Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07222003 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Co6flra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AI+CP +~r l i Gusto COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: July 22, 2003sA County SUBJECT: RZ023119 and DP023066 — P-1 Rezoning and Development Plan for APN 357-091-008/009 in the Rodeo Area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the rezoning for APN 357-091- 008/009 from Retail Business (R-B) & Single-Family Residential (R-6) to Planned Unit Development (P-1); 2. CLOSE the public hearing; 3. FIND the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate and in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 4. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 5. CONSIDER the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed P-1 Rezoning and Final Development Plan application and APPROVE the P-1 Rezoning and Final Development Plan application subject to the proposed modified Condition of Approvals; 6. INTRODUCE Ordinance, giving effect of rezoning, WAIVE reading, and SET date for adoption of same; and 7. DIRECT the Community Development Department to file the Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES SIGNATURE: � F� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR El RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CMMITTEE ❑APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 22, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER [ SEE ATLAMED ADDEM i FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT IV ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED July 22, 2003 Contact: JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF VISOftS AND COUNTtI A��NISTRAI"OR cc: CAO ' � f y� County Counsel BYE t = -�� puty Community Development RZ023119 and DP023066 July 22, 2003 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: No impact on the General Fund. Staff time and materials spent on the application are paid for through the application deposit and fees. BACKGROUND: The applicant requests approval to rezone three lots from the current dual zoning of Retail Business (R-B) and Single-Family Residential (R-6) to Planned-Unit Development (P-1), with a variance to the five acre minimum area required for a residential P-1 Zoning District (0.22 acres provided). The project also includes a request for approval of a final development plan to construct two single-family units. The proposed project site is located on Fourth Street, between Rodeo and Lake Avenues in the unincorporated community of Rodeo. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Designation for the site (Single-Family High Density). The P-1 rezoning process and approval of a final development plan provides a mechanism to ensure the proposed development is consistent with General Plan policies and ensures the project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The attached staff report provides additional information regarding the project and includes staff analysis, proposed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, and unit floor plans. The Community Development Department received a letter from the applicant on June 24, 2003 requesting a minor site plan change and two changes to the Conditions of Approval including: u Amend Condition of Approval # 25 requiring an off site drainage system. u Remove Condition of Approval # 9 requiring a grading plan with a balance cut and fill. The County Public Works Department reviewed the requirement for an off-site drainage system with the applicant's civil engineer and it was determined the requirement was not needed for this project. Staff recommends Condition of Approval #25 be amended by adding the following to the Condition of Approval: Discharging of storm waters from the site through the existing curbs will satisfy this requirement. The second request includes modifying Condition of Approval # 9, which requires a grading pian to balance cut and fill. The applicant's engineer provided a soil quantity analysis of estimated off-haul, based on the submitted grading plans. The project will require an estimated 360 cubic yards of off-haul and approximately 36 trucks to complete the job. Given this new information, staff reviewed the potential impacts on air quality, noise, soils, and traffic and determined no added impacts to the previous analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will occur. staff recommends the condition be removed based on the civil engineer's soil quantity analysis and staff's environmental analysis. RZ02311'9 and July 22, 2003 Page 3 CONCLUSION The proposed development plan and rezoning to Pv1 will facilitate infill housing and appropriate residential development in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the General Plan, the Rodeo community, and Redevelopment Plan. Staff recommends approval of the development plan and rezoning to P-1 for the project subject to the attached Conditions of Approval with the modification requested by the applicant in the letter dated June 20, 2003. DUM TO ITEM D. July 22, 2003 The Beard of Supervisors considered the request by Paul Hafen(Applicant)and Jamie Chavez (Owner)to rezone three lots from Retail Business (R-B) and Single-Family Residential(R-6)to Planned-Unit Development(P-1),with a variance to the five acre minimum area required(0.22 acres provided), Fourth Street between Rodeo and Lake Avenues,in the Rodeo area. Pat Roche,Community Development Department,presented the staff report and recommendations. Kristine Solseng,Community Development Department was also present. As stated in the staff report,Mr. Roche advised of an amendment to the Conditions of Approval #25, adding the following: "Discharging of storm waters from the site through the existing curbs will satisfy this requirement"and to remove Condition of Approval#9"requiring a grading plan with a balance cut and fill." The Chair then opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. The Chair then closed the public hearing. Supervisor Uilkema then moved to approve the staff s recommendations with the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as presented today. Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board took the following action: • CLOSED the public hearing, ■ APPROVED the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); ■ ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; • APPROVED the recommendation by the County Planning Commission regarding the proposed P-1. Rezoning and Final Development Plan application by Paul Hafen(Applicant) and Jamie Chavez(Owner)on the property located on Fourth Street,between Rodeo and Lake Avenue in the Rodeo area, subject to the proposed modified Condition of Approvals; ■ INTRODUCED Ordinance No. 2003-26 giving effect of rezoning; • WAIVED reading; ■ SET August 5,2003 for adoption of Ordinance No. 2003-26; E DIRECTED the Community Development Department to file the Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk. RESOLUTION NO. 21-2003 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY PAUL HAFEN (Applicant) & JAIME CHAVEZ (Owner) (RZ0 3116 AND DP023066) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE RODEO AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Paul Hafen (Applicant) and Jaime Chavez (Owner) (RZ023119), to rezone an approximately 9,623 sq. ft. property from Single-Family Residential (R-6) and Retail Business (R-B), to Planned Unit Development District (P-1) with a Final Development Plan (DP023066), for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on November 4, 2002; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on March 6, 2003 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday May 6, 2403, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: 1. Has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act prior to forwarding a recommendation; 2. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning request of Paul Hafen (Applicant) & Jaime Chavez (Owner), to change the zoning district from Single-Family Residential (R-6) and Retail Business (R-B) to Planned-Unit District(P-1); 3. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the Final Development Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. Findings for Growth Management.Element Performance Standards: A. Traffic- As proposed, the project is expected to generate less than a 100 peals hour traps; thus, a traffic study will not be required per Measure C-1998. 2 B. Water- The site lies within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) service area and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. C. SanftarlSewer- The site lies within the Rodeo Sanitary District service area. D. Fire Protection- The site is serviced by the Rodeo — Hercules Fire Protection District and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. E. Public Protection- .The site is serviced by Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. F. Parks and Recreation- Due to the nature and location of the project, the land use will not have an impact on park and recreation facilities. As part of the building permit requirements the applicant will be required to pay a $ 2,000 park dedication fee for each new structure. G. Flood Control &Drainage. While there is the potential for increased run-off of water into the existing drainage facilities, specific conditions of approval and design guidelines such as the use of retaining walls and drainage systems to lessen this impact. The site is not located within a FEMA designated special ,flood hazard zone and will not create a hazard associated with any existing flood hazard condition. (Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan, Evidence Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) 2. Findings For Approval Of P-1 RezoningfSection 84-66.1406) A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years from effective date of zoning chgp a and plan approval The applicant intends to begin construction within two and one half years from the effective date for zoning change and plan approval. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) B. Consistency with the General Plan: The project is consistent with the Single-Family High Density general Plan policies and policies for the Rodeo area. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) C. Sustained desirability, stability, and harmony with surroundinL neighborhood: The proposed development enhances the existing community. The development plan implements the Design Guidelines for residential development in downtown Rodeo. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) 3 D. The Development of a harmonious integrated lan 'ustifles exce tions form the normal application of this code: The development plan proposed an integrated plan for two new units on an irregular shaped site with steep slopes and two zoning designations. The P-1 zoning provides a mechanism to implement the general Plan and enhances the neighborhood character, (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) 3. Findings,For A,ppKgyg of the Develaprnent flan: A. The Proposed development is consistent with the purpose of this district. The project includes rezoning the site to P-1, which requires approval of a development plan to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The proposed development furthers the intent of the General Plan and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) B. The proposed development is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district: The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The primary land use of the surrounding area is residential and includes single- family residences located on small lot. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). 4. Findings For a Variance to the 5- acre Minimum Lot Size in P-1 Planned-Unit Zoning District A. This request does not constitute a Grant of Special Privilege. (Reference Count Code Section 26-2.2006'Variance Permit standards) The variance to grant a P-1 rezoning is not a grant of special privilege. The property currently has dual zoning designation and requires a rezoning to implement a single zoning code. The P-1 zoning designation provides a means to ensure development is consistent with the existing general Plan designation and land uses in the area. The Redevelopment Agency is in the process of rezoning the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-1 and the project is consistent with anticipated development standards. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). B. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The proposed variance substantially meets the intent of the P-1 Zoning district by providing a development standard that is consistent with the downtown Rodeo neighborhood and furthers the General.Flan policies. The P-1 Zoning district is allowed in special planning area such as Redevelopment Project Areas. The Redevelopment Agency is in the process of rezoning the entire Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-1. The proposed project is consistent with 4 anticipated development standards for the Rodeo P-1 Rezoning. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size,shape, topography,location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The variance to the minimum lot size was necessary because the subject site has two zoning designations and requires rezoning. Through the P-1 rezoning process, staff was able to determine the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding community and furthers the intent of the General .Flan policies. Given the lot size, shape, topography, underlying lot configuration, and surrounding neighborhood, the project would require a number of variances if the R-6 zoning code were strictly applied The P-1 rezoning process provided flexibility to address site constraints while ensuring the development will be an asset to the community. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the :Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Battaglia, Wong, Mehlman, Hanecak, Gaddis, Terrell, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Done ABSTAIN: None Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary County of Contra Costa State of California FiningsMap 1 4Tt1 Sof •u GARRETSON SCHOOL&FIELD R-6 Rezone From R-B To P-1 Rodeo Area 1, Hy cin Wong _Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correctcopyof pooz E-•7 of the Co untv`5 1978 -a M612 indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matterofuC dfen - P,7Q 19 Sea yofthecortacosta Parr C n*sw,Stat-dCah. FINDINGS & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN#DP023066 and REZONING APPLICATION#RZ023119 FINDINGS I. Findings for Growth Management Element Performance Standards: A. Traffic- As proposed, the project is expected to generate less than a 100 peak hour trips; thus, a traffic study will not be required per Measure C-1998. B. Water- The site lies within the East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD)service area and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. C. Sanitary Sewer- The site lies within the Rodeo Sanitary District service area. D. Fire Protection- The site is serviced by the Rodeo—Hercules Fire Protection District and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. E. Public Protection- The site is serviced by Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. F. Parks and Recreation-Due to the nature and location of the project, the land use will not have an impact on park and recreation facilities. As part of the building permit requirements the applicant will be required to pay a $2,000 park dedication fee for each new structure. G. Flood Control & Drainage: While there is the potential for increased run-off of water into the existing drainage facilities, specific conditions of approval and design guidelines such as the use of retaining walls and drainage systems to lessen this impact. The site is not located within a FEMA designated special flood hazard zone and will not create a hazard associated with any existing flood hazard condition. (Ref.The Growth Management Element,Chapter 4,of the General Plan;Evidence Pages 1- 8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval)) II. Findinms For Approval Of P-1 Rezoning(Section 84-66.1406) A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years from effective date of zonine change and pian approval. The applicant intends to begin construction within two and one halfyears from the effective date for zoning change and plan approval. (Evidence: Wages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) B. Consistency with the General plan: The project is consistent with the Single-Family High Density General Plan policies and policies for the Rodeo area. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) C. Sustained desirability, stability. and harmony,with surrounding neighborhood: The proposed development enhances the existing community. The development plan implements the Design Guidelines for residential development in downtown Rodeo. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) D. The Development of a harmonious, integrated plan iustifies exceptions form the normal application of this code: The development plan proposed an integrated plan for two new units on an irregular shaped site with steep slopes and two zoning designations. The P-1 zoning provides a mechanism to implement the General Plan and enhances the neighborhood character. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) III. Findings For Aroval of the Development Plan: A. The Proposed development is consistent with the purpose of this district. The project includes rezoning the site to P-1, which requires approval of a development plan to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The proposed developmentfurthers the intent of the General Plan and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) B. The proposed development is compatible with other uses in the vicinity; both inside and outside the district: The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Theprimary land use of the surrounding area is residential and includes single-family residences located on small lot. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). IV. Findings For a Variance to the 5-acre Minimum Lot Size in P-1 Planned-Unit ZoningDistrict A. This request does not constitute a Grant of Special Privilege. (Reference Count Code Section 26-2.2006 Variance Permit standards) The variance to grant a P-1 rezoning is not a grant of special privilege. The property currently has dual zoning designation and requires a rezoning to implement a single zoning 2 code. The P-1 zoning designation provides a means to ensure development is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and land uses in the area. The Redevelopment Agency is in the process of rezoning the Rodeo Redevelopment Pro ject Area to P-1 and the project is consistent with anticipated development standards. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). B. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The proposed variance substantially meets the intent of the P-1 Zoning district,byproviding a development standard that is consistent with the downtown Rodeo neighborhood and furthers the General Plan policies. The P-1 Zoning district is allowed in special planning area such as Redevelopment Project Areas. The Redevelopment Agency is in the process of rezoning the entire Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-1. The proposed project is consistent with anticipated development standards for the Rodeo P-1 Rezoning. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size,shape,topography,location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The variance to the minimum lot size was necessary because the subject site has two zoning designations and requires rezoning. Through the P-1 rezoning process, staff was able to determine the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding community and furthers the intent of the General Plan policies. Given the lot size, shape, topography, underlying lot configuration, and surrounding neighborhood, the project would require a number of variances if the R-6 zoning code were strictly applied The P-1 rezoning process provided flexibility to address site constraints while ensuring the development will be an asset to the community. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff` report and the conditions of approval.) 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #DP023066 and#RZ 023119 Administrative 1. This Development Plan is approved, general as shown on the submitted plan and elevation received by the Community Development Department on November 12, 2002 and revised plans received by the Community Development Department on March 18, 2003. The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit unless otherwise specified. 2. Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits described in Condition#1 above, the guide for development shall be the Single-Family Residential (R-6) District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building permits. 3. A variance is approved to allow a P-1 zoning on a parcel: A. 5 acres for residential use required, 0.22 acres approved Zoning Administrator Review 4. The proposed building shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screen from view. The building shall be finished in wood and stucco or other materials acceptable to the Zoning Administrator 5. The applicant shall make best efforts to incorporate Green Building materials into the building plans prior to submittal of a building permit. Permit Compliance Report and Processing Fees 6. At least 15 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administered by the Community Development Department. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions. Copies 4 of the permit conditions may be obtainable on a computer file from the Community Development Department by contacting the project planner. The permit compliance is subject to staff time and materials charges,with an initial deposit of$500 that shall be paid at the time of submittal of the compliance report. Checks may be made payable to the County of Contra Costa County. Archaeology 7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology(SOPA)has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. Grading 8. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Grading Section of the Contra Costa county Building Inspection Department. This plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15) only, and all the areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification of the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. q. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site(i.e.,no import or export of fill material). 10. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated as soon as possible after grading when seasonal conditions are favorable to seed germination and plant growth. Landscaping and Lighting 11. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the project site. California native and/or drought tolerant plants or trees shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size, all shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallon size, except as otherwise noted. 5 12. A sample section and color of the proposed retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval for the Zoning Administrator. Retaining walls colors shall be a muted earth-tone color. 13. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. Construction Conditions 14. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of A.M. to P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number,shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. A dust and litter control program, including provisions pertaining to water conservation, shall be submitted for the review and approval of 6 the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each[lot] [portion of the development situ. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. Water 15. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques Addresses 16. The applicant shall submit a request to the Community Development Department Graphics Division to change the site addresses to a Fourth Street address prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT DP 02-3066 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Tale S, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan dated March 18, 2003. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FO APOPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS UNDER THIS PERMIT. General Requirements 17. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Pubic Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along;with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Roadway Improvements (Frontage) 18. Construct a 4.5 —foot sidewalk(measured from curb face) along the frontage of Rodeo Avenue and 4`h Street. 19. All cracked and displaced curb and gutter shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Rodeo Avenue and 4h Street. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. Specific On-Site Driveway Improvements 20. Driveway improvements to serve both residences shall comply with County Standard flan CA 201, "Driveway Design Standards." Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 21. Applicant shall furnish proof to.Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way,rights of entry,permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 22. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for installation of improvements within the right of way of Rodeo Avenue of 4th Street. Pedestrian Facilities 23. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24(Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Utilities/Undergrounding 24. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements Collect and Canvey 25. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. The nearest drainage facilities are located off-site. The applicant shall show that the downstream drainage system is adequate for the existing development plus this project, or upgrade it to accommodate ultimate development of the watershed. 26. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 27. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). 28. A 10-foot wide private drainage easement in favor of the upstream property owner(s) shall be created over any lot conveying private storm water runoff from another parcel. 9 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(IVPDES): q. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water{duality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay— Region 11). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: ♦ Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area; Stenciling advisory warnings on all catch basins; ♦ Provide educational materials to new tenants/homebuyers; a Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios; ♦ Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces; Prohibit or discourage direction connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains; ♦ Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities; ♦ Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. 10 ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant/owner should be aware of the permit expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits. C. Comply with the requirements of the Rodeo Sanitary District. D. Comply with the requirements of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. F. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. G. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit and the Western Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. II. Applicant/owner should be aware of a fee of $400/unit will be charged for Child Care Facility needs and $2,000/unit for Park Dedication Funds. 11 I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department offish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. IT is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K. Prior to the issuance of Building Permit(s), the developer shall submit a"Debris Recovery Plan"demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating from the demolition of existing buildings/structures and/or the construction of new buildings.Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit,the developer shall submit a competed "Debris Recovery Report"documenting actual debris recovery efforts(including quantities of recovered and landfill materials)that occurred throughout the projects duration. 12 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY MAY 6 2003 7:00 P.M. 1. IIS;TRODUCTION PAUL HAFEN {Ap 1p 'cant), JAMIE CHAVEZ (Owners County File #RZ023119 AND DP023066:The applicant requests approval to rezone three lots from the current dual zoning of Retail Business(R-B)and Single-Family Residential(R-6)to Planned-Unit Development (P-1), with a variance to the five acre minimum area required for a residential P-1 Zoning District (0.22 acres provided). The project also includes a request for approval of a final development plan to construct two single-family units and retaining walls for slope stabilization. The proposed project site is addressed as 404 and 406 Rodeo Avenue and is located on Fourth Street,between Rodeo and Lake Avenues in the unincorporated community of Rodeo in west Contra Costa County. (APN 357-091-008 and 009) (R-B and R-6) (ZA: E-7) (CT: 3580.00) (WLR and KS) II. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the County Planning Commission; having considered the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows: A. Accept the environmental documentation for the project as adequate and adopt same; B. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program; C. Rezone the subject property to Planned-Unit District; and D. Approve the Final Development Plan for two new Single-Family residential units, subject to the attached conditions of approval. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. General Plan: The subject property is Single-Family High Density(SH) in the Contra Costa County General Plan. This designation allows single-family residences at a density of 5.0 to 7.2 units per acre. B. Zoning:The subject property is currently zoned Retail Business(R-B)and Single Family Residential (R-6). The project includes a rezoning of the site to Planned Unit Development(P-1). 1 C. CEOA Status: A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on March 5, 2003. The public review period ended on March 27, 2003. No comments were received. D. Previous Applications: File LL 02-05: On June 4,2002 a lot line adjustment(LL 02-05) was approved that included a portion of the project site. The lot line adjustment resulted in the realignment of three 3,125 sq. ft. (lots 37, 38, and 39) into a 6,000 sq. ft. lot(Lot A)with an existing single-family unit and a 3,365 sq. ft. lot(Lot B). Both lots A and B are currently zoned Retail Business. The reason for this lot line adjustment was to create a 6,000 sq. ft. lot for the existing unit, which was constructed over one of the lot lines. Lot A is now owned by a different property owner and is not included in this rezoning and development plan application. The project site for the existing application includes Lot B and two 25 ft.by 125 ft. lots zoned R-6. Please see attached diagram for history of the site. E. Re ug latory Proms: 1. Flood Hazard Zone: The site is located within Flood Zone"C",which is not within a designated 100-year flood hazard and poses minimal risk of flooding. 2. Active Fault Zone: The project site is not located within any active fault zones. 3. Noise Hazards: The project site is not located within any identified hazardous noise areas. 4. Redevelopment Area: The project site is located within the Rodeo Redevelopment area. 5. Specific Plan: The project site is located outside of the limits of the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan. IV, SITE DESCRIPTION The project site includes three lots within two parcels containing 0.22 acres and is located on the southern side of Fourth Street,between Lake Avenue and west of Rodeo Avenue in the unincorporated area of Rodeo in west Contra Costa County. The easterly 3,375 sq.ft. lot is zoned Retail Business while the two 3,125 sq. ft. lots are zoned R-6. The topography of the site includes a hill sloping towards Fourth Street with two flat section of land The lower slope has an approximate grade of 18 percent towards Fourth Street,while the upper slope has an approximate grade of 10 percent toward the lower flat section. Existing tree cover and vegetation on the site is minimal and there are no improvements on the site with the exception of a gravel road. The gravel road currently provides access from Fourth Street to 420 Rodeo Avenue,an adjacent landlocked parcel to the east of the site. Access to this house is not included as part of the development plan. Staff discussion regarding access to 420 Rodeo Avenue is further discussed on page 7 in Section IX(B) (6). V. AREA DESCRIPTION The area surrounding the subject property includes primarily residential uses. The local School District owns a larger property about half a block south that includes a recreation area (Lefty Gomez Park)and is the future site for a new elementary school. Rodeo Avenue and Fourth Street provide access to the central business district of Rodeo. 2 VI. PROPOSED PROJECT: This project includes two separate but related land use applications to insure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning designations of the project site and allow appropriate residential development of the property. The first component(RZ023119) includes a request to rezone parols 375-091-009 and..375-091-008 located at 404 and 406 Rodeo Avenue from the current dual zoning designation of Retail Business (R-B) Zoning District and Single-Family Residential(R-6)Zoning District to Planned-Unit Development(P-1),with a variance to the five acre minimum area required for a P-1 Zoning District(0.22 acres provided). The second component includes a request for approval of a Final Development flan (DP023066)to allow construction of two single-family residences on the areas identified on the site plan as 404(lower lot)and 406 (upper lot). 404 Rodeo Avenue(lower lot) is proposed as a 4,730 sq. ft. lot fronting Fourth Street. The Development Plan includes 1,948 sq. ft. single-family residence as well two retaining walls(4 ft. and 5 ft, high)to stabilize the slope at the rear of the property. 406 Rodeo Avenue (upper lot)is proposed as a 4,894 sq, ft. flag lot behind 404 Rodeo Avenue. The Development Plan includes a 1,844 sq. ft. single-family residence with a parking area and retaining walls. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS: Agency comments are provided in normal font and staff responses are provided in italics. A. Contra Costa County Public Works Department(PWD): On December 29,2002 a letter was received from PWD,with additional comments received on April 7,2003. The revised comments were based on their review of an amended site plan and have been included as part of the attachment section of this report, B. Rodeo -.Hercules Fire Protection District: The Fire Protection District requested information regarding long-term access to 420 Rodeo Ave. The address in question is an existing landlocked house, whose, only vehicle access is through the project site. The Fire Department was contacted by CD Staffand indicated vehicular access to 420 Rader Avenue would not be maintained. The.Fire Department Ares not have a problem with the proposed"plan and stated the driveway to the proposed residence on 406 would provide better access to 420 Roder Avenue than currently exists. 3 C. Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department: The Sheriff's Office was concerned about the location of the rear unit and its increased potential for criminal activity. The Sheriff s Office recommended amending the Development Plan as well as the various security precautions such dead bolt locks, window openings, and security lighting. The applicantprovided a letter datedJanuaiy 1.2, 2003 documenting a conversation with Michael Voss of the Sheriff's Department. This letter indicated the Sheriff s Office was informing the pubic ofpotential problems and "could live with theplan". The applicant and the S'heriff's Office also agreed on security measures such as security lights. D. California Historical Resources Information System: On December 10, 2002 comments were received from the California Historical Resource Information System indicating that there was a low possibility of archaeological resources being found on the project site. E. Bast Bay Municipal Utilily District(EBMUD): On December 12, 2002 a review of Agency Planning application was received from EBMUD indicating that a main extension at the owners expense may be required. If water service is required the applicant should contact EBMUD's business office to request the service,determine the costs and obtain estimates on completion time. F. Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC : The application was discussed at the January 22, 2003 Rodeo MAC with a unanimous vote of approval for the project. G. Comments were requested of the following agencies,but no responses were received: Building Inspection Department; Health Services Department HSD-Environmental Health;HSD Hazardous Materials;Rodeo Sanitary District;and John Swett Unified. School District. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the publishing date of the staff report,no public comments have been received. IX. STAFF DISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: The proposed development, including the rezoning of the property to P-1, is an appropriate use of the site and will enhance the existing neighborhood. The site currently has dual zoning designation ofR-B and R-6,thus a rezoning is required to ensure a single,consistent zoning designation is implemented for the proposed development. The General Plan Designation for the site is Single- Family High Density(SH)with a density range between 5.0 and 7.2 units per acre. The proposed development is within this range. The proposed development plan implements Redevelopment goal through the development of infill housing that enhances the surrounding neighborhood character. 4 B. Site Analysis: 1. Pro- t Area Size: The appl'icat'ion includes a variance to the minimum project area size(5 acres required,0.22 acres provided)for residential P-1 rezoning.The proposed P-1 designation provides a single zoning code for the property,furthers General Plan policies,and requires a final development plan to be consistent with the surrounding community. Due to the dual zoning designation, the property requires a rezoning. However, since the original lots in Rodeo were created in 1892 and most of the units were developed prior to World War II,the urban form consists of small, narrow lots with reduced front yard setbacks. Thus, implementing the R-6 zoning code may not be compatible with the surrounding community. Given the site constraints(slope,size,and shape)and neighborhood character, the following variances would be required if R-6 zoning standards were applied: Lower Lot(404 Rodeo Avenue) • Variances to minimum lot size (6,000 sq. ft required, 4,730 sq. ft. provided); • Variances to minimum lot depth(90 ft. required, 57 ft. provided), • Variance to rear yard(15 ft. required, 13 ft. provided); and Upper Lot(406 Rodeo Avenue) • Variance to minimum lot size (6,000 sq. ft. required, 4,893 sq. ft. provided); • Variances to minimum lot width (60 ft. required, 39 ft. provided); Variance to minimum aggregate side yard(15 feet required, 10 feet provided); and • Variance to allow parking within the setback area. The P-1 and development plan provide a mechanism to ensure the development is consistent with General Plan policies by reducing current density and ensuring the project is consistent with the surrounding community. 2. Lot Size and Density: The proposed project includes two lots consisting of 4,893 sq. ft. (upper lot) and 4,730 sq. ft. (lower lot). Staff used the North Richmond and Bay Point P-1 Zoning Development Standards as a basis for evaluating this proposal. The North Richmond and Bay Point P-1 were development to implement the General Plan in other Redevelopment Area that have similar issues as Rodeo such as small existing lots, neighborhoods developed prior to WWII,and a number of irregular lots. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the North Richmond and the Bay Point P-1 development standards. The Redevelopment Agency is currently in the process of rezoning the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-I that will potentially include similar development standards. 5 3. Creation of New Flag Lot: The proposed development plan includes the creation of a new flag lot with a 12 ft.by 57 ft. driveway. The project site has an irregular shape with a 50 ft. by 50 ft area behind a 75 ft.by 95 ft. area fronting Fourth Street. To integrate with the surrounding community, the proposed development plan emphasizes the area fronting Fourth Street. However, this leaves an irregular shaped area behind the front unit for the second lot. The overall site configuration and topography limits the location of units and a flag lot facilitates a more orderly development by emphasizing the unit fronting Fourth Street. 4. Building Setbacks: There are no required setbacks for the P-1 Zoning Ordinance and staff analyzed the proposed project based on the surrounding community,the North Richmond and Bay Paint P-1 Zoning Code(developed to implement the General Plan)and the R-6 Zoning Code. Staff findings are outline in the following table: Setback Proposed Neighborhood NR&BP P-1 R-6 Code Description Setbacks Average Requirements Requirements 404 rear yard 13 ft. 60 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 406 rear yard 15 ft. 60 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. to house 10 ft.building f 404 front yard &23 ft. 11 ft. 20 ft, iarae &20 ft. garage 25 ft. to house 406 front yard &30 ft.to 11ft. 10 ft.building 20 ft. garage (not &20 ft. garage including flag) } Approx. 3 -7 10 ft. min. and 5 ft°minimum 404 side yard 22 ft. and 6 ft. and 15 ft. ft. j 20 ft. aggregate aggregate 5 ft.mini_nium 3 ft.min. and 6 3 and 15 ft. 406 side yard 5 ft. and 5 ft. Approx. 3 -7 ft. ft. aggregate i aazregate The average Rodeo average setbacks are a derivative of the long, narrow lots created in the original subdivision. The proposed setback are consistent with the intent of the General Plan by providing lots that have a similar distance between units and pubic right of way as the surrounding community. The rear yard of 404 Rodeo Avenue is the only setback that does not meet the requirements of the North Richmond and Bay Point P-1. The unit is separated from the rear unit by a total of 38 ft. Additionally,there is a retaining wall and a driveway between the properties providing a strong visual separation between the properties. 6 S. 1D►esi n Considerations: The Community has expressed, through various planning processes, a desire to enhance the design, character and livability of housing in the Rodeo area. Part of this effort included implementing design guidelines for new single-family unit development within the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area. The design,guidelines include requirements such as: • Provide front porches to enhance visibility. • Break up the front facades into smaller scale elements. • Use sloped roofs to complement adjacent homes. • Set the garage back from the main entry. • Provide extensive landscaping including in-ground sprinkling system. The design shown on the proposed site plan submitted by the applicant has been reviewed and meets all of the required design guidelines. Design elements included in the design of these new single-family residences that specifically address the vision and goals of the Rodeo community includes;front porch areas, garages that are setback from the main front area of the houses, varied facades and trim work., extensive use of columns and large windows,multi directional sloped roofing,extensive landscaping and installation of an in-ground sprinkler system. 5. Access to 420 Rodeo Avenue: The proposed project includes removing the existing vehicular access to 420 Rodeo Avenue. Development of 420 Rodeo Avenue occurred in 1945 on the upper portion of a site that includes lots 31, 33, 34, and 36 (see attached parcel map). However, in 1950 the property owner constructed a new unit on the lower portion of the site that essentially land locked the original unit. It does not appear the lots were legally split and there are no county records of an approved development plan for either unit. The current occupants of 420 Rodeo Avenue have permission to use the driveway on the subject property for the time being. However, both the previous and current property owners have recorded a Notice of a Consent to Use Land that states "The right of any person to make any use whatsoever of the above described land or any portion thereof(other than any use expressly allowed by a written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication) is by permission, and subject to control of owner." Given the recorded Notice and site ownership, there is not a nexus to require the applicant to dedicate additional square footage for a driveway to 420 Rodeo Avenue. The parent parcel for 420 Rodeo Avenue is 422 Rodeo Avenue and the same party owns both properties. There is still potential for access to 420 Rodeo Avenue to be secured through 422 Rodeo Avenue. 7 C. Compatibility with Regulatory Programs: The site is located within the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area. The designs of the proposed new single-family residential units are consistent with the goals of the Community and Redevelopment Plan regarding new construction in the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area. D. Compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Requirements: The construction of two single-family residences on the project site is compatible with the SH General Plan designation for the area and rezoning the project area to P-1 will make the zoning compatible with the General Plan. The current dual zoning designation is not consistent with the General Plan. X. CONCLUSION The proposed development plan and rezoning to P-1 will facilitate infill housing and appropriate residential development in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the General Plan, the Rodeo community, and Redevelopment Plan. The project will require a variance to the minimum five-acre requirement for residential P-1 rezoning (.22 acres provided). Staff recommends approval of the development plan and rezoning to P-1 for the project subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 8 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN#DP023066 and REZONING APPLICATION#RZ023119 FINDINGS 1, Findings for Growth Management Element Performance Standards° A. Traffic- As proposed, the project is expected to generate less than a 100 peak hour trips; thus, a traffic study will not be required per Measure C-1998. B. Water- The site lies within the East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD)service area and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. C. Sanitary Sewer- The site lies within the Rodeo Sanitary District service area. D. Fire Protection- The site is serviced by the Rodeo—Hercules.Fire Protection District and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. E. Public Protection- The site is serviced by Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department and their comments and requirements are included as part of the conditions of approval. F. Parks and Recreation-Due to the nature and location of the project, the land use will not have an impact on park and recreation facilities. As part of the building permit requirements the applicant will be required to pay a $2,000 park dedication fee for each new structure. G. Flood Control & Drainage. While there is the potential for increased run-off of water into the existing drainage facilities, specific conditions of approval and design guidelines such as the use of retaining walls and drainage systems to lessen this impact. The site is not located within a FEMA designated special flood hazard zone and will not create a hazard associated with any existing flood hazard condition. (Ref:The Growth Management Element,Chapter 4,of the General Plan;Evidence Pages I- 8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.)) H. Findings For Approval Of P-1 Rezoning(Section 84-56.1400 A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years from effective date of zoninLy chance and plan approval. The applicant intends to begin construction within two and one halfyears from the effective date for zoning change and plan approval. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff`report and the conditions of approval.) B. Consistency with the General Pian: The project is consistent with the Single-Family.high Density General Plan policies and policies for the Rodeo area. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) C. Sustained desirability, stabilityand harmony with surroundippneighborhood: The proposed development enhances the existing community. The development plan implements the Design Guidelines for residential development in downtown Rodeo. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) D. The Development of a harmonious, inteurated plan iustifies exceptions form the normal application of this code: The development plan proposed an integrated plan for two new units on an irregular shaped site with steep slopes and two zoning designations. The P-1 zoning provides a mechanism to implement the General Plan and enhances the neighborhood character. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) III. Findings For Approval of the Development Plan: A. The Proposed development is consistent with the purpose of this district. The project includes rezoning the site to P-1, which requires approval of a development plan to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The proposed development furthers the intent of the General Plan and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. (Evidence: Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) B. The proposed development is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the districts, The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The primary land use of the surrounding area is residential and includes single-family residences located on small lot. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). N. Findings For a Variance to the 5-acre Minimum Lot Size in P-1 Planned-Unit Zoning District A. This request does not constitute a Grant of Special Privilege. (Deference Count Code Section 26-2.2006 Variance Permit standards) The variance to grant a P-1 rezoning is not a grant of special privilege. The property currently has dual zoning designation and requires a rezoning to implement a single zoning 2 code. The P-1 zoning designation provides a means to ensure development is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and land uses in the area. The Redevelopment Agency is in the process of rezoning the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-1 and the project is consistent with anticipated development standards. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval). B. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The proposed variance substantially meets the intent of the P-1 Zoning district by providing a development standard that is consistent with the downtown Rodeo neighborhood and furthers the General Plan policies. The P-1 Zoning district is allowed in special planning area such as Redevelopment Project Areas. The Redevelopment Agency is in theprocess of rezoning the entire Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area to P-1. The proposed project is consistent with anticipated development standards for the Rodeo P-1 Rezoning. (Evidence: pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval) C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape,topography,location or surroundings,the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The variance to the minimum lot size was necessary because the subject site has two zoning designations and requires rezoning. Through the P-1 rezoning process, staff was able to determine the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding community and furthers the intent of the General Plan policies. Given the lot size, shape, topography, underlying lot configuration, and surrounding neighborhood, the project would require a number of variances if the R-6 zoning code were strictly applied The P-1 rezoning process providedflexibility lexibility to address site constraints while ensuring the development will be an asset to the community. (Evidence:Pages 1-8 of the staff report and the conditions of approval.) 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #DP023066 and#RZ 023119 Administrative 1. This Development Plan is approved, general as shown on the submitted plan and elevation received by the Community Development Department on November 12, 2002 and revised plans received by the Community Development Department on March 18, 2003. The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit unless otherwise specified. 2. Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits described in Condition#1 above,the guide for development shall be the Single-Family Residential(12,.-6)District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building permits. 3. A variance is approved to allow a P-1 zoning on a parcel: A. 5 acres for residential use required, 0.22 acres approved Zoning Administrator Review 4. The proposed building shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screen from view. The building shall be finished in wood and stucco or other materials acceptable to the Zoning Administrator 5. The applicant shall make best efforts to incorporate Green Building materials into the building plans prior to submittal of a building permit. Permit Compliance Report and Processing Fees 6. At least 15 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administered by the Community Development Department. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions. Copies 4 of the permit conditions may be obtainable on a computer file from the Community Development Department by contacting the project planner. The permit compliance is subject to staff time and materials charges, with an initial deposit of$500 that shall be paid at the time of submittal of the compliance report. Checks may be made payable to the County of Contra Costa County. Archaeology 7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology(SOPA)has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. Grading 8. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Grading Section of the Contra Costa county Building Inspection Department. This plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15)only, and all the areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification of the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 9. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site (i.e., no import or export of fill material). 10. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated as soon as possible after grading when seasonal conditions are favorable to seed germination and plant growth. Landscaping and Lighting 11. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the project site. California native and/or drought tolerant plants or trees shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size, all shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallon size, except as otherwise noted. 5 12. A sample section and color of the proposed retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approval for the Zoning Administrator. Retaining walls colors shall be a muted earth-tone color. 13. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. Construction Conditions 14. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements. A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of A.M. to P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of+persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number,shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed, D. A dust and litter control program, including provisions pertaining to water conservation, shall be submitted for the review and approval of 6 the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved programm or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until,if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted.. E. The applicant shall make a good.-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each[lot][portion of the development site]. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and.4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. Water 15. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques Addresses 16. The applicant shall submit a request to the Community Development Department Graphics Division to change the site addresses to a Fourth Street address prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT DP 02-3066 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Tide 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan dated March 18, 2003. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FO APOPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS UNDER THIS PERMIT. General Requirements 17. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Pubic Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Roadway Improvements (Frontage) 18. Construct a 4.5—foot sidewalk(measured from curb face) along the frontage of Rodeo Avenue and 0 Street. 19. All cracked and displaced curb and gutter shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Rodeo Avenue and.4h Street. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained.. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. Specific On-Site Driveway Improvements 20. Driveway improvements to serve both residences shall comply with County Standard Plan CA 201, "Driveway Design Standards," Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 21. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry,permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent,public and private road and drainage improvements. 8 Encroachment Permit 22. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for installation of improvements within the right of way of Rodeo Avenue of 4`h Street. Pedestrian Facilities 23. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Utilities/Undergrounding 24. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 25. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. The nearest drainage facilities are located off-site. The applicant shall show that the downstream drainage system is adequate for the existing development plus this project, or upgrade it to accommodate ultimate development of the watershed. 26. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 27. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). 28. A l0-foot wide private drainage easement in favor of the upstream property owner(s) shall be created over any lot conveying private storm water runoff from another parcel. 9 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES). 29. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-- Region Il). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP°s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible,the following long-term.BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage; ♦ Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area; ♦ Stenciling advisory warnings on all catch basins; ♦ Provide educational materials to new tenants/homebuyers; ♦ Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios; + Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces; ♦ Prohibit or discourage direction connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains; r Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities; ♦ Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. 10 _ ___ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERAHT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant/owner should be aware of the permit expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits. C. Comply with the requirements of the Rodeo Sanitary District. D. Comply with the requirements of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. F. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. G. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit and the Western Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. H, Applicant/owner should be aware of a fee of $400/unit will be charged for Child Care Facility needs and $2,000/unit for Park Dedication Funds. 11 I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. Itis the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,California 94599,of anyproposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. IT is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K. Prior to the issuance of Building Permit(s), the developer shall submit a"Debris Recovery Plan"demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating from the demolition of existing buildings/structures and/or the construction of new buildings.Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit,the developer shall submit a competed "Debris Recovery Report"documenting actual debris recovery efforts(including quantities of recovered and landfill materials)that occurred throughout the projects duration. ,\V� 12 MITIGATION MONI'T'ORING PROGRAM COUNTY FILE#RZ023119 and DP023066 The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Rezoning#RZ023119 and Development Plan#DP023066—Jaime Chavez(Owner) and Paul Hafen(Applicant), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,requiring the establishment of mitigation monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency. I. Potentially Significant: The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site in to the storm drainage system during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measure: (VIII a): At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Grading Section of the Contra Costa county Building Inspection Department. This plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15)only, and all the areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15,the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification of the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval#8. Method of Verification: Submittal and approval of erosion control plan. Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Department/Agency: Building Inspection Department and Community Development Department. 2. Potentially Significant Impact: The project could result in short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the project site during periods of heavy construction. Mitigation Measure: (XI d): Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM -- 5 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: a All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; ♦ Use 'quiet' gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval#14 A& B. Method of Verification: Submittal of permit compliance report. Timing of Verification: Review of permit compliance report and inspections during construction. Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department & Building Inspection Department. PUBLIC WORDS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: April 15, 2003 TO: Kristine Solseng,Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Lawrence Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Serviceti�l SUBJ ECT: PERMIT DP 02-3066 sSTAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Hafer/O St. &Rodeo Ave./Rodeo/AP# 357-091-009) FILE: DP 02-3066 We have reviewed the revised site plans for the subject development dated March 18, 2003, and submit the following comments: The site,plan has been revised to eliminate the shared access/private road serving the two new home sites. Each parcel now has it's own access direct to 46 Street. In light of this revision, our prior requirements'regarding compliance with County private road standards, notification of joint responsibility for maintenance of common access, etc., are no longer applicable. The enclosed recommended conditions of approval have been modified accordingly and supersede those in our memo dated December 29,2002. LCr1g GAGTData\EagSvrlLarry 0iossett\2003'Apri31DP023066b cc: H.Ballenger,Engineering Services M.Morton,Engineering Services Paul Hafer,570 Lakewood Circle,Walnut Creek,CA 44598 RODEO - HERCULES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1680.REFUGIO VALLEY.ROAD, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA (5110 799-4561 •FAX. ('510) 799-0395 November 25, 2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pane Street, 4th Floor North Ding Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Attn Kristine Solseng RE: FILE #( R2023119/D023006 I have reviewed this proposal and have only one comment/concern regarding the project: a. Will the access to 420 Rodeo Ave. be maintained? Tease follow up with information. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at this office. i Alan Biagi, Battalion Chief Rodeo-Hercules sire District {11111lzl of (�Ijltlra 71151 t D2 DEC 10 All 11: 00 41 Warren E.Rupf Sheriff December 5, 2002 Ms.Kristene Solseng Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4'Floor,North Wing Martinez, Ca 94553 Dear Ms. Solseng, Subject: Request for rezoning of the properties identified as 404&406 Rodeo Ave.,in the town of Rodeo. RE: County File#RZ-023119 Proiect Descr ration: This is a rezoning request for the properties identified as 404 and 446 Rodeo Ave. The Mee of the Sheriff has no objection.tot ee rezoning issue. However,this office has significant concerns regarding-the- - conistriiction plana t were included in the application packet: These concerns are discussed later in this -- report. Location Information The proposed site is currently a vacant lot located on,*e St.,between Rodeo Avenue and Lake Street,in the downtown area of Rodeo. The neighboring lots have existing structures in place. The surrounding area is comprised of residential property. Crime Analysis data for the last six months indicate the surrounding area has had one armed robbery,one rape, one felony battery, four auto burglaries,eight commercial burglaries,four residential burglaries, seven thefts from motor vehicle, and twenty-four reports of vandalism. This office has reviewed the submitted documents,blueprints,and completed a site survey of the above location. The following comments,concerns, and conditions are submitted for your review. Primary Security Concern The current proposal,which places 406 Rodeo Ave.directly behind 404 Rodeo Ave.is of great concern to the Office of the Sheriff; This placement will isolate 406 Rodeo Ave. and completely obscure it from the view of neighbors and passing vehicles, including that of law enforcement. Buildings placed in this fashion increase points of concealment and ambush. Such properties have also proven to have a significantly higher incidence of criminal activity,which includes but is not limited to, auto related crime, assault and residential burglary. The Office of the Sheriff`strongly urges the property owner to reconsider this development plan. The following recommendations are based on the plan as submitted. 1960 Muir Road• Martinez, Cafkfornia 94553-4500 (925) 313-2500 "Conzrnunity Policine Since 1850...." Security Recommendations Doors a. All entrance doors should be of solid care construction, 13/A inch thick and should be secured by a single cylinder dead bolt lock with a minimum throw of ones inch. Strike plates should be secured with four-inch screws. Ensure that all hinge pins are placed on the inside of the door and not visible to the exterior when the door is closed. b. A viewing device(peephole)should be installed in each individual unit door and should allow for 180-degree vision. Windows a. Windows should be constructed so that when the window is locked it cannot be lifted from the frame. b. The sliding portion of the sliding glass window should be on the inside track. C. Window locking mechanisms should be capable of withstanding a force of at least 300 lbs,in any direction. d. All accessible windows that open, including second story windows adjacent to overhangs, should be equipped with secondary locking devices. It is recommended that these windows be provided with secondary locks that will allowthe window to be left open l inch while-still being locked with a secondary _ - _1-ocking.pm. Lighting a. Security lighting shall be provided with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination,to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premise during hours of darkness. Lights should provide complete illumination to all areas of ingress and to the parking area. Security lighting shall be controlled by a photocell system, designed to operate during periods of diminished light,without regard to time of day. Numbering a. 406 Rodeo Ave should display a street number, in a prominent location on the street side of the building,in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The address for 404 Rodeo Ave should be prominently located at the entrance to the driveway. b. The numerals should be no less than four(4)inches in height and of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The numerals should.be illuminated at night. i Landscaping a. Landscaping should be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. b. Security materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows (security plant listings are available upon request from the Crime Prevention Unit(5 10- 374-7989). C. Shrubs should not exceed 42 inches in height and tree canopy should be a minimum of seven feet from ground level upon maturity. Additionally,trees shall be placed in such a manner as to not provide a natural ladder to second story windows and/or the roof. Cather Concerns/Requirements a. Theft-resistant locking mailboxes should be provided for each unit. b. The developer/applicant should set and monitor reasonable project operational hours as to prevent conflict with the surrounding residents. C. The developer should make every effort to incorporate theft prevention measures for the project at all phases and eliminate any hazards on the project site. d. The perimeter of the site should be fenced during construction. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. If yqu should liaye_any additiofidl questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the number listed below. Sincerely, Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff Office of the Sheriff—Contra Costa County By: Michael T. Voss Crime Prevention Specialist Office of the Sheriff-Contra Costa County Bay Station (510)374-7989 eo lieutenant Jim Hatchell—Bay Station Commander Sergeant lien Whitlatch—Administrative&Community Services Supervisor Mr.Paul Hafen.--Applicant File <63 REVIB, OF AGENCY PLANNING APP6,ATION 16 MMM ET�hetechn�,Icaidatasupplied herein is based on preliminar�lnform;tlon,Is subject to revision and is to be used for ptannin 'p�u410es ONLY. , ri DATE 12!4/02 EBMUD MAP(S) 149IB562 EBMUD FILE: 5.7403 AGENCY:Contra Costa County AGENCY FILE: R2023119/DPO23066 C, TENTATIVE MAP Community Development Department ® DEVELOPMENT PLAN 651 Pine Street 0 REZONING/GPA e floor, North Wing © OTHER Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Attn: Kristine Sotsen APPLICANT: Paul Hafen OWNER:Jaime Chavez 570 Lakewood Circle 570 Lakewood Circle Walnut Creek,CA 94548 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 LOCATION:402 Rodeo Avenue Rodeo ZONING:R £tR-6 PREVIOUS LAND USE:Vacant land in residential area Application to construct a single-family residence TOTAL ACREAGE.22ac NO.OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 2 J@ Single Family 0 Mutti-Family ©Commercial [industrial 00ther Residential PROPERTY ED In EBMUD 0 Requires Annexation ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED 13'-17' 14'-35' x PART) (----ALL, X PART) of development may be served from of development may be served by EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) LOCATION OF MAIN(S).e Street LOCATION OF EXIST.MAIN (S): e Street PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Maloney AICA) 0'-200' Matone (AOA) 01-200' A main extension at the applicants expense,may be required depending on EBMUD Metering requirements and/or fire flaw requirements from the local fire agency. If water service is required,the applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service estimate to determine the cast and conditions for providing additional water service to the property.The installation of water mains often require substantial lead time which should be accounted for in the project sponsors development schedule.Due to EBMUD's limited water supply,all customers should plan for shortages in time of drought. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: THIS REVIEW I CHARGES Et OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVILE Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510)287-1084 Contact The EBMUD New Busi Office(510)287.1008 0 Water Service Planning to Q'y,lza-'01A/County 0 M.M. 0 Applicant 0 Aqueduct 0 Owner 4RLT0_NtHAN,ASSOCIA ENGINEER W -SERVICE PLANNING SECTION ROSEMONT COMPANY 570 Lakewood Circle 03 JAN IS I'M 4� 03 Walnut Creek, CA 14595 925 947 1451 925 9451550(fax) January 12, 2003 Ms. Kristine Solseng Contra Costa County Redevelopment Department 551 Pine Street 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca 94553 Re: County File #RZ-02.3119 (404 Rodeo Drive, Rodeo) Dear Kristine: I am writing to address the comments made by the Contra Costa Sheriff s Office and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District regarding the above project: Regarding the Sherriff's Office, I recently met in person with Mike Voss who wrote their analysis of the project. I indicated that all of the conditions he had listed were acceptable to us except for relocating the rear house, since the dimensions of the lot did not allow for an acceptable alternative. He indicated to me that their office likes to be sure that the public is aware of potential problem areas. He finther indicated that given the site plan issues I reviewed with him, that his office could live with the proposed plan. As a further improvement we discussed (and I agreed to) the placement of an 8- 10 foot pole light situated in the rear driveway so as to shine light on the two cars that might be parked in the rear parking spaces. Regarding the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, I talked with Alan Biagi at the District by phone. He indicated'that the letter that he sent you was simply to obtain the information requested(which I gave to him), and that he did not have a problem with the plan as proposed. tp C-0 m ss 'o R Syy4 yy Jj�� j ; i Jt •(1� N io•sz'w �f,,s .33'0 , 'J ,� 0o I it °� f I io n is { vi cnla ' r {ry 1:Rx 4 RM- I � i I w� ro y '`' sell s,•sk , i t ( ! ^�• « 0,11 11 AVE, _ u Io•sz a ,� ,B III i 4y Cb Cl v 1-0. -k r1ii L, LI !` ��►!� � � 1_ x .1_ ' AVE. tv � hs v � tV G � v 1 v r� { 4t '+ j Chit � A ! � q `y �Cp b '.•` �► CD CD U? CD �Y ri- R00E0 AVENUE (70'R/W) aGU' !' {T} } � 6 1 Y N Ew ~� UPu °":,x.:11 E rn ( Q i t 1 Muse lip All PROPOSED 8USDIVHON Q CIVLL 404 AND 406 RODEO AVENUE SITE AND LANDSCAPING PLAN PARCEL 367-091-0W dlYlCmStiY{3/YIS�VjO'aYi6-Hi2.ouy h:.�!I 1101:]i 1001 W - � � ' 1 Ip i � RA : 1 1 1 1 y •. F i P i .i.Y';,`'•.I, Y1VJ.M10t0 Y W i�.ip�'arM+—M—— �' 6 6 . - I • u� C l9 O N A � m o" O ti.o FFA pv ------------ N b � ti to �a P s a VIA all �� rq r 10 ` 41 $ I +� AREL4MINAf2Y St7E GRADING CUNHA ENGINEERING INC, v 0. 701 9MMONT WAY.SFE.A AND DRAINAGE PLAN moa.r,AMVNiA 94184 -- Nx g 404 & 406 4th STREET Sss1)Tat-9z90 uxo. P ki RODEO CAUFU IA rerxovea 9r: 9. 1•m c' 5Yr w• !n I i li � a^ 4'•Y Y!• �� Y.Y.YIi WriN tNr W4' u'a w� nu ma• tl'M N' �Y i I � E , 0 Z - . . a 7� � ARCH[3 EC TURAL 1949 SQUARE FOOT SINN FAMLY HOUSE 4034 RODEO AVENUE EXi1 R10R ELYATIONS AND TYPICAL SEC L1ON8 PARCEL XXX—XXX—XXX' a u.ItlCY f YJ 6- I a _ I x ` K - J�/r.r rr• a 3033 4 �'.w• Ya' Yom• itM••i'Y' Y-V ' Y -»� s•-c wru••aY g �� !u; r G.GOICi � LG_ YU• i.Y I. Y-Y M.V T-Y VJ• Y.Y Y r�m �°e°o e e®Q s..-1�t�� ••••- C700®' rC��'"" - .�a a.• +r+ i i - � + v n a 4will s .I ARCHITECTURAL 1949 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE I FIRST FLOOR PLAN,SECOND FLOOR PLAN, 404 RODEO AVENUE ROOF PLAN AND NOTES PARCEL XXX-XXX-XXX I RODEO CALLA anv aw• i i r �g 3 S am-a anc• t i N N xo-a ati• 1044 SMIM E FOOT SINME FATLY HOUSE y ARCHf l'EC'T'URAL 406 ROS AVENUE v EXTERiOR ELEVA•TTONS PARCEL XXX—XXX—XXX FK)DW CALFOFW a toilli rk iLU - ., —_ -- Led —4 ,om • uar, a . ,.. -Y M-r' a•a• fV-! �J• 8'-a• M-i' Yr' Y-s• � k a�� I� 'e v.r a•.r• y 1 4 fQ aY Y p-a, 4 - 77 14 d rn 8E1% i i q I t rcMwa 14 fi a°I 1 I ar.r v-r wa✓ r-m' rr• p-s' a•ar ZZ It ► s ► e•r o"o a S ao* Mi16466 Rew.a+ arra_..- �� m m .. r�{.Yr .� �,•„�;r�,+- sr . r n 6 � ► ���� �� �� � � � � � � � � � � s t ARCHITECTURAL 1844 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMB.Y HOUSE FIRST FLOOR PLAN,SECOND FLOOR PLAN, 406 RODEO AVENUE ROOF PLAN AND NOTES PARCEL. XXX—XXX—XXX AODc-o CALFOFHA s Lake Ave Lake Ave Lot 41__cn ... (D _ `Lot 40 a O � a m a m m � ci _ c 0 son Lake Ave � Lake Ave tCk r— ©. 0 r _ _ _ — _ _ �r (D 0 r4- Oz �` Cl) r4- 1 elk m . . � � .� CD � � N) C) 0 \ \ . CL CD \ / CD . � CD x �. _ Community Contra € mEs M. Berry, Almy Community Development Director Development Casty DepartmentCa r L. . County Administration Building 651 Pine Street • =r ``U 4th Floor,North Voting f Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 925 335-1250 °r,5j._-u�`"'`"�• March 6,2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File: RZ023119 and DP023066 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental (duality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: CQNTRA COSTA COUNTY CQM1 MUNfTY DEVEL0P1V1ENT DEPARTMENT(Applicant: Paul Hafen)-(Owner: Jamie Chavez), County pile #RZ023119 and #DP023066: The proposed project is a request to rezone two parcels located at 404 and 406 Rodeo Avenue(0.22 acres total)from their current Retail Business Zoning District(R-B)and Single-Family Residential (R-6)zoning District to Planned Unit Development(P-1),with a variance to the five acre minimum required for a P-1 Zoning District(0.22 acres provided),as well as a development plan to allow construction of two single-family residences. This action will establish zoning conformity with the existing General Plan. [APN# 357-091-0108 and 009,ZA:E-7,CT: 3580.00] Potential impacts to water and noise have been identified,and mitigation measures have also been identified. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the Mc Brien Administration Building,North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period- The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, !March 27,2003. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: William Rice, Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday,April 22,2003. The hearing is anticipated to be held at 7:00 pm. at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA. William ce Planner r}.1Environmental\R.Z023119 NOLdoc Office Tours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m, nir,oaA +ht, I of 'Orr# .R. rfh PriA3 3wo of mcit h mnnfh Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: DP 02-3066 and. RZ 02-3119 (Paul Hafen (Applicant),(Jamie Chaves (Owner))-Rezoning and Development Plan to allow construction of two new single family housing units 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number William.Rice(925)335-1267 4. Project Location The proposed project is located on the southern side of Fourth Avenue, between Lake Avenue and Rodeo Avenue in the Rodeo area of West Contra Costa. County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Paul Hafen Address 574 Lakewood Circle Walnut Creek, CA 94598 6. General Plan Designation: Single-Family,High Density(SH), 7. Zoning: Retail Business District(R-B)and Single-Family Residential(R-6)(existing)and Planned-Emit District (P-1)(proposed). 8. Description of Project The proposed project includes the rezoning of two properties located at 444 and 406 Rodeo Avenue (0.22 acres total)from their current Retail Business District(R-B) and Single-Family Residential (R-5) zoning to Planned-Unit District(P-1)with a variance to the five acre nnininiun3 area for a P-1 District(0,22 acres provided), as well as a development plan to allow construction of two single-fwaily residences. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The proposed site is currently a vacant lot located on southern side of Fourth Street between Lake Avenuet and Rodeo Avenue, in the Rodeo area of west Contra Costa County. The surrounding area is comprised of primarily single-family(SF)residential uses. 10 Other public agencies whose Mone approval is required: D:I&nviro=ental\RZ0231191S.doc 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Land Use and Planning _ Public Services — Utilities and service systems Population and Housing _ Biological Resources — Aesthetics Geological Problems — Energy and Mineral — Cultural Resources _ Mater Resources Recreation Air Quality — Hazards Mandatory Findings Transportation/Circulation — Noise of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ✓ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. D AEnvirwunenta3\RZ023119 IS.doc 2 Prepared.by illiam Rice'I'lanner Date Approved By I-L11YT1tk- u IK40 Maureen Toms AICP Date CCC Community Development Department PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the rezoning of two parcels (APN # 357-191-008 and 009) located at 404 and 406 Rodeo Avenue (0.22 acres total) from their current Retail Business District(R-B) and Single-Family Residential(R-6)zoning to Planned-Unit District(P-1)with a variance to the five acre minimum area for a P-1 District (0.22 acres provided), as well as, a development plan to allow construction of two single-family residences. SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 fine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System - Quad Sheet Panels -Mare Island, CA and County GIS system 2. The (Reconsolidated) County General Plan (July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan (January 199 1) 3. General Plan and Zoning Maps 4. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)(Community Panel#060025 00450) 5, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,California 6. Contra Costa County Code (Zoning Code) 7. Rodeo Waterfront and Downtown Specific Plan and EIR(1998) 8. Project Description 9, Field Review EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially significant Potentially 1--ss than significant Impact, Significant No hn act finless Impact Impact p Mitigation p Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a V. scenic vista?(Source 1,2,3,8,9) — -� - D AEnvironmentaARZ023 l l 9 IS Aoc 3 b. Substantially damage scenic resources, ✓ including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source 1,2, 3, 8,9) C. Substantially degrade the existing _ _ _✓ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source 1,2,3,$,9) d. Create a new source of substantial light _ ✓ or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source 1,2,3,$,9) SUMMARY: Figure 9-1 (scenic ridges and waterways)of the Contra Costa General Plan, indicates that the site is not located within any scenic ridge or waterway, and will not result in any adverse effect on scenic vistas,scenic resources or the visual character of the neighborhood. The infill development of two new houses in an existing neighborhood will not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. Both houses have been designed to be compatible with the design and architecture of other residences in the neighborhood. Any light and glare that will be produced from this development will be similar to that of typical neighborhood, which is not significant. Potentially significant Potentially tmpacLess than No Unless significant Inpac, Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact in P Incorporated If, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept, Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the prof ect: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique ✓ Farmland or Farmland or Statewide q Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (Source 1,2, 3,6,7,8,9) D AEnvironmentahRZo23119 IS.doc 4 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,) C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) SUMMARY: Figure 8-2 (important agricultural lands)of the Contra Costa General Plan, indicates that the site is not located within important agricultural lands. The project site is a vacant,infill lot within the Rodeo Redevelopment Area of Contra Costa County and will have no impact on any agricultural resources or uses. Potentially Potentially significant Less than significant mpacs Significant No Im act I npact Mitigation UnlesImpact �' Incorporated III. AIR. QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct _ ✓ implementation of the applicable air quality plan(Source: 1,2, 3,8,9) b. Violate any air quality standard or Y substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1,2, 3,8,9) c. Result in a cumulatively considerable _ ✓ net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source 1,2,3,6) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source 1,2,3,6) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓ substantial number of people? (Source 1,2,3,6) SUMMARY: Figure 8-6(air quality)of the General Plan indicates that the area does not generally exceed State or Federal guidelines for ozone, carbon monoxide or PM-10 standards, DAFT vironmentahRZ023119 LS.doc 5 I and the development of two single family houses will not result in any significant impact on the air quality of the area. The only sensitive receptor in the area is the Lefty Gomez ball field, which is located south of the project area and will not be impacted by this project. As with any construction project some emissions and objectionable odors will be generated; however,these are generally minor and short termed in nature. To minimize these impacts,the conditions of approval for the project require the use of properly tuned and muffled equipment and the elimination of any unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. In addition, a condition of approval regarding dust control and erosion measurers will be incorporated into the project. Potentially Potentially significant� Less Haan significantnisignificantmpNa acacst, Significant Im act Impact UnlImpact p Mitigation Incorporated IV, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proj ect: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, ✓ either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on ✓ any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations, or by the California Department of.Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on - federally protected wetlands as — defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?( Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) D-TrivironmentahRZ0231 t9 IS.doc 6 i d. Interfere substantially with the ✓ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) e. Conflict with any local policies or ✓ ordinances protecting biological -" r resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) SUMMARY: Figure 8-1 (significant ecological and selected areas of protected wildlife and plant species area)of the Contra Costa General Plan indicates that there are no unique or endangered species of plants or animals,wildlife habitats,riparian habitats or sensitive natural areas within the project area that would be impacted by this project. The development of two single- family houses on a vacant, infill lot within the Rodeo Redevelopment area of Contra Costa County is not expected to result in any significant impacts to existing biological resources. The project site contains no federally protected wetlands and there are no streams, creeks,rivers or other wildlife migratory corridors within this area that would be impacted by this project. Potentially Potentially significant Less than Impact_ No significant Signifcan hnpact Unless t Impac: L ipact Mitigation Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES= Would the proj ect: a. Cause a substantial adverse change .! in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Source 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a ✓ unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source 1,2,3,5,7,8,4) d. Disturb any human remains, _ ✓ including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) SUMMARY: Figure 9-2 of the Contra Costa County General Plan(archeological sensitivity map) identifies the general area of this site as largely urbanized and public owned lands D ARtivirormental\RZ023114 IS.doc 7 i excluded from archeological sensitive survey. According to the California Historical Resources Information System, there is a low possibility of archaeological resources on this site and that further studies are not recommended. It is conceivable that undetected and/or unanticipated cultural resources of significance may be encountered within the project site. If such an event should occur,the conditions of approval require that all earthmoving activity in the area archeological resources within the area of the find cease until a qualified archaeological consultant examines the findings, assesses their significance and offers a proposal for procedures deemed appropriate to further investigation/or mitigate any adverse impacts to those cultural resources encountered. This is consistent State and Federal Law Potentially significant Potentially � act, .Less than No significant unless Significant Imp act Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to ✓ potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source 1,2,3,5) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?(Source 1,2,3,5) 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1,2,3,5) 4. Landslides? (Source 1,3,6) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the ✓ loss of topsoil? (Source 1,2,3,5) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil ✓ that is unstable,or that would become J unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source 1,2,3,5) D:\P_nvironrnental\RZ023ll9 IS.doc d. Be located on expansive soil,as ,< defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source 1,2,3,5) e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source 1,2,3,5) SUMMARY: Figures 10-3 (earthquake locations in Contra Costa County(1934-1980)). 10-2 (mapped earthquake faults), 10-4(estimated seismic ground response), and 10-5 (estimated liquefaction potential)of the Contra Costa County General Plan indicates that the project site is not located in an area with a history of seismic activity or within a known fault area,has a low to moderate damage susceptibility from seismic related ground failure and the liquefaction potential for this area is generally low. As with any construction project increases in the exposure of the soil to wind and water erosion is expected; however, these impacts are generally minor and temporary in nature. The primary soil type for this area as identified in the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County and shown on the Contra Costa County GIS System is Conejo Clay Loam(CeA). This soil type is not listed as an expansive soil, is generally well drained,runoff is slow,there is generally no hazard of erosion when the soil is tilled or exposed and normally has a love expansion index. While the project site is located on a fairly steep slope,the risk of erosion is slight and adherence to standard dust control and erosion control practices required by the conditions of approval including,but not limited to general watering of exposed areas and/or use of chemical stabilizers will avoid this impact. Potentially Potentially significant Less than significant. impact, Sig^ufcant No Lm act Unless Ini act bmpact p Mitigation p Incorporated VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the ✓ public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or,disposal of hazardous materials? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) b. Create a significant hazard to the �! public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) D:\EnvirorunentaI\RZ423119 IS.doc 9 1 i C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle ✓ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, Substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) d. Be located on a site which is included _ on a list of hazardous materials sites e compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) e. For a project located within an airport _ land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,5) f. For a project within the vicinity of a _ ✓ private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,3) g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) h. Expose people or structures to a ✓ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild-land fires,including where wild-lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild-lands? (Source 1,2,3,6,7,8,3) SUMMARY: Figures 10-9a and b(hazardous land uses)of the Contra Costa County General plan indicates that the proposed site is not identified or listed as a hazardous material site. Figure 10-10 (fire hazard area)of the Contra Costa General Plan indicates that project site is located within a local responsible area with little danger from fire hazards,there are no wild- lands or wetlands located adjacent to the project site and the proposed site is not part of or included in any emergency response or evacuation plan or route. This project will not result in the transport,use or disposal of any hazardous material and the site does not contain any existing hazardous materials,nor will any be generated as a result of this project. DAEnvironmentaARZ023119 IS.doc 10 I While the project has the potential to release hazardous substances,such as accidental petroleums spills, during the construction phase of the project,these potential impacts will be mininized to a less than significant level with by compliance with standard construction safety practices(i.e., installation of sufficient signs warning of potential spill hazards on the site emergency spill control measures and harking of all underground utility and service lines prior to any trenching), as well as specific conditions of approval designed to limit the release of any hazardous materials. Potentially nif cant Potentially sigLess tt;an significant Impact, signi 1,2,336,7,8,9) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water ✓ quality? (Source: 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation snap?(Source: 1,2,3,6,7,8,9) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard ✓ area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 1,2,4,9) i. Expose people or structures to a ✓ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?(Source: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9) j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or _ _ ✓ mudflow? (Source: 1,3,5) SUMMARY: Figure 10-8 (flood area hazards)of the Contra Costa County General plan indicates that the proposed site is not subject to any inundation by sieche,tsunami or mudflow. The project site is identified on Panel Number 0600.25 00450 of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(FEUVD (revised September 7, 200 1)as being within flood zone"C",which is not within a designated 100-year flood hazard area and poses minimal risk of flooding. There are no streams or river located near the project site that would be impacted by this project,and since both houses will be connected to the existing storm drainage and water systems there will be no expected impact on any aquifer,local groundwater levels or the existing drainage pattern of the area. The applicant will be required to collect and convey runoff, as specified in Division 914 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. This will result in additional runoff to the drainage system that could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drainage system during the construction of the project. The following mitigation measures included in the conditions of approval will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Potential Significant hWact(VIIIa): The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drainage system during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measure_(VIlla): At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Grading Section of the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department. This plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading,excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15)only,and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15,the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work, Any modification of the above DAEnvironmenta1\RZ023119 LS.doc 12 i schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially significant Potential, less than si nifican Impact, No Lin ca Unless Significant Impact p m Mitigation psc Incorporated IX. LAND USE AND PLANITNTING: Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,2,3,6,8,9) b. Conflict with any applicable land use o/ plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,2,3,6,8,9) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1,2,3,6,8,9) SUMMARY: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the County General Plan. According to State Law,the zoning designations should be consistent with the General Plan. In this case the current zoning designations of the property are zoned Retail Business District(RB)and Single Family Residential District(R-6). The RB Zoning District is not consistent with the General Plan designation of Single-Family High Density(SH)or the existing land uses of the surrounding area. The rezoning the property to Planned Unit District (P-1)designation will correct the current inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan designations for this property. County Growth Management Considerations: Measure C — 1990 resulted in the County adopting a growth management program,which establishes minimum:of service for the typical urban services which are needed to support proposed development. Since the project area is already contained within the existing service boundaries (i.e.,fire,police,sanitary sewer,water, flood control, school facilities and parks)for the major services needed to support the proposal, the concerns relating to these considerations has been addressed. The proposed change would not affect the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Standards since it is merely a change in land use of an existing urban designation and does not result in a conversion of land under a non.-urban designation. D AEnvironmentahRZ023119 IS.doc 13 Potentially significant Potentially Impact, Less than significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporat ed X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a — — — ✓ Imown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?(Source: 1,2,8,9) b. Result in the loss of availability of a — — ✓ locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2,8,9) SUMMARY: Figure 8-4 (mineral resource areas)of the Contra Costa County General Plan indicates that there are no significant mineral resources in the area of this project. Due to the nature of the project and the site location,the proposal will not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources. Potentially significant Potentially Impact, Less than No Unless significantSignificant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Pact Incorporated XI. NOISE . Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation — — ✓of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?(Source: 1,2,3,8,9) b. Exposure of persons to or generation — ✓of excessive ground borne vibration or around borne noise levels? (Source: 1,2,3,8,9) C. A substantial permanent increase in — ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Source: 1,2,3,8,9) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 1,2,3,8,9) DAEnvironmental\RZ023119 IS.doc 14 e. For a project located within an airport d land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1,2,3,8,9) f. For a project within the vicinity of a V/ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1,2,3,8,9) SUMMARY: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of any existing airport or private airstrip. As with any new development project short-term noise levels would increase during construction. However, standard conditions of approval that.include restricting construction hours,traffic flow and heavy equipment usage will reduce the noise effects. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise levels to a less than significant level: Potentially Significant Environmental Effect(XId). Short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Plan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. Mitigation Measures(XId): Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM--5:00 PM Monday—Friday,unless modified by the Zoning Administrator,or require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good working condition. • Use"quiet" gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors whenever possible. Potentially Potentially significant Less than Impact N significant Unless Significant impact 1VEtigation Impact Incorporated XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or directly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2,3,7,8,9) D AEnvironmental1RZ023 l 19 IS.doc 15 b. Displace substantial numbers of existing ✓ housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2,3,7,$,9) C. Displace substantial numbers of people _ ✓ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2,3,7,8,9) SUMMARY: The proposed project will increase the local population and housing stock by two households. However,since this development involves infill development in an urbanized area, the impacts on population growth in the area are less than significant. There will be no people displaced as a result of this project. Potentially significant Potentially sigao� Less than No significant ImpImpact Significant Im act Mitigation Impact Impact P Incorporated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project: a. Would the project result in substantial ✓ adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (Source: 1,2,3,7,$,9) 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3, Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other Public facilities? SUMMARY: Theproposedproject involves infilldevelopmentin an urbanized area,resulting in the addition of only two new single-family dwellings. Public services for the project area are provided by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department,John Swett Unified School District, as well as other various County Departments. All public services providers within the project area, as well as those directly impacted by this project received notification of the proposed project and were requested to submit comments regarding any potential problems,impacts or concerns they may have regarding this project. These comments were all reviewed,and if appropriate, incorporated in the design review and conditions of approval for the project. To offset any potential impacts on parks and schools in the area the County requires payment of child-care and park dedication fees on all new residential construction projects. D:\Environmenta111Z023 l l9 IS.do c 16 Potentially significant Potentially Less than significant Impact' Significant No Impact Unless ac' Lnpact Mitigation P Incorporated XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source 1,6,7) b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(Source: 1,2,3.5,7) SUMMARY: The proposed project involves infill development in an urbanized area,resulting in the addition of only two new single-family dwellings. While this may result in increased usage of existing recreation facilities in the area, any impacts will be less than significant. To offset any potential impacts on parks in the area,the County requires the payment of park dedication fees for all new residential construction projects. Potentially Significant Potentially Less than s Impact, Si if NO gri3Cart UnlessTImp actImpact Mitigation impact Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC--Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is _ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio an roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 1,3,5,6) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source 1,3,5,6) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, a! including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? DAEnvironmentaERZ023l l9 IS.doc 17 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. (Source 1,3,5,6) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a — ✓ design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? (Source 1,3,5,6) C. Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 1,3,5,6) £ Result in inadequate parking capacity? _ — ✓ (Source: 1,3,5,6) g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or _ o programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Source 1,3,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The proposed project will not generate more than 100 peak hour trips, thus a traffic study was not required. The project is not expected to result in any significant traffic or transportation impacts,since it involves the development of only two new houses. The project will not exceed any levels of service standards established by the County Congestion Management Agency,will not result in any changes in traffic patterns in the area, will not result in any increase in any hazards due to design features or incompatible uses,will have no impact on emergency access,will not result in inadequate parking capacity or conflict with any adopted policies,plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially significant Potentially Less than significant Unless Significant No Irnoact Impact Mitigation Impact Incotporated XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional — — Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 1,2,6,7) b. Require or result in the construction of ✓ new water or wastewater treatment — — — facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 1,2,6,7) C. Require or result in the construction of ✓ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source. 1,2,6,7) D:\Environm--nta1\RZ023119 IS.doc 18 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed?(Source: 1,2,6,7) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Source: 1,2,6,7) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 1,2,6,7) g. Comply with federal, state and local _ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 1,2,6,7) SUMMARY: The proposed project is within existing urban:boundaries, served by various utilities including East Bay Municipal Utility District,Rodeo Sanitary District and the Flood Control District. The capacity of these utilities is sufficient to serve the additional demand generated by the project and insure that no new systems,supplies,or substantial alteration to any of the existing utilities will be required as a result of this project. Potentially Potentially significant I..css than significant pact, Significant No Impact Unless Impact Irpact Mitigation Incorporated XVII, WLNI DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a. Does the project have the potential to ✓ degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,&7) D:EnvironrnentaltRZ0Z3l l4 IS.doc 19 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively — considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,5&7) c. Does the project have environmental ✓ effects which will cause substantial — adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (1,2,3,4,5,5&7) SUMMARY: This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources (see section IV-Biological Resources) or eliminate any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory(see section V-Cultural Resources). . No impacts that cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project have been :identified. Mitigation measures identified under VIII—Hydrology and Water Quality and XI— Noise will ensure that adverse effects on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. D AEnviromnentahkZ023119 1&doc 20 tZa 13199 Paul Hafen Jaime Chavez CEQA Notices 570 Lakewood Circle 570 Lakewood Circle Full Packet Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Public Works CCC Main Library C/o Steve Wright CCC Environmental Health Dept. 1750 Oak Park Blvd. Interoffice Interoffice Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 John Swett UnifiedSchool District Rodeo/Hercules Fire Protection.District Roden Sanitary District 341 B Street 1680 Refugio Valley Rd PO Box 97 Crockett. CA 94525 Hercules, CA 94547 Rodeo, CA 94572 CCC Mosquito Abatement District Bay Area Water Quality East Bay Municipal Utilities District C/o Charles Beesly' g Dist. Manager Management District Mail Stop 701 1.55 Mason Circle C/o Environmental Review Section 375 11th Street 939 Ellis Street Concord, CA 94520 San Francisco, CA 94109 Oakland, CA 94G07 BAAQMD Roden Municipal Advisory Council Historical Resources Info. System Attention: Env. Review Section Attention: Diane Leite, Chair Foundation Center, Building 300 939 Ellis Street 457 Suisan Avenue 1303 Maurice Ave San Francisco, CA 94109 Rodeo, CA 94572 Sonoma State University Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608 Building Inspection PW/Engineering Svcs. Sheriff Office Interoffice Interoffice Admin. and Comm. Svcs. 357 0$2 002 357 082 002 357 082 003 Philip&Celeste Joy Philip&Celeste Joy Robert Abbott 35 Sandy Beach Rd 35 Sandy Beach Rd 345 Lake Ave Vallejo,CA 94590 Vallejo,CA 94590 Rodeo, CA 94572 357 082 004 357 082 022 357 082 022 Robert&Lisa Clements Thelma Rae Sanders&Kent Sanders Thelma Rae Sanders&Kent Sanders 367.Lake Ave 374 Rodeo Ave 374 Rodeo Ave Rodeo,CA 94572 Rodeo,CA 94572 Rodeo.CA 94572 357 082 022 357 091 006 357 091 007 Thelma Rae Sanders&Kent Sanders Richard Molinari&Jud Bratton-molina Richard Molinari&Jud Bratton-mol na 374 Rodeo Ave 422 Rodeo Ave 422 Rodeo Ave Rodeo,CA 94572 Rodeo,CA 94572 Rodeo,CA 94572 357091008 357 091 009 357 091 012 Jaime&Berta Chavez Jaime&Berta Chavez James&Deanna Tre Brownlee 570 Lakewood Cir 1144 Peralta St 1235 Pinole Valley Rd Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Oakland,CA 94607 Pinole,CA 94564 357 091 012 James&Deanna Tre Brownlee 1235 Pinole Valley Rd Pinole,CA 94564 ............................ ......................................................................-............................. .