 Uniform Building Code -3- Appendix with State of California 1989 Amendments. Evidence of compliance with these standards shall be demonstrated at time of issuance of building permits. .Off-Site Community Center Development 16. The applicant shall be required to assist in the development of a community center to serve the community of Pacheco to be located at another site in the community in accord with the following. (Other pertinent items relating to the development of the Pacheco Community Center are reviewed below under Advisory Notes, Item J.) A. Community Center Design - The applicant and the Community Development Department (Redevelopment Agency) shall work with the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and Pacheco Town Council on the design of the project. B. Development Services - The applicant shall construct the Pacheco Community Center for the County (or its designee) at the applicant's costs. The community center shall be completed within twelve months of the date that the land and necessary building permits are secured. C. Payment of Park Dedication Fees - The applicant shall satisfy the park dedication ordinance requirement by payment of the ordinance fee ($2000 per lot, total $142,000). The payment shall either be in the form of cash or otherwise guaranteed by posting a Letter of Credit or such other security or instrument acceptable to the Zoning Administrator for amounts due within seven (7) working days of receipt of a letter from the County or its designee. Park Dedication fees not previously paid by the applicant, and due for the remainder of the project, shall be paid at the earlier of the following: (1) six months from the date of the final map; or (2) a date determined by the County or its designee when Park Dedication fees paid by the Applicant will be necessary to meet payment obligations pursuant to a contract for construction of the proposed Pacheco Community Center. D. Additional Contribution - Prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a final map, the applicant shall contribute an additional $40,000 to the County (or its designee) on behalf of the Pacheco Community to further the development of the Pacheco Communty Center. E. Protection of Existing School Mural - At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a final map, the applicant shall submit a program providing for the protection and temporary storage of the existing mural in the Pacheco School auditorium for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall also provide for the reinstallation of the mural to the proposed Pacheco Community Center. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the Architectural Services Division of the General Services Department (Robert Hill, 313-7200), Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and 0 -4- the Pacheco Town Council shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. .School-Site Historical Marker 17. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a proposed design for an historical marker to be placed at the school site for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and the Pacheco Town Council shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposal. The approved marker shall be installed prior to issuance of the first building permit, or later date authorized by the Zoning Administrator. Roads, Drainage and Utilities 18. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements. 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Center Avenue, Deodar Drive, Second Avenue, and Elder Drive. Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and traverse drainage and necessary pavement widening will satisfy this requirement for the Deodar Drive, Second Avenue, and Elder Drive frontages. The face of curb shall be 20 feet from the ultimate centerline of Deodar Drive and Second Avenue, and 18 feet from the ultimate centerline of Elder Drive. Constructing curb, six-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and traverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening will satisfy this requirement for the Center Avenue frontage. The face of the curb shall be 32 feet from the centerline of the road. On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 2) Installing street lights and annexing the property to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and -5- location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Depart- ment, Engineering Services Division. 3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities, including the existing distribution facilities along the Elder Drive and Second Avenue frontages, and those facilities which cross the fronting public roads to serve the subject property. 4) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with the design standards of the Public Works Department. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 5) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 6) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. 7) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way: 1) On Center Avenue as required for the planned future width of 84 feet. 2) On Deodar Drive as required with a four-foot public utility easement along the Deodar Drive frontage. 3) On Elder Drive as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. 4) On Second Avenue as required for the planned future width of 60 feet. C. Provide for adequate sight distance along Deodar Drive, Elder Drive and Second Avenue for a design speed of 30 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. This will require lowering the crest of the vertical curve on Deodar Drive. -6- D. Provide for adequate corner sight distance along Center Avenue for a design speed of 45 miles per hour, in accordance with Caltrans standards. E. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Center Avenue, including the curb return. F. Construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. 'A' Street shall be constructed as a 32-foot road within a 52-foot right-of-way. G. Install safety related improvements on Second Avenue, Deodar Drive, and Elder Drive (including traffic signs and channelization) as approved by the Public Works Department. H. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. I. Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and show proposed and future curb lines, lane striping details and lighting. The sketch alignment plan shall also include sufficient information to show that adequate sight distance has been provided. J. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. If, after good faith negotiations, the applicant is unable to acquire necessary right of way and easements, he shall enter into an agreement with the County to complete the necessary improvements at such time as the County acquires the necessary interests in accordance with Sections 66462 and 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act. K. Along that portion of Second Avenue which lies between Deodar Drive and the Pacheco Creek bridge , restripe the existing pavement to provide for at least a 12-foot lane width from the northerly edge of pavement to the centerline of Second Avenue. Along the south side of Second Avenue, provide for at least an 18-foot lane width from face of curb to the Second Avenue centerline. If these lane widths cannot be provided by restriping this portion of Second Avenue, the applicant shall be required to widen the existing pavement along the uncurbed side of the road to accommodate those lane widths, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. If the centerline stripe on Second Avenue east of Deodar Drive is to be shifted to the south, the applicant shall restripe Second Avenue west of Deodar Drove to align with the new striping. Adequate transitions for a 30 mile per hour -7- design speed shall be provided, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Restriping along this portion of Second Avenue shall not eliminate parking on the south side of Second Avenue. Notice of Commencement of Construction Activity 19. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall prepare a notice that construction work will commence; post it on the project site; and mail it to the owners of the property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site advising that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise, dust, and litter control, and construction traffic control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading activity. - Energy Conservation Program 20. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: A. provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the subdivision and the design of the residences to the extent feasible. B. evidence that the proposed development will comply with the California Energy Commission energy budget limits by utilizing the most current CEC prescriptive packages available. The developer shall indicate what package (or performance standard) they are proposing to utilize. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the Building Inspection shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed standards relative to compliance with this require- ment. At time of issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit the approved package to the Building Inspection Department during the plan checking process. Police Services District 21 . The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible -8- for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. County Indemnification 22. Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.9,the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Construction Material Recycling 23. The applicant shall provide for the separation of recyclable construction material, such as wood waste and inert solids, at the construction site. Provisions for the separation of recyclables shall be consistent with the County Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Any questions on satisfying this requirement shall be directed to the County Recycling Specialist at (510) 646-4198. -9- and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. I. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division (646-2521). J. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to develop a Community Center near the intersection of Center Avenue and Pacheco Boulevard (former Hayden Park site) to serve the community of Pacheco. This project will require a number of actions to occur which have not yet been considered by the Board of Supervisors. 1 . A design will have to be proposed with input from the local community. 2. If required, the project will have to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. If operated by a local community organization, the Board of Supervisors will have to authorize a long-term lease for the proposed site. In approving this subdivision project, the Board of Supervisors declares its intent to: • negotiate a long-term Ground Lease with an appropriate community organiza- tion for a portion of the County-owned Hayden Park site. The Community Development Department (Redevelopment Agency) and General Services Department (Lease Management Division) shall enter into negotiations with the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and Pacheco Town Council for a long-term lease and maintenance of the facility to an appropriate Pacheco community organization. • allocate Park Dedication fees held in Census Tract 3212 Account (current balance $141,292.96) plus the $142,000 in fees to be generated from this subdivision project. • allocate any Measure AA funds redirected from the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District and the East Bay Regional Park District and intended for the Pacheco community. • the Community Development Department is authorized to receive any donation for the project from the Pacheco Town Council. BT/aa SUBXIII/7840C.BT 6/8/93 6/18/93 6/23/93 7/29/93 -11- ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Pacheco Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Areas 87 and 88 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. C. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region II or Central Valley - Region V). D. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. E. Except as otherwise stipulated in the foregoing conditions of approval, this project is subject to the development fees in effect under County ordinance as of April 2, 1993, the date that the Vesting Tentative Map application was accepted as complete by the County. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2000 per residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each lot in the unincorporated area may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at (510) 646-4992. F. Comply with the County Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments Ordinance (Ord. #90-59). G. Comply with the requirements of the County Construction Use of Recycled Water Ordinance (No. 91-24). H. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index [CP11 adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 -10- and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. L. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division (646-2521). J. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to develop a Community Center near the intersection of Center Avenue and Pacheco Boulevard (former Hayden Park site) to. serve the community of Pacheco. This project will require a number of actions to occur which have not yet been considered by the Board of Supervisors. 1. A design will have to be proposed with input from the local community. 2. If required, the project will have to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. If operated by a local community organization, the Board of Supervisors will have to authorize a long-term lease for the proposed site. In approving this subdivision project, the Board of Supervisors declares its intent to: • negotiate a long-term Ground Lease with an appropriate community organiza- tion for a portion of the County-owned Hayden Park site. The Community Development Department (Redevelopment Agency) and General Services Department (Lease Management Division) shall enter into negotiations with the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and Pacheco Town Council for a long-term lease and maintenance of the facility to an appropriate Pacheco community organization. • allocate Park Dedication fees held in Census Tract 3212 Account (current balance $141,292.96) plus the $142,000 in fees to be generated from this subdivision project. • allocate any Measure AA funds redirected from the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District and the East Bay Regional Park District and intended for the Pacheco community. • the Community Development Department is authorized to receive any donation for the project from the Pacheco Town Council. BT/aa SUBXIII/7840C.BT 6/8/93 6/18/93 6/23/93 7/29/93 -11- REZONING: #3004-RZ - DEVELOPMENT PLAN #3009-93 JOSEPH E. RAPHEL/BRADDOCR & LOGAN ASSOCIATES (Applicants) MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Owner) REQESTS APPROVAL TO REZONE 6.7 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-7.) TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) & TO HAVE 71 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH PROVIS- ION FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DEODAR DRIVE BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE SOUTH (formerly the Pacheco Elementary School property) . PACHECO AREA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 27 July 1993 - 2:15 P.M Contra TO:. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '' Costa °` County FROM: HARVEY E. $RAGDON .:1°� ��`+ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '. 4 DATE: July 7, 1993 Urir`� SUBJECT: Request for Rezoning (3004-RZ) and Final Development Plan Approval (3009-93) for a Residential Project in the Pacheco Area (Former Pacheco Elementary School Site) Filed by Braddock & Logan Associates (Appli- cant) and Mt. Diablo Unified school District (Owner) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS In accord with the County Planning Commission recommendation: 1. Accept the environmental documentation for the project as adequate. 2. Approve the requested rezoning of the 6.7 acre site from Single Family Residential, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1 as conditioned. 3. Approve the requested final development plan application as conditioned. 4. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Applications for this project were filed with the County on March 26, 1993. The applications consist of P-1 rezoning, final development plan and vesting tentative map approval requests. The applicant is seeking approval for a 71-unit single family resider.,- tial project on the 6.7 acre site Of the former Pacheco lementary School. The school operation was discontinued appr i ate a CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF O D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2091 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Braddock & Logan Associates PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mt. Diablo Unified School District THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept. County Counsel BY , DEPUTY 2. dozen years ago. The site is designated Multiple Family Residen- tial-Medium Density on the General Plan. Shortly after the applications were received, staff conducted an environmental analysis of the project which determined that there were no significant environmental impacts which might result from the project and a Negative Declaration was posted. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The project was heard by the County Planning Commission.on June 22, 1993. After taking testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to accept the Negative Declaration determination as adequate; to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the requested rezoning and final development plan; and approval of the vesting tentative map. The approval of the subdivision is contingent on final adoption of the rezoning and final development plan approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Commission's review addressed a number of issues which were raised at the hearing. Request for EIR A letter dated April 30, 1993 from the Elder Drive Homeowners Association representing a condominium complex to the northwest challenges the adequacy of the environmental review, and requests preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The commission reviewed the HOA's letter, the initial study prepared by staff and other environmental documentation including a traffic study prepared by the applicant. After reviewing these items, the Commission concluded that the environmental documenta- tion and determination are adequate. Community Center Representatives of the Pacheco Town council and Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council appeared before the commission to request that the project be required to provide a community center on the site to benefit the local community. The applicant has been meeting with these groups and has offered to sell four lots at the north end of the site to the County which could be developed as a community center. The subdivision ordinance will require that park fees be paid to the County at a rate of $2,000/lot which would be due at time of occupancy of individual residences. In lieu of payment of these fees, the ordinance allows the applicant to receive credit against this obligation should he agree to dedicate land for park purposes to the County. Notwithstanding the applicant's offer to provide a portion of the site available for county acquisition, the community representa- tives requested that the existing auditorium and parking area (in the middle of the site) be dedicated to the County. The applicant objected to this counter-proposal from the community representatives because it would require the elimination of too many lots from the project. After considering the matter, the Commission agreed with the applicant's approach. However, the conditions of approval require that the offer of land to the County must be based on actual development costs of the four lots. Further, the approval is conditioned to allow the County a one-year period to accept the offer. If the offer is not accepted, then the applicant can proceed with development of the four lots. (See C/A #16) . ^ ' , compatibility with Airport A letter uut=u May 13, 1993 reports on the review or the Airport Land Use Commission with regards to this project, The site is located one-half mile to the west of auobonnn Field and according to the Manager of Airports is beneath the airport traffic pattern' The Commission determined that the project is consistent with the commission's aoouaoan Field Airport Plan. At the same time, the commission is concerned that the site will be subject to noise conditions associated with frequent aircraft overflight. Conse- quently, the oommissiori is regueatlng that any approval of this project be conditioned on the conveyance of u noise and avi9ation easement to the County. The applicant is agreeable to providing a disclosure statement in the Cc a na but objects to a requirement to convey a noise and avigatioo easement. He feels that such a requirement would not be fair insofar as there is at least one nearby subdivision project that was approved without this requirement' After reviewing this matter, the Commission conditioned the project to provide the applicant a choice of p�oviuinq either a disclosure statement or conveyance of a noise and aviqation easement as a means of notifying prospective residents of the airport activity. (See C/A #zz) ' RD/aa eoVzz/znu*-ez'Ro 7/7/*z NOTIFICATION LIST — JOS. E. RAPHEL/Ef2ADDOCK & LoGAN - 30C4-RL, 3005-93 a SUB, #740 - PAGE Id .JOSEPH E. RAPHEL/PRADDCDOCK Juan & Teresa Calderon Donald McKay LDGAN 2277 Arcadia Court 236 Center Avenue P. 0, BOX 5300 Martinez California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 DAwILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 ' John & Randal Harvey 114 C Street Lowen & Alberta Woosley A ndy Akay Pacheco, California 94553 224 Center Avenue 244 Center Avenue Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Ray & Ruth Serra Joseph & Gaye Yllanes An a Della-Constanza 118 C Street 2108 Mclaren Drive 102 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Roseville, California 95661 Pacheco, California 94553 Colleen Calvano/Carl Romelfanger Thomas & Judith Bradison Catherine Benedit 222 Center Avenue 240 Center Avenue 108 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Ruben & Nenita Corpus 230 Center Avenue Miriam Johnson Linda Rodrigues Pacheco, California 94553 100 Chatham Court 109 Fountainhead Court Pacheco, California 94553 Martinez, California 94553 Armen Boyd, Jr, & Sr. JulAnita Baroni Julie & Norman Jackson 238 Center Avenue 106 ulChatham Court 116 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Benita Oberg Kathie Goto 254 Center Avenue Mary Piscite'lli 122 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 112 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Huriel Jackson Thomas & Sandra Foster Patrick Warren O'Donnell 1708 Oakmont Drive #6 19527 Sherman Island LRd. 200 Chatham Court Levee dalnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Rio Vista, California evee Pacheco, California 94553 Susan Anne Walker & Catherine Peacock Akhtar Badiozzaman Grad . 110 Chatham Court Gra Center Avenue 206 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 aeorge & Alberta Boeger 711 Pacifica Avenue Earl & Fern"Short Wm. Fuller & Denise Amador 71ttsburfi California 94565 228 Center Avenue 212 Chatham Court Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 NOTIFICATION LIST - JOS.E. RAPHEL/Braddock & Logan - 3004-RZ, 3009-93 & Subdivision #7840 - Page Darrell Lee Haydon James & Catherine Dickinson James Huey 8 Ashland Way. 351 Pantano Circle 226 - 22'd Avenue Danville, California 94506 Pacheco, California 94553 San Francisco, Calif. 94121 Gerald & Connie Henderson Eric Moore George & Florence Davis 224 Chatham Court 120 Chatham Court 124 Flame Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill , California 9452 Josephine Ketchum Gretchen Ann Peters Kwong Lun & Heung Chan 101 Deodar Drive 126 Chatham Court 132 Flame Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Diane Bowman Michele Jurick & Leo Elaine Edwin Logwood & Margaret Ukauk 118 Chatham Court #14 204 Chatham Court 139 Flame Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant; Hill ,. Calif. 94523 William J. Fitts Raymond Cannata Raymond & Yeman Wong 124 Chatham Court 210 Chatham Court 2532 Whitechapel Place Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Thousand Oaks, Calif. 91,362 Mark Ahlgrim Martha Smith Ling Chi Chu & Chia Chu 202 Chatham Court #18 216 Chatham Court 291 Second Avenue South Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant. Hill, Calif. 94523 Joanna Dempsey Phillip & Michael Teicheira Jerry Fu & Wu Chung-Hsiang 208 Chatham Court 222 Chatham Court 128 Flame Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant. Hill, Calif. 94523 Shirley Auerbach Catherine Masters Salvador & Dolores Lopez 214 Chatham Court 228 Chatham Court 135 Flame Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant. Hill, Calif. 94523 Robert J. & Jarlene Diamonon Donald Lee & Deloris Dennis Shadowood Homeowners Associatic 220 Chatham Court 535 Pantano Circle 1425 Treat Boulevard #B Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Walnut Creek, California 94596 William Fitzgerald Caroll Barnes Paul 226 Chatham Court 285 Second Avenue South 106Shadowood Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill , Calif. 94523 JOTIFICATION LIST - Jos.E. Raphel/Braddock & Logan _ 3004-RZ, 3009-93 & Sub . #7840 - Page #3 falter Myers & Brian Sanford Stuart Lilly Gerald & Cosmo Tahira 113 Shadowood Drive 8 Topsail Court 534 Rancho Arroyo Parkway 'leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Fremont, California 94536 ,halil & Mary Deeik Robert & Mary Elwood Stephen & Sharon Davis ?945 Irving Street #3 15 Topsail Court 146 Shadowood Drive )an Francisco, Calif. 94122 Pleasant Hill , California 94523 Pleasant Hill, California 94523 ,obert & Anna Bartholomew Brendan Kenneally & Judy Marrinan Antonio & Genevra Garmendia '63 Camelback Road 25 Topsail Court 7 Topsail Court 'leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill , California 94523 Pleasant Hill , California 94523 .teven, Kimberly & John Dolan Harry & Edith Hills Kitman & Liza Cheung .31 Flame Drive 301 First Avenue South 61 Sanders Ranch Road leasant Hill, California 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 Moraga, California 94556 .aymond & Audrey Stefanko Jeanette Schwabel Ming Tzang & Grace Tsay .36 Flame Drive 132 Shadowood Drive 1762 Oro Valley Circle leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill, California 94523 Walnut Creek, California 94596 enneth & Debbie Fithian James & Sally Jones Lakeshore Financial 01 Tumbleweed Court 142 Shadowood Drive 21060 Redwood Road layton, California 94517 Pleasant Hill , California 94523 Castro Valley, Calif. 94546 obert & Julie Wolfe Wm. Gin Lem Lee & Way Lee Al & Barbara Stratton 09 Shadowood Drive 4 Topsail Court 1561 Alro Court leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill , Calif. 94523 Concord, California 94521 illiam Tang Stephen & Lydia Cunningham John & '.Karen Pippig III 26 Shadowood Drive 11 Topsail Court 103 Deodar Drive leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 errye Wilder Thomas & Janice Gilmour Kristine Costanza 5 Maywood Drive 16 Topsail Court 96 Elder Drive #B an Francisco, Calif. 94127 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 )rahim & Nadia Kobrossi Debi & Donna Ford Lois Desch Topsail Court 188 Second Avenue South 96 Elder Drive #E leasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 NOTIFICATION LIST - Jos.E.Raphel/Braddock & Logan - 3004-RZ, 3009-93 & Sub.#7840 - Page #4 -yan Everett Lori Ann Mrochinski James & :(vonne McQuay i Elder Drive #H 98 Elder Drive #D 2000 Almond Avenue icheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Concord, California 94520 iy Young Claire Beers Robert &Annette Avila 3 Elder Drive #C 98 Elder Drive #G 14 Flame Court acheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 ichele & Frances Glascock Benjamin & Dolly Edelman Robert & Pamela Mackey 3 Elder Drive #F 104 Elder Drive #A 2520 Camino Diablo #220 icheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Walnut Creek, California 94569 lora & Peter Lujan Henry Low, Jr. & J. Fam Gary Freitas )4 Elder Drive 1501 North Broadway #200 P. 0. Bo),2173 icheco, California 94553 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Martinez, California 94553 Ward & Nicole Marinelli Kyu Hyok & Sohn Fong Bertha Meyer ) Flame Court 1065 Rudgear Road 113 First: Avenue South icheco, California 94553 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Pacheco, California 94553 ifred & Lilia Gonzales Marcia Lee Stuart Patricia Melara 0. Box 188 96 Elder Drive #D 129 Deodar Drive irtinez, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 )bert & Pamela Mackey Shelley Crane David & Gina Blessum .20 Camino Diablo #220 96 Elder Drive #G 90 Elder Drive #A ilnut Creek, California 94596 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 pith & Shirley Packard Raymond Cauayani Ilvo & Caroline Camozzi Elder Drive #C 98 Elder Drive #B 6707 Corte Poquita icheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Martinez, California 94553 ristine Ann Sherfey Wm. & Mary & Thomas Noack Larry Gonzales Elder Drive #F 98 Elder Drive #E P. 0. Box. 27723 icheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Concord, California 94527 tphne Golliher Arman & Marie Glazier Uday Deshmukh Elder Drive #A 126 Gilbert Lane 92 Elder Drive #F ,checo, California 94553 Martinez, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 . ` ` 3004-KZ 3OO9 9� & Subdivision #7840 - Pg �5 ' TIFICATION LIST - JOS. E, Raph�l/Br�dd0Ck � Logan - , - , ~ Anne Marie & Gloria Jensen Bridget CostollOe Frelin Yim Poon & Ching Ming ' 94 Elder Drive #H 105 Flame Drive Pacheco, California , 94 Elder Drive #A 94 g45�3 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Frances Wilbourne Warren & Wen-ShSe Owens Robert & Denise Owen 125 DeOdVr Drive l?O Flame Drive �4 Elder Drive �D Pacheco, California �4�53 P8�h�CO California 94553 PDCh�CO� California 9�5�3 , ° Kathleen Miller Daniel & Judith Hart Al & Barbara Stratton 137 D8odar Drive 1561 Alr0 Court 94 Elder Drive �� pa�h�CO Californiag4553 [O�c�rd California 94521 P�Ch�C0* California 94��3 , , Donald Marshall & Joseph Toth Howard & Mary Evans-Harrow �U8� � FlOr80t�DO �gDOc�0 40 Elder Drive #[ 122 Flame Drive P. U^ Box g�4 Ocean Shores, WA 98569 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Nita & Barbara Hildebrand Linda Scott Kerry � Frank Kilmer 92 Elder Drive #8 355 PdOtanU Circle q0 Elder Drive �8 PaCh8c0° California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Daniel Yuen William & Carlee Daly Anthony & Royce K rell 82 Elder Drive #E 361 P8Dta00 Circle 92 Elder Drive #A Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 ` Alfred Castro Theodore & Gloria 7 'del, Jr. Pauline & Marloe Campbell 92 Elder Drive #H 367 Pantano Circle 1901 Ardith Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill, California 94523 Leticia Dodds Philip & Pamela 3tuech2li rarOl n Robinson 94 Elder Drive #C 373 Pantano Circle 453 Hawthorne Lane Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 32DiCi8, California 445I0 3teYGn &'[DUra [bellew & Walter & Una DUjgOaD LdUr2Dc2 ]dcOb3 Phoebe Langley 176 Tracy Lane 393 PaOtan0 Circle #]O )4 Elder Drive #B Alamo, California 94507 Pacheco, California 94533 3dCh2CO* California 44553 Edward Calderon Karen Connell 7rank Javier Lanza 96 Elder Drive #A 357 Pantan0 Circle )4 Elder Drive #E PachecoCalifornia 94553 Pacheco, California 84553 zacheco, California 94553 " , NOTIFICATION LIST - Jos.E. Raphel/Braddock & Logan - 3004-RZ, 3009793 & Subdivision #7840 - Page 6 Kevin Ray Lee Enrique & Maria Ana Soliven Hank Brennes 363 Pantano Circle 2 Harwood Court 269 Aria Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 93523 Pacheco, California 94553 Ralph Heath Byron Turner Ruth E. Gibson 1939 Parkside Drive 1040 Oak Knoll Road 152 High Street Concord, California 94.519 Lafayette, California 94549 Pacheco, California 94553 James & Carol Madison Warren & Wen-Shee Owens Dorothy Elsenius 375 Pantano Circle 125 Deodar Drive 351 Via Peralta Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Eduardo & Norma Manuel Thomas Floers & Kenneth Ericksen Daniel A„ Tennille 175 Iris Road 759 Camelback . Road 40 Crosby Court lercules, California 94547 Pleasant hill , California 94523. Pacheco, California 94553 Elida Rossetti Craig & Stephenie Waters Cornelius Eutropius 359 Pantano Circle 5 Hardwood Court 1159 iTemple Drive Pacheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill , Calif. 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 Joann Craig Comistas Partnership . Wlvin Ted Tobby 460 Arlington Street 245 Ygnacio .Valley Road 176 Cairo Drive San Francisco, California 94131 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Pacheco, California 94553 Armand William & Lynn Speidel Clifton Pierce Dan Helix 371 Pantano Circle 112 C Street 1102 Northridge Court 'acheco, California 94553 Pacheco, California 94553 Concord, California 94553 itephen Fisher Edward & Alma Perez Karl Boeger 391 Pantano Circle 1 Hardwood Court 113 C Street 'acheco, California 94553 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Pacheco, California 94553 :dy Sennhauser David & Patty Geiovanetti Bryan Everett 1255 Post Street 9 Hardwood Court 96-H Elder San Francisco, California 94109 . pleasant Hill , Calif. 94523 . Pacheco, California 94553 )ennis Spiceroyce L. Jones p David & ShirleyShetSquires 45 Rutherford Lane '. 0. Box 272555 106 C Street y q Pacheco' California 94553 :oncord, California 94527 Pacheco, California 94553 Resolution No. 28-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND- ATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY JOSEPH E. RAPHEL-BRAD- DOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES (APPLICANTS) , MT.DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIS- TRICT (OWNER) , (#3004-RZ) , IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE PACHECO AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by JOSEPH E. RAPHEL/BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOC- IATES (Applicants) , MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Owner) , (#3004-RZ) , to rezone 6.7 acres of land from Single Family Residen- tial District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1) , was received by the Community Development Department on April 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, simultaneously, the applicant filed Final Development Plan application #3009-93, requesting approval for 71 single family residential units with provision for a community center; and WHEREAS, the applicant also filed application requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision #7840, to divide the 6.7 acres into 71 lots; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the west side of Deodar Drive between Center Avenue and Second Avenue South (former- ly the Pacheco Elementary School property) ; and WHEREAS, an initial environmental study was conducted which concluded that the project would not result in any potential sig- nificant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration of En- vironmental Significance was posted and noticed for this proposal on April 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated April 30, 1993 , the Elder Drive Homeowners' Association expressed their objections to the environ- mental documentation and determination and requested the prepara- tion of an environmental impact report; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission for Tuesday, June 22, 1993, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Comm- ission ACCEPTS the environmental documentation and determination issued by staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Plann- ing Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, APPROVAL of the requested change in zoning from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and APPROVAL of Final Development Plan #3009-93, subject to revised and amended and added conditions; APPROVAL of the Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision #7840 also Resolution No. 28-1993 with revised, amended and added conditions and as indicated on the Findings Map entitled: PAGE H-13 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map, also attached hereto and made a part hereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommend- ation are as follows: 1. The proposed residential density is consistent with the general plan land use density for this site, Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density. 2. The proposed detached single family residential develop- ment will be in harmony with existing residential develop- ment bordering the site. 3 . The project approval allows for a reasonable contribution towards site acquisition and development costs for a poss- ible community center to benefit the Pacheco community. 4. To alert future residents of the presence of overhead air traffic related to Buchanan Field, the project has been conditioned to require either a disclosure statement with C.C.R's or a granting of a noise and avigation easement to the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolu- tion and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all. in accor- dance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, June 22 , 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners -. Terrell, Accornero, Woo, Clark, Sakai. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis, Frakes. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. H. Quintus Sakai Chair of e a ning Commission, Contra t C , California' ATTEST: ar a E. r d n, Secreta y of he annin C mission, Contra Cos a County, ate of California Findings Map TEMPLE M-29 ' R i R- I 3 R ti R16i CENTER AV 0 _ -17 IRs AVE SOU N .�! .:..�--• ZNO 0 x z A s, C'1 w c OR 0 UY 0 . Rezone From V---7 To -i AC-tAE�cn- Area l H, Qu I NTUS SAKA I , Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of ?A6E- F}—t-�K p•f-- —",t=_ t Llt ANL- '1 S 1E'i`7 Y 26 PJ t r-,S Cn, tlIVW indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of I-oo An1 A-s-,oc- Soo 4 -2z /S/ H. QUINTUs SAKAI Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State of California ATTE T etary of th /Contra Costa County fanning Com ssion, State of Calif. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 3004-RZ,FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3009-93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7840 (Braddock & Logan - Applicant) per 6/22/93 County Planning Commission Approval Modifications to the conditions of approval made at the Commission hearing are identified with marked text. Insertions are denoted with redline; deletions are denoted with strikeout. 1 . This approval is based upon the preliminary/final development plan, vesting tentative subdivision map and supporting plans dated received April 1 , 1993, together with other supporting documents submitted with the application, for not more than 71 residential lots, subject to the conditions listed below. The approval of vesting tentative map for SUB 7840 is contingent on final approval of Rezoning 3004-RZ and Final Development Plan 3009-93 by the Board of Supervisors. The subdivision approval is subject to any requirements imposed by the Board of Supervisors in any approval of the Rezoning and Final Development Plan by the Board. The filing period of the Rezoning/Final Development Plan shall run concurrently with the time limits of the approved subdivision. 2. Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits described in Condition #1 above, the guide for development shall be the Single Family Residential (R-6) district, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building permits. A. Guide for minimum yard standards shall be as follows: Front: 16 feet from property line; 18 feet back of sidewalk. Side: 4 feet; total 10 feet between buildings; side yards adjacent to a street shall be not less than 6 feet. Rear: 15 feet. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, an overall plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator showing building locations and siting dimensions. Consideration shall be given to siting buildings angular to streets where feasible as indicated on staff modification of the typical lot layout plan dated June 6, 1993. Consideration shall also be given to separation of driveways to allow more convenient street parking. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the final design of the building shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility meter equipment, television antenna, etc., or be screened from view. A. All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs and exterior materials. B. All garages shall be constructed with remote controlled automatic sectional doors. C. Construction plans shall indicate that each garage is equipped with a suitable electrical outlet that is dedicated for future potential use in recharging electrical vehicles. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall demonstrate how this design will be accomplished. Pacific, Gas, and Electric Company and/or the County Building Inspection Department shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed arrangement. D. Illuminated house numbers shall be provided for each residential unit throughout the development. 4. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The document shall establish design restrictions and parameters over yard space and exterior elevations. 5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted prepared by a qualified landscape architect that is certified in compliance with the County policy for drought-tolerant plants. The plan shall address road frontage and alternative frontyard landscape plans. All frontyard landscaping shall be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. A. California native trees shall be used as much as possible. All trees should be a minimum 15 gallon in size; shrubs should be a minimum of 5 gallon size. 6. Comply with the recommendations of the geologic report submitted with the application. Grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a grading permit. 7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 8. The existing the mosaic wall mural presently located in the multi-use building of the former Pacheco Elementary School shall be safely removed and stored to the satisfaction of the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council. During the time prior to completion of the subdivision and home sales, the developer shall be responsible for its reinstallation in the event a new permanent location is determined by the Zoning Administrator as recommended by the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council. 9. Hours of exterior or interior construction that creates significant noise shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, except national holidays. All construction and transportation equipment shall be muffled in accordance with State and Federal requirements. -2- Street Names and Addressing 10. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street name approval. Alternate street names should be submitted for the proposed internal street in the event of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names and the assignment of street addresses. Child Care 11. Comply with the requirements of the Child Care Facilities Ordinance (Chapter 82-22). At least 60 days prior to filing a final map, submit two copies of a child care demand study and proposed response program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit evidence that the approved program has been implemented. Questions on administration of the ordinance may be directed to the Child Care Coordinator (646-2035). Transuortation Demand Management Program 12. Comply with the requirements of the County Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (No. 92-31) prior to filing a final map. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, submit two copies of a proposed TDM program to the County. The proposal shall consist of an ongoing program to notify residents of transit opportuni- ties in the area, and encourage and facilitate carpooling among residents. The applicant should contact the TDM coordinator (646-2131 ) in the Community Development Department office for direction on the preparation of a submittal. 13. With the filing of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall comply with either A or B as follows: A. A suitable aviation and noise easement covering the entire property shall be granted to the County. A model easement for this purpose has been provided to the applicant. Such instrument shall be granted concurrently with the recordation of the final map. B. A suitable disclosure statement suggested as follows, shall be added to the final map and concurrently recorded as a covenant to each of the lots with the recordation of the final map. -3- "This property is in proximity to Buchanan Field, a public-use airport. The property is subject to overflight by aircraft and associated noise im- pacts." 14. A buyer disclosure document shall be provided advising prospective home buyers that the site is subject to airport overflight by aviation traffic using Buchanan Field. 15. New residences and the proposed community center shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the 1988 Uniform Building Code Appendix with State of California 1989 Amendments. Evidence of compliance with these standards shall be demonstrated at time of issuance of building permits. 16. 'niv armlicnill ylleJli ­Uiilli v tho P,.rw, IJr'dir-mir;n OrrJrnanve hv It.%: r% C. The existing lighting district for the area of this proposal may be required to be expanded to include landscape maintenance prior to establishment of a Community Center or park. D. The Community Center may be utilized for quasi-public functions such as weddings, etc.,as determined by the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council. The off-street parking for the Community Center as indicated on plans submitted with the application is approved. E. In the event these lots are developed with residential units a suitable decorative soundwall shall be provided along Center Avenue, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to construction. 17. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements. 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Center Avenue, Deodar Drive, Second Avenue, and Elder Drive. Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and traverse drainage and necessary pavement widening will satisfy this requirement for the Deodar Drive, Second Avenue, and Elder Drive frontages. The face of curb shall be 20 feet from the ultimate centerline of Deodar Drive and Second Avenue, and 18 feet from the ultimate centerline of Elder Drive. Constructing curb, six-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and traverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening will satisfy this requirement for the Center Avenue frontage. The face of the curb shall be 32 feet from the centerline of the road. On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 2) Installing street lights and annexing the property to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Depart- ment, Engineering Services Division. -5- 3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities, including the existing distribution facilities along the Elder Drive and Second Avenue frontages, and those facilities which cross the fronting public roads to serve the subject property. 4) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with the design standards of the Public Works Department. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 5) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 6) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. 7) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way: 1) On Center Avenue as required for the planned future width of 84 feet. 2) On Deodar Drive as required f^' the planned f;;t width of 60 f et 4 r.. �,-oo,�v+ ith .to.: u.. l�Qt pub utilrtY e. semer� 810ri the Dedpr Dnue frc rttag . 3) On Elder Drive as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. 4) On Second Avenue as required for the planned future width of 60 feet. C. Provide for adequate sight distance along Deodar Drive, Elder Drive and Second Avenue for a design speed of 30 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. This will require lowering the crest of the vertical curve on Deodar Drive. D. Provide for adequate corner sight distance along Center Avenue for a design speed of 45 miles per hour, in accordance with Caltrans standards. -6- E. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Center Avenue, including the curb return. F. Construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey tote County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. 'A' S�ree:t:::::$ .l I ri .:r: ^. s ► #e a ;st,acted:as a::32 foot road ;w tf [rti a.;:a2 oot. r, ht of y... G. Install safety related improvements on Second Avenue, Deodar Drive, and Elder Drive (including traffic signs and channelization) as approved by the Public Works Department. H. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. I. Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and show proposed and future curb lines, lane striping details and lighting. The sketch alignment plan shall also include sufficient information to show that adequate sight distance has been provided: J. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. If, after good faith negotiations, the applicant is unable to acquire necessary right of way and easements, he shall enter into an agreement with the County to complete the necessary improvements at such time as the County acquires the necessary interests in accordance with Sections 66462 and 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act. K. Along these P0460 h%at-::V.0­r.tf.0n. of Second Avenue wh ch!Ue.s between Deodar Drive and the Pacheco Creek bridge , restripe the existing pavement to provide for at least a x-4;1:;2-foot lane width from th . n'Earl dge of pavement to the centerline of Second Avenue. Along the .:...:::::....... ati'a.... e<of Second Avenue, provide for at least an 18-foot lane width from face of curb to the Second Avenue centerline. If these lane widths cannot be provided by restriping this portion of Second Avenue, the applicant shall be required to widen the existing pavement along the uncurbed side of the road to accommodate those lane widths, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. If the centerline stripe on Second Avenue east of Deodar Drive is to be shifted to the south, the applicant shall restripe Second Avenue west of Deodar Drove to align with the new striping. Adequate transitions for a 30 mile per hour ...... design speed shall be provided :0ub]ect;ty>the.r:.ev[eyu ar�d:;appraYal of>rhe P;ublre -7- ` rlS.#? pirCeijt. Restriping along this portion of Second Avenue shall not eliminate parking on the south side of Second Avenue. Notice of Commencement of Construction Activity 18. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall prepare a notice that construction work will commence; post it on the project site; and mail it to the owners of the property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site advising that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise, dust, and litter control, and construction traffic control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading activity. Energy Conservation Program 19. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: A. provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the subdivision and the design of the residences to the extent feasible. B. evidence that the proposed development will comply with the California Energy Commission energy budget limits by utilizing the most current CEC prescriptive packages available. The developer shall indicate what package(or performance standard) they are proposing to utilize. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the Building Inspection shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed standards relative to compliance with this require- ment. At time of issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit the approved package to the Building Inspection Department during the plan checking process. Police Services District 20. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible -8- i for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. County Indemnification 21 . Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.9,the applicant(including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency .(the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in;the defense. Construction Material Recycling 22.. The applicant shall provide for the separation of recyclable construction material, such as wood waste and inert solids, at the construction site. Provisions for the separation of recyclables shall be consistent with the County Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Any questions on satisfying this requirement shall be directed to the County Recycling Specialist at (510) 646-4198. . ` ^ ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Pacheco Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Areas 87 and 88 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. C. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional VVate/ Quality Control Boards (Son Francisco Bay- Region || or Central Valley - Region V). O. Comply with the requirements ofthe Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. E. Except as otherwise stipulated in the foregoing conditions of approval, this project is subject t0the development fees in effect under County ordinance as of April 2' 1993' the date that the Vesting Tentative Map application was accepted as complete by the County' These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified inthe conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited tothe following: Park Dedication $2OOOper residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each lot in the unincorporated area may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at (510) 646'4992. F. Comply with the County VVotar Conservation Landscaping in New Developments Ordinance (Ord. #8O'59). G. [mnmp|Y with the requirements of the County Construction Use of Recycled Water Ordinance (No. 81-24). H. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future ' Consumer Price Index [CFq] adiva1nmentm}. The annual fee iosubject tVmodification by the Board of Supervisors inthe future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and imalso subject tmmodification inthe future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board atthe time of voting. I. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division (646-2521). BT/aa SUBXIII/7840C.BT 6/8/93 6/18/93 6/23/93 -11- i Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION JOSEPH E. RAPHEL - BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES (Applicant) - MT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Owner): This project consists of the following three inter-related applications: File #3004-RZ: The applicant requests approval to rezone 6.7 acres from Single Family Residential District(R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ). File #3009-93: The applicant request final development plan approval .for 71 Single Family Residential units with provision for a community center. Subdivision 7840: The applicant requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 6.7 acres into 71 lots. Subject property for the above-referenced project is described as follows: Located on the west side of Deodar Drive between Center Avenue and Second Avenue South, in the Pacheco area (former Pacheco Elementary School property). (R-7) (ZA: H-13) (CT 3212) (Parcel #125-087-003 and Parcel #125-080-011). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Rezoning 3004-RZ, Development Plan 3009-93 and Vesting Tentative Map for SUB 7840 be approved with conditions. Adopt a motion recommending to the Board of Supervisors that land in 3004-RZ be rezoned from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1), together with approval of Development Plan 3009-93 with conditions. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Environs: The property is located in the old township of Pacheco, laid out in a grid street pattern which tends to limit the flexibility of resubdivision. Most of the nearby development consist of older single family development of various ages and styles. The more recent adjacent development consist of similar small lot subdivisions. 2 Adjacent to the east at Blackwood and Center Avenue is a small P-1 small lot subdivision of 11 units having a density of about 13 units per acre. It was approved in 1989 and partially complete. Opposite the site on Deodar Drive, several new residences were recently constructed utilizing the Existing 50 foot wide lots of record. No public hearing application was required and there was no widening of the 40 foot wide street or street improvements. Adjacent to the west of Elder Drive is a condominium subdivision of 36 units approved in 1984, having a density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Also west of Elder Drive located between the condominium development and the current proposal is a P-1 small lot subdivision of 21 lots with some attached units having a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. It was approved in 1992, not yet constructed. B. Site Description: The subject property of 6.7 acres is surplus property of the Mt. Diablo School District, formerly the Pacheco Elementary School established in 1952 and closed in 1982. The existing school building and other facilities are to be removed with this proposal. The property fronts on Center Avenue, Deodar Drive and Second Avenue with a slope related to Deodar Drive sloping toward Second Avenue and the school playground area. The site is an area of infill. C. General Plan: The General Plan designates the area of this proposal for Multiple Residential density of 12 to 22 dwelling units per acre. This proposal has a density of 13 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan further provides that lot size should not exceed 3,349 sq. ft. This proposal has an average lot size of 3,340 sq. ft. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. D. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted and noticed for this proposal April 1 , 1993. The proposal does not conflict with the goals and plans of the County General Plan. Consideration could be given to the previous use of the property, the Pacheco Elementary School. When the two uses are compared such as with noise and traffic, residential use has less significant impacts than that associated with school use. The school facilities were designed to accommodate 700 students and 30 faculty staff members. The smaller the number of people generated by the proposed land use having an estimated population of 168 to 178 persons, will general lesser impacts that at previous times, particularly as it relates to traffic and noise. The traffic study submitted with the application concludes that the effect of this project on local neighborhood traffic flows is expected to be minor. The proposal is not within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Seismic Study Zone. the preliminary geotechnical report submitted with the application states that the site is appropriate for the intended development. The property is not within a flood zone area. Adequate storm drain facilities are available and there is no cause to increase the potential of flooding, erosion or siltation. Construction of some off-site drainage facilities will be required. 3 There is no record of archaeological resources at the area of this site. There is a tile mosaic wall mural in one of the school building which the applicant has agreed to preserve. E. Public Services: All public services are available at the site, including water supply, sewage, gas and electric power. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has a station within two blocks to the east of Center Avenue. The school facilities are at Hidden Valley School to the west at Center Avenue and Glacier Drive. F. Adjacent Cities: The area of this property is within the sphere of influence of the City of Pleasant Hill with the present city boundary along Second Avenue. No comments have been received from Pleasant Hill. The City of Martinez has commented on density and driveway depths. See attachment. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council: The applicant has had several meetings with the Pacheco Advisory Council and has also met with the Pacheco Town Council and other homeowners groups. See attachments. . During the past years, there have been attempts to re-establish a Town Hall or Community Center building in Pacheco. The Applicant has discussed this with the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and and the Pacheco Town Council. The Applicant has shown such a Center on plans submitted with thi application. The Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and the Pacheco Town Council have voted to endorse locating a Community Center building on the subject property. The Applicant had shown a Community Center building on four lots adjacent to Center Avenue between Deodar and Elder Drives. These lots would be available at cost to the community for this facility. As an alternative, there hasalso been discussion to make the area of the four lots available for a public park. More recently there has also been additional discussion to retain the exising school mult-purpose building for the Commuity Center. This would utilize at least six of the proposed lots (Lots #8, #9, #10, #11 , #12 & #13) and would likely adversely affect the viability of the project. This includes redesign of the development, particularly related to grading to maintain the building at its present location. The extent of hazardous materials (asbestos) that could render renovation of the facility infeasible, and there may be concerns of its appearance related to surrounding new homes. V. PROPOSAL This is a proposal for rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1) with final development plan and vesting tentative map to divide 6.7 acres into 71 residential lots having an average lot size of 3,340 sq. ft. Elder Drive is proposed to be extended south to 4 Second Avenue which previously had been abandoned for school use. This extension allows for an interior east/west cul-de-sac street at the former school playground area. Lot size is typically 35 foot wide by 100 foot depth. Providing for two-story buildings having 10 foot separation, 15± afoot rearyard and 18 foot setback from the street sidewalk. The proposed residences have varied designs with exterior materials of wood or stucco and concrete the roofs. Floor area ranges from 1 ,460 to 1 ,630 to 1,960 sq. ft. A two-car garage is provided for each unit with additional parking at the garage driveway. It has been indicated that building design will be similar to the existing single family residential development by Braddock & Logan located on Parkway Drive northwesterly from Howe Road, in Martinez. A landscape plan submitted with the application shows street tree planting together with sideyard and frontyard landscaping to be installed by the developer. A. Community Center: The Lots #16, #17, #18 and #19 adjacent to Center Avenue have been reserved for a community center. The community center building as proposed is a one-story structure with three meeting rooms and a general assembly room of 1 ,564 sq. ft., having a total floor area of 3,600 sq. ft. (See attachments) The off-street parking area has 18 spaces with access from Deodar Drive. This may not be sufficient parking if the building were used to capacity. It has been indicated that the community would accept overflow parking on adjacent streets if caused by a special event. It. has also been indicated that the community center facility would be rented for such occasions as weddings or similar functions. If the area is not utilized for a community facility or a park the four lots would be developed for residential. For the Community to purchase the four lots as proposed by tho Applicant, the balance of 67 lots would yield in-lieu park fees of $134,000 (52,000) per unit) toward their purchase. Alternatively, if the applicant dedicated the four lots for a Community Center or park, full credit would be given and no in-lieu park fees would be required. The area of the four lots is about 23,000 square feet. The park.land dedication requirement for 67 lots would be 23,400 square feet for park (350 square feet per lot). If the proposed development is approved, staff is recommending dedication of the area of the four lots which.could be accepted within a one year period for use as a Community Center, with no in-lieu park fees required. If not accepted within the one year period the lots would be developed residential (see Condition #16). B. Traffic Report: The attached traffic report submitted with the application concludes that the effect of the project on local neighborhood traffic flow is expected to be minor. The report makes the following recommendations: 5 1. Typical pavement widths of 36-feet with curb, gutter, and sidewalk frontage improvements should be provided, as usual and appropriate for local neighborhood residential streets. The proposed 52-foot right-of- way (or 26-foot half-street right-of-way) on Deodar Drive is sufficient to provide for an 8-foot width for sidewalk and utility space behind the curb and gutter. 2. Adequate minimum stopping sight distance and visibility requirements should be provided on Deodar Drive. It appears that this would primarily affect the portion of the street just south of First Avenue. This improvement on Deodar Drive may require agreements for right-of-entry along a portion of the east side of the street in order to make driveway adjustments. 3. Correction of the existing sight distance deficiency at the intersection of Second and Deodar is recommended. This will be provided by the proposed deletion of the retaining wall on the northwest corner. (The existing four-way stop control should be retained because of the approximately equal flows of traffic on the two intersecting streets.) 4. The trips projected for Second Avenue east of Deodar and on Deo- dar/Camelback do not appear to justify widening or off-street improve- ments to these roadways. The existing pavement width on Second Avenue could be more efficiently utilized by re-striping the centerline to provide two to four additional feet of width in the westbound lane between the bridge over Pacheco Slough and Deodar Drive/Camelback Road. C. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report: This report submitted with the application has concluded that there are no active faults in the area of the site. There are expansive soils and fill area at the southern portion of the site. It will be necessary to design foundations related to the type of.soils and the existing fill may have to be removed and recompacted. D. Archaeological Report - Wall Mosaic: The archaeological report with the application indicates that no archaeology resources are identified on the site. A requirement of the project that if such items were found a determination would be made at.that time. It has been an interest of the community to preserve the tile mosaic wall mural in the multi-use school building showing the history of Pacheco. The applicant has agreed to its preservation. E. Child Care Facilities: A portion of the existing school facilities have been used for child care and will be relocated. A preliminary child care analysis has been provided indicating feasibility of child care for the new residents. F. Asbestos Removal: The existing school building made substantial use of asbestos. Investigations have been made to determine its extent and the applicant has indicated responsibility for its removal and disposal that requires 6 special handling. There are Federal asbestos regulations and State law for protecting the general public and abatement personnel during renovation or demolition of buildings. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulate the asbestos removal and the County Health Services Department oversees the disposal. G. Airport Land Use Commission: The applicant has met with the Airport Land Use Commission and an air flight easement has been requested to be imposed over the development. Alternatively, a suitable disclosure statement as suggested by the General Plan for developments within the flight pattern, could be added to the final map and recorded as a covenant to each lot that the property may be subject to overflight by aircraft and associated noise impacts. See applicant's attached letters in this regard. The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan provides for the following policy and implementation measures as it relates to the above. "Work with the FAAand helicopter operators to minimize conflicts with residential areas and sensitive land uses,such as schools, hospitals, residences, and other sensitive noise receptors." (Policy #5-47, Pg. 5-37 County General Plan adopted 1-29-91) "Any project in an area near the Buchanan Field airport with a designated noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or greater as shown on the Projected Noise Levels Map shall be required to attach a statement to any deed, lease, rental agreement, or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document pertaining to the use of the property. The statement shall indicate that the property is subject to aircraft overflight, and associated noise impacts." (Implementation Measure #5-aw, Pg. 5-43 County General Plan adopted 1-29-91 ) The Noise Element of the General Plan shows the area of this proposal substantial outside and less than the noise contour level of 60 dBA CNEL. The project is not within any flight pattern. It is consistent with the General Plan as proposed. H. Road and Drainage Considerations: The attached conditions include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. This includes reconstruction of Deodar Drive near First Avenue and also in the vicinity of Deodar Drive and Second Avenue, both to correct sight distance problems. There will be off-site storm drain construction extending to C Street near Center. All streets are existing public streets and will be improved accordingly. VI. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 7 The proposal is an infill project providing single family residential consistent with the General Plan that is more compatible with the existing surrounding development than a higher density project of attached housing and has the support of the local community. A major factor in providing affordable housing is the number of units which can be constructed. In this regard, staff reviewed possible design changes to lessen the number of driveways to existing streets, all of which would reduce the number of units substantially and it is doubtful that the single family character of the project could be retained. The existing grid street pattern also limits the flexibility of the project design. As indicated on the staff attachment showing modification of the typical lot layout, it is suggested that the proposed residences be sited angular to the street, where feasible, to visually enhance the streetscape. In addition, it is suggested that driveways be separated to more conveniently allow street parking. VII. CONCLUSION The following for the Planned Unit District (P-1) with conditions has been satisfied: A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from date of plan approval. B. The proposal is consistent with the County General Plan. C. It will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Staff recommends approval with the attached conditions. BT/aa SUBXIII/7840.BT 6/10/93 LIM (Al ST to rpr w C + 2 !� t 50 sa•'�F .r..7x .: . { va so* DEODAR ` V "'t 1 V' is 4 Rt •r Ifl � �} at O 4 V + C 4 ` 04 �•-..ss c4•�"''� qtr. r � � � � COO .40Q y f- N q di inn K•iYt to ,� � K 0 � to - s'a i.v" cli .i As, � 4Lbb_ , o f i0 Q a a .. ' 4 ie..w._ar Fad "Y ','\;•t 'r, y cf, iss gg0.Z :,.. W Z p O •rt'` U J j9 , � ••Y' > -: Qqom�:: � 0.r W - = sus > w S: IF �ag,...�Qp1 ,••L: AI naf O4 I. la4 .1 7 i i ny 1 nt C i •-rte I �� ..i I `:� �ti I i::`o I. � -1 SAM �- iA`0039' Z — • .c.�: T �UOYt�^ I N7Y8I3NY7 . .t ty . ,..,r: .,r _ � -.,r:e� r•R�r er z :+° s Y.R: C: •'..R+' i r: .X+_ 49.s=,�� e :rri{`' .A±+=LR,r�Lxi:Lid ii,}�li�• :RRr 2=r:;_!° bZ-, ' j.� . . AM • YAM NYGQ —_—_ f I y r.o�ror~-sr.' - w•, vt .k_:C. ' , V •��� irC�I v^- ' �Y'Y•/r j KIK 0 I _ ��—�'4•'• v.�) K ol . � i R tl '�j)r a •R/• •E.r. I I ..e-m Kr. - r I _ r ca•/l a •o r:-/tea I 1 `t rw♦ F rc•r•i r•% Y � Cc •' 'r..-. - I i 1 0:;E-- a _ _.I � / ���— '_•x -s Myr ' I R`• m .� . 1 .. cn`ls�`=i i �. ! cQ -^•r I '7rrs d01 I ■..J / - J. .-. 1 1 l9 \ �• n%7 ..... i i M .� �i re ZI LV ----- I I CQ - L ► 1� Hvo01 w0000vde Nil Ntfld 3dd3SaNVI3Auvu.Lsn-ru --4 3115 100140S 003HOdd - 6 0 J U 3Afaa Hva030 �p o W 4 a W u 6 W • O a z WY 2 a U I W � c s uWi o WJ%Wfr+ ' a z a y r• ' r . • . 1 W r W = W W H � s W W y } IC y W C' J W o J iL C � W � 0 e 3AIUCI m3a13 z n � z o .15C - s O J z W W CC O s f i W i. � N i v� Lai IQ ozs 0 h� S4 Fi 7.;7) ,75 S 41-2 0.9 1 � ; vE F - ,.� ;..� ,�. ` ; � i; � �� (1 � '; :i 1 � ;� ' s ,' l i '� j "i l i � ` � �1 '•� S � ; i •{ {� 1. s � �^� �' . , ti 1� � t � � � � � � � l � �� S ......�...' �;.,; '• � �-.---y�. err.." � :y" ;t l > > 1S � � 1 _ {�'� i � � ! V 1 i� �. � , � � ' � �. � .-.*-- u ,1 ! � ; ! � ;, � t f ' � � � � ' t � � ? � � ,. � � ' � 1 , � i ` � �� i � ; ; � t � ' ; � � � � � t . . �f i i � � � � � � � '� � � s � 4 �� �� �i s � .t 1 s i x - - ... c { j, OGAN TO 6461309 P.02 05-17-1993 12:17PM FROM pRAUDOCF:&L 1 c 1 t c he l l TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ASSOCIATE$ RICK.MITCHELL, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE, P.E. CONCORD OFFICE (510) 798.9428, FAX 686.2605 Registered Traffic Engineer, California #0341 861 Litwin Drive, Concord, CA 94516-3426 May 12. 1993 —�--�-- "—"�� Mr. Jeff Lawrenc Braddock & Logan _1 4we P. 0. Box 6300 Danville, CA 945 6 FORWARD PLANi IUG --- Dear Mr- Lawrenc In response to your request, I have prepared the following a udy of traffic impacts and transportation needs related to a proposed residential development on the Pacheco Elementary School site in Contra Costa County. The purpose of this study is to determine the type and magnitude of traffic impacts to be expected with this development and to explore the validity of certain requirements which have been set by County staff as to -streets and other physical improvements. Existing Conditions The site is located south of Center Avenue, west of Deodar Drive and north of Second Avenue in the Pacheco area of Contra Costa County. Center Street is a four-lane undivided arterial roadway running east-west through the area and connecting Pacheco with the City of Martinez to the west. - It intersects with Pacheco Boulevard approximately two and one-half blocks east of the site. Pacheco Boulevard is a four to six-lane divided thoroughfare paralleling Interstate 680. It leads to interchanges with Highway 4 to the north and to Interstate 680/State Route 24 to the south. Deodar and Second Avenue are County-designated collector streets which serve primarily as local neighborhood streets and provide local access almost exclusively. Deodar Drive, becomes Camelback Road as it crosses Second Avenue into Pleasant Hill. Connect'ing ' between Center Avenue on the north, Chilpancingo Parkway on the south, and Pacheco Boulevard on the east, these, streeta function as collectors for an area which is limited in size and is largely built--out already. County staff indicated that several new homes were given permits to be built on the east side of Deodar without any requirements to construct improvements to bring Deodar up to collector street standards. No recent traffic counts have been &ads by the County on these streets, and they appear to be providing primarily for local neighborhood circulation needs and secondarily as collector streets. i i All Transporradon Services Are by Experienced Senior Pegonned i� l 05-17-1993 12:1?PM FROM BRADDOCK&LOGAN TO. 6461309 P.03 Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, x.993 2 Since no recent traffic counts were available from the County, 24-hour machine counts were made at five 108ations by Jim Marks of Eldorado Traffic Counts. Results ofthelcounts are attached i to this report and are summarized in Table I. : Table I Existing Traffic Counts Street Total ZB HE WB BE Center Ave. W. of Deodar 14,026 7311 6715 Deodar Dr. N. of Second 1,153 656 498 Camelback Rd. S. of Second 1,338 667 671 Second Ave- W. of Deodar 1,018 543 .475 Second Ave. E. of Deodar 1,231 550 681 RB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NS = Northbound SB = Southbound TrAff in Y_QIumgg The traffic counts in Table I indicate that Virtually all of the -through trips in the area are either on Centez,� Avenue for Pacheco Boulevard which was not counted) , as volumest counted on Deodar, Second, and Camelback are muoh leas. Howevei-, the magnitude of the volumes on these streets does indicate a collector function is being served, as they carry heavier vollames than would be expected as a result of� etrictly local trips. Uses in the area are virtually all residential; ln nature, and the volumes on the local streets are not antioipatOd to grow greatly. Other than the school site, the immediately surrounding area is developed except for several small "in-fill- p4roele of land. For this reason, the study focuses on the "exiOtins plus project" traffic volumes, using the above-noted countsi and the projected total future traffic volume arrived at by summing the existing and the estimated project trips. Street Con ititons Streets in the vicinity of the project are inivarying stages of completion, with permanent curb and gutter impkovements existing only at some locations. At Deodar/Seoond/Camo.lback intersection the pavements on each of the three streets are built to less than their planned ultimate width, and the steep ve4tical alignment.of Deodar Drive does not provide adequate stopping sight distance or vi I sibility for vehicles using the First Avenul intersection. In 05-17-1993 12:18PM FROM BRADDOCK&LOGAN TO 6461.309 P.04 Mr_ Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, ].993 3 areas where permanent street improvements are not in place, the street widths result in substandard lane widths in some cases, notably for the westbound lane on Second Avenue east of Deodar Drive. Project Impacts Trip Generation Projected trips generated by the proposed residential prdject ' were estimated, using the Trip Generation (1991, 5th Ed. ) 'data collected by the Institute of Transportation :Engineers (ITE) . A site plan of the proposed development (included as Figure 1) indicates that the approximate number of residential units will be 71. A trip rate of 9.55 daily trips per dwelling 'unit has been used, based on Land Use 210 (Single-Family Detached Dwelling). of the above-referenced manual. The expected numbers of daily trips, a.m. , and p.m. peak hour trips are as shown in. Table 11 . Table II Trip Generation Land Use Bate U0,its Tri p•-R/ av ,.„A_M_ p.M 5.F.Residential 9.55 71 678 .53 72 T J ti PJAtribution Based on a review of existing traffic patterns and locations of existing shopping and employment centers, the', trip distribution is estimated to be ae' follows: To and from the West (Center Ave. ) 30 percent East/North (Center Ave. ): 30 percent East (Second St.- local) 25 percent " West (Second St.- local) 5 percent South (Camelback Rd. ) 10 percent Because of the proposed street circulation plan and the number of .fronting units on each street, the project trips will be placed primarily onto Second Avenue or Center Avenge rather than on Deodar. i 05-17-1993 12:18PM FROM BRADDOCK&LOGAN TO 6461309 P-05 Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, 1993 Using the above-described distribution pattern, an estimate of project trips and total traffic has been made as shown in Table Ill. Existing volumes range from les* than 100 trips to over 14,000 trips per day, with the proposed project accounting for between 34 and 325 additional trips on the various streets. Table III Notimated. Project Trips and Total Trips 2tregt and Locatie6 Digtribution Trind Exist. T a t a I MaLy Trips Trips Center vast of Elder 30 X 203 14026 14229 Center east of Deodar 30 203 14.026 14229 Elder south of Center 22 149 Est.75 224 Elder north of Second 36 244 -- 244 Deodar south of Center 12 81 1153 1234 Deodar north of Second 12 81 1153 1234 . Second west of Elder 17 116 1018 11331 Second east of Flame 6 34 1018 1052 Second east of Elder 48 325 1018 1343 Second east of Deodar 25 170 1.231 1401 Camelback go.of -Second 10 68 1338 1406 In addition to the vehicular trips indicated above, the proposed project would generate some pedestrian traffic, predominantly to the nearby shopping district on Pacheco Boulevard and to schools. Except for Elder Drive, which is a presently dead-end with very little traffic volume, the proposed project will havela minimal effect on traffic volumes, with increases ranging from just over 5 percent on Camelback, 7 percent on Deodar, 11 to 14 percent on most of Second. and approximately 32 percent on the one block of Second between the extension of Elder Drive and Deodar- On Elder Drive an increase of approximately 150 trips per day will occur in the block just south of Center. Using the 24-hour traffic counts, p.m. peak hour turning movement patterns were estimated, and volume-to-capacity (V/C) calculation and level of service (LOS) determination were made for existing and project conditions at the intersection of Second Avenue and Deodar Drive/Camelback Road. Since vehicle delay does not appear to be a problem at the intersection, the critical lane metho& of capacity evaluation was used for comparative purposes. The V/G values ranged from 0.22 existing ta -a "projtoted 0.39-with added trips from the proposqd residential development. Both conditions remain well within LOS A operation, and no capacity mitigation is needed. (The additional width which would be provided by the proposed frontage improvement has been included in the V/C calculation, however. ) • 05-17-1993 12:19PM FROM BRADDOCK&LOGAN TO 6461309 P-OG Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, 1993 5 Traffi!Q ijenerated by Former. Use as EUblic EQhool The former use of the site, as a public elementary school, also generated a certain amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic_ Usingthe ITE Trip Generation manual (5th Ed. , 1991) , estimated school traffic would have been approximately 436 trips per' day, based on an enrollment of 400 students (Land Use 520, Elemehtary School). Peak traffic conditions for the former school use would have occurred during morning hours (typically 8!00 to 9:00 a.m. ) and early afternoon hours (2:00 to 3:00 p.m. ) , and would have produced between 100 and 120 vehicular trips, according to the ITE data. Few, if ariy, trips would have occurred during the p.m. peak hour for adjacent street traffic, however. (The number of trips generated by the present community uses is estimated to be less than that previously generated by the public school use. ) By comparison, the proposed residential use will generate about 768 vehicular trips per day, with between 53 and 72 peak hour trips, as indicated in Table 11 . Thus, the public school use tended to be less traffic intensive on a daily basis but more traffic intensive during the peak hours of use by the generator. School traffic coincided to some extent with the a.m. peak traffic flow on adjacent streets, but assuming typical school hours, It did . not usually contribute to the p.m. peak traffic flow on adjacent streets. gffect of Project on LoQal Naighbombood Traffic The effect of the project on local neighborhood traffic flow is expected to be minor, in spite of the increase on Elder Drive4 as noted above'. Even with the incomplete pavement widths, the added traffic generated by the project would not be expected to result in problems of a capacity nature on any of the existing streets, as may be seen by ref6re-nce to Table III. Because of an existing retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk on the northwest corner of Second and Deodar, a possible eight-distance problem exists at that intersection. The County has requested that the grade of the new lots be lowered in order to eliminate the need for a retaining wall. In conjunction with new frontage improvements, this corner will be improved to handle the expected increase in traffic on Second Avenue. Sight distance is also restricted on Deodar Drive because of the vertical alignment of the street, which limits the stopping sight distance and prevents adequate visibility by vehicles using the Deodar Drive/First Avenue intersection. This condition has been noted' by County staff as requiring reconstruction of the -vertical alignment of a portion of Deodar Drive in conjunction with this project's development. This .improvement may require aLgreeme.ntB 0547-1993 12:20PM FROM BRADDOCK&LOGAN TO 6461309 P-07 Mr- Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, 1993 6 for right-of-entry along a portion of the east side of the street in order to make driveway adjustments. A 36-foot pavement and 56-foot right-of-way width is indicated as desirable by County staff. The developer has proposed a 36-foot pavement and dedication of additional property to provide a 26- foot half-street right-of-way. This is sufficient to provide for an 8-foot width for sidewalk and utility space in addition to curb and gutter frontage improvements. Some other local agencies allow 36/50-foot neighborhood street cross-sections (or less in the case of short oul-de-sacs) as a standard design element. The use of isuah a standard here seems justified in response to the combination of physical constraints and low projected traffic volumes. Grading of lots at the intersections of Center Avenue with De'odar Drive and Elder Drive will also be subject to control to ensure adequate sight distance provisions for vehicles crossing Center Avenue. Additional trips projected for Second Avenue east of Deodar and on Deodar/Camelback do not appear to Justify widening or off-eite improvements to these roadways. The existing pavement width on Second Avenue could be more efficiently utilized by re-striping the centerline to provide two to four additional feet of width in the westbound lane between the bridge over Pacheco Slough and the intersection with Deodar Drive/Camelback Road. This could be accomplished without widening or elimination of parking on the south side of the street and would provide adequate width for both the eastbound and westbound lanes in this area. Recommendations Based on review of the existing. and projected traffic volumes on streets in the vicinity of the project, the following recommendations are made: 1. Typical pavement widths of 36 feet with curb, gutter, 'and sidewalk frontage improvements should be provided, an uhual and appropriate for local neighborhood residential streets. The proposed 52-foot right-of-way (or 26-foot half-street right-of-way) on 'for Drive is sufficient to provide for an 8-foot width for sidewalk and utility space behind the curb and gutter. 2. Adequate minimum stopping eight distance and visibility requirements should be provided on Deodar Drive. It appears that this would primarily affect the portion of the street just south of First Avenue. This improvement on Deodar Drive may require agreements for right-of-entry along a OS-17-1993 12:20PM FROM BRRDDOCK&LOGAN TO 6461309 P-08 Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, 1993 7 portion of the east side of the street in order to, make driveway adjustments. 3. Correction of the existing sight distance deficiency at the intersection of Second and Deodar is recommended. This will be provided by the proposed deletion of the retaining wall on the northwest corner. (The existing four-way stop control should be retained, because of the approximately equal flows of traffic on the two intersecting streets)- 4. The trips Projected for Second Avenue east of Deodar and on Deodar/Camelback do not appear to justify widening or off-site improvements to these roadways. The existing pavement width on Second Avenue could be more efficiently utilized by re-striping the centerline to provide two to four additional feet of width in the westbound lane between the bridge over Pacheco Slough and Deodar Drive/Camelback Road. conclu-slon The study makes the following conclusions with regard to the County's improvement requirements as listed in your letter of March 23, 1993. The reconstruction of a portion of Deodar Drive to providetfor adequate sight distance and visibility along Deodar seems to be justified in order to provide for a standard residential street configuration and to eliminate an existing sight distance problem on Deodar south of First Avenue and on the northwest corner of Deodar and Second Avenue. These improvements on Deodar Drive may require agreements for right-of-entry along a portion of the east side of the street in order to make driveway adjustments. The widening of the intersection of Second and Deodar (on the west side where the project Is located) also seem to be justified on the basis of providing for standard frontage improvements, as well as widening to meet the County'a collector street width (40- foot pavement and 60-foot right-of-way) on Second. Avenue. Widening and other off-site improvements along the north side of Second Avenue east of Deodar do not appear to be justified based on the expected traffic volumes as indicated by this study. The existing pavement width could be more efficiently utilized by re- striping the centerline to provide two to four additional feet of width in the westbound lane between the bridge over Pacheco Slough and Deodar Drive/Camelback Road. Please let me know if I may answer any questions or provide you with additional information or analysis.' 05-17-1993 12:21PM FROM BRADDOG«LOGAIJ TO 646113 F.0' Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, May 12, 1993 8 Very truly yours, - Rick ours, -Rick Mitchell Principal Associate RM: BradckO4.93 Attach: Figure 1 Traffic counts V/C-LOS calculations 1*692� TOTAL P.09 HASSELTI[NE BEST CAN=hWd§in M 2.350 T:e.t Blvd DodwWWOM Saito$10 comm"NA°d Radio r VAkb ut Creek.CA 94M (510)938-SM FAX Child Care deeds Analysis and Mitigation Plan 9raddock i Logan Subdivision # 7840 Pacheco The proposed project is for a.71 unit single family subdivision in the Pacheco area, on a site purchased from the Mt. Diablo School District along Center Avenue and bordered by 2nd Street, Elder an,d Deodar. Needs Analysis The 1990 census data show a generation rats of .27 children aged 0- 12 years per household in the Pacheco area. However, Pacheco is composed of a predominantly older population, with 42% of the .residents over 62 years of age, and 73s over 55 years of age. Therefore, this generation rate is not likely to be reflective of the rate expected in a new subdivision of 3-bed=s homes. The generation rate In Oakley, a community of primarily young families, In .83 children per unit, one of the highest in the County. it is unlikely that a project in the older community of Pacheco would generate such a high number. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume a more aoderate generation rate of .5 per unit. Using than typical age breakdown found in Oakley, the generation of children from 71 units is as follows: Age 0-5: .245 x 71 = 17 Age 6-12: .255 x 71 = 18 Total 35 The workforce participation rate for children 0-5 is 55% and the rate for children 6-12 is 70.73. Of the 35 children generated by the project, therefore,. 9.3 children aged 0-3 will need child care and 12.7 aged 6-12 will need care, for a total of 22 needing care. 558 x 17 - 9.3 70.7 % x l8 = 12.7 Total 22.0 Since research shows that approximately half of the children needing care Will be cared for with relatives or in the home, 11 of the 22 will need community-based care. Data from the Contra Costa Child Care Council show that there are 25 vacancies out of a total 182 slots in family day case homes, a . is s, ciA;'!; May 27, 1993 Sunne Wright McPeak Contra Costa County Supervisor, District 4 2301 Stanwell Drive Concord, CA 94520 r RE: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Action on Pacheco School Site Property Dear Sunne: As promised, attached hereto you will find our May 5, 1993 letter to Bob Drake regarding the Pacheco School Site Project and the ALUC May 13, 1993 letter regarding action taken on the cited project at its May 12, 1993 meeting. We have no objection and support conditions B and C found on page 3 of the May 13, 1993 ALUC letter which require compliance with applicable building codes with respect to sound insulation and disclosure to prospective buyers that the project site is subject to overflight and related noise impacts created by both fixed wing and rotary aircraft. We do not support proposed condition A which requires the recordation of an avigation easement on each lot. This easement eliminates all rights of homeowners pertaining to any and all impacts associated with airport operations. Furthermore the easement absolves the airport of any obligations to operate in accordance with established limitations on noise created by airport operations. The manager of the Airport stated at the May 12, 1993 ALUC meeting that such easements have demonstrated their effectiveness in stemming complaints about airport operations (See page 1, paragraph 3 of the attached May 13, 1993 ALUC letter) . He fails to mention if the airport is operating in accordance with adopted standards and noise limitations. It is no wonder that the proposed avigation easement has been effective, the encumbered property owners have no rights to complain notwithstanding if the airport is operating properly or not. 133 vacancy rate. In centers, of which tbere are •two, 9 vacancies exist out of a total capacity of 55, a If% vacancy rate. Because parents must have some flexibility in choosing child case, a community in considered to be at capacity when there is a 153 vacancy rate. A needs analysis must also consider the fact that the YWCA child care center currently housed at the site will close. That center currently cares for 80 children. Given this data, it seems unlikely that there will be sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the child care needs of the project. Research data from the Child Care Council show that the greatest child care need throughout the County IS for school age children, with the need for infant care not far behind. Therefore, it is appropriate in a mitigation plan to explore ways to expand the capacity for school age children. Mitigation Plan The project is in close proximity to the City of Martinez, and the Hidden Valley Elementary School is within the City. Since the City also has a child cars mitigation program, it sees appropriate to explore with the City if collaborative efforts ars possible to expand the capacity for care of school age children .in the Hidden Valley attendance area. This approach along with other options will be pursued prion to the filing of the final map for the subdivision. 6/8/93 ULCKILD T07QL P.83 Sunne Wright McPeak Contra Costa County May 27 , 1993 Page 2 Attached hereto is a copy of the Buchanan Field Airport Land Use Policy Plan (BFALUPP) adopted by the ALUC. We have been advised that this document is the "general plan" for the airport. The Noise Element section of the BFALUPP requires disclosure to future buyers or occupants of projects within the 60 CNEL noise contour of potential aircraft noise and overflights. A CNEL map of the airport was provided to us by the ALUC staff and a copy is included with this letter. It shows that the project site is well outside the 60 CNEL contour and by extrapolation is probably within the 40 to 45 CNEL contour. Since the recommended avigation easement condition is not a safety issue but one of convenience for the airport operators and since the adopted Airport "general plan" does not require avigation easements for the subject site we respectfully request that the avigation easement condition not be adopted as a condition of project approval. The imposition of the easement would place an unfair burden on homeowners within this project not imposed on hundreds of homes similarly situated. We support the disclosure and noise insulation conditions. We plan to place the disclosure on the grant deed which cannot be expunged by future action of a homeowners association or individual property owner. Thank you for your consideration of our request and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BRA CI, & LOGA ASSOCIATES Jc (rd . en n Director of Planning & Governmental Affairs. y RWJ/rf Enclosures cc: See Copy List Attached �CCec • M4 �3, ig93 3. Airport Land Use Commission: A. A suitable avigation and noise easement covering the entire property shall be granted to the County. A model ordinance for this purpose has been provided to the applicant. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, a proposed easement instrument shall be submitted to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The approved instrument shall be grahted concurrently with the recordation of the final map. B. The applicant shall prepare a disclosure statement which shall be included in any future offer or sale documents to read as follows: "This property is in proximity to Buchanan Field, a public-use; airport. The property is subject to overflight by both fixed wing; and rotary aircraft and associated noise impacts." The statement shall either be added to the final map or concurrently recorded as a covenant to each of the lots with the recordation of the final map. C. New residences and the proposed community center and any other new habitable structures shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the 1988 Uniform Building Code Appendix with State of California 1989 Amendments. Evidence of compliance with these standards shall be demonstrated at time of issuance of building permits. .0 r ;T t31 !SNFi . May 5, 1993 Bob Drake, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Subdivision 7840, Rezone 3004 and FDP 3009-93 Pacheco School Site Dear Bob: Thank you for advising us today that the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will be considering our project at its meeting of May 12, 1993 , and that the issue of avigation easements may be discussed. The proposed location of our project, the Pacheco School Site, is being disposed of as surplus property by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. We were the successful bidders. The .use of avigation easements for this particular project is of little or no practical use for the airport because hundreds and possibly thousands of existing homes in the area surrounding the airport are not encumbered by such easements. Placing them on the proposed project will create an undue and unfair hardship and burden when compared to the vast majority of the existing homes situated in a similar manner in relation to the airport. Furthermore the airport will not be in a position to obtain avigation easements from these existing homeowners any time in the near or distant future. The imposition of such easements on small in-fill projects does not afford the airport any practical protection since the surrounding neighborhood is not so encumbered. Since the imposition of such easements will have little or no practical value to the airport and since the imposition of such an easement will place an undue and unfair burden on the proposed project we respectfully request that such easements not be considered. Bob Drake Contra Costa County Community Development Department May 5, 1993 Page 2 We have no objection to disclosing to prospective buyers that the airport is located nearby and that aircraft fly over the project site. A similar statement could also be added to the Project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please advise the ALUC at the May 12, 1991 meeting of our concerns and comments and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Yours very truly,- BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES � Marshall J. Torre MJT/rf cc: Rosemary Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development r � �� i ���� .\ � �-''�. `, ♦ r� \\ \ � \\ \ � t � �`� � � � � \ � � .• � � �� f" �� ,, `�` �� i y �� e- '` �� � ``, � i -, r� T�! � � •, i� _1 1 �r� � � ��t#ti?_ � '� � ,.' '' /� ` ,� y � ' � . ���� �, .:� �- `, Y" :� � � "� . = 1 r ,,i► jj � i � �� t ii ,�,� ,. , _ � �� ,r -.- -'�� �.%.'�� ���� /�*. , t'�� <-= � � 1. � � �� .✓ �1 '' rte,, � ��'''�- \ �� , / , i�� rT,� ;,� ,� ���t PACHECO TOW, OUNCIL 45 kutARA4and 14no Mid Pa4JWx-*, CA 94553 $10-370-0880 MAY 1 8 ,,!ay 13, 1993 Mr, Jeff Lawrence Braddock & Logan Assg5ciares P. 0. Box 5300 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Lawrence: This letter is to inform you that during my meetings with the community of Pacheco that no serious objects to your projecthave been voiced. It appears that the majority of those that have expressed interest would prefer to see a single family home development such as yours rather than a more dense project on the Pacheco Elementary School site. I will continue to monitor reactions from the community and inform you of any changes. I would very much appreciate it if you would send me copies of any issue that comes up as you persue this matter that I should be aware of, including, but not limited to, reports you have on possible asbestos and lead paint contaminants at the present school structures, avigation easements proposed by the Airport Land Use Commission, concerns raised by other entities, etc. The Pacheco Town Council looks forward to a continued successful working relationship with Braddock & Logan Associates. Sincerely, JQYCK Jones President Pacheco Town Council jlj -1"8AD0GGUdS 1-10'cH - 1,JUT0:TT �676T-T-�-S0 0i NU90 -2 CEA -,:. . I EA TE y- 38 — -:1. { I IN . /s.OtY2'nq. ft" - 4 454.:19•::f1:.- • -F,� -125 87 L 144 J J 32 87<fi -- ` 20. 2 068 sq. (to ,'" 462 q :0 09' 98 lo' KCTC l z I - 21. a 14. 1" P=39.0 i P--36.0 3.097 sq ::q. !! --- 17. &9132 9753'j.'22. sriti� P=400 I P-3 0 3.t83 ::q. r. 39 IF !q ft 40 — 23 1n 1 n P=420 I, , P=3 :0 t~ 1 364 s 't ----�-- AX oP-42 0 ' r 25 .I hI P=40 0 95,34 27 -- "— 01 �38 P=-36-0 I - J ( 3.347 9q. It r SD 1 28L'I'MA WfD 7 _ P-24.0 I p 0 ^ s. l i.n4S F ----9A;.2' 111 l9. c Li P---40 0� A=3:3.0 ;.234 It 3.045 -jq fl. 38 't P.70°' 111;' , 3.04:. s::). _ 'I P-30 0 r. ri I S ^ _ i 3.264 13. ,^.;: 1 V P=26.0 I 1'-26.0 / •A.sa3' ::q It I 4.sq:s ::q 1:. C.D. City of Martinez �? 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez. CA 94553-2394 (510) 372-3515 1876 April 21, 1993 Rose Maria Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 ' Dear Ms. Pietras: The City of Martinez Community Development Department has reviewed County Referral 13004-R2, 3009-93, Subd. 7840 for a 71 unit single family subdivision and rezoning on property located on the east side of Center Avenue between Flame Avenue and Deodar Drive. We have the following comments: 1. Though the project will be an improvement to the area, it appears to be denser than most of what is existing there. The project would be permitted by the General Plan but, the site is. zoned R-7. The existing zoning would allow 41 units on the property. The proposal is for 13+ units per acre. Typically a Planned Development provides certain amenities to mitigate the increased density. Examples of things which could be proposed as mitigations would be the community meeting hall, a play .area or small park or a percentage of the units set aside as affordable units. 2. The applicant is requesting a minimum 16 foot front yard setback. We would suggest a minimum 18 feet from the garage door to the back of sidewalk to accommodate vehicles which will invariably be parked there. 3. We recommend a traffic study to see if a light may be required along Center Avenue to accommodate increased traffic. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please keep us informed of the progress on this application. Sincerely, Barbara Bacon Associate Planner CDP.BBCCCRELTRCNTR CC* Applicant Agenda Items #1 , 2 & 3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993 - 7:30 P. M. I. INTRODUCTION JOSEPH E. RAPHEL - BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES (Applicant) - MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.(Owner): This project consists of the following three inter-related applications: File #3004-RZ: The applicant requests approval to rezone 6.7 acres from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ). File #3009-93: The applicant requests final development plan approval for 71 Single Family Residential units with provision for a community center. Subdivision 7840: The applicant requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 6.7 acres into 71 lots. Subject property for the above-referenced project is described as follows: Located on the west side of Deodar Drive between Center Avenue and Second Avenue South, in the Pacheco area (former Pacheco Elementary School property). (R-7) (ZA:H-13) (CT 321.2) (Parcel #125-087-003 and Parcel #125-080-011). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Rezoning 3004-RZ, Final Development Plan 3009-93 and Vesting Tentative Map for SUB 7840 be approved with the attached revised conditions. Adopt a motion: A. Accepting the environmental review for this project. B. recommending to the Board of Supervisors that land in 3004-RZ be rezoned from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ), together with approval of Final Development Plan 3009-93 with the attached revised conditions. C. Approval of Subdivision 7840 subject to the attached revised conditions. III. DISCUSSION This report is a follow-up to an earlier staff report that was issued on this project. The purpose of this supplemental report is to: 1 . review the environmental analysis and a letter dated April 30th from a homeowners association, Elder Drive Homeowners Association, of an adjoining project challenging the staff environmental analysis. 2. modify the recommended conditions of approval to reflect recent direction from the Board of Supervisors. 3. attach additional documentation provided by the applicant relative to the ramifications of retaining the existing multi-purpose room on the site for a possible community center. 4. attach the letter from the Airport Land Use Commission relative to their concerns with this project. Said letter was referenced in the initial staff report. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In accord with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was conducted on this project on April 1 , 1993. The study considered possible geotechnical, biotic, noise, traffic, public service, and health impacts. The study concluded that the project would not result in any adverse environmental impacts. Hence, staff determined that the project qualified for a Negative Declaration. On April 1st, 1993, the Negative Declaration was posted allowing for a public comment period extending to May 1 , 1993. On April 6th, notices of the environmental determination were mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the site. On May 3rd, staff received a letter dated April 30th from the Elder Drive Homeowners Association objecting to the environmental review. Attached are copies of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration Notice, and letter from the Elder Drive HOA. A. Comments from the Elder Drive HOA The Association's comments on the environmental review are essentially three- fold: • The Association has not had sufficient time to review the CEQA documentation. The Association understands that State law requires a minimum 30 day comment period. -2- • The project would have significant environmental impact particularly with regard to traffic, air quality, noise, excessive density of population and loss of open space. • The project may result in cumulative traffic and air pollution impacts. B. Response to Elder Drive HOA Contrary to the Association's understanding, the Negative Declaration for this project requires only a minimum 21-day public comment period. A 30-day comment period would only be required if the project required a permit from a State agency which this project does not (Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code). The public comment period for this project was actually 23 days exceeding the legal requirement. Following receipt of the letter from the HOA, staff has not received any further correspondence from the Association. It is our understanding that the applicant has met with the Association and reviewed the project with them. Relative to the substantive concerns raised by the Association, the proposed residential density is in accord with the 1991 General Plan designation for this site. The site is one of the last sites within the unincorporated town of Pacheco with any development potential under the General Plan policies. Therefore, the project is not likely to induce substantial new development within the community nor contribute to significant cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the environmental analysis for this project remains valid and the Commission should find that the environmental review is adequate. IV. REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Within the last year, the Board of Supervisors has given direction to staff to incorporate certain conditions into the staff recommendation for residential projects of this nature. These conditions include requirements for: • energy conservation programs; • police service districts; • indemnification; and • construction material recycling. These conditions and other conditions and advisory notes relating to current ordinances have been added to the recommended conditions. The modifications to the initial staff recommendation are identified by marked text. -3- V. EXISTING MULTI-PURPOSE.ROOM Attached is a letter dated June 17th from the applicant to the Pacheco Town Council and Pacheco MAC concerning the effect of retaining the existing school multi-purpose room as a Community Center.. VI. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION REVIEW The initial staff report referenced the review of the Airport Land Use Commission to this project. Attached is the May 13th letter from the Commission indicating the Commission's position with respect to this project. The Commission is recommending that any approval require the conveyance of a noise and avigation easement to the County (the operator of Buchanan Field). RMP/cw J:..\cat\7840.sup 6/17/93 -4- California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF Completion of Environmental Impact Report xxx Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street North Wing - 4th Floor- Martinez, California 94553-0095 Telephone (510) 646-2036 Contact Person Byron Turner Project Description and Location: JOSEPH E. RAPHEL - BRADDOCK AND LOGAN ASSOCIATES (Avolicant) - MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Owner) This project consists of the following three inter-related applicaitions: County File #3004-RZ: The applicant requests approval to rezone 6.7 acres from single family residential district (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1). County File #3009-93: The applicant request final development pain approval for 71 single family residential units with provision for a community center. Subdivision 7840: The applicant requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 6.7 acres into 71 lots. Subject property for the above-referenced projects is described as follows: Located on the west side of Deodar Drive between Center Avenue and Second Avenue South, in th Pacheco area (former Pacheco Elementary School property). (APN 125-087-003, 125-080-011) (ZM H-13) (CT 3212) THIS IS A NOTICE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ABOVE PROJECT. YOU WILL BE FURTHER NOTIFIED OF THE PROJECT'S HEARING DATE WHERE YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION AND THE PROJECT IF YOU WISH. The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County-Community Development Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Review Period for Environmental Impact Report forative Declaration: 5? thru T AP 9 R 12/89 By Co 0 0 ent Department Representative CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the CEQA Notice on the Application of: Braddock & Logan Associates (APPLICANT) AND Mt. Diablo Unified School District (OWNER), County File # 3004-RZ, 3009-93 and TR 7840: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) :s, County of Contra Costa ) I, Cat Widders, of said County and State declare: That I am and at all time herein mentioned was over the age of eighteen years; That on April 6, 1993, 1 mailed notices. The same was mailed to all addressed on the list attached which list is made a part of this affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Martinez, California on April 6, 1993. Employee of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department :cw shl\prj - -MetroScan/Contra Costa . -5------------------------* .STUART MARCIA LEE Parcel :125 350 024 :96 ELDER DR #D PACHECO 94553 Xfered :12/21/89 :96 ELDER DR #D PACHECO CA 94553 Price e :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone :510-687-6503 oning:PUD Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:YES Pool:NO Acres: * 79 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :DESCH LOIS M Parcel :125 350 025 Site :96 ELDER DR #E PACHECO 94553 Xfered :10/11/85 Mail :96 ELDER DR #E PACHECO CA 94553 Price :$95, 000 Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:NONE Pool:NO Acres: * 80 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :SHERFEY CHRISTINE ANN Parcel :125 350 026 Site :96 ELDER DR #F PACHECO 94553 Xfered :08/01/86 Mail :96 ELDER DR #F PACHECO CA 94553 Price :$94,000 Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:YES Pool:NO Acres: * 81 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :MC GOWAN RICHARD A Parcel :125 350 027 Site :96 ELDER DR #G PACHECO 94553 Xfered :01/02/92 Mail :96 ELDER DR #G PACHECO CA 94553 Price Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEVPhone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:NONE Pool:NO Acres: * 82 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :EVERETT BRYAN Parcel :125 350 028 Site :96 ELDER DR #H PACHECO 94553 Xfered :04/28/92 Mail :96 ELDER DR #H PACHECO CA 94553 Price :$129,000 P Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1987 View:YES Pool:NO Acres: * 83 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :GOLLIHER DAPHNE D Parcel :125 350 029 Site :98 ELDER DR #A PACHECO 94553 Xfered :07/23/91 Mail :98 ELDER DR #A PACHECO CA 94553 Price :$125,500 F Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMES,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:NONE Pool:NO Acres: * 84 *-------------------. MetroScan/Contra Costa . --------------------------* Owner :CAUAYANI RAYMOND V Parcel :125 350 030 Site :98 ELDER DR #B PACHECO 94553 Xfered :06/01/89 Mail :98 ELDER DR #B PACHECO CA 94553 Price :$96,000 Use :29 RES,CONDOS,TOWNHOMffS,PLAN UNIT DEV Phone Zoning: Map Grid:47 Al Bedrm:2 Bth:2. 00 TotRm:6 YB:1986 View:NONE Pool:NO Acres: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. Elder Drive Homeowners Association 96-H Elder Drive Pacheco, California 94553 -r April 30, 1993 Rose Marie Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Re: County File #3004-RZ County File #3009-93 Subdivision 7840 Dear Ms. Pietras: We are a homeowners' association located on Elder Drive which borders the area upon which the above-referenced. development is proposed by Joseph E. Raphel-Braddock and Logan Associates for the Pacheco Elementary School site. We understand that you are the planner now in charge of this project for the County. We strongly object to the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance of the proposed project. We believe such a declaration is incorrect under the applicable law and detrimental to the entire area, not just our homes. In fact, the project as proposed will have significant impact upon the environment of the area as further stated below. our objections are three-fold. First, we have been denied a fair opportunity to review the Initial Study and deserve an extension of time in which to comment on it and the conclusions drawn from it. Second, the Initial Study is deficient, regardless of the question of whether an EIR is required. Third, an EIR is required because of possible cumulative traffic, air quality and noise impacts. Initially we object to the Notice of Negative Declaration for public comment period as having been insufficient to allow the public to discover information regarding the project and make comments upon it. The notice and comment period is required to be 30 days pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and we did not receive notice until approximately April 15 which notice stated that the review period would end on May 1 Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 2 (a Saturday) . No initial study or any factual background accompanied the notice. A representative of our association attempted to obtain information from the Planning Department. That representative was basically given the runaround by planning department employees and did not even get a return call from the planner now in charge until April 28. We finally obtained on our own from the department a copy of the Initial Study and map of the project. Because of our difficulty, despite our diligence in obtaining a copy of the Initial Study, we have been deprived of an adequate opportunity to review the Negative Declaration. Such adequate opportunity is required not only by principles developed under CEQA, but also by the notion of "procedural due process" pursuant to both the State and Federal constitutions. CEQA case law and the CEQA Guidelines support the principle that members of the public should not have to go to great lengths to obtain the documents they need to track an agency's reasoning in reaching its conclusions under CEQA. (See Emmington v. Solano County Redevelopment Agency (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-503 [237 Cal.Rptr. 636] ; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15073, subd. (a) , 15150, subd. (b) ; see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15200, 15201, 15203. ) Because the package of proposed approvals includes a vesting tentative subdivision map, which requires a "quasi-adjudicatory" (as opposed to "quasi-legislative") action by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, it involves our "procedural due process" rights pursuant to the state and federal constitutions. Under decisions of the United States and California Supreme Courts, we are entitled, as landowners adjacent to the proposed project, to notice that is reasonably calculated to allow a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" on the question of whether and how the project should be approved. (See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 617-618 [156 Cal.Rptr. 718] ; compare Oceanside Marina Towers Association v. Oceanside Community Development Commission (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 735, 743-746 [231 Cal.Rptr. 910] . ) For the County's hearing to afford us an adequate opportunity to be heard, the hearing on the merits of the project must occur "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner"; and must address all "element[si essential to the [County's] decision" on the project. (See Armstrong-v-. Manzo (1965) 380 U.S. 545, 552 [85 S.Ct. 1187] ; Beaudreau v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 448, 458 [121 Cal.Rptr. 585] ; and Bell v. Burson (1981) 402 U.S. 535, 541 [91 S.Ct. 1586] . ) Based on these principles, unless we have been given all relevant information in time to submit informed comments by the deadline we have been Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 3 disabled from addressing all "element[s] essential to the [County's] decision[ . ] " Given this situation, we believe we have been denied our due process to fully comment on the Negative Declaration. , We therefore request an extension of the review period to allow such further review and comment. Because you previously refused to grant such an extension we submit the following comments on the Negative Declaration but reserve our rights to further comment.. Contrary to the staff's finding of no significant impact, the project would have significant environmental impact particularly in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, . excessive density of population and loss of open space. The Initial Study appears cursory and inadequate. It has compared the proposed project with a use of the property which is not the present use. The school has not been fully utilized as a school for approximately five years. Even compared to the use as a school, the conclusion that the intensity of use would decrease with the project is erroneous. In fact, population and traffic for a school would have a much more limited impact than the project. Traffic impacts of the project include a drastic change of traffic patterns, the extension of a present dead-end street, a vast increase in cars and car trips onto existing streets with no mitigation whatsoever proposed. Also cumulative impacts of added development since the closure of the school have not been considered. The Initial Study does not give adequate information to .judge whether the project's "cumulative impacts" on traffic and air quality may be significant. Because a "cumulative impact" is a "significant effect on the environment, " the reasonable possibility that a project may cause such an impact maty trigger an EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd (b) ; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd. (c) , 15355. ) Thereis no concrete empirical basis for the Staff's conclusion that traffic impacts will be less-than-sign.ificant-- other than the conclusion that the proposed use will be consistent with the general plan and will be "less intense" than the already-approved school use. Such bare assertions--based solely on speculation--do not constitute "substantial evidence" supporting the agency's decision. (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 [248 Cal.Rptr. 352] (" [d]eficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the . scope of the fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 4 range of inferences") ; Citizens Action to Serve All Students V. Thornley (1990) 22 Cal.App.3d 748, 758 [272 Cal.Rptr. 831 ("speculation is not evidence") ; see also _Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405 (253 Cal.Rptr. 426] (in EIR case, Supreme Court states that agency cannot rely on bare assertions, but must disclose evidence and analysis in support of conclusions) . ) The traffic patterns for a residential development--which exports commuters in the morning and imports them in the evening- -differ from those of a school, which are just the opposite. Thus, the new project could exacerbate congested conditions on roads leading from our neighborhood to job centers in Oakland and San Francisco. There seems to be nothing in the record to address such an issue. We know how bad I-680 is during the morning and evening commutes. The Staff's answer to question 13d in the Initial Study seems flat wrong. Noise levels will certainly increase with the addition of 71 households in such very close proximity with one another and the attendant increase in permanent round-the-clock population with random schedules and car trips unlike the school use patterns. The impact analysis should look to existing physical conditions, not the intensity of use that is theoretically allowed under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. (Christward Ministry v Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 190-191 [228 Cal.Rptr. 317] ; and City of Carmel-By-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-247 [227 Cal.Rptr. 899] . ) The school has been closed for a while, it is currently generating very minimal. or no traffic, and any traffic generated by the new project would be a net increase. Mere consistency with the General Plan does not mean that no significant impact can occur. (City of Antioch v.City Council, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1331 [232 Cal.Rptr. 507] ; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of E1 Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-882 (274 Cal.Rptr. 720] . ) The Initial Study's "Discussion of Environmental_ Evaluation Attachment" is entirely silent on the subject of air quality. We understand that Contra Costa County is part of an airshed that violates both state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, which is formed by oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") and reactive organic gases ("ROG" or "hydrocarbons") combined with sunlight. Cars emit NOx and thus contribute to ozone formation. The . Initial Study should have attempted to calculate NOx emissions Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 5 from trips generated by the project, and then determined whether they may contribute to a significant cumulative effect. (See KingsCountyFarm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650] . ) Because the "existing environment" on the site involves no vehicle trips, all trips generated by the new project should be treated as creating new emissions. The community will lose a very important resource of open space and recreational opportunity with the loss of the school facility and the playgrounds and playing fields. The study and Negative Declaration do not even address these issues. The statement that no population increase will occur is clearly erroneous. The increase of population relative to surrounding area distribution will actually be quite significant with . significant environmental impact. Merely because the density of the proposed project is consistent with the general plan does not mean it will not have a significant impact. The surrounding area contains much less dense single family homes or planned condominium complexes with community space and single entry/exit access. Furthermore, the change in zoning is clearly an alteration of the present land use which will result in significant environmental impact. In general, the "explanations" offered for the various checkmarks on the Initial Study do not appear adequate. In some instances, the Staff just cites its own "site visit, " 'thus effectively expecting the public to place "blind trust" in their implied assertion that nothing they saw troubled them. (See Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 404 [252 Cal.Rptr. 426] ("we [cannot] countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public" in a respondent agency's factual conclusions) . ) Most of those conclusions are essentially unsupported by any real analysis or concrete evidence. Additionally, the Initial Study and its attachments lack any mention of requiring any mitigation measures. Thus, the County appears not to be attempting to impose measures that would reduce traffic and air quality impacts--even though such measures are standard requirements for such developments. In conclusion, we request an adequate opportunity to be heard, a complete and adequate initial study, and an accurate assessment of the significant environmental impacts of this proposed project and rezoning. Please contact Bryan Everett, president of the Association, work telephone number (415) 391-2595, home telephone number (510) 685-8900, regarding the additional review time which we have Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 6 requested to provide comment. We are requesting notice of all proceedings and process regarding this project at the above address. Very truly yours, Elder Drive Homeowners Association Bry Everett President Francine Wilbourne Secretary BE:sjg 4300 cc: Harvey Bragdon Director of Community Development Sunne 'Wright McPeak Contra Costa- County Supervisor Barbara Allenza, PMAC Silvano Marchese, Esq. Contra Costa County Counsel James G. Moose, Esq. Remy & Thomas i RS June 17 , 1993 Joyce Jones, President Pacheco Town Council 45 Rutherford Lane Pacheco, CA 94553 Wally Wiggs, Chairman Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee 187 Freda Drive Pacheco, CA 94553 RE: Pacheco School Site Dear Joyce and Wally: Attached hereto you will find the engineering analysis of the feasibility of retaining the Pacheco School multi-purpose building in conjunction with our project. It concludes that the costs associated with retaining the building in question would be significant. These costs would not be absorbed by the project and would have to be absorbed by Pacheco Town Council (PTC) and Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee (PMAC) . Please be advised that a copy of the Asbestos Report we prepared for the PGacheco School facility has been provided to the Community Development Department. Our consultants discovered several instances of asbestos containing material in the multi-purpose building in addition to the asbestos discovered in conjunction with the School District' s asbestos study, which study is .included in our Report. Joyce Jones - Wally Wiggs Pacheco Town Council Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee June 171 1993 Page 2 We remain strongly opposed to retaining the building on-site for the reasons stated in the feasibility report along with marketing, asbestos and other reasons we advised the PTC and PMAC of over the past two weeks. We also remain willing to sell the four (4) lots to the PTC/PMAC at our cost or to dedicate said lots in-lieu of paying park dedication fees as recommended by the Community Development Department. Yours very truly, BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES Marshall Torre MJT/rf Enclosures cc: Supervisor Sunne McPeak Contra Costa Planning Commission Contra Costa County Community Development Department Paul Allen Mt. Diablo Unified School District Mr. Dan Helix Mr. Dan Tennille, Secretary and Chair of PMAC/PTC Sub-committee -a IJ , 1 84. r � R 10•� c? 3 0 SQ- `v r _ 19, 20- .3 8 0 0380 G p nfcQ SQ. 14. / 21. 110 El. 39-0 ,r -•- Via' ,;; `r ; ,� ' r c 1 gig, ; 9t P,P` 22 , ✓ p f40.Ot• `� � ' $• 126 s4• f ,° •', , j��: . t � 3 1 •� r� r--- - cu 23• s L p,--42-0 \ v \ 155 sa ; Fw � � 4. � 2.0 `r . AT Wry o p_4sa 184 1, .- n �• � ` ,. r, .. 0 V r s o25- Alf. ,40.0 � ZpgSQ. ; 28. 51 - 9sZ°ct p:3 8•0 v�, . �!'•oy 3.243 s4; E 4 _- � 27• - - ' �. 8• . ASE ° p;36.0 e 7 P ~ C ,026 -3 54• 00 �• 'JIDN 70 � g3•g9 8. M 'W Wollman Associates Inc. ENGINEERING - SURVEYING -LAND DEVELOPMENT Jeff Lawrence Braddock & Logan Associates, Inc. 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 Danville, CA 94506 June 15, 1993 Re: Subdivision 7840 - Our Job 93002 Dear Jeff, At your request we have reviewed the design proposal to save the existing Recreation Building and parking lot that fronts on Deodar Drive, as shown on the enclosed map. This letter deals only with the direct effects on the preparation of the site and the additional construction items. Based on the preliminary review of the plan, it is our opinion that to include the building and parking lot with the proposed Subdivision 7840 would be visually disruptive, while also adding a significant increase in construction costs. For your reference, the following items would be required in order to incorporate the existing building and parking lot into Subdivision 7840: 1. Revision and resuh mittal of the Vesting Tentative map with a minim= loss of 9 lots. 2. Loss of Approximately 3000 yds. of available cut material. A portion of this material may have to be imported through the neighborhood. 3. Approximately 315 L.F. of house frontage on Deodar would be lost, yet the street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, fire protection and utilities would still have to be installed. This additional cost would have to be taken up by the new home buyers, without recieving the benifit. 4. Grading of slopes at street, sides and back. The parking lot will be up to 8 ft. higher than the adjacent lots. 5. Install a concrete . interceptor ditch at toe of bank behind lots 19 and 20, a discharge outlet and 40 IF of conduit connection to the existing inlet at the North Westerly return of Deodar Drive or a sidewalk x-drain. 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, Calrfomia 94596 Phone (510) 939-1090 Fax (510) 939-1091 6. Install screen fencing at the back and sides of affected lots. 7. Reconstruct driveway cuts and driveways into parking lot. 8. Install frontage landscaping and back and side slope erosion protection and screen landscaping. This list is not all-inclusive and other impacts may appear during final engineering. V Truly Yours, ohn A. Wolman, P.E. President CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORTS Buchanan Field Airport Byron Airport Armstrong 510 Sally Ride Drive -�•� �,2 j � j �.�� 3000 � Road Concord, CA 94520 Byron, CA 94514 Phone: (510) 646-5722 (510) '634-0147 FAX: (510) 646-5731 -- '{' LjtPI' DATE: April 19, 1993 i TO: Rose Maria Pietras, Community Developm nt Department FROM: Harold E. Wight, Manager of Airports / SUBJECT: County File No.: 3004-R2, 3009-93, Subd. 7840 I This proposed development will be under both traffic patterns for Buchanan Field Airport. i Residents in this area can expect to have overflights nearly-any time aircraft are operating ' in or out of Buchanan Field Airport. It is very important that an avigation easement be required for all residents, both new and future owners, for these properties. If you have any questions on these matters, please contact me. HEW= crpJ4 I I i I i I i I Airport Land Use Contra Harvey E.Director of Bragdon Community Development Commission Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (510) 646-2091 May 13 , 1993 Rose Marie Pietras Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Rose Marie: RE: PROPOSED PACHECO SCHOOL SITE SUBDIVISION . (3004-R2, FDP 3009-93, & SUB 7840) The Airport Land Use Commission conducted a public hearing on this project on May 12 , 1993 . As you know, the site is located approximately one-half mile to the west of Buchanan Field Airport. The site lies beneath the traffic pattern for the airport. After taking testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to find the project CONSISTENT with the Commission's Buchanan Field Airport Plan. At the same time, the Commission voted to recommend that the County subject any approval to the attached conditions, including a requirement to grant deed to the County a* noise and avigation easement over the property. Prior to the Commission vote, the Commission heard testimony from Jeff Lawrence of Braddock and Logan Associates, the applicant. Mr. Lawrence indicated that his firm was agreeable to incorporating a disclosurestatementinto the project CC & Rs but objected to an avigation easement. The Commission observed that the site is and will remain to be subject to frequent overflight by virtue of its location relative to the airport traffic patterns. The Commission expressed its concern that prospective buyers of new homes near the airport should be alerted to the associated impacts. At the urging of the Commission, the County has imposed an avigation easement requirement on projects around the airport in similar circumstances. ' The Manager of Airports feels that avigation easements have demonstrated their effectiveness in stemming complaints about airport operations (e.g. , Pacheco Manor) . Further, the Commission expressed concern that the proposed disclosure statement would not be as reliable a method of advising prospective buyers in the long-term of possible concerns with airport noise (and thereby protecting the airport) as an avigation easement would be. With CC & Rs, homeowners (acting collectively or perhaps individually) may be able to unilaterally modify them, thus compromising the effectiveness --of -the -- notification. Commissioner Disclosure Airport Land Use Commissioner Virginia Schaefer indicated that she is an employee of Mt. Diablo Unified School District, the current owner of the site. While she is a District employee, she indicated that she felt that her participation in the review of this project constituted no conflict of interest because she is not involved in any District management or land use decisions concerning this site. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Senior Planner Att. Recommended Conditions Recommended Noise & Avigation Easement CC: Braddock & Logan Associates Mt. Diablo Unified School District Manager of Airports ALUC File #2-93 (B) FIW2-93.ltr RD -2- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF THE FORMER PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE (SUB 7840) TO ASSURE AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY Comply with the following conditions of the Airport Land Use Commission: A. A suitable avigation and noise easement covering the entire property shall be granted to the County. A model ordinance for this purpose has been provided to the applicant. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, A proposed easement instrument shall be submitted to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The approved instrument shall be granted concurrently with the recordation of the final map. B. The applicant shall prepare a disclosure statement which shall be included in any future offer or sale documents to read as follows: "This property is in proximity to Buchanan Field, a public-use airport. The property is subject to overflight by both fixed wing and rotary aircraft and associated noise impacts." The statement shall either be added to the final map or concurrently recorded as a covenant to each of the lots with the recordation of the final map. C. New residences and the proposed community center and any other new habitable structures shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the 1988 Uniform Building Code Appendix with State of California 1989 Amendments. Evidence of compliance with these standards shall be demonstrated at time of issuance of building permits. PW:2.93(b)c.rd RD Recorded at the Request of: Contra Costa County WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Public Works Department Right of Way Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: AVIGATION ANDNOISEEASEMENT This indenture is made this day of between , hereinafter called "Grantor" and Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "Grantee". Grantor is the owner in fee of that certain parcel of land situated in the City of , County of Contra Costa, State of California, identified herein as Parcel and described as follows: FOR DESCRIPTION, SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Grantee is the owner/operator of Airport (hereinafter called "Airport"). Parcel is in close proximity to Airport. Grantor and-Grantee wish to establish provisions so that aircraft using the Airport shall have the right of flight and the right to cause noise, light and-other effects associated with the operation of aircraft in the airspace over said parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its successors and assigns forever the followihg rights, title and interest: 1. A perpetual and assignable public-use avigation/noise easement and right-of-way for the free and unobstructed passage and flight of aircraft of any and all kinds now known or hereafter invented, sold or designed for navigation or f light.in air of the class, size and category operationally compatible with Airport as it exists now or as it may exist in the future. Said easement shall be in, through, over and across the portion of airspace of Parcel described and depicted as follows: FOR MAP AND DESCRIPTION OF AREAS PROTECTED BY EASEMENT, INCLUDING DESCRIPTION OF IMAGINARY SUR- FACES AND ELEVATIONS, SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. , - ' ~ , ^ ^ 2 2' The rights herein granted ohnU include-the right in such airspace to aUovv' make and emit such noise' light, vibrations, fumes, exhaust, smmokm, air currents, dust, fuel particles, radio, television '~and other' electromagnetic 'interferences, and all -othereffeotmasrnaybainherenttotheoponsdonofmironaftforno`igadmnorflightinthoair- 3' Grantor hereby fully waives, narnines and releases any right or cause pfaction that it may now have or that i1may have in the future against Grantee, its successors, and assigns, and covenants not to use due to such noise, light, vibrations, fumes, exhaust, smoke, air currento, duet' fuel particles, 'Mio, television, and other electromagnetic interferences, and all other effects that may be caused or may have been caused by the operation of aircraft landing at, or taking off from, or operating at or on Ai/port. Said release and covenant shall include, but not be limited to claims, known or mnKnmvvn' for damages for physical or emotional in'uhgm^ discomfort, inconvenience, property damage, death, interference with use and enjoyment of property, diminution of property values, nuisance, o/ inverse oundarnnodon or for injunctive or other extraordinary Or equitable relief. 4' |1iafurther agreed that Grantee, aaowner and operator of Airport, shall have noduty to avoid or mmitigatesuch damages by, without limitation, setting aside or condemning buffer lands, rerouting air traffic,erecting sound or other barriers,establishing curfews, no/se or other regulations, except tothe extent, if any, that such actions are validly required by governmental authority. Grantor reserves such use, rights and privileges in said Parcel as may be abridgment of the rights hereby _granted. 5' For and on behalf of itself,its successors and assigns, Grantor covenants with Grantee for the direct benefit ot.1ha real property constituting the Airport that-neither Grantor nor its successors in interest or assigns shall hereafter construct or permit the construction or growth of 'any structure, tree or other object that penetrates an approved transitional horizontal or conical surface as described and depicted in Exhibit B or that-constitutes an obstruction to air navigation under FAA Part 77' or that obstructs or interferes with the use of the flight easements and rights nfway herein granted or that creates electrical interference with radio communication between any installation upon said airport and aircraft, or as to make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and other UQhtm' or as to impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or as otherwise to endanger the landing,take-off or maneuvering of aircraft. For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the foregoing covenant the rights herein granted shall include: a. The continuing and perpetual right to cut and remove trees, bushes, shrubs or any other perennial growth or undergrowth eutonding intm .r which in the future could infringe upon or extend into or above an approved tmynaitiona|, horizontal orcontrol surface godescribed and depicted in Exhibit B. ` - . � 3 ' - b' The right to naze, remove or' destroy those portions of buildings-, other structures and land infringing upon or exiting into an approved transitional, horizontal or conical surface a*s-de8c}iVed and depicted in Exhibit 8' together'' - with the right to prohibit the future erection of buildings or structures which would infringe upon or extend into said surfaces. C. The right to mark and light as obstructions to air navigation any and all buildings, etructuna, tree or other object now upon' orthat in the future may be upon Grantor's property that rnoy'otany time project or extend above said surfaces. d' The right of ingress to, egress from and passage over the Grantor's property for the above purposes. 6. This grant mfoviQa1ion/noise easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, his successors or assigns, of any rights that it may from time to time have against any individual or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. 7' All,promises, covenants and reservations contained in this document are made and entered into for the benefit of Grantee. These prornisoa, covenants, conditions and reservations shall run with Parcel ' and bind Grantor's heirs' adrniOiotrators, executers' muoo�oaura and assigns to the nnuximnurn extent now or hereinafter permitted by statute or case law and are intended.bythe parties tocomply with California Civil Code Section 1488. "Successors and assigns" as used in this paragraph includes without limitation: invitees,licensees,permittees,tenants,lessees, and others who may use easement rights reserved herein or use or be upon Parcel - - 'and/or their respective officers, agents and employees. Forthepurpom8 of this instrument, that portion of Parcel which lies within the area of an approved transitional, horizontal or conical surface, as described and depicted in Exhibit B' iathe servient tenement and the Airport shall be the dominant tenement. 8' Grantor agrees todefend, indennnify' save' protect and hold harmless the Grantee, its mfficerS, agents and mrnp|oymem' from any and all claims, costs and liability, in,dud'ng reasonable attorneys fees,for any damage,injury or death, including without limitation all consequential damages from any cause whatsoever, topersons orproperty, arising directly and indirectly from or connected with the exercise of the easement and related rights granted i � �r�n e n' TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement and all rights appertaining thereto unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever. IN WITNESS VVHEREOF, ta Granto, has hereunder set his hand and seal the date set forth herein above. RD/aa AU]C13/Eame.RD - i I, ,r:.: _ - - ---•-... - `✓_""�� _++•a;�l.+ -t`- i' ��..._ r .}�3'•�. -t,i:�-i a:Gt_rs;.._x 1-e-.�:-s•-_•v— __ a y 'CV1Cr3R`.a� .'•c 'X�f `- �1'Ci`� •��._��� .` =- 'i _-_l: ."f't>! t .at ~a cta.a + 1 '-`�Z'�i_ _J-� :a�_- r.. •,�C� :,� -�•► 1i%'-_,...-. ""GLF�•+•` =,L',+����J� •' ', !!'�1''i..i~ '�' .�. ir — -�• _ - -F . f] e t , -\``•- :•• _3 4-gin•__ -7 '�"�:~ is�r t;.1"'�.17..�.--•.,::::•'y i': V. _ ..�� •(r-3'»'"�� Cs+~\C y,t'('tvbXJ 7 «�: a•j �_/_!' -n; ..!`j�'q� •r� ..�.��Q._ '•,. �'r•`s+'•` ��'�..-`• -.�• : '"".-. t: .�• fat• ` 'G/ - _»ta 4�. - .-... -sr.l �.(lt��•;�i�,' '" _ jr.•' ''• r`. _ - '/ (�,, a•!tr.i`J\�•.e •e..f.- ;.1..r^"'.►Z'.. '=�j lV I„-. '•r. 'x.,18 i"_:E i`-�-_ - t"laic+. •ry y•'r ;`.• ba 'r,_\ 1 ,C' t �•e ` ter' ',/�; •.. \.!� :1: t =r,'",,,, 'i... - - �' = W� rl(�(.y�,j•�" 'M• '-x §c i f 0 /L M- ems��• .. _ _ .�'�.. . =.; 'ti� :� � 111 •'T:�p� � - ,� ° .:� �f't"•�`•V • •. �.f A.F •aC_ ti / �/ • R ^i.:i ! .itttrort+ �y4 i 4 .V ._ '"`- - _t . .4 r„-,_,-d• �!'.'��s i' ._ y �,;•. r.I:r� . r !.,j �.Y' tr tr • - "T•""t i�- /V„-'�. f'-.La.ys ._ s J j � ``*`moi i_`. ... �' i ,� _ +�.,,,,_`�.�+" T- U. 16 -%1I��}->•. ; i.� l ,l�`:; .`.ia..'r\� ti•}Eti�p •.t �a-�:, 'rac le 4M.- h q ` . 'y-• 'Z~ Y� �ii' jig . 'i .,g L• ` ,"1#''t -'' ''• �� • \ t4' - 'fit y'/.�- t '"`1 _ �._ •i .a,j' r ,,� •.'.' _ .`•,�' •1.. 'i �� /.):/.:. � �"-:_'� ti: �"�'"•�i 'c. ��r � � tit J S" •�,�t _tt'}` -„�, ,J ..r , , !'�(y�`' ,1. -:� .,,,;� t.,p•�`i ,�`f ye. i y.. : i'"'' .sir- -1:..�f -'CORI).% iyG. ^ . .. eY-J••..a..• t• • e� 'a'.• r'�x f' `/,".a ,Vf'O¢' ..,r,,•j,', tw e s - -.ai,-t_-�''"' y•\ ` . �y�• S- .'' "�.',•�l�r._�N•�,j,,,_, rte' a .:4_.. _Yti.. ] `�•ry"f. .tY;• ���� i fl'- J iP-. - •!-• t'' ,r_7 :�i_�."7�„-..;.•:. r`, ` r •-f!�-'7'`� •:iE",�„H :y -r9i. .'t •- •i' :E •'ti.<r Mt++ ,: .�„-, --}' �+• .,-: :s yr,. .jr. ,tit• ' ,7.'�.`:�- .ti- -l '�, t s _ v, :�• t'+i I . ["\•"l-` - _ - INX t«ai. V�+al • ~• ~ t. If oil- ... L�`.�1 �i^Y: 'j �w r',;i_.r�..-..�� ,i „•,-'' � �,'.,.I.`< , - r�;•. :t t ��i'ir:+=,�.a)i~�:.`�. yc.'mal ..-a - y•Y i• f :r: -ai.:: i 11 .:.! ` a!•' i i ♦•��t !.-'r �.,) i /�`. y. �.'� - •�, t ,J -'7 '�.:..i �w a_i..i'.a p•r;,�' �. 1y �j t\``T:"�.+.�,�N'Z'`..�.�i t i."'c fad 1�.,,4� 7 -�'-�.3:_:' -•:_v.• t fE1CNr 6PCIITHATION Of_,' `.i :u,:rr` - - ,�� •::i:a?'-7C a t'=a- "..{.-G'.' v•y i t [�-'A"".�'�• ILY:f1S ?}.�i!C:�ILL .sit. +'t � �r-:<�� t �' 3-.•��� _ r=s �_ •' rte. ' MAA lSSP%&4L STUDY RFA tJfrrKT•w-••�: •'-a l:t 'iwa �RII'`Ca�. :."C:+ $1:-..:. •www y+�,.-'.'- of *-r4 ; ;••+"�f«!.w ir.-. - �• 2"FEET •-��'`,```.-� t a-� r f« t•j r _+J � r ew - C. t F�"'"'a' .,.ac\- r` .� :�"c '' a a. \-: /.�♦ff.-"i:•..._r _L_.t 7 ` .!�-�r����.r�"wl.:.=�z :� :Y.::�'S./X.1G�1�"s .�t.-uiylL�:.�11,✓�1`.l�i _'�.•i��'� 1."-/•' -�•�_: .J.�_rfi.,`^:;.,.i•� i+.+� -._( f�l•D•q ttrrtl.•'•pi•1Lit".•_:.-'!.`'t. y7 T.rt -q .• --'_Z'- '+^'s•. ♦-A:- `-t:.i '/: -.._ .. - ..f v•' �:'Jt�•;'"- ..:,,��,���; STRUCTURAL NEIGHT �tMIT$caw" �. �•M t.w►r..:-ra ty•4a V N r.•.16• - R![tMED tfr Ow - ..A.' ' r/�w,n...I�ww•it la••t�.+.rw[r! - • IW40A1•RIY(Kt•_. Y'-..•.!- .:!".' „/.;�- t - :- '.: , a �•. w BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT PLANNING AREA t1 tap•'M Kj.f M.ltT ^ t a a?'. .cc CO-iTRA CIDST-` COU`;TY Cc�nscc�c c�. � t4-. 4 + EIDER DRIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION y. A AK 96-H Elder Drive R Pacheco, CeIlfornis 94553 AL 2 61993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR" CONTRA COSTA CO. July 36, 1993 VIA YAOSIXILI TRUSX18810� Contra Costa county Board (510) 646-1059 of Supervisors 631 pine Street, Room lob Martinez, CA 94553 Robert Drake (510) +6461599 Senior Planner Community Development Department 4th r1cor, Horth Wing 651 Pine Street Martinet, CA 94553-1239 Subject: Joseph E. Raphel -- Braddock 6 Logan Development on Pacheco School Site Agenda Item H-6 -- July 27, 1993 Meeting Dear Supervisors and Mr. Drake: This letter is intended as continued public comment by the Elder Drive Homeowners Association regarding the above development and accompanying rezoning which is to be considered at the Supervisors meeting an July 27, 1993. Because the meeting ., is during business hours, we ere sending this letter today by facsimile transmission. affaok e d In aAletter dated April 30, 1993 , our association submitted objections and comments as to the negative declaration of environmental significance of the project. We would like to reiterate those concerns which we teal have not been adequately addressed by the developer or the planning staff, and we are attaching and incorporating by reference a copy of that letter. We also attended the Planning Commission meeting and have attempted to stay abreast of issues relating to the devolopment which directly adjoins our homes. We would like to draw your attention particularly to a few specific issues. First, it is our understanding that, due to an Z0"d 6S0T9r90TST 01 56ddti AS SOnS 1ROO NBC00 WOdd W&S:£0 £66T-92-LO r Contra Costa county Board of Supervisors Robert Drake July 261 1993 a Page Z arrangement for the use of other land, there will no longer be a provision for the offering of the four lots adjoining Center Avenue as a community center or public park area. It appears that the development and rezoning will be approved with those lots designated for houses only. This is a significant change from what was offered at the Planning Commission hearing. our association requests that some provision for a replacement of the great loss or open space be considered as a requirement for this development. Even an open area equivalent to the size of one lot dedicated to the County as a mini-park would be some mitigation. The payment of fees for those four lots to the County Park Fund really does not help with the loss of open space in our area considering the added density this development and the already approved neighboring Mackay Development will cause. The only neighboring park is at least a mile up the rather busy Canter Avenue from our neighborhood. Secondly, the traffic study submitted by the developers at the Planning Commission level appears inadequate in certain aspects. The only intersection analzed by that report is the Second Avenue-Deodar Drive intersection. The report does not take into account the increased traffic at the other intersections surrounding the development or down the line at the Center Avenue-Contra Costa Boulevard intersection or the Second Avenue-Contra Costa Boulevard intersection. The report refers to Center Avenue as a four-lane road which is incorrect. For a good distance above the development, Center Avenue is three ]lanes, narrowing to two lanes right at the Deodar-Center intersection . and proceeding over a two-lane bridge over Pacheco Creek. The study did not take into account any increase of traffic on Elder Drive, which is presently not a through street. As the develop- ment is now planned, forty-one additional driveways (not to mention the traffic from the twenty-four townhomes approved for the Mackey property) will be emptying onto Elder Drive. Nowhere in our neighborhood is there such a potential for traffic density within what is essentially a one-block stretch of a small residential street. As residents of that block, we are concerned about the amount and speed of added traffic. We request that the Supervisors and Planners consider requiring stop signs at the intersection of Elder and A street (which will be a court) , road undulations ("speed humps") on the extended, portion of Elder, and a traffic light on Center Avenue at tha inter- £0'd 6SOT9VSOTSI 01 Saddd dS SOnS 1n00 NBCOO WOdd WdBS:£0 £66T-9Z-LO Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Robert Drake July 36, 1993 Page. 3 section with Blder, which is activated by the presence of a car or cars on Elder waiting to turn right onto Center. Also it is imperative to require safe site distances and grading of 81der Drive so that we may safely exit and enter our driveways. We apologize for being unable to attend the meeting in person. We hope that the Supervisors and Planners will give our comments serious consideration. Please call me at (510) 685-8900 with any questions. Sincerely, Bryan verett President Elder Drive Homeowners Association BBswe 9244 cc; Supervisor 8unne Wright McPaak (via facsimile transmission A�G,GkN1GH.� bO'd 65OT9b9OTSt Ol Sdddt' E SOAS IOX N300 WOdd Wd00:b0 £66T-9Z-LO r. Elder Drive Horneofters Association , 9&H Ekkr Drive Pacheco, C W fbn2ia 94333 April 30, . 1993 Rose Narie Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development Dbpartment 4th floor, North ming, Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229. Rei County file 03004-RZ county file #3009-93 'Subdivision 7840 Dear Me. Pistrass We are a homeowners' association located on Elder Drive which borders the area upon which the above-referenced development is proposed by goseph E. Raphel-Braddook and Logan Associates for the Pacheco Elementary School site. we understand that you are the planner now in charge of this project for the County. We strongly obieet to--the NAGativa Ditc ration. of Environmental 8ignifioanoe of the proposed project. No, believe such a declaration is incorrect undar tee aRRlicabla 1 w and dotrisnentai to the entire area, not just our homes. In fact, the pro ect as propose w have significant impact upon the environment of the area as further stated below. our objections are three-fold. first, we have been denied a fair importunity to review the Initial Study and deserve an extension of time n TI ch o comment on it and the Conclusions drawn from it. Second, the Initial stud is delio nt, regardless of the question of whether an EIR Is 'squired. Third, an EIR. is required because ofpossible cumulative traffic, air quality and noise impacts. Initially we object to the Notice of Negative Declaration for public comment period as having been insufficient to allow the public to discover information regarding the project and make comments upon it. The notice and comment period is required to be 30 days pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and we did not receive notice until approximately April 15 which notice stated that the review period would and on May 1 SO'd 6SOT9V9OTST O1 Sdddti dS SDAS 1f)00 N3CVO WOad WdOe):b0 £661-9Z-L0 J Rose Karie Pietras April 300 1993 Page 3 (a Baturday) . No initial study or any factual background accompanied the notice. A representative of our association attempted to obtain information from the Planning Department. That representative was basically given the runaround by planning department employees and did not even get a return call from the planner now in charge until April 28. we finally obtained on our own from the department a copy of the Initial study and map of the project. Because of our difficulty, despite our diligence in obtaining a copy of the Initial Study, we have been deprived of an adequate opportunity to review the Negative Declaration. such adequate opportunity is required not only by principles developed under CEQA, but also by the notion of "procedural due process„ pursuant to both the State and Federal constitutions. CEQA case Saw and the CBQA Guidelines support the principle that members of the public should not have to qo to great lengths to obtain the documents they need to track an agency's reasoning in reaching its conclusions under C$QA. (An mmminater� C=y Radeyeleig& (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 603-503 subd.237 C(b)1� 6&1= CZQAauidelines, ff 1'5200# 15nsel 11 15073, 201, 132031;150, i K Because the package ofproposed approvals includes a vesting tentative subdivision map, which requires a "quasi-adjudicatory' (as opposed to "quasi-legislative") action by the planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, it involves our "procedural due process" nights pursuant to the state and federal constitutions. tinder decisions of the United states and California 8u reme Courts, we are entitled, as landowners adjacent to the proposed project, to notice that is reasonably calculated to allow a "meaningful Ole ortunit to be heard" on the Eestion of whether and bow the pro Pat should be approved. (&M rn v. m&x of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 617-618 [156 Cal.Rptr. 7183 2e6anside 1[ari Oa Tourers AM,geaiation v. Oceanside Cammun_tv,_D"&1e2Mant Co=l Mien (1986) 137 Ca1.App.3d 735, 743-746 (231 Cal.Rptr. 9103 . ) For the County's bearing to afford us an adequate opportunity to be beard, the hearing on the merits of the project must occur " A 'Saftningla"ilm and 4% - meaninabl minner11; and must address all "alamentral essential to the rcounty ■i g,is " on the project. (An Armstrong v., Ka_nzo_ (1965) 380 U.B. 545, $52 (83 S.Ct1187]9 Gaudreau X. or � (1975) 14 Cal.34 448, 458 ti2i Ca .Rptr. 585) t and �.y.L (1981) 402 V.s. 035, 541 191 S.M. 586) .) Based on these pr no plea, unless we have been given all reltvant information in time to submit informed .comments by the deadline we have been 90'd 6SOT9b9©TST Ol Sdddtr JS SOnS 1„00 N3Q00 woad wdZ0:b0 £66T-9z-L0 Rose xaris Pistras April 30, 1993 Page 9 disabled from berinq able •ddrsss all "eiementrol assent-in idi to tt=[Co nty'sl doaisinn( . )" Given this situation, we believe we have been denied our due process to fully comment on the Negative Declaration. We therefore request an extension of the review period to allow such further review and comment. Because yyoureviously refused to grant such an Mansion we submit the following comments on the Negative Declaration but reserve our rights to further comment. Contrary to the staff's findingg of no significant impact, the project would have significant environmental impact particularly- in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, excessive densityof population and loss of open space. The Initial study appears cursory and inadequate, it has compared the proposed project with a use of the property which is not the present use. The school has not been fully utili:ed as a school for approximately live years. Sven compared to the use as a school, the conclusion that the intensity of use would decrease with the project is erroneous. to fact, population and traffic for a school would have a much more limited impact than the project. Traffic impacts of the" ro�ect include a drastic change of traffic patterns, the extension of a present dead-end street, a vast increase in oars and oar trips onto existing streets with no mitigation whatsoever proposed. Also cumulative impact's of added development since the closure of the school have not been considered. The initial Stud does not give ads to information to Judie whether the project's "cumulative impacts" on traffic and air ?uality may be significant. because a "cumulative impact" isa "sgnificant effect on the environment,". the reasonable possibility that a project may cause such an impact may trigger an RIR. (Pub. Resources Cods, 1 21083, subd (b) i CtQA Guidelines, if 15065, subd. (o) , 18355. ) There is no concrete empirical basis for the Staff's. conclusion that traffic impacts will be less-than-signiticant-- other than the conclusion that the proposed use will be. ' consistent with the general plan and will be Bloss intense" than the already-approved school use. Such bars assertions--based solely on speculation--do not constitute "substantial evidence" supporting the agencyOn decision. ($n trou v. Cnun y,�of xandocine (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311_1248 Cal.Rptr. 382) ("jd]efieiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of the lair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider L0'd 6SOT91790TST 01 Saddti dS SO()S IOM N3Q00 W06-1 Wd£0:b0 £66T-9z-L0 Rose Marie Pietras April 30, 1993 Page 4 range of inferences") ? Qitisana Aglion to nary& 1111 students v. p y (1990) 22 Cal.App.3d 748, 758 (272 Cal.Rptr. 833 ("speculation is not evidence") s � Ai,tR Iaprovsmant Associationy. Ragents o! the Vn v�y e! CaL forma (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405 (281 Cal.Rptr. 4x6) (in SIR case, Supreme Court stags that agency cannot rely on bare assertions, but must disclose evidence and analysis in support of conclusions) .) The traffic patterns for a residential development--which exports commuters in the morning and imports them ire the evening- -differ from those of a school, which are just the opposite. Thus, the new project could exacerbate congested conditions on roads leading from our neighborhood to job centers in Oakland and Ban Francisco. There seems to be nothing in the record to address such an issue. We know how bad 1-680 is during the morning and evening commuter. The Staff's answer to question 13d in the Initial Study seems flat wrong. Noise levels will certainly increase with the addition of 71 households in such very close proximity with one another and the attendant increase in permanent round-the-clock population with random schedules and car trips unlike the school use patterns. The impact analysis should look to sx�mting physical aenditions, not the intensity of use that is theoretically allowed under. the existing General Plan •and zoning designations. (Christward Minis tL-Sr v. AumSrjor_Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 190-191 (228 Cal.Rptr. 317] 1 and it o! On 1-ft-th,e-Baa v. Hoard o! eunarvisgra (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-247 (227 Cal.Rptr. 898) . ) The school has been closed for a while, it is currently generating very minimal or no traffic, and traffic generated by' the new project would be a net increase. of An ioeb v.CitxCoungsill 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1331 (132 Cal.Rptr. 5073Y Vie„Fin_ e cold Yining Corporation _v,, Bounty of 81 12Zado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-862 (274 Cal.Rptr. 7203 .) The Initial Btudy's "Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Attachment" is entirely silent on the subject of air quality. we understand that Contra Costa County is part of an airshed that violates both state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, which is formed by oxides ofnitrogen ("NOx") and reactive organic gases ("ROO" or "hydrocarbons") combined with sunlight. Cars emit lox and thus contribute to ozone formation. The Initial Study should have attempted to calculate Nox emissions 80'd 6S019b9©1S1 0i sdddtl dS SDnS 1n0D NMOD W d-1 WdS0:b0 £661-9Z-L0 Rose Maris Pietras April 30, 1093 Page S from trips generated by the project, and then determined whether they may contribute to a signif cant cumulative effect. (eat Kings County !aMLJ=Sau v. City or11anford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721 (270 Cal.Rptr. 650] .) Because .the "existing environment" an the sits involves no vehicle trips, all trips generated, by the new project should be treated as creating. new emissions. The community will=IOW a very important resource of 40m xplW nd recreational opportunity with the loss of the: school facility and the playgrcunds and playing fields. The study and Negative Declaration do not even address these issues. The statement that no population increase will occur is clearly erroneous. The increase of population relative to surrounding area distribution will actually be quite significant with significant environmental impact. Morel y because the dlensity of the proposed project is consistent with the general pian does not mean it will not have a significant impact. The surrounding area contains much less dense single family homes or planned condominium complexes with community space and single entry/exit access. Furthermore, the change in Zoning is clearly an alteration of the present land use which will result in significant environmental impact. In general, the "explanations" offered for the various chsokmarks on the Initial study do not appear adequate. In •Me instances, the Staff just cites its own "site visit, " thus effectively expecting the public to place "blind trust"' in their implied assertion that nothing they saw troubled them. (An Jags= HaJgJ1J,d, RUM, 47 Cal.3d at 404 (252 Cal.Rptr. 426) ("we (cannot] countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public" in a respondent agency's factual conclusions) .) Most of those conclusions are essentially unsupported by any real analysis or concrete evidence. Additionally, the Initial Study and its attachments lack any mention of requiring any mon measures. Thus, the County appears not to be attempting to impose measures that would reduce traffic and air quality impacts--even though such measures are standard requirements for such developments. in-tee ,. we request an a tY-�re-ice heasd,- a complete and a , anda US of es��rwist� ' proposed project and rexcnihq. •' Please contact Bryan Zverett, president of the,4Assoaiat1on, cork telephone number (415) 391-7395, home telephone number (510) 685-8900, regarding the additional review time which we have 60'd 6SOT9b90TST 01 Sbddt+ d5 SOr)S L000 N3Q00 WOad W69ei:b0 £66T-9Z-L0 OT 'd loioi Ito** xarie Pietras April 30, 1993 page 9 requested to provide comment. We are requesting notice of all proceedings and process regarding this project at the above address. Very truly yours, Eidar Drive Homeowners Association s an Brett psesid' t Francine Wilbourne secretary e$:sig »oo cc: Harvey Bragdon Director of Community Development Bunn* Wright xoPeak Contra Costa County Supervisor Barbara Allensa, PKAC , Bilvano xarchese, asq. Contra Costa County Counsel James G. ftoose, Esq. Remy i Thomas OT Id 6SOT9b9OTST 01 Sdddd dS sons lnOJ NMOO WObd WdLO:b0 £66T-9Z-L0 PACHECO TOWN COUNCIL 17 IL 45 Wha404d lana. F. I` ' D Aachaco, CA 94553 i` 510-370-0810 COUNM JUL 2 31993 July 20 1993 CLERK EO -Rlo OF SUPERVISORS Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 REF: Board of Supervisors Meeting, July 27, 1993, 2:15 p.m. Agenda Item H.6 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation re Braddock & Logan Development of Pacheco Elementary School Site In anticipation of the above referenced agenda item, for the record I submit the following on behalf of the Pacheco Town Council: Many members of the Pacheco Town Council and community attended the Planning Commission meeting June 22 which included discussion on the development of the Pacheco Elementary School site by Braddock & Logan. Most went away from that meeting disappointed with the outcome. Our request for a continuation to a later date to give us time for further studies was denied - the primary reason being that we had not previously stated our desire to retain the current multi- purpose room on the school site for our Community Center. Attached is one of !n!ny items of correspondence in our files refuting this supposition. Other concerns presented (i.e. , the number of childcare spots being eliminated at the Pacheco Elementary School site, the fact that numerous local children cannot even attend the nearest elementary school, Hidden Valley, due to overcrowding, etc,) were not even addressed. The only substantial modification made to staff recommendations was that only two lots would be dedicated to Pacheco in lieu of park dedication fees, rather than four. The general feeling of Pacheco advocates after the meeting was that our towns needs and desires had been considered insignificant and we had, indeed, become orphan's in the grand scheme of county planning. While we understand and sympathize with the school district's requirements for the additional funds to be realized from the sale of Pacheco Elementary School, we are determined that the needs and desires of our community not be minimized. Whether past lack of a concrete plan for development of a community center for Pacheco is due to inexperienced or ineffective town leadership, county indifference, the potential of annexation by Pleasant Hill, or other stumbling blocks that have appeared, should make no difference - we feel the community is still entitled to have back, to the extent possible, what it lost many years ago. CC, BOARD MEMBERS (Provided) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors July 20, 1993 i Page 2 That having been expressed, I would like to address a recent development that has come to light that should also be on your agenda for the 27th. In a meeting with Sunne McPeak on Friday, July 16, a proposal was presented to the Town Council and P-MAC for a community center/museum and"small park area to be located on the historic Hayden Park site on Pacheco Blvd. On Saturday, July 17, the Town Council held a Flea Market/Crafts Fair on that site: to raise funds for future community improvements. We presented the plans drawn up by Braddock & Logan to hundreds of people that stopped by our Town Council booth. The response was overwhelmingly positive. The majority felt that this project would be just about what Pacheco needs and has deserved for for years. Many expressed the opinon that the project would unify the community, provide a well-located, central meeting place, more than likely pay for itself, enhance the downtown area, and increase property values of homeowners and businesses. The Pacheco Town Council is more than willing to work with the community, Braddock & Logan, and the county regarding budgets, etc. to make this proposal a reality. We would appreciate your supporta In closing, I quote from an article written by Fred Braue in 1958: "Better days may yet be ahead for Pacheco, the town that simply refused to die." Sincerely. C7� Joyce L. .Jones President, Pacheco Town Council cc: Supervisors McPeak, Smith, Torlakson, Powers & Bishop Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council Pacheco Town Council Board Members �a May 8, 1991 Val Alexeff, Director CCC Growth Management & Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Alexeff: In Answer to your communication to the Pacheco Town Council regard- ing the Pacheco Elementary School site: There is so little of the rich history of- the town of Pacheco left that we, the Town Council , feel we must put up a last ditch fight for some of the last remaining history and open space in our town. One of the first schools, in what is now called the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, was the Pacheco School, which was built in 1859. The Pacheco School District was also one of the first school districts and was first known as the Bay Point School Dis- trict. This District's domain extended from Pacheco, beginning at the Walnut Creek Bridge, to New York, an early name for what we now know as the City of Pittsburg. By 1863, Pacheco Elementary School -was in a flourishing town, sometimes known as the Queen City of Contra Costa County" , and its residents boasted of having the best school in the county. Pacheco desperately needs a community center of the proper size to accomodate Town Council meetings and other community meetings, plus space for a museum, an. office, a parking area, as well as room for our long awaited park -- even if it would be a small one. Office space would finally give the Town Council a permanent address, something we have not had in many years. Also, given the fact that Pacheco had one of the first parks in the county, we feel we should have some kind of an outdoor gathering place for our residents, especially since the neighboring cities: of Pleasant Hill and Martinez each have several parks. We feel the Pacheco School ' s multi-purpose building, plus some of the adjacent buildings on the west side and the parking lot, would be most appropriate and suitable for our needs.- This would give us 1 .7 acres, leaving the remaining 5 acres available for development. Val Alexeff: Pacheco Elementary School Site, page 2 The multi-purpose building contains a very special mural , made by . the school children of years ago, depicting Pacheco as it was in 1860 and again in 1960. This is something that MUST be preserved, along with a stage backdrop also painted by the students. Our proposed community center would truly serve the residents of Pacheco, since proposed plans and suggestions include: a daycare facility, space for an Information & Referral/Crisis Intervention Hotline, Senior Nutrition Site and other senior activities, as well as for the use of other community and youth groups. Since rental space for gatherings does not appear to be readily available in Pacheco, we also might rent out space, which could bring in some needed revenue for operation and maintenance. Also, a member of the Pacheco Town Council. operates a property management and maintence agency and has kindly offered to help with the center ' s maintenance. We do admit that we have become lax in letting the County know just what we wanted and needed. We hope the County realizes that we are amateurs at this, but we are learning! Until recently, we were not aware of just how to go about getting and giving all the needed information and that we were responsible for "digging it out" our- selves. Supervisor Sunne McPeak has been a great help to us, giving us advice and telling us who to contact or where information might be available. We are truly grateful for her help. We do know there is $104,000 in park- dedication fees available for Pacheco, and the Town Council has $50,000to add to this . There 11 be more park dedication fees coming in from the proposed cor., development on 2nd Avenue and Flame Drive. We also hope tc obtaining some kind of a community block grant or other gra z 1L appropriate. The Contra Costa building trades are usually available to help non-profit agencies/organizations with projects and we are hoping they might be available to help with any renovations we might need . We hope this is the information you need. Please note that the school 's multi-purpose building seems to satisfy the criteria you set forth for Clubhouse Structure in Exhibit A of your communication. If you have any further questions, or there is any additional . information you need, please don't hesitate to call me: 825-1971. Dorothy Elsenius, President Pacheco Town Council cc: Sunne McPeak fts la er LAI RECEIVED JUL 2 6 IM July 25, 1993 ri CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak 2301 Stabwell Drive Concord, CA 94520 Dear Supervisor McPeak: On our regular meetin night of Wednesday July, 14, 1993, there were not enough members for a quorum. I knew you wanted an opin- ion from PMAC before the supervisors' meeting on July 23, so I called for a special PMAC meeting on July 21 , 1993. On July 21 , there were four members present: Wally Wiggs , Barbra Allenza, Joe Minick, and Ted Tobby. After roundtable discussion, a motion was made, seconded, and a quorum of four (4) members decided to endorse the Braddock and Logan development on the Pacheco elementary site. This endorsement was based upon their agreement in your office on March 10, 1993 In their words, "Braddock and Logal associates agree to make available to PMAC/PTC four (4) contiguous lots adja- cent to Center Ave. as requested by PMAC/PTC... at our cost , to build a community center/park . If PMAC/PTC decides not to go for ward with the purchase of these lots while the project is under construction we would build out the four (4) lots with homes. We also agreed to store the historic mural until a suitable location is found to display it and finally, we agreed to permit civic groups an opportunity to salvage materials from the school prior to its demolition." The agreement also included 18 parking spaces. Continued on page 2. Page 1. cc: BOARD MEMBERS (Provided) -2- On Friday July 16, 1993 at 3 p.m. PMAC/PTC members met in your office. You said you were quite certain that PMAC/PTC could lease property from the county. This property was a portion of the old Hayden Park located just north of Diamond Sill ' s . It would be large enough to build a community center of approximately 4000 feet, and it would provide adaquate parking spaces for social events. Your said you had a strong desire to do this for the people of Pacheco, and that there was a strong possibility that you could persuade other supervisors and county administrators to concur with you on this issue. If the Hayden property became a a certainty and not just a poss- ibility, we would prefer it for our community center. If not, we want to keep our agreement with Braddock and Logan at the school site. Sincerely your_� -.0 411V Winn ,Wwally Wiggs Chairman Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council cc: Braddock & Logan Associates PMAC members Joyce Jones, President, PTC