HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08121997 - D3 t
Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J County
r C U;,
FROM: Dennis M. Barry
Interim Community Development Director
DATE: August 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Consideration of Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADOPT the Statement of Findings and ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. APPROVE the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment and ADOPT the
Rodeo Specific Plan subject to the adoption of the second consolidated General Plan
Amendment for 1997.
3. INCLUDE the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment as part of the
second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997 as recommended by the
County Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
Covered by the Community Development and.Redevelopment Agency budgets.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This project is in fulfillment of the County Redevelopment Program for the community of
Rodeo.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
I6ZAAA-t,
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR '/��ECOMMEN ATION OF BOAR
COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 12 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
See the attached Addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) 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.
Source: Jim Kennedy
335-1255
Orig: Redevelopment Agency
cc: Catherine Kutsuris ATTESTED August 12, 1997
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
B1 EPUTY
J K:Ih 6 W
sra27/rodeogp.bos
Addendum for Item 0.3
Agenda August 12, 1997
On July 22, 1997, the Board of Supervisors closed the public hearing, and
continued to this date consideration of the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director, presented the staff
report.
Supervisor Uilkema moved the staff s Recommendations, and suggested
amending Recommendation No. 2, relative to the Specific Plan, to include the
language in Jim Kennedy's memorandum dated August 6, 1997, (Attached as
Exhibit B).
Supervisor Gerber seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Statement of Findings and
Mitigation Monitoring Program are ADOPTED (Attached as Exhibit A); the
Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment is APPROVED
(Resolution No. 97/416); the Rodeo Specific Plan, as amended, subject to the
adoption of the second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997, is
ADOPTED (Resolution No. 97/417); and to be INCLUDED as a part of the
second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997, (Resolution No.
97/418).
i16/97 IVEI> 11:37 FAX 415 783 5.347 CEILUFARB LIPMAN 003
EXHIBIT A
CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY
RODEO DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL
PLAN AND THE RODEO DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,
MITIGATION MEASURES, MONITORING PLAN, AND STATEMENT OF
DECISION
I . General Information and Description of the Prol!2ct
The project under consideration by the Board of Supervisors
of Contra Costa County (the "Board") is the Rodeo Downtown/
Waterfront General Plan Amendment (County File #: GP95-0006) (the
"GPA" ) and the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan (County
File # : SP95-0002) (the "Specific Plan" ) (collectively, the
"Project" ) . The purpose of the Project is to revitalize the
waterfront and downtown areas of the community of Rodeo. The
intent of the proposed GFA and Specific Plan is to visually
connect these two areas through the creation of a commercial core
as a center of economic activity and through urban design
activities _
The Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR" ) for the Project
has been prepared by Contra Costa County (the "County") in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA" ) , the State CEQA guidelines and applicable local CEQA
Implementation Guidelines.
The EIR process began on March 14, 1995, with the
preparation of an Initial Study and the mailing of a Notice of
Preparation to all interested and affected parties, followed by
the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated
October, 1995 (the "DEIR" ) , which is incorporated herein by this
reference.
The DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review
on October 17, 1995 . The County Zoning Administrator conducted a
noticed public hearing on the DEIR on November 20, 1995. The
comment period closed on December 15, 1995 .
Six (6) written comments were received on the DEIR, and six
(6) oral comments were made at the public hearing on the DEIR.
The comments received on the DEIR, and the County' s response to
such comments are contained in the Responses to Comments -
Environmental Impact Report for the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront
Specific Plan dated January, 1996 (the "Responses" ) , which.
document is incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the
Responses were delivered to the commenting agencies on January
20, 1996 .
3zp,li'�iaasai.uz A-1
Y J V V Y
on February 12, 1996, the County Zoning Administrator held a
duly noticed closed publr >»aring on the Final Environmental
Impact .Report for the Prc It. After such public hearing, the
Zoning Administrator four the Fii• .il Environmental Impact Report
for the Project as adequate_
The DEIR and the Responses (collectively,. the "EIR" ) , the
GPA and the Specific Plan came b(.!f-ore the Contra Costa Planning
commission at a public hearing on June 10, 1997 . The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the GPA and Specific Plan with
certain modifications wh ch have been incorporated into the GPA
and the Specific Plan. The GPA, the Specific Plan and the EIR
came before Board on July 22 , 1997, at a public hearing. On July
22 , 1997, the Board certified the EIR and on August 12, 1997, the
Board adopted the following Findings, Monitoring Plan, and
Statement of Decision,
I1 _ The Record
The record of the Board relating to the Project and its
potential environmental effects includes:
A. Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment
(County File #: GF95-0006) , as revised;
B. Rodeo Downtown Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan
(County File #: SP95-0002) , as revised, dated May 1997,
including the Design Guidelines dated June 7.997 ;
C. Documentary and oral evidence received by the County
Zoning Administrator, the County Planning Commission,
and the Board during public hearings on the GPA, the
Specific Plan, and the EIR and the County' s responses '
to evidence received before and at the public hearings;
D. The EIR prepared for the GPA and the Specific Plan, and
related actions consisting of the DEIR and- the
Responses; and
E. Matters of common knowledge to* the Board, such as .the
County General Plan and County Zoning Ordinance.
III . Overall Findings
Before the Board may approve the GPA and/or the Specific
Plan, CEQA mandates that the Board, as lead agency, within the
meaning of CEQA, consider the Record and make certain findings
required by Public Resources Code Section 210.81 and 14 California
Code of Regulations Sections 15091 and 15092 . The EIR identifies
potentially significant impacts on the environment, which are
likely to result from the GPA and the Specific Plan. Based on
the following findings as to each such impact, the Board
concludes that changes or alterations have been incorporated into
tzolzn\zo<.7oz.,oz
A-2
217 IVED 11:15 FAX 415 788 5347 ( iiLbVAR6 LIPMAN o05
the Project which avoir` or substantially lessen all potentially
significant environmen' :.1 impac-*.s identified by the EIR.
Further, as requ' .:ed ��; public Resources Code Section
21081 . 6, a monitoring progjain is adopted for the mitigation
measures stated in an,.l required by this Exhibit A.
The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A
include: (1) certifying the EIR; (2) briefly describing and
summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts
associated with GPA, the Specific Plan and related actions; (3)
describing mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the
potentially significant environmental impacts; and (4) presenting
the Board' s findings as to the impacts after adoption or
rejection of the mitigation measures and alternatives.
The Board certifies that the EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, and that it was presented to, and reviewed
and considered by, the Board prior to acting on the GPA and the
Specific Plan. In so certifying, the Board recognizes that there
may be "differences" among and between the information and
opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the
Record. Therefore, by these findings (including this Exhibit A
and the Board Order adopting this Exhibit A) , the Board adopts
the clarifications and/or modifications of the EIR as set forth
in these findings, and determines that these findings shall
control and that the EIR shall be deemed to be certified subject
to the determinations reached by the Board in these findings,
which are based on the substantial evidence in the Record
described above.
Subsequent specific projects will undergo individual
environmental review and may involve further identification of
project-specific impacts, mitigations and alternatives. At this
stage of the revitalization process, it is impossible to forecast
with certainty the particulars of such subsequent projects,
whether such subsequent projects will be approved, will be
approved at the maximum density or intensity allowed by
applicable land use regulation or will involve the assumptions,
environmental impacts and scenarios hypothesized in the EIR_
Nonetheless, these findings attempt to address plausible
environmental impacts of the GPA and Specific Plan' s
implementation at the earliest stage in the process . The EIR
recommends mitigation measures, including mitigation measures
which are designed to be: (i) incorporated as policies of the
Board in the GPA and Specific Plan; (ii) effected through
subsequent implementing regulations, ordinances, standards,
programs and plans; or (iii) incorporated into future development
approvals . Except as expressly rejected in section IV below,
these mitigation measures are adopted in this Exhibit A.
The Board also finds and determines that the EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the Board.
]20\10\7.(34101..0'2 A-3
:' ' . •_ __. +. • ii.vv ann Y1J vv . vY •a v._,airnnD LIYDLAI`�
LF1VVV
. IV. Findings and Monitoring Program
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
environmental effects of the implementation of the GPA and
Specific Plan, . the Board has made the findings, as authorized by
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of
Regulations Sections 15091 and 15092 , that will allow the Board
to consider approving the GPA and the Specific Plan. As required
by the aforementioned references, the following findings are made
for which there is substantial evidence in the record. Further,
as required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2 .081 . 6, a
monitoring program is, adopted for each mitigation measure adopted
by the Board.
A. Land Use and Planning Policy
1. Development Standards
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
Specific Plan does not directly require consolidation of parcels.
The development guidelines in the Specific Plan provide a context
for project preview but they do not provide development standards
comparable to those provided by conventional zoning districts.
Piecemeal redevelopment will make it more, difficult to comply
with adopted General Plan standards and criteria, and with design.
guidelines.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . If the Specific Plan
and GPA are approved, the resolution should contain specific
language requiring the rezoning the entire downtown area to P-1
and modifying. the specific Plan to provide complete design and
development standards. After preparation of the DEZR, the
Specific Plan was modified to include development and design
standards, therefore, the mitigation measure has been. modified to
read "rezone the entire downtown area to Planned Unit Development
(P-1)
(c) Monitoring Paroctram.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Community
Development Department to undertake a program to rezone downtown
area to P-1 Zoning.
(3) Timing: Within two (2) years
(4) Standards : Zoning designation of P-1
adopted for downtown Rodeo.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
]20\10\103301.02
A-4
(18/06/97 IVED 11:39 FAX 415 753 5347 GOLDFARB LIPMAN� IN07
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and. analysis in Section 3 .1 .of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in A.1. (a) above.
2 . Parking
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . The .
absence of a community parking plan for the downtown area could
conflict with design objectives for the downtown area, and
conflicts with General Plan policy 3-170 (b) .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Prepare a
comprehensive parking plan which incorporates shared parking for
the commercial core and does not obstruct views of the bay.-
(c)
ay:(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Prepare a parking
plan to ensure adequate parking isconveniently located to the
various anticipated land uses. Consider concept of shared
parking.
. (3) Timing: Prior to consideration of any
major land development proposals, or consideration of any
proposals which would increase the need for parking or would
decrease available parking spaces.
(4) Standards: Adequate parking for mix of
o .
uses anticipated in downtwn area.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .1 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in A.2 . (a) above.
3 . Contaminated Soils
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The EIR
consultant observed visual evidence of contaminated soils on the
Joseph' s Resort property, and the potential for contaminated
soils exists on the Bennett' s Marina property.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . A phase 2
environmental report required by regulatory agencies having
iao\�.o�loelol.o2 A-5
�. ..., o r r1�U 11'JN 1•A.1 41_r r vv „z. ...v[.r [ inn t_.a nr[nr• v ••
authority over soil and water contamination as a part of review
for project entitlements for future uses of the Joseph' s Resort
or Bennett' s Marina properties.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken. Community
Development Department to require project applicants to submit
environmental studies for water front projects as part of project
review process. Clearance from Environmental Health Division of
County Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board
will be necessary, if required by those entities, prior to
issuance of a building permit or other land use entitlements .
(3) Timing: Prior to determining
entitlement applications complete for any proposed projects at
Joseph' s Resort and Bennett' s Marina properties.
(4) Standards: Compliance with applicable
health and safety standards for soils and groundwater conditions
on applicable properties.
(5) Record: steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the DETR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect .described in A.3 , (4) above.
4 . Local Parks
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . The
Specific Plan does not address the local park needs of the Rodeo
area.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s)_.
. (I) Community Development Department should
identify future neighborhood park facilities in the Specific Plan
Area or. the Redevelopment Project Area. Community Development
Department to work cooperatively with EBRPD to include
neighborhood park facilities where appropriate in regional parks,
bay trails, marina green, community center or other appropriate
areas in Rodeo. All potential sources of funding will be
explored and utilized_
(2) Redevelopment Agency should consider
financing improvements to facilities at Lefty Gomez Field.
320\10\104301'.02 A-6
1.18,'06/117 WEU 11:89 FAX 415 788 5.347 C:ULI>FARB LIP1[AN Q)UU9
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Resp6nsibili�: ° ` As to mitigation
measure (1) , Community Development Department and EBRPD; .as to .
mitigation measure (2) , Redevelopment Agency and Public works
Department .
(2) Action to be :Taken: As to mitigation
measure (1) , neighborhood parks planned to meet General Plan
standard. As to mitigation measure (2) , improvements to Lefty
Gomez Field funded and installed.
(3) Timing: Throughout planned buildout
phase.
(4) Standards : General Plan standard for
neighborhood parks .
(5) Record- Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in A.4 . (a) above .
5 . Child Care
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
The Specific Plan does not include a comprehensive approach to
meeting the child care needs of the planning area. Under current
County policy, a baseline study will be required of each proposed
project as already required by County Zoning Ordinance Chapter
82=22 .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in A. 5 . (a) above is considered less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in A. 5 . (a) above is less than significant and
therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required.
6 . Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect .
Proposed Specific Plan and GPA are consistent with plans and
policies of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, but
azo\io\ioa�oi.oa
A-7
. _ „uii.=. ..... .�. .... ... .. --,..-...u..v ua ua..n AVIV
specific land developmc t proposals for the waterfront could
conflict with adopted 1 ans v`,en projects are proposed.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in 1! . 6. (a) above is considered Lless than
significant . Projects ark- required to .meet adopted plans at
project review stage.
(c) . Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in A.6 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measures) or monitoring program .is
required.
7 . Construction Disturbance of Residents
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
Residents and businesses adjacent to the planning area have the
potential to be disturbed.by demolition and construction
activities_
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required .since
the impact identified in A.7 . (a) above is considered less than
significant _
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
-analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in A. 7 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measures) or monitoring program is
required.
8 . Annexations
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect .
More intense use of the waterfront will increase demand for
.sewage treatment service.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in A.8 . (a) above is considered less than
significant.
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 1. of the DEIR, the finding is madethat the
impact described in A. s : (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required. .
320''\10\104?01.02 A-8
-C.L 4!1 r:�e vl� 104 344iGULllr'�11tt3 LIYDIaN o11
9 . Shoreline Trawl
(a) Signi;(.icazit Environmental Effect . The
Specific Plan does not pr(lvide alignment and design details for a
shoreline trail and does iiot provide a clear vision for the
shoreline trail or adequate policy direction.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . The Specific Plan
has been amended since the preparation of the DEIR to provide
siting of the Bay Trail. The Community Development Department
should work cooperatively with EBRPD to provide specific siting
and design criteria, consistent with EBRPD and Bay Trails
standards. The Redevelopment Agency has already agreed to fund
up to $500, 000 for RBRPD facilities in Rodeo, which may be
utilized for this purpose, although all relevant sources of
potential funding will be explored and utilized as available.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: EBRPD and Community
Development Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Complete trail
design and process land development applications with
consideration of trail issues.
(3) Timing: Trail design criteria to be
developed jointly with EBRPD prior to processing land development
applications within 200 feet of railroad right-of-way. Review
applications on an on going project-by-project basis .
(4) . Standards : Trail design to meet EBRPD
and Bay Trails standards.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the. monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in. Section 3 . 1 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in A. 9. (a) above.
10 . Changes to Land Use Map
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . The sewage
treatment plant is currently designated PR and a 2 , 000 ft . reach
of the waters of San Pablo Bay is designated PR. The sewage
treatmentplant should be designated PS, with a rim or PR along
the shoreline. The waters of San Pablo Bay should be designated
W. These changes have been incorporated into the proposed GPA
and proposed Specific Plan.
320\10\104301.02 A'-9
�. ,MrAnD WYMAN V1"1
(b) Mitigation Measures . None 'required since the
impact identified in A_ 10 . (a) above was incorporated into the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan adoption.
(c) Monitoring Program. None required'.
(d) Finding. The changes have been incorporated
into the proposed GPA and Specific Plan as applicable, therefore,
based upon the information and analysis in Section 3 . 1 of the
DEIR and the proposed specific Plan and GPA, the finding is made
that the impact described in A. 10 - (a) above is less than
significant and, therefore, no mitigation measure(s) or
monitoring program is required.
B. Municipal Services
1. Police Protection
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
Redevelopment may result in incrementally increased demand for
patrols by the Sheriff' s Department .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in B. 1. (a) above is considered less than
significant.
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 2 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
'impact described in B. 1 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required-
2 . Waste Water
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . The
existing Sanitary District collection system is subject to ground
water infiltration which results in releases of untreated sewage
during heavy storms. Increased development is likely to
intensify this problem.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Improvement and
financing plans should be made to improve the collection system.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Rodeo .Sanitary District
and Community Development Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Rodeo Sanitary
District and Community Development Department to cooperatively
analyze data on condition of the collection system and Rodeo
Sanitary District will improve, or cause to be improved, the
system as warranted by analysis .
az0110\iva3o :oz A-10
1.
ii-1
vn;uk/NY IVED 11:41 FAA., 410 i66 5341 6-LUFARB LIPMAN X013
(3) Timing: Prior to processing
applications for land development that result in increased water
flows .
(4) Standards : Provision of a collection
system that controls infiltration of ground water such that wet
weather flows do not exceed treatment plant capacity.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .2 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
signif icant environment effect described in B.2 . (a) above.
3 . Schools
(a) Significant Environmental Effect .
Redevelopment will result in additional students attending John
Swett Unified School District . Hillcrest Elementary School is
over-capacity and ,john Swett High School is at capacity_
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . County should refer
residential projects applicants to school district for comments
during application review process and support imposition of fees,
if necessary, to meet educational facilities needs . The school
district has already adopted the recommended development fee
program_
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Pursuant to
existing County practice, Community Development Department to
refer any residential development applications to school district
for review and comment.
(3) Timing: On an on-going basis.
(4) Standards : Referral made for each
application_
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .2 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
`-10\16\161301.-42 A-11
'YJ V14
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in B.3 . (a) above.
4 . Fire Protection
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
The Specific Plan limits building heights to 35 feet because the
fire department lacks a ladder truck.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required
because there is not a significant. environmental effect with this
building height limit, which is the height Limit in the Specific
Plan.
(C) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 .2 of the DEYR, the finding is made that the
impact descr.ibed ,in B.4 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measure(s) or monitoring program is
required.
C. Flood Hazards/Drainage
1. Flood Hazard
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The low-
lying portions of the Specific Plan area are subject to
inundation by the 100-year flood.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s)! .
(1) The following mitigation measures have,
been incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan as policiese
Establish a local storm drain
system that protects property and ensures public safety.
Flood plain administrator to
provide design criteria to be used by design professionals for
flood proofing structures.
(2) Community Development Department and
Flood Control District should produce more accurate floodplain
maps and present the maps to FEMA for amendment of Flood
Insurance RateMap.
(3) Community Development Department to
require project applicant to provide pumps for low-lying areas
.behind levees if permanent gravity-fed storm drain system cannot
be developed. .
(4) Development of substantial improvements
in the loo-year floodplain are to be designed to mitigate water
damage (e.g. , walls, footings, piers, slabs, and other structural
320\10\104201.02 A-12
o,.vv. t.r nGU 11;41 rAAL 415 748 5347 GOLUFARB ClbfAN
@1 U 15
elements that cannot be raised above the area subject to
inundation) .
(c) Monitoring Program.
(I) Responsibility: Mitigation measure (1)
has already been completed by the Community Development
Department . Community Development Department as to mitigation
measures (2) and (4) above, and Flood Control District as to
mitigation measures (2) and (3) above.
(2) Action to be Taken: Pumps or permanent
gravity-ted storm drain system to be installed by project
applicants as a condition of project approval, amendment to FEMA
map requested by Community Development Department and Flood
Control District, and project-specific mitigation measures to be
reviewed and required as a condition of project approval if
warranted during development application processing by Community
Development Department.
. (3) Timing: FEMA map mitigation measures to
be completed prior to processing development applications in the
FEMA Flood Zone (Zone A).. Pumps or permanent gravity-fed storm
drain systems and other project-specific measures to be monitored
on a project-by-project basis.
(4) Standards : Compliance with the
provisions of the County' s Flood Plain Ordinance.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .3 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in C. 1.a above.
2 . . Increased Runoff
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
Intensified development and improvements to storm drainage system
could result in minor increases in peak and total runoff to Rodeo
Creek.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in C.2 . (a) above is considered less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 .3 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in C.2 . (a) above is less than significant and,
320\10\10.1301.02 A-13
VIV
therefore, no mitigation measures) or monitoring program is
required.
3 . Water Quality
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect .
Runoff from urbanized areas contains elevated levels of
pollutants which may impact Rodeo Creek or. San Pablo Bay.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in C.3 . (a) above, is considered less than
significant, since area is already urbanized.
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis- in Section 3 .3 df the DEIR, the finding is, made that the
impact described in C.3 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required.
4 . Increased Erosion During Grading
(a) significant Environmental Effect . Grading
for foundations will result in increased erosion.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Developers should
implement an erosion control plan as described in Section 3 . 7-
4 (a) of the DEIR.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Building Inspection
Department and Public Works Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Prior to issuance
of building permit, require erosion control plans from project.
applicants for land development projects that involve earth work.
(�} Timing. On an on-going project-by-
project basis.
(4) Standards : Compliance with NPDES permit
requirements.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the '
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. ' The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3. 3 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above . mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in C.4 . (a) above.
zo\lo\toa3o1.u: A-14
0-5/(M./97 IPED 11: 42 FAX 41.5 753 534 7 G(1 LDF,fRB.LIMAN 017
D.. Traffic/Circulation
1 . Traffic/Circdlation Impacts.
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . Traffic
generated by successful redevelopment of the Specific Plan area
will result in traffic during peak hours that exceeds General
Plan Level of Service ("LOS") thresholds at key intersections in
the Specific plan area. The DEIR discussed detailed impacts at
key intersections and suggested specific mitigation measures
based on certain land use plans. The Specific Plan adopts a
different land use plan than that specifically analyzed in the
DEIR so the impacts and mitigation measure (s) may differ from
those stated in the DEIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Prepare an updated
traffic analysis that is based on the adopted Specific Plan land
uses . The analysis should identify impacted intersections,
identify the measures needed to keep capacities within General
Plan standards, and estimate costs of construction and costs of
any needed right-of-way acquisition. County shall amend its
current Area of Benefit traffic mitigation fee program or adopt
another mechanism to assure that construction of improvements
keeps pace with buildout of the Specific Plan area. County shall,
adopt requirements that project applicants shall construct or
contribute a pro rata share of cost of keeping intersection
capacities in the specific Plan area within General Plan
standards .
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department and Public works Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Public works
Department shall monitor the key intersections during peak hours
during buildout, as needed, to confirm operation of key
intersections at LOS D ox better with V/C of 0 . 89. Based on
updated analysis, construction of improvements time table will be
established by Community Development Department in consultation
with the Public Works Department.
(3) Timing: Monitoring actions to occur
throughout buildout with traffic improvements to be constructed
pursuant to the time table established through updated analysis.
(4) Standards: . Operation of intersections
at or better than LOS D (V/C <0 .89) during peak hours.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions axe to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .4 of the DEIR, the finding
320\10\1043o1.02 A-15
-.—_ ._�. _. -- - _. vva�a nasal •+u•nu., - `CJ v10
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in D.. I. (a) above.
E. visual Quality and Design
1. Visual Ouality
(a) Significant Environmental Effect.
Development that is not sensitive to the visual qualities . of both
the natural and man-made landscapes has the potential to conflict
with adopted General Plan goals and policies.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s)-.
(1) Provide a comprehensive plan for entire
specific Plan area, with strong architectural controls to ensure
land use compatibility and maximize views of the bay.
(2) Develop an, architectural "vocabulary"
for the Specific Plan area before any projects are constructed, a
(3) The DEIR suggested the following
mitigation measure_ "Avoid use of brick due to the . inherent
seismic risks to Rodeoposed by the Hayward Pault. This
mitigation measure is modified to read.: "Follow and implement
design guidelines of the Specific Plan. " This modification to
the mitigation measure was .made to avoid inconsistency`with
Specific Plan design guidelines. Compliance with the Uniform
Building Code will be required which adequately addresses the
safety concern addressed by the original mitigation measure.
(4) Limit commercial space to that which can
be absorbed by the community.
(5) Adopt unified concept for streetscapes
(e.g. street trees) withba the Specific Plan area.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Redevelopment Agency
and Community Development Department..
(2) faction_ to be Waken: Measures (1) , (2) ,
and (5) have been implemented by .the Community Development
Department through the Specific Plan design guidelines. To
implement measure (3) , Community Development Department shall
review the design of proposed land development projects for
. compliance with design guidelines of the Specific Plan.
Redevelopment Agency and Community Development Department shall
implement measure (4) in processing land use applications under
the then-current zoning designation for the area.
(3) Timing: Design of proposed developments
to be reviewed during processing of applications.
zzo�io�ioa3�Y.oz
A-16
1)8,A)U 97 RBD 11:43 FAX 415 733 5347 GiiLUFA'KH LIPM[AN QIU19
(4) Standards : Community Development
Department to ensure the project designs.,comply with the design
guidelines of the specific Plan, reinforce the aesthetic
character of Rodeo, and result in enhancement of scenic qualities
as part . of the project approval process .
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .5 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in E. 1. (a) above.
2 . Bay Views
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . Unless
properly designed and sited, waterfront land development projects
have. potential for a substantial negative aesthetic impact on Bay
views .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Waterfront projects should be clustered,
leaving open areas around them to permit views of the Bay. To
the degree possible, the hill just north of the Pacific Avenue
bridge should be used to screen views of structures, including
parking lots at the waterfront.
(2) Structures at the waterfront should
ordinarily be limited to one story or one story and a mezzanine.
(3) Structures should be designed to enhance
the pleasure of the user or viewer of the Bay. To this end,
structures should be designed so that no side appears to be the
rear of the building.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department and Redevelopment Agency.
(2) Action to be Taken: Consider potential
aesthetic and visual quality impacts when reviewing applications
for each project.
(3) Timing: On a project-by-project basis.
(4) Standards : Compliance with goals and
policies of the Specific Plan. .
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
�za\i�\ioa3ai.o2
A—17
vv,01 IYED 11:43 410 UULI)PARB LIPMAN �JUGU
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 5 of the DEZR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and:
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in E.2 . (a) above.
F. Biotic Resources
1. Wildlife Habitat
(a) Significant Environmental-,Effect. Important
biological values, particularly along the shoreline, could be
compromised by development which is not sensitive to protection
of wildlife habitat.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . The most appropriate
areas for restoration and enhancement are the •Joseph' s .Resort
property, Bennett' s Marina property, and adjacent SPRR shoreline
lands. Approaches which might be selected are as follows:
(1) Require a design level habitat
restoration study in conjunction with each shoreline project.
(2) Encourage clustering of any shoreline
projects to provide more space. for natural areas _
(3) Consolidate habitats and create suitable
transitions from one habit to another.
(4) Encourage cleanup of toxic of hazardous
.materials which compromise habitat values.
(5) . Encourage modifications to. the sewage
collection/treatment system aimed at eliminating flows which
exceed plant capacity.
(6) Dredging the connection between the
marina basin and the bay shall occur during the time of least
impact to aquatic resources, and shall not occur during high flow
periods of Rodeo Creek. Best management practices to minimize
sediment generation shall be used. The dredge spoils shall be
dumped in an approved location.
(7) Locating a specific area for the repair
of boat engines within the marina would lessen impacts from
pollution from engine oils and gasoline.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department, East Bay Regional Park District, Redevelopment Agency
and Rodeo Sanitary District.
0,8,'06 97 WED 11:44 FAX 415 783 5347 GOLDFARB LIMAN 0021
(2) Action to be Taken: Any projects that
are proposed along the shoreline (north and west of the SPRR)
shall be subject to environmental review, including potential
biological resources impacts. Efforts of .the Rodeo Sanitary
District to reduce infiltration of .storm water flow into the
collection system are acknowledged.
(3) Timing: Throughout the processing of
applications for waterfront projects and dredging activities .
(4) Standards : Consistent and appropriate
application of best management practices for habitat restoration.
(S) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 6 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in F.I. (a) above.
2 . Protected Species
(a) significant Environmental Effect. Although
no special status plants or animals were identified in the
planning area, it is possible that such resources may exist .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Site-specific surveys should be done
prior to approval of shoreline development. For some species, it
is important that the survey be done during a specific season.
(2) Development of shoreline projects shall
include restoration of habitat for sensitive species .
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Require project
applicants for shoreline development to conduct appropriate study
and implement any recommended practices, including habitat
restoration.
(3) Timing: During processing of
applications for shoreline developments.
(4) Standards: Implementation of the
recommendations of the site-specific biologic report .
3zu�io��.n�aoL.o2
A-19
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed oft and dated by the monitor,
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 6 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in F.2 . (a) above.
G. Geology/Seismicity
1. safety of Hay Mud
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
proposed project, involves construction within areas underlain by
Younger Bay Mud which presents stability problems.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Applications for land development
projects shall not be deemed to be complete without an adequate
geologic/geotechnical investigation that characterizes subsurface
conditions and evaluates geologic and seismic hazards on the
subject property. The report should provide at least preliminary
recommendations for site grading, drainage, and foundation
design.
(2) The conditions of approval for land
development projects shall require a foundation report that
references the approved project plans, and' provides specific
criteria and standards to guide site grading, drainage and
foundation design. (In some cases, the initial report required
with submittal of an application may provide sufficient detail to
ensure that the project approved at public hearings is sensitive
to geologic and seismic constraints. In that circumstance, the
foundation report can be deferred until application is made for
construction permits. )
(3) Geologic/geotechnical and foundation
reports are to be subject to peer review by an engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer acting on behalf of the
county..
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department and. Building Inspection Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Consider safety
impacts when reviewing applications for each project. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, . the Community Development
Department, . its engineering geologist, and the Building
Inspection Department shall verify that recommendations for
] n\10\104101.pz
A-20
i18!06i97 WED 11:44 FAX 415 793 5347 GOLDF'kA9 LIPMANx]02.3
stabilizing expansive and compressible soils are incorporated
into all relevant project plans and' specifications .
(3) Timing: Prior to final map recordation,
during improvement plan/grading plan check, during landscape plan
check, prior to issuance of a building permit and during all
project construction phases.
(4) Standards: Consistent and appropriate
application of geotechnical recommendations for the project .
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in section. 3 .7 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in G.1. (a) above.
2 . Ground Response
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. During the
useful life of structures, the Rodeo area is likely to be
subjected to at least one severe earthquake that will cause
strong ground shakingand may result in loss of life, and
.structural collapse or partial failure of buildings .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) The highest priority for abatement or
retrofitting of safety hazard should be given to abatement or
retrofitting of URM buildings with the highest occupancy, and
buildings in the area of high liquefaction potential (see Figure
3 . 7 . 5 of the DEIR) .
(2) County to adopt URM requirements in
Building Codc to comply with State law standards regarding URM
buildings .
(3) Require owners of URM buildings to
comply with County URM requirement when adopted, within the time
frames adopted in the County URM program.
(4) Within the Specific Plan area, consider
developing economic incentives for owners of substandard
buildings to opt for retrofitting or for demolition and
replacement..
(c) Monitoring Proaram.
(1) Responsibility: Building Inspection
Department for building compliance verification and Community
A-21
IeEll 11:45 J'A1 41-) GOLDFARB LIPMAN LV1v`Zi
Development Department for development of County program and
economic incentive program.
(2) Action to be Taken: County to adopt
State tJRM requirements and to verify compliance with adopted
program.
(3) Timing: URM program to be developed .
within, two (2) years. Individual building inspections and
verification by the times set forth in the County. URM program.
(4) Standards ; Community Development
Department to design URM program to meet State standards.
Building Inspection Department to verify that owners of URM
buildings have complied with County programswithin time frames
adopted in the county program.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitpr.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .7 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant envir'onment effect described in G.2 . (a) above.
3 . Collapse Hazard Buildings
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . The
existing inventory of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings poses
a substantial life loss and injury potential.
(b) Mitigation Measures s) .
(1) The highest priority for abatement or
retrofitting of safety hazard should be given to abatement or
retrofitting of URM buildings with the highest occupancy, and
buildings in the area of high liquefaction potential (see Figure
3 . 7 . 5 of the DEIR) .
(2) County to adopt URM requirements in
building code to comply with State law standards regarding URM
buildings.
(3) Require owners of URM buildings to
comply with County URM requirement when adopted, within the time
frames adopted in the County URM program.
(4) within the Specific Plan area, consider
developing economic incentives for owners of substandard
buildings to opt for retrofitting or for demolition and
replacement .
a=�1io11on'soi.oz
A-22
I-AA 415 758 5347 tiiLDFAR B LIPMAN 25
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) ResponsibilityBuilding Inspection
Department for building compliance verification and Community
Development Department for development of County program and
economic incentive program.
(2) Action to be Taken: County to adopt
State URM requirements and to verify compliance with adopted
program_ Consider collapse hazard impacts when reviewing
applications for each project.
(3) Timing: URM program to be developed
within two (2) years. Individual building inspections and
verification by the times set forth in the County URM program.
(4) Standards : Community Development
Department design URM programs to meet State standards. Building
Inspection Department to verify that owners of URM buildings have
complied with County programs within time frames adopted in the
County program.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis Section 3 . 7 in of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in G.3 . (a) above.
4 . Expansive soils and/or Bedrock
(a) Significant Environmental. Effect . Expansive
soils and/or bedrock may damage foundations, slabs and pavement .
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Applications for land development
projects shall not be deemed to be complete without an adequate
geologic/geotechnical investigation that characterizes subsurface
conditions and evaluates geologic and seismic hazards on the
subject property. The report should provide at least preliminary
recommendations for site grading, drainage, and foundation
design.
(2) The conditions of approval for land
development projects shall require a foundation report that
references the approved project plans, and provides specific
criteria and standards to guide site grading, drainage and
foundation design. (in some cases, the initial report required
with submittal of an application may provide sufficient detail to
ensure that the project approved at public hearings is sensitive
to geologic and seismic constraints . In that circumstance, the
n�lo�ioa9oi.oz A-23
.+. ....__.0 uaa naAly •J _
foundation report can be deferred until application is made for
construction permits. )
(3) Geologic/geotechnical and foundation
reports are to be subject to peer review by an engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer acting on behalf of the
county,
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Building inspection
Department and Community Development Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Prior to issuance
of a building permit, the Community Development Department, its
engineering geologist, and the Building Inspection Department -
shall verify that recommendations for stabilizing expansive and
compressible soils are incorporated into all relevant project
plans and specifications:
(3) Timing: prior to final map recordation,
during. improvement plan/grading plan check, during landscaping
plan check, prior to issuance of a building permit and during all
project construction phases.
(4.) Standards : Consistent and appropriate
application of geotechnical recommendations for the project.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above. mitigation measures) and .
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
ii1formation and analysis in Section 3 . 7 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that, adoption of the .above mitigation m8asures and
monitoring program will avoid' or substantially ,lessen the
significant environment effect described in GA . (a) above.
5 . Erosion and Sedimentation
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Project
involves cuts and fills on a narrow valley floor with a. potential
to cause sedimentation both on and off-site,
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Project proponent
should provide erosion control plan including: grading to
minimize, exposed erodible material:, water bars, temporary
culverts and swales, mulch and jute blankets on exposed slopes,
hydroseeding, silt fences, sediment traps/basins, inspection and
maintenance program during the winter rainy season, including
provisions for documenting maintenance activities...
320�1n\104201.02 A-24
UVU6/97 IVED 11:46 FAX 415 788 5347 GOLI)FARB' LIPMAN Z021
(c) Monit�>rina Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department, Public works Department and Building Inspection
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Require erosion
control plan, in project applications and inspect erosion control
measures during construction phases.
(3) Timing: During project application
review, improvement plan/grading plan check, during landscaping
plan check, during all phases of construction.
(4) Standards : Conservation of surface
soils and prevention of soil from entering the creek channel or
San Pablo Bay.
(5) . Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in section 3 .7 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the .
significant environment effect described in G. 5 . (a) above .
H. Noise
1 . Residential Uses
(a) ' Significant Environmental Effect .
Residential projects are considered sensitive receptors. Such
uses may .not be suitable on sites when ambient noise levels
exceed 60 dBA CNEL.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . A detailed
acoustical analysis shall be performed for residential projects .
within the shaded region of Figure 3 .8-2 of the DEIR.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibilitv: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be 'Taken: Require .acoustical
analysis in residential project applications located within the
shaded region of Figure 3 . 8-2 of the DEIR and require project
applicant to implement measures recommended in acoustical study.
(3) Timing; During project application
review, plan check, prior to issuance of a building permit, and
inspection during all applicable phases of construction.
azo\io\�oa]oi.u'
A-25
(4) Standards : Meet applicable noise level
standards set forth in General Plan.
(5) Record; Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 .8 of the DEUR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and.
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in H. 1 . (a) above.
2 . Commercial Uses
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . Some non-
residential uses may not be compatible with noise levels along
Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue corridor.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Routine noise study
as condition of approval.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Require acoustical
analysis for non-residential project applicants for properties
located along Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue corridor and require
project applicant to implement recommendations in acoustical
study.
(3) Timin : During project application
, review, plan check, prior to issuance of a building permit and
inspection of all applicable phases of construction. "
(4) Standards: Meet applicable noise level
standards set forth in the General Plan.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding_ The above mitigation-'measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted, Based upon the
information and "analysis in Section 3 . 8 of the DEUR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in H.2 . (a) above.
3 . Noise Due to Land Use Changes
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect .
successful redevelopment could increase noise levels on the
120\1Q\104101.02 A-26
029
iib, (1(3/87 WED 11:46 FAX 415 788 5547 GO LI FAR LIPMAN
perimeter of the planning area and along the Parker Avenue
corridor.
(b) Mitigation Measuies (s) . None required since
the impact identified in.H.3 . (a) above is considered less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and.
analysis in Section 3 .8 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in H.3 . (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measures) or monitoring program is
required.
4 . Construction poise -
(a) Significant Environmental -Effect . Short-term
noise impacts can be anticipated in adjacent residential areas
during construction projects.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Restrict construction activities to 7 :00
a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 9 : 00 a.m.
and 5 : 00 p.m. on Saturday. No Sunday or holiday work allowed.
(2) Noise-related performance standards
shall be included in all projects adjacent to residential areas.
(3) Construction documents should include
provisions to ensure that all equipment is adequately muffled and
maintained.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1.) Responsibility. Community Development
Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Impose mitigation
measures identified in H.4. (b) above as a condition of project.
approval and monitor compliance during. project construction.
(3) Timing: At plan check, prior to
issuance of building permit and inspection during all applicable
phases of construction:
(4) Standards : Construction activities
satisfy noise mitigation measures identified in H.4 . (b) above_
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
:+zo\Lu�,7a4Jui.0 A-27
information and analysis in Section 3 . 8 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in H.4 . (a) above.
I . Air Ouality
1_ Ambient Air. Ouality
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect .
More intense development will result in more people who are.
sensitive to odors and unhealthful emissions in the planning
area.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact i'dentif .ed in I. 1. (a) above is considered less than
significant..
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 .9 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
impact described in I.1. (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required.
2 . Prosect Generated Pollutants
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
More. intense development will result in more local air pollution.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . None required since
the impact identified in I.2 . (a) above is considered less than
significant,
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 .9 of the DEIR, the finding is made that the.
impact described in 1.2. (a) above is less than significant and,
therefore, no mitigation measures) or monitoring program is
required.
J. Cultural Resources
1 . Archaeologic Resources
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . Cultural
resources of prehistoric age or character may be encountered
within the -project site during subsurface construction or other
earthmoving activities.
320\IQ%109301.02 A-28 .
U$/06/97 11:47 FAX 415 788 5347
GCjLI)FARB LIPMAN �U31
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) .
(1) Require infield testing for prehistoric
resources, when required by Community Development Department to
be consistent with General Plan policies.
(2) County representatives performing
mitigation monitoring should be trained to identify the types of
prehistoric materials likely to be exposed during earthmoving.
(3) If any archeological materials are
uncovered, stop earthwork within 30 yards until a certified
professional archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the
find and suggested mitigations, if deemed necessary.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department.
(2) Action to be Taken: Community
Development Department will evaluate and monitor each project
during project construction to ensure compliance with the
mitigation measure (e) and compliance will, be a condition of
project approval.
(3) Timing: At plan check, prior to
issuance of a building permit and during all phases of
construction.
(4) Standards : Meet standards of
archaeologist-recommended mitigation measure (s) , including
measures) set forth in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines .
(5) Record: steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor.
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 10 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in J.1. (a) above.
2 . Historic Resources
(a) Significant Environmental Effect . There are
historical buildings in the planning area,
(b) Mitigation Measures (s)_.
(1) Require a program of evaluating historic
resources in the planning area through a comprehensive survey.
310\.1,0\10aa01.OL
A-29
+oa D•S4� �,Vi.�-+rnnn i.irmNry ��o`
(2) County representatives performing
mitigation monitoring should be trained. to identify the types of
historic materials likely to be exposed during earthmoving.
(3) Require program of infield-testing for
historic resources.
(4) If any historic archaeologic materials
are encountered, stop earthwork within 30 yards until a certified
professional archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the
find and suggested mitigations, if deemed necessary.
(c) Monitoring Program.
(1) Responsibility: Community Development
Department .
(2) Action to be Taken: Community
Development bepartment has conducted general survey of historic
resources in the Specific Plan area. Community Development
Department will require comprehensive survey for historic
resources identified in general survey as a condition of project
approval and will evaluate and monitor each project during
project construction to ensure compliance with the mitigation
measure (s) . Such compliance will be a condition of project
approval.
(3) Timing: At plan check, prior to
issuance of a building permit and during all phases of
construction.
(4) Standards: Meet standards of
archaeologist-recommended mitigation measure (s) , if any.
(5) Record: Steps to implement the
monitoring actions are to be signed off and dated by the monitor_
(d) Finding. The above mitigation measure (s) and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Section 3 . 10 of the DEIR, the finding
is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in J.2 . (a) above.
X. Housing, Population, Jobs
1 . Increased Housing Units
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
Staff/ Consultant option in Specific Plan expected to increase
dwelling units in, Specific Plan area by 264 . Maximum theoretical
increase is 510 units._ Other options considered in the Specific
Plan result in less growth.
j_0\10\104301.01 A-30
ii c:0(3 7 IIED 11:45 FAX 415 788 5347
iiLUFAR LIPMAN X1033
b9
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) . Nome required since
the impact identified in K. 1 . (a) above is .considered less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 11 of the DEIR, the finding is made that
the impact described in K.1 . (a) above is less than significant
and, therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program .is
required.
2 . Population Increase
(a) Less Than Significant Environmental Effect.
A population increase of 558 new residents is foreseeable if the
Staff/Consultant option in the Specific Plan is developed.
(b) Mitigation measures (s) None required since
the impact identified in K.2 . (a) above is considered Less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 11 of the DEIR, the finding is made that
the impact described in K.2 . (a) above is less than significant
and, therefore, no mitigation measure (s) or monitoring program is
required.
3 . Jobs
(a) Less .Than Significant Environmental Effect .
Employment in planning area may increase to over 600 jobs if
redevelopment is successful.
(b) Mitigation Measures (s) , None required since
the impact identified in K.3 . (a) above is considered less than
significant .
(c) Monitoring Program. None required.
(d) Finding. Based upon the information and
analysis in Section 3 . 11 of the DEIR, the finding is made that
the impact described in K.3 . (a) above is less than significant
and, therefore, no mitigation measure(s) or monitoring program is
required.
V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The EIR did not identify any significant impacts of the
proposed CPA and Specific Plan which are considered unavoidable.
azolio\ioa3oi.u2
A-3 1
VVr VVi 2�! IILUli.'a,� gnat Y1:) !3S `J 34% GOLDFARB WYMIS �IVd4
VI . Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed
GPA and Suecific. Plari
The EIR discusses eight alternatives to the proposed GFA and
Specific Plan. Each alternative is discussed in this section and
findings are made regarding the feasibility of each alternative.
A. Alternative one--No Project (No Development)
1 . Principal Characteristics. Under the "no project"
(no development) alternative, existing environmental conditions
would remain the same and neither the proposed GPA or Specific
Plan would be adopted. Conditions would be expected to remain
blighted in the short-term and would be expected to slowly
deteriorate. Undergrounding of electrical lines, improvement of
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, wastewater collection and
local drainage system would not occur. Private investment would
be unlikely to occur, land values would decease, unsafe URM ,
structures would remain and excess commercial space would remain
vacant and fall into disrepair. Deteriorating conditions would
increase the demand for police and fire protection services.
Flood hazards would remain unabated and--untreated waste water
would continue to be released into San Pablo Bay.
Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects.
Under this Alternative, many of the significant
environmental effects would not occur such as short-term and
long-term construction noise and background noise, public service
impacts, traffic congestion, drainage and water quality,
vegetation and wildlife, geologic/seismicity and cultural and
historic resources. However, existing conditions which present
detrimental effects such as land use incompatibility,
deteriorating housing and other structures, blighted and visually
unaesthetic property, hazardous substances and inadequate public
facilities and services would remain and likely worsen in .the
area.
3 . Finding. Based on the information contained in
. Section 5 of the DEIR, the finding is made that Alternative One.
does not achieve the goals of the proposed GPA and Specific Plan
and thus is not a feasible alternative. In addition, Alternative
One is found to be less desirable than the Project because
blighting conditions will remain in the community and may worsen,
new jobs and investment in the community as well as new housing
will not be available, and the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan would most likely not be achieved without
implementation of the Specific Plan. Additionally, the
beneficial impacts of the Project including increased public
improvements and removal of hazardous materials would not occur.
320\10\104301.02 A-32
0 S/0 6t 97 IVEI) 11:45 FAX 415 788 5347 GQLDFARB LIPMAN X1035
B. (alternative Two--No Project (Buildout of Adopted
General plan)
1 . Principal Characteristics. Under this
Alternative, the area would be built-out under the existing
General Plan land use map. Redevelopment efforts would continue
under this . alternative so that funding for need public
improvements to alleviate blighting conditions and for new
housing would take place under this scenario. However, mixed use
projects would not be allowed and the flexibility inherent. , in a
Planned Unit District wold be lost. Approximately 35 acres would
remain designated commercial, which is more commercial land than
can be supported by market demand. Businesses would remain
scattered throughout the oversized commercial district.
2 . Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects.
Under this Alternative, most of the significant
environmental effects would still occur such as short-term and
long-term construction noise and background noise, land use
incompatibility, traffic congestion, drainage and water quality,
vegetation and wildlife, geologic/seismicity and cultural and
historic resources. However, existing conditions which present
detrimental effects such as deteriorating housing and other
structures, blighted and visually unaesthetic property,
hazardous substances and inadequate public facilities and
services would improve.
3 . Finding. Based on the information in section 5 of
the DEIR, the finding is made that this Alternative while
reducing some but not all of the impacts associated with the
Project, would not provide as many of the beneficial impacts as
the Project . Thus, the finding is made that this Alternative is
not feasible.
C. Alternative Three--Public Review Draft Alternative
(PRD Plan)
1 . Principal Characteristics. The PRD Plan is
intended to achieve' all or nearly all of the existing community' s
priorities of. the area. The number of residential units and
projected population is essentially twice that which would be
allowed under buildout of the General Plan. This Alternative
would also slightly increase the amount of parks and recreation
space .and reduce by about 24% the land currently available for
commercial-related uses.
2 . Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects .
Development under this Alternative will upgrade the wastewater
collection system, and improve the roads and local drainage
system. Replacing the existing inventory of commercial buildings ,
with modern construction will increase safety, provide jobs, .
result in more efficient use in the Specific Plan area and reduce
pressures to develop open space areas elsewhere in the County.
The disadvantages of this alternative are that it results in
1.20\10\101;301.02 A-33
—. • .. __ __ .. .a .v J .J•J't 1 J_a..i.....0 u a.•.a.a. 4J V V V
about twice as much commercial space as is likely to be absorbed,
there will be an excess of "marina-related" uses and the
development will obstruct waterfront views.
3 . Finding. Based on the information in Section 5 of
the DEIR, the finding is made that Alternative Three, while
reducing some of the impacts of the Project, would not provide as
many of the beneficial impacts as are associated with the
Project .. Thus the finding is made that Alterative Three is not
feasible.
D. Alternative Four--Staff/Consultant Alternative (SIC
Plan
1. Principal Characteristics. The SIC Plan_ is
intended to increase residential units in the Specific Plan area
and de-emphasize commercial uses.
2 . Comparative Impacts and Mitigation Effects.
The impacts of this SIC Plan Alternative would be
similar to those associated with the PRD Plan, except that the
amount of land devoted to commercial use would be reduced and
more likely to be absorbed. Development under this Alternative
will upgrade the wastewater collection system, and improve the
roads and local drainage system Replacing the existing
inventory of commercial buildings with modern construction will
increase safety, provide jobs, result in more efficient use in
the Specific Plan area and reduce pressures to develop open space
areas elsewhere in the County. The disadvantages of this
Alternative are that there will be an excess of "marina-related"
uses and the development will obstruct waterfront views .
3 .. Finding. Based on the information and analysis in .
Section 5 of .the DEIR, the finding is made that Alternative Four,
while reducing some of the impacts of the Project, would not
provide as many of the beneficial impacts as .are associated with
the Project. Thus the finding is made that Alterative Four is
not feasible.
E. Alternative Five--General-Commercial Alternative (GC
Plan
1 . Principal Characteristics . The GC Plan is based
on the realization that the downtown area is fragmented into many
small parcels, the infrastructure is near the end of its useful
life, most building are not up to code' and the area thus far has
not been able to attract investment. This Alternative offers a
much less intense land use plan. It proposed to encourage
businesses which are attracted -due to the presence of refineries,
such as warehouses, lumber yards, etc .. The GC Plan provides more
parks and recreation land than the proposed Project .
zo\ia\loalol.oz
A-34
08/06/97 11'ED 11:49 FAX 415 758 53.17 GOLDFARB LIPMAN Q1 037
2 . Comparative Impacts and Mitigation Effects. The
GC Plan would suggest a less_ aggressive land development
approach. Under this Alternative,. improvements to the wastewater
collection system would be made, but other infrastructure items
would be deleted unless absolutely required for public health and
safety. The disadvantages of this Alternative are that the plan
is unlikely to trigger any short terms changes in the
downtown/waterfront area. Seismic hazards due. to URM buildings
would continue to exist, consolidation of lots would not be
encouraged, blighting influences would not be removed or
alleviated, and economic revitalization, one of the goals of the
redevelopment plan and Specific Plan, would not be realized.
3 . Finding. Based on the information and analysis in
Section 5 of the DEZR, the finding is made that Alternative Five
while reducing some of the impacts of the Project, would not
provide as many of the beneficial impacts as are associated with
the Project. Thus the finding is made that Alterative Five is
not feasible.
F. Alternative Six--Mixed Use Alternative (MU Plan)
1. Principal Characteristics. The Mixed Use
Alternative assumes that the property lines and street right-of-
ways in the downtown area can be ignored and that retail, office
and residential uses would not be isolated but would be
integrated. The net acreage in the downtown area is increased
and is not bisected by a major road.
2 - Comparative Impacts and Mitigation Effects. This
alternative assumes the purchase of a ladder fire truck and that
building heights can extend above 35 feet . The lowest structural
element will be above the peak water suzface of the 100-year
.flood. Ground improvement measures will be taken to mitigate the
liquefaction potential prior to any construction. A large
portion of the buildings will have views of the Bay or the
waterfront . Waterfront properties would be designated for open
forms of land use. This alternative is designated as one of the
"environmentally superior alternatives" in the DEZR_
3 . Finding. Based *on the information and analysis in
Section of the DEZR and in Section 5 of the Specific Plan, the
finding regarding Alternative Six is that the cost of
implementing this land use plan is likely to be prohibitively
expensive and as shown in the Specific Plan there is barely
sufficient funding for some but not all of the improvements
suggested under this land use alternative. For this reason, the
finding is made that Alterative Six is not economically feasible.
G. Alternative Seven--Mitigated Alternative
1 . Principal Characteristics. This Alternative
responds to the various environmental impact and design problems
identified in the preparation of the DEZR_ indeed, the mitigated
alternative is substantially similar to the proposed Project, in
320\10\103307..02
A-35
u�!U6-,'9 Y WBL) 11:ou VAA 413 788 5347 GOLDFARB LIPMAN 0038
combination with the mitigation measures that have been adopted
in Section IV of this Exhibit A. The major difference between
this alternative and the proposed Project, is the Mitigated
Alternative designates a certain land use pattern, while the
proposed Project provides for a more flexible pattern of
development .
2 . Comparative Impacts and Mitigation Effects. Under
this Alternative, all the potentially significant environmental
effects have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
The DEIR identifies this alternative as an "environmentally
superior alternative" . However, this alternative does not allow
for the flexible pattern of development allowed by the proposed
.Project' s planned unit development proposed zoning.
3 . Finding. Based. .on the information and analysis in =-
Section 5 of the DEIR and in the Specific Plan, the finding
regarding Alternative Seven is that does not allow for the
flexible.,pattern of development preferred by the community as set
forth in the proposed. Specific Plan and thus is found to be
infeasible.
H. Alternative Eight--Off-Site Alternative
1. Principal Characteristics . The off-site
development would leave the Rodeo downtown/waterfront- area -in its
existing condition, as in the no project alternatives discussed
in A. and B. above. This Alternative would hypothetically
relocate land uses proposed in the Specific Plan- area to another
area, such as .the community of Crockett.
2 . Finding. Based on the information and analysis in
Section 5 of the DEIR and the Specific Plan, the finding
regarding Alternative Eight is that redeveloping other sites
within the County would not meet the identified need .and County
policy to revitalize the Rodeo downtown and waterfront areas and
thus would not meet the basic objectives of the Specific Plan.
Thus, Alternative Eight is found to be infeasible.
vII. . Statement of Decision.
A. The Board has fully considered the discussion and
analyses in the Record regarding the environmental impacts,
socioeconomic effects, cumulative impacts, growth-inducing
impacts; and irreversible, and irretrievable commitments of
resources_. The Board finds that the programs and activities of
the proposed ,GPA. and Specific Plan will provide numerous
economic, social, environmental and other benefits to the
Specific Plan area, and to the County of Contra Costa. The Board
further .finds that the alternatives to the Project set forth in
the DEIR and summarized in Section VI of this Exhibit A are
infeasible because .such alternatives would limit the social,
economic .and other benefits of proposed GPA and Specific Plan
adoption and implementation which are described below.
?7n\1.0\lplaoi.`u2
A-36
08,'06 '9 7 IVED 11:5( FAX- 415 788 5.347 GpLDFARB LIPIIAN
Q]U59
Therefore, pursuant to Public :Resources ,Code Section 21081 (x) and
the CEQA Guidelines, the Board makes the following Statement of
Decision and findings in support thereof:
1 . Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environment effects thereof as identified in the ETR.
2 . The County has eliminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where,
feasible as shown in the findings under Part TV of the Exhibit A.
3 . The GPA and the Specific .Plan 'consists of
policies, objectives and programs to"strengthen the County' s
commercial and residential base in support of the Redevelopment
Plan for the Rodeo Redevelopment Project.
4 . The Specific Plan can provide a means of
mitigating many of those adverse impacts of growth and
development by requiring certain mitigation measures which will
reduce adverse impacts .
5 . Adoption and implementation of the GPA and the
Specific Plan, in combination with the mitigation measures
adopted in this Exhibit A, will contribute to expansion and
preservation of decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
6 . Adoption and implementation of the CPA and
Specific Plan, in combination with the mitigation measures
adopted in this Exhibit' A, will contribute to the physical and
economic revitalization of the Rodeo downtown and waterfront
areas, which currently suffer from underutilization. The
revitalization of the Specific Plan area will benefit the County
by providing employment opportunities . for County residents . -
7 . Adoption and implementation of the GPA and -
Specific Plan, in combination with the mitigation measures
adopted in this Exhibit A, will contribute to the elimination of
blighting influences and conditions now existing in the Specific
Plan area, including (but not limited to) commercial, industrial
and residential structures which are deteriorating or
dilapidated, obsolete or inappropriate land uses, instability of
land use patterns, defective design and construction of
residential and commercial structures, deficient parcelization in
commercial areas, lack ot- adequate public facilities, impaired
investment, and socioeconomic maladjustment .
8 . The consequences of failing to adopt the GPA and
Specific Plan will include:
(a) Severe constraints upon the County's
redevelopment program and its revitalization objectives; and
(b) Delays in development or redevelopment of the
Specific Plan area that will adversely affect potentially
,zpt.io. .oaso1.o: A-37
ana 415 788 5.34 ���1ur.9Hfi LIPhfAN
tOV4U
productive property, businesses, and public service
opportunities.
9 . The Board concludes there are eight alternatives
to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts identified in the
BIR, as set forth in Section VI of this Exhibit A.
10 . The Board has extensively considered each of the.
above alternatives. Public testimony was heard concerning these
alternatives and has been made a part of the Record of the
considerations on the Plan. The Board concludes as follows:
(a) The alternatives to the GPA and Specific Plan
fundamentally change the focus and intent of the County' s
revitalization efforts for the Rodeo community, and as such are
deemed infeasible;
(b) Failure to adopt the GPA and Specific Plan
will not provide the best balance of costs and opportunities to
minimize the adverse consequences. The County will actively
pursue resolution of these issues with the broadest array of
public and private entities in a manner which balances the
economic benefits with the preservation of the quality of the
natural and human' environment;
(c) The Board has made an affirmative decision to
seek resolution of the mitigation necessary to ensure that future
urban growth and development will mitigate its proportional share
of the problems identified; and
(d) The proposed Project, in combination with the
mitigation measures adopted in this Exhibit A, would reduce all
of the significant environmental effects of the Project to a
level of insignificance. After consideration of all the
identified alternatives to the GPA and Specific Plan, none was
considered as beneficial to the community as the proposed GPA and
Specific Plan. Based on the comparative analysis results
described above, it has been determined that the Project as
mitigated would result in the Least adverse combination of
environmental impacts and the most beneficial social and economic
impacts and would therefore be the "environmentally superior"
alternative.
320\)1)\1013111.Oz
�3
EXHIBIT D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 6, 1997
TO: Board of SuZIso
FROM: Jim Fenn De ty Director - Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Supplement Recommendation -Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan
(Count ile #SP 95-0002) Agenda Item D.3 8/12/97
A minor oversight was identified in the preparation of the CEQA findings that can be corrected by
the Board including in its adoption action the following:
• Add to the Specific Plan Land Use Policy 1.5 as follows:
"Protect property and ensure public safety by (a) establishing a local storm drain
system; and (b) providing design criteria for flood proofing structures."
The adoption of this additional recommendation conforms the Specific Plan to the environmental
documentation.
JK:u,
sraM/rodeo.mem
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 121997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber and Canciamilla
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 97/416
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Rodeo )
Downtown/Waterfront )
General Plan Amendment }
County File #GP95-0006 )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with the Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 18-1997 adopted by
the Contra Costa Planning Commission which discusses a General Plan Amendment in
the Rodeo Area.
On July 22, 1997, the Board held a public hearing on said General Plan Amendment
discussed by the County Planning Commission (Resolution No. 18-1997). Notice of said
hearing was duly given in the matter as required by law. The Board called for testimony
of all persons interested in this matter. The Board, by its order, closed the public hearing,
declared their intent to adopt the General Plan Amendment and directed staff to return with
Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. A Board Order dated July 22, 1997
summarized the testimony and specified the Board's direction.
On August 12, 1997, the Board decided to exclude residential uses in the Mixed Use area
north of San Pablo Avenue and to add policy language related to flood protection. The
Board APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and directed staff to include the
Amendment as part of the Second Consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997.
Maw
jAaw\rodeogp.res
Contact: Catherine Kutsuris (335-1237)
Orig: Community Development Department
cc: Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency
Director of Community Development
Director of Public Works
CAO
County Counsel
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken
and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED August 12 , 1997
Phil Batche( , C erk of the Board
f Supervi o n inistrator
B
Barbara S. Gra t, Deputy Clerk
Barbara S I
RESOLUTION 97/ 416
•i i.vi i i i i i i i'i i i i i iO�i i i i i'i i'i'i'i i i'i'i'i'i'i ii•i iii i4i i i ii i i i i i i i i'i•i♦i i'i'i'i'i'i'i i i ii i l i i ilii i i'i i i'i i i i ii'i i'i i i'i'i'i'i i4i♦i'ii i i i1i i iii'r♦i♦i'if.
�i'i'i'i'i'i+i'i'i'i'i'ii+'i♦i'i+'i 0000+•ii OPPi•�O♦000000•i0•i'iii'i'i'i J1'i'i+'i'i PO♦O�•i♦Oi00i00•♦0000•f0000•i ii'i+'i'i00•f000•i0•♦•00+•i4i�•i0•i0•iiiiii'i�(' 01.
4•P.•.;. ....❖s's0'.•+'s.❖.•1.•.•..•..❖.•.♦.+.•.+.+....•...•.♦.❖.f.•.'.f1.f.♦.f.•.f f1•.Wt...❖.❖.❖.•.D♦.'.'..❖.•.:.•.'.♦.'.'.❖.❖.1.❖.❖.'.'.❖.O'..'.•.+.❖.•.♦..,,,.,
a ♦f.,l♦.♦♦f1.f♦1♦♦f♦♦♦,4l.ff.f♦...,.♦♦fff+♦+++♦♦„1f.fff!♦♦♦♦!♦...♦♦♦♦♦♦f♦♦!..♦!♦♦1.11♦♦l111ff1.,+ff♦♦ffff♦f+!♦1
ii'is4.•ii....•i 1.��•i.•i...i++�•♦•1i 1•.F•.i i i i i i i i i i i i ii+i i i i•+i i i i i i i♦ii'i♦i•i♦i ii'i i i i i ii.i i�♦"♦ii'iiiifi�OOf...'i.•i•Os.'i OP+'ii+'i,'i'
a'i Oi 0.1i i1+'�++fi♦•♦'+f.1W -i-M............
��Oi��1 Oi+..♦..♦♦♦,�♦♦.♦..♦♦.♦♦♦♦1. 'i'i.0i'i'i4�������0i44•i...�♦�,�♦+♦�s
ai 00♦.����.D���Oi'i+.��Oi����♦♦Oi 1.♦♦!♦♦!!!Oi♦4♦♦f.0i..♦......�.....+......•i...•iii.'i'i+�Oii.L.•iii.•i'i,y 4Oi
�•♦.. 4♦'1.'♦'+.♦♦'1'♦.'.♦ ♦.�.1'..•��!.'1...•1..•1.1.'4•♦.•♦•+•f...•.....•f. f.1♦.•1•♦..•+•f•♦.•♦•+•ff•♦•+.•ffrf.'♦+'+'1•+•1.1.1..•1❖♦•♦'!141,1,♦1♦1♦1♦,♦,♦,♦,♦,♦,t.
♦++♦+♦♦♦,♦,,♦,♦,♦1♦f,♦♦•+,♦,1♦,♦1♦+1♦1,+,1.11♦',•♦'1.1•�,•,'♦'♦'�+'+'+'+'+•!'!'�'� + !♦♦','!'�♦. ♦'�!f.f1 .'.•♦''�+'.'+'♦'1'1'!♦+♦,•♦•f••.'�f♦.'♦'1'1•�♦11 +♦+,+.•a.x•41+0
���♦. ♦�♦♦�♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦f♦�+♦�+♦♦,♦+++++,111,++++,♦t♦1+f+„♦,♦♦1++f♦��♦♦. ♦++t1♦+♦,♦11,♦♦♦11♦♦.++♦.♦,♦.f♦..11�
♦w♦1!1♦1.,♦,4,♦1.,♦,♦,♦♦♦♦♦,.,♦,1�,♦,f,,,♦,f,♦,},+,♦•,,1,1,1,1,+11,♦,♦,,,1•♦11,+1+,++!•,♦♦,♦♦11+,+,+,+,+,,,,.1•,,,,,,+,1,+,+,.+♦,+,1•♦♦111,+,+,♦,1,,,+,+,+,♦•1,1,1,♦,♦,♦,♦,,•♦,•,1,1,1,1••,,,1,1,♦+♦,+•♦,♦,
♦•!'+'1'1...'1..•1.•'+•+'+•�+'+•♦•4.•+.1•♦•1•,..•+.•1.1•!•1..+♦....'i•♦!♦1!+♦•+.+♦++.•1•!1♦!♦1♦♦f...'+.'♦'♦♦♦'♦.'♦.'♦.1♦•1•♦•♦•w11'+....'♦•♦•♦•+•1++•+•♦•,•,'1','.•♦•♦•+
'+..•+•♦,41•♦•,•♦•1•+•♦•♦•4'♦♦•♦.'♦'♦!!'♦'♦!!.'♦.'♦...'♦.'..❖f...•♦.'.•.'�.•�f.!♦'.'.'.'�♦'f'f•♦'.•♦•+❖+'.'.'♦'.'ff•♦•♦...'♦.'1.+'+•♦•f•..'.'.'♦'♦'+•+•♦•♦+1'+•f•f•♦❖,'1+1'+•�
a+++.♦4.!♦♦.f.♦!♦♦„♦♦♦♦♦..,f♦♦!lf.ff„♦,♦♦♦1,,,♦♦♦.+ffff„♦♦♦♦!.f♦♦♦♦!!.♦+l,1++♦♦♦.1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦f1♦f♦f1♦♦
+'+'�♦.'!4♦'♦ ♦.'♦'.'�♦❖♦❖+•f f•♦'♦•♦•1'♦'♦•♦•f.•♦•1'1.❖f•+•f•+•♦•f•.'♦❖1•+❖.•♦•♦•♦•+'+•+•+•1•+•+•+•+•f•♦•♦•♦•♦'1•+•+.••++.++++..♦!.'�1'1.4•♦•,•♦x+e ♦..'+++'.'♦'♦'♦..',
+++++/1111!!!f♦f,!♦„!♦f!♦♦,♦♦..,♦♦♦,♦,ff,+111,1+♦1♦fff♦♦♦++♦♦,♦,♦+++♦♦♦+++♦♦♦,++1111♦♦++♦f.♦+.+♦♦1♦♦
♦+♦1++++fff♦♦!ff♦f♦,f♦!f+!♦,♦,fl.♦f♦♦♦♦,,,♦,♦♦11+♦♦!♦!l.+++++..1111+♦♦+„+++..!♦++♦1♦,♦♦♦f♦,f 111,1♦f♦1
f♦111+1++fff♦111l.,l.,♦♦.♦♦♦♦+..♦!+♦♦♦♦++f.+♦♦111+♦.,.♦♦+++++++♦f♦,1++f+♦f1++..1.1.11♦♦.♦1+.,f♦f♦„1.♦
„♦+++++++♦♦♦♦f♦.♦.♦.+f„f+♦,,,.♦.♦+,,,+,+1111♦++++♦,1,1++f+ ♦11,1,..�W�.���+�♦!+.♦1♦,.,.♦.f 11.1..1♦♦1
t1,+f♦/111,♦!.♦.,.,f„♦♦ff♦.♦♦+.,♦♦+1♦♦♦f+♦♦„♦1♦++.,11,11+♦ f.,f. ♦ ♦+++♦,♦♦♦..♦♦♦!.♦♦♦!♦♦
♦4♦!♦+1♦f♦f♦♦f♦♦.♦.♦♦.♦♦.f,♦+...♦♦♦+11•,11♦♦♦11,♦+,.♦♦f♦♦f♦ ♦ ♦ •..♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦
!♦♦f♦4♦f1♦♦♦!♦♦,♦,♦„f♦!♦♦♦++.♦♦„♦♦♦+♦1,+l,♦„11.11♦1♦f+++ ♦ ♦,1♦,,,.!♦♦,♦,4♦♦♦
♦♦♦ff•1♦♦!!♦♦..♦♦♦.♦.♦!f ♦♦♦
!♦♦+fff♦♦♦! ♦1♦
♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ,♦♦♦ f.411♦♦♦.♦11..11♦♦♦,++.f.♦f1.f♦♦1,.♦♦♦.+♦ .!l1ff1♦♦!!l,.f,1+11
♦♦.♦ 11,11♦ ♦ .,1111♦ ♦„♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 111♦♦.♦.♦♦!1l.,f/,fff,♦f 1!♦.f„1.11.111,1 ♦,♦♦..,1♦♦♦,ff♦♦+♦ ♦.
�♦l+♦♦4111♦!.♦.♦f!„!lf.,..,,!♦!.1♦.,,♦,♦♦♦�f.1.1f„♦♦!1,!♦+♦♦,♦♦,♦♦!♦♦♦f,1111111♦11,.♦..♦!lff11l1f,f,♦1.1 N
1•ilii'iiiiiii'i'i'i' ' •+ss s,sl.♦la sssss •f-! ♦lsssssssssss,.,,♦sss.,asa sssal„l,sss+la sss11111.f.
•♦.♦♦111.111.1+1+1•++111♦4++144♦1+1.♦fff♦i :;iji is::,�:111,1V♦♦1♦♦1♦♦f1♦41♦♦111111+♦11♦!1♦♦.11111+1.1111+1111♦4.
+,♦+ff11111f+1++♦ ♦♦♦1,♦♦,♦♦♦f11111♦♦11111!♦,+1l11f♦,111♦♦,1++1.♦♦♦,♦1111♦
1.+.♦♦41♦♦111,♦♦♦1!♦1,♦♦♦♦1♦++111♦1♦♦♦♦♦,ai:v:�:••»i\: 1111♦♦♦♦,♦f11f♦♦11♦♦11♦+♦♦♦+♦f..,f+.♦+♦♦♦♦1++.+f,w1♦♦♦♦♦
f,+....♦+++♦♦♦♦1+1,♦♦♦+,.♦♦♦++♦,♦♦♦♦♦111:::;::: :.♦1++,.♦♦♦♦♦,♦♦1+♦1♦♦♦♦++1♦♦♦+..f if♦♦1+♦,♦.11+++.♦♦f+++++♦
+♦+1♦♦♦1111♦♦,!♦+♦1+,+1,♦♦♦++1f♦♦♦,♦�f.;y,.. •1'1:::::,. ♦111♦♦11♦1♦,111f111111+♦1♦♦+♦..l lfflf♦++♦♦,+♦f+♦,f♦♦♦f++♦
/++.,♦.♦1♦++♦,,,++111,1+♦+„1111♦„♦, .+.+♦'•;•:.�,♦+++.+.l,,,,,♦+fff 11,1+♦.♦.1♦1}♦♦♦1111+♦f„♦+♦f♦♦♦1♦+++.•
♦♦+++♦♦♦,♦♦+,+♦1+!♦+f♦1+1♦1♦♦rl::if:i♦1111::•. 11+++++11♦1♦1f 1♦♦1♦11♦♦+11♦♦♦+..f!!l/+f1+♦1111+11111,+++1
1.+1+....1++♦1♦♦++♦♦+11♦r♦+,1++f1+1f .1111♦1 .,♦♦1+1111111♦lfffflll,f111111+!♦♦♦111++1+111,1+11.11111♦
�.+++♦4..1++♦♦.,,11,♦♦♦111+1♦11++111.:X:: „+1fff.:..•l♦++++♦+1♦11♦,+♦++111.1111111++..!♦♦f 1♦♦♦+♦W!N. 1♦1♦,111+
♦,1++..l1++1+1♦f 1f 111.11,1♦41♦♦f♦+♦4i .♦♦♦ffff l::.. 1♦♦1♦ffff♦♦1♦♦!lf1111!+f1+♦,+11...♦1♦fff1111♦fff+.141+f 1•
�!lf 1f 41!♦fff♦!♦fff♦.f♦f♦fffllffffl'i:f�fffllff,l::•:'jf♦♦fff11f 1+♦!11♦ffff♦.♦fff♦111+♦♦♦♦!♦lff1111f fff1l♦♦!!ff♦
f!l1111♦!!f♦♦f.l.,!♦,♦!♦1♦♦♦1...,. •:f♦♦!♦.♦.,�♦..::.1111♦,ffff♦♦.!!♦♦f„♦.f 1ff1♦+♦+♦..♦♦♦fff♦♦♦!lff.f♦♦!!f♦♦
�.f♦.'f'f.4f'!'.'f....•�f..'.•♦..'1'♦'f....f1..'.'.yj•�.......'♦..+.:)::p.'f......'�,'.f.♦♦..'.......'♦...♦♦•!.•1•f•♦.•♦'..............'1.•f•!+♦.' �r••.
.♦i♦i'i'i'i40iii'i'i'ilii'i.0'i'Oii'i'i'i'i'i'i!i'i.;:;�:Oi'i'Oi'ii'i'i'i'i'i'i':::,�i'i'i'i0'i'i'i'i'i'ii!ii.•i'i'i'Oii'iif1'i0'i'i+i'i'4iiii'i1ii'i'i'♦'i'i'i♦iii'i'i'i'i'i'ii+
�,•,!,•!•♦'141'1'♦•♦•!',','.',•1'+•+❖,•+❖♦',•1.1'+'+❖♦•,•+_•'.f•+••••••••.•,'14+','+'+•+4.::..+.+++1+♦,1+++++++++++++++.+1+,+1+f,1+f+++1,1+1+++++++.+.+++♦+.+f,♦+f+f+♦♦.1.1.1+1+++++++,+,++.++++++•,f
1♦♦..14,....+++♦1++♦+♦1♦++,++♦+♦::,x fff+♦+♦♦♦♦♦1t'ii:�,,,f1++++++111,♦♦♦+♦♦1,♦+++.lf.ff♦++♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦f..♦+++.
,+,+j+,•,+,+4++++++.♦.,++++f+♦,l+ffl+l,f+f,♦•♦+++♦!♦,+,fff ;.Aftff•1•,'f•f•!.•!•!+!•f+�::j:}:••+•,•,•♦•1+1+♦+1•f'1•f.'f'f•♦•♦.•!'1.•f.•♦1♦+ff'+...•+'♦.'!.•1.•1•,.•,1,•,•1.1•+•1•,+,'1'1
♦+♦1♦1111♦♦♦♦1♦♦f♦if♦♦♦f+,!♦1f,i.;.;Vii:. ♦♦fffff!♦♦♦lf.: i�f1f♦♦♦♦l,fff.,♦.♦♦!ff♦1♦,1++4♦!!!1+♦+f+♦„+1+,♦f♦♦
�1.•ff.1+4f'ff.•f•♦fff..1111'.•....♦f'♦',.♦♦1f.'I�ii:i
f1♦!f!♦♦11ll,l41111?,+1f♦♦f11lf♦lf . ; :::♦'♦.♦7
+1�V�A1,'♦1•/♦♦.'f!♦i♦♦'♦!�'l,.�.;;.”;.;:<}:j:{;.Of•'♦,f'.♦f,'♦1•♦♦'♦♦♦.!'.'!f.+♦',♦.,1'♦,,',♦..♦.1♦!.'1ff'•ff.•.•1f,'1f♦!1♦l+♦!1.!1♦•f+♦'♦�♦+4♦.++♦..f,.1f11♦1♦♦1,♦.1,♦1l,1+f,.+,+f♦f+♦}f•♦♦l,♦♦l,♦,l,,1f,♦♦f♦,f1+f+.,1+1,♦♦1
,
!.
1.;11♦:i^i':
��+'•.•♦iiii•'♦llii1'.fiii'.♦iiii•.'.♦iii•.♦iiii+'+.ii'.�ii'�iii'�ii•�ii1'�ii''•�ii'��i♦•�i'�♦,'�!♦'•�i+O','+ii♦�iil•'1fiO.fiii.''aif'.<ii0..•�%;'�;i:i;;':�:f�OO♦,iiif•fiiP♦i1:♦i.:♦::J.%�.O••1i�i♦si�'�•1fii♦s•i1i•.•�♦i•'�•11ii•�',i1i•�1♦,i'��•1ii1::%�:;.:<(:♦:;:;t;:::::%.:::;.;:;::(::;:'r+,::;;:�i�'�•i♦i+.�+♦,i'„iii'�ii,i'•♦i♦i'�+♦i♦i'�'♦iii'�'fiii'�1iii'�•♦i+f�•♦fif•♦+i•.1+•'�•+♦i•'�♦,i,•'•♦,i,i'1••,i,i♦'''•,,i,i'••11i,i'•..i,i•'1ifi+1,.'ii1i,❖'i1i,i',i+ii1•'.♦i,ii..♦i+i•.i♦iil..i+i,.''++i+♦.+++i,i+i'�''•♦,iii.iii . +♦♦!♦
. . l, l,'• +f.T+1'.f4
... ❖ ++++•♦•+ ...... ♦iii'�'•.i,fi1'.�,,iif''�11i,ii�'.!i,ii�..li+i�..•i1i1•.�i+ii1+.��+i1i'•'�iifi+'!�i.+i+•�'•♦i+`�'i+i+.�ce i+♦•��,,i.�+i�+i
+/
'•!•
r�
f
♦..1.1.:'.:1,111 111.-4G-.'---' 11,111111„111111111.111111.,11111,.
��♦���f•�,!!f f,♦♦!f,!,f'�:��'�x•,11'+'f'���:Ji�.'�.'...�r�'i:;i:;::;:?i:;i a,.•���♦....•�f•..',•�,•f�♦'♦','�1.11'1'♦•+.•+.•f•♦!'a � .
111 11+4'♦♦♦fff♦ll,lf l,f::♦+„11,1,:::::::♦!!♦..,,1:{.jf::i'%fff♦f„f„♦..♦♦,f,,,♦l,f,f♦♦11++.♦.•aa .�..
♦+♦1♦++♦♦,++1,1♦++♦1+ .;:.1111♦111♦ .. ♦♦!!f.♦♦+ % "�.fff.♦♦♦♦♦♦.l.,f,f♦11ff11,,,1f+.♦ :• �.
♦♦+,114+♦♦♦+1f♦♦.1+,1.•},1,11♦1♦♦+♦..:::•♦,♦,11,1,::vi%i':i::♦+♦+ffff♦♦♦♦♦111.++♦,♦♦♦++♦,11.1
+.♦+•,....♦.♦1..1,.11..,.f♦.f+.♦1.+11.,11•,1f1.•,♦
.♦ , '1♦,.+1•..♦v�..iii:p;�}:♦♦.,..'..1..♦♦......,...'�... :;::...++•.♦•,.•♦..•.1'1..1.'::�.v:::: ++1♦.♦++,,+♦1++♦++1j+•+++++♦+•f+♦•+,♦•1,+•♦,♦•♦,♦♦•♦♦•11„„•j•♦1++j1++j1.+1•+,+.♦♦..1•++,.+♦'l
r.f.'.�,,!�.%F•ley:i
-. .
�,11f.♦♦1f :-. 1111 •,111+++++♦♦,♦,♦,++++.♦.. ...�4
+++•1.1+1•+4..•♦.','+..•♦..'f�ii>:'t:jyS:::::ii.:.�+�wi•1+1+'++1<ii:?:+i+�..i'r':;i::ii::%'r,:i:`vii,•♦•♦•,•,•,'1'+'+•+•+•+•♦•♦•♦•,•,•♦'+'+�•+:�' .-
1♦.11.1+1.,1.++♦♦+.:.........:...... 11♦+,. 1111♦.♦♦♦1++++♦,♦♦11•. ,
�+•1.1.1.1++4'f•+•f•+•,•+•+•+•+.•��:vi:Li:i}:':'i:��:?::iJ}:`?:;:j`�f�+..iii�:�Y:i:<?itti:i:i:::iii::::i+++♦+♦,,,,+++++4�.
ff1111♦+♦♦♦!1111♦.::•:.: :.111.1♦♦1♦1♦♦,4�-.•
�f..•1♦!•f4ff❖f•♦+ff.❖,•♦�`:J:Siiii;::yyii::iiii$:�<is4'>:ii:i::::i�•v:::ii1i'::::i:YviiJjji:i�ij:%:i?: ••1.1.1.1•♦•!•++!•f�'..,• ��.
++'+'+'1'1.++++'+'+'1+1'1'+'♦'+'1�a't:j::iiii}J:::JY:ii::}::;:';:}:::i::};:;:}2;v::::i::iiiii::i:r::ii:t:::ii:ii:+�f,.,A.♦!♦+♦,+f. �a.r
a•+•f..•,.+1..'1..•1.'1..•1.'♦�''<::is�::i:::�i::ii:�i::;ii::i::i:�i::iiii:?:::iii�:�:i:::ii:::�i::i::::y�'.v;:{:-:�i::>:::�'.�+tea•. .�.1I�
+•+•f f!♦1♦6++++++.---♦•1++•+++•1.1•+++I:::':;v:;::ii:{viii ii'i::}i;:y;:;:;:;:;::iiiiiiii ij::jii;i:'i: i:iiii:i:;i::. NEI
C+.*
♦4+1+,.'1.1.1.•,'1•,•,•♦•1•f.J..J?::::i:i-:�•:ii ii::iiii::iii ii:-':i:i!:i is'%:jj iii:::;:i:?:"" ��111
�+•'♦.•'!44!M"..•'!•'♦',•!1'..':.iii:i.:;i
1.'..+1......++...'1.1•+•f.'�♦'�
a1+,++++♦+♦♦w,,,+++1+++f+♦1,+1+1+♦+♦+,+♦+,++�
♦11111V111111111111111•.iC�:::::%'�'•:��:^�::::'.-�'
♦1111♦f,1,,,♦.♦♦+♦„+♦..;:;y':i:;:i'ii::iii::i:��” �I
♦♦,++♦,.♦111♦♦♦,♦♦.11, .,
�!♦♦♦♦41„1♦++1111♦♦11�'>i:;:j?i:4iiii'+�
♦♦111,1♦„fff♦♦,1f,1f•
♦♦1111. .1, � �
f!+•+f+fff♦!wr111 '
11ffil♦w1♦1+1w.*
a1
♦fffflrl!-
i♦flflwsl
i%%i%%%%i♦iS
IN* .11
f+wr+f+f4
MMM +w• !♦1++fwrfffi
+i'ii•.
1+i'ii'i'i'i'iQ•
1,1,1,1♦,+.
�.0�.•i��1ir�1i
a*i'i'i'ifwr�li
•Op,+04,y
1111++1♦+. `
ii+i+i++4 E•. 5
on��`��
• • • •
1 hereby certify that this amendment to the IN
I hereby certify that this amendment to the
•
Contra CostaCounty • Plan wasContraCostaCounty GeneralPlanI I • • I - •
app-rovedbythei • • • ofSupervisorson / thei •. • of /' • on •
August • • : 1997.
Phil Batchelor, of i •. • of I'
' , • andCounty • • + imistrI •
i
RODEO DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT GPA TEXT
County File #GP 95-0006
Modify the General Plan text relating to Old Rodeo as currently shown on page 3-71 on the adopted
Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010. The adopted text is as follows:
3-182. The policies set forth below are intended to guide the revitalization of Old Rodeo.
(a) A mixture of land uses, residential (particularly townhouse) and commercial, must be
established.
(b) A community parking plan must be devised and implemented to provide a sensible framework
for development in Old Rodeo, including a parking plan for Lone Tree Point Park;
(c) When on-site parking is provided, it should be established at the rear of commercial properties
so that a unified commercial frontage is presented to the sidewalk;
(d) Rezone the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan area to P-1 in order to efficiently
provide for necessary flexibility in development standards.
(e) Landscaped courtyards, atriums and streetside plantings should be included in development
plans to provide visual and physical relief from the hard surfaces of the urban landscape;
(f) Sitting places for resting, socializing or people watching should be incorporated into project
designs;
(g) Developers are encouraged to preserve and reuse Rodeo's architectural specimens (unless
financially infeasible due to seismic retrofit requirements, inadequate original construction,
etc.);
(h) Provide for integration of development in Old Rodeo with the waterfront area;
(i) Develop public facilities in Old Rodeo to serve as a community focal point;
0) Retain and increase opportunities for live/work space;
(k) Eliminate excessive roadway areas throughout Old Rodeo, and introduce landscaping and
safety features to remaining road system;
(1) Mixed Use - Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo. This mixed use area encourages the
revitalization of downtown Rodeo through efforts to concentrate commercial/office uses into
logical groupings and to provide for economic reuse of the area through the provision of
multiple family residential housing (primarily townhouses) structures.
The Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan will provide added detail to the
implementation of this mixed use area and provide for Design Guidelines for downtown
Rodeo.
Y' ,f' , ~ (c)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 12, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber and Canciamilla
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 97/417
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Rodeo )
Specific Plan )
County File #SP95-0002 )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with the Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 18-1997 adopted by
the Contra Costa Planning Commission which discusses a Specific Plan in the Rodeo
Area.
On July 22, 1997, the Board held a public hearing on said Specific Plan discussed by the
County Planning Commission (Resolution No. 18-1997). Notice of said hearing was duly
given in the matter as required by law. The Board called for testimony of all persons
interested in this matter. The Board, by its order, closed the public hearing, declared their
intent to adopt the Specific Plan and directed staff to return with Findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program. A Board Order dated July 22, 1997 summarized the testimony and
specified the Board's direction.
On August 12, 1997, the Board decided to exclude residential uses in the Mixed Use area
north of San Pablo Avenue and to add policy language related to flood protection. The
Board APPROVED the Specific Plan subject to the adoption of the Second Consolidated
General Plan Amendment for 1997.
JK:CK:aw
j:\aw\rodeosp.res
I hereby certify that this is a true
Contact: Jim Kennedy (335-1255) and correct copy of an action taken
Orig: Redevelopment Agency and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
cc: Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development ATTESTED August 12 , 1997
Director of Community Development Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
Director of Public Works of Supervis aybd County Administrator
CAO
County Counsel BY
Barbara &nt, Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION 97/ 413
r!
D.3 (c)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 12, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and Rogers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier
ABSTAIN: None
On July 22, 1997, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date consideration of the
adoption of the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment and the Rodeo
Specific Plan Amendment.
Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director, presented the staff report. Mr.
Kennedy advised that the following language should be included in No.1.5 of the Specific
Plan Land Use Policy:
"Protect property and ensure public safety by (a) establishing a local storm drain
system; and (b) providing design criteria for flood proofing structures."
Mr. Kennedy noted that the addition of this language conforms the Specific Plan to the
environmental documentation.
The Board discussed the issues, and Supervisors Uilkema moved to adopt the
Statement of Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; the Rodeo Waterfront General
Plan Amendment; the Rodeo Specific Plan, excluding residential uses in the mixed use area
north of San Pablo Avenue and including the Redevelopment Agency recommended language
contained in the August 6, 1997, Memorandum from Jim Kennedy, subject to the adoption of
the second Consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997; and to include the Rodeo
Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment as part of the second consolidated General
Plan Amendment for 1997 as recommended by the County Planning Commission.
Supervisor Gerber second the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Statement of Findings and the Mitigation
Program are ADOPTED; Resolution No. 97/416 approving the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront
General Plan Amendment is ADOPTED; and Resolution No. 97/417 approving the Rodeo
Specific Plan, as recommended by the County Planning Commission, and excluding
residential uses in the mixed use area north of San Pablo Avenue, and including staffs
recommended language contained in the August 6, 1997, memorandum from Jim Kennedy,
Redevelopment Department, (and attached as Exhibit A) is ADOPTED; and the Rodeo
Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Amendment, included as part of the second consolidated
General Plan Amendment for 1997 is APPROVED.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED A1ggst 12, 1997
Phil Batchelor, lerk of the Board
of Supervisors d unty Administrator
BY
` Barbara S.Gr nt, uty Clerk
c.c.County Administrator
Supervisor District II
Community Development Dept.
Redevelopment Dept.
to Board Order of August 12, 1997
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 6, 1997
TO: Board of Suiso
z1-
FROM: Jim Kenn De ty Director - Redevelopment
SUBJECT: 'Supplement Recommendation-Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan
(Count ile #SP 95-0002) Agenda Item D.3 8/12/97
A minor oversight was identified in the preparation of the CEQA findings that can be corrected by
the Board including in its adoption action the following:
• Add to the Specific Plan Land Use Policy 1.5 as follows:
"Protect property and ensure public safety by (a) establishing a local storm drain
system; and (b) providing design criteria for flood proofing structures."
The adoption of this additional recommendation conforms the Specific Plan to the environmental
documentation.
l�
JKAh
sraMfrodeo.mcni