HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07262005 - D6 DEIR DRAFT ENVIRONMIENTAL EWPACT REPORT
FORTHE
RODEO DONVNTOMW/WATEIRFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN
(GP45=0006)
(SP454002)
(SCH 95033055)
f
� s •
S �
OCTOBER 1995
s
3 •. yr pJ t
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
1.0 Introduction 1.0-1 thru 1.0-11
2,0 Proposed Action 2,04 thru 2.0-6
3,0 Environmental Setting,,Impacts and Mitigation 3*04
Measures
33 Land Use/Planning Policy 3.1-1 thru 3-.1-17
32 Municipal Services 324 thru 3.2-20
33 Flood Han—rd-A)rainage/Water Quality 3.3-1 thru 3.345
3.4 Tmffic/Circulation 3.41 ffim 3.424
3.5 Visual Quality and Design 3.5-1 dm 3,5,.22
3,6 Biotic Resources 3,6-1 thru 3.6-7
3,7 Geology/Seismicity 3,74 thru 3,748
3.8 Noise 3,84 thru 3.8--8
3*9 Air Quality 3.9-1 thru 3.9-10
3.10 Cultural Resources 3.10-1 dm 3-10.4
3,11 Housing,Population and Jobs 3.11-1 thru 3.11-16
4,0 Impacts Overview 4,0-1 thru 4,04
5,0 Alternatives 5.04 thru 5.0-16
6.0 References and Report Preparation 6.04 thru 6.0w6
Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
Appendix B Traffic/Circulation:Hourly Volume Variation and
LOS Definitions
Appendix C Inventory of Buildings More Than 45 Years Old
Appendix D Violation of Regulation 1,Section 301 Rodeo Area I
January 1993,, 11 August 1995
�rr'��
l`.r✓ r��. � .✓"
j 14
'/
J
��
1 �
1
J
List of Figures
Ei� Title AS¢.Paea
2,14 Limits of Redevelopment Area 2,04
21-1 Regional Location Map 2.0.3
22-2 USGS Topographic Map 2.0.3
2,2-3 1994 Aerial Photograph 2,0.,3
23-1 Adopted General Plan Land Use Map 2.,0,.5
2.3-w2 Translated General Plan Land Use Map 2,,0.,5
29344 Public Review (PRD)Plm 2o04,6
2.34 Staff/Consultant(S/C)Plan 2,04
2,3-5 General Commercial(GC)Plan 2,0=7
3.1-1 Land Use Inventory(Specific Plan Area) 3,14-1
3.1-2 Parks&Open Space Map 3.1-2
3.1,-3 ExistingZonmgMap 3.1-7
3.24 Community Facilities Map 3.2-1
3*2-2 Existing Sewer Mains 1.2-3
3,3-1 Rodeo Creek Watershed 3.3-5
3o3.,2 Flood Insurance Rate Map 33m6
33,3 Drainage Deficiencies Map 3.3-7
3.4-1 Traffic Analysis Zones
142 Existing Streets and Highways
3.4,3 Existing Intersection Turning Movements
144 Project Condition Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
3.4,5 Project Condition PM Peak Hour Volumes
3.5-1 Photograph A 1543
3.5-2 Photographs B and C 15-14
3.,5.,3 Photographs D and E 3.545
3.54 Photographs F,G,H and 1 3,546
3,5-5 Photographs J and K 3*5-17
3o5.,6 Photographs L.M and N 1548
154 Photographs 0 and P 3.5-19
3.7-1 Regional Geologic Map 3*7o.3
33-2 USGS Geologic Map 3.7-3
3,7,.3 Modified Mercalli Inunsiry Map 3,74
3.7-4 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 3,740
3.7-5 General Plan Liquefaction Potential Map 3.7-11
3.84 General Plan Noise Contour Map 3*8-3
3,8,.2 Noise Factors Map 3,8,.3
1104 Historic Resources Map 3.10.5
3.114 Census Tract 3580 3.11-5
3o11,.2 Census Block Map 3o11.,5
50011 Mixed Use Alternative:Land Use Map 5o0.7
5,0,.2 Mixed Use Alternative:Site Plan 5,01010
5.0.3 Mixed Use Alternative:Schematic Elevation 50040
5,0-4 Mitigated Alternative:Lend Use Plan 5,043
r'T r
M
List of Tables
Table# Tim P�
109-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1.94
3.1-1 Existing Project Area Land Use 3.1-1
3.2-1 Comparison of Land Use Maps for Rodeo Specific Plan Area 3.2-w6
3.2-2 Enrollment and Capacity of Schools Serving the Specific Plan
Area 3.2.14
3,2,.3 Estimated Net Acreage of Lands Designated for Residential
Uses,,Rodeo Specific Plan Area 3,2-16
3.24 'Estimated Housing Units,Rodeo Specific Plan Area 3,2-16
3.2-5 Estimated Student Population Generated by Specific Plan 3,2-16
3.3-1 Summary of Discharges for Rodeo Creek at San Pablo Bay 33,6
3.3-2 Median Pollutant Concentrations in Urban Runoff for Selected
Constituents Based on Land Use 3.3-11
3.4-1 Existing Land Use Inventory
3.4-.2 Planned Transportation Improvements
3.4-3 Existing Daily and Peak Hour Volumes
3.4-4 Existing Levels of Service
.* afftA
3.4-5 Net Change in Land Use
3,4-6 Number of Housing Units Within Plan Options
3.4-7 Traffic Generation Factors
3.4-8 Trip Generation Summary
3.4m9 Project Midday Peak Hour Level of Service
3.4-10 Project PM Peak Hour Level of Service
3,6-1 Sightings of Protected Species,Mare Island Quadrangle,Contra
Costa County 3,64
3.7-1 Generalized Stratigraphic Section Rodeo and Vicinity,Contra
Costa County, 3.7-4
3.7-2 Estimated Maximum Parameters for Known Faults in the
General General Vicinity of Rodeo 3.7-w6
3.7-3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 3,7,-9
3.8-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 3,84
3.8-2 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 3,84
3,9-1 Applicable Bay Area Air Quality Standards 3.9-4
3*9o,2 Air Pollution Summary,Richmond and Vallejo Stations 3.9-6
3.9-3 Violation Notices: Resolution 1/Section 301,January 1993
Through 11 August 1995 3,9-8
5.0-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives:Dwelling Units and 5.0-1
Population
5.0-2 Comparison of Ale: atives:Net Acreage by Land Use Category 5*0.2
5.0-3 Suggested Elements to be UseWithin the Specific Plan Area 5.0-10
5.04 Constraints on Redevelopment of Downtown/Waterfront Area 5*0-12
* 1-0„w
d•c d�,,..ri0
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Type and Structure of EIR
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to evaluate environmental
consequences that would result from the proposed project, which has three components: the
adoption of the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Area Specific Plan, approval of an associated
General Plan Amendment; and analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may result
from construction-related projects that would follow adoption of the Specific Plan. By addressing
both the adoption and implementation activities of the proposed Specific Plan, the EIR strives to
be comprehensive and exhaustive in its consideration of cumulative impacts. There are currently
no proposed land development projects. Consequently, the EIR analysis must focus on the net
acreage allocated to the various proposed land uses, as well as the elements of the Specific Plan
itself(i.e.urban design guides). If future projects pose impacts that are not adequately addressed
herein, supplemental technical studies and possibly an EIR addendum or EIR supplement could
be required. Any land development projects along the shoreline (north and west of the SPRR)
will be subject to a separate environmental review.
In summary, it is the lead agency's responsibility to select the appropriate type of EIR, based on
the particular project and the decision-making process. The three separate activities are related,
but,the components are defined differently. With regard to implementation projects,they cannot
be analyzed with the same degree of environmental assessment that is feasible for an already
proposed land development project. However, the General Plan and other pertinent regulations
constrain the design of future projects. By making conservative (yet realistic)judgments about
the lot yield of residential lands and floor areas of commercial lands,it is possible to generate and
distribute traffic, forecast demand for various public facilities; and evaluate potential
environmental impacts. For the purpose of reviewing the proposed projects, this EIR will
constitute a Project EIR.
Throughout the DEM these components are consistently referred to as the Specific Plan and the
GPA. The EIR includes an analysis of significant environmental effects,as well as recommended
mitigation measures that would reduce any significant environmental impacts to less-than-
significant levels. The DEIR must focus on significant environmental effects, not "potential"
effects. (See State CEQA Guidelines, See.15126. Section 15143 requires a focus on the
significant effects on the environment.)
1.2 Purpose of EIR
This EIR is an informational document that,in itself,does not determine whether a project will be
approved, but aids in the local planning and decision-making process. It will inform public
agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the
project; identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable
alternatives to the project. The responsible public agencies shall consider the information in the
EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency.
1.0-1
1.3 Background
One component of the project is the adoption of a Specific Plan for the Waterfront/Downtown
Area. This planning area is within an adopted redevelopment area that is larger than that being
considered by the Specific Plan. According to the Redevelopment Agency, the area is
characterized by blighted physical, social and economic conditions, including deteriorated
commercial and residential structures; a lack of neighborhood amenities and inadequate public
improvements. The commercial areas are described by the Agency as old and in need of
revitalization and increased investment.l
Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law, a Rodeo Area Redevelopment Plan has
been adopted comprised of the following five activity areas to correct these conditions and
.
provide for a viable commercial district to stimulate and encourage commercial development.
0
comalI Development:--Financi
al assistance to property owners for repair and
renovation of existmg commercial structures and development of new commercial
development,plus funding of infrastructure,utility,circulation,and other improvements
to improve the condition and appearance of existing commercial areas in order to
encourage new commercial development.
Circulation System Improvements: Funding assistance toward projects such as road
interconnections at California street and 7th Street reconstruction and repavement of
Parker Avenue, reconstruction of the Parker Avenue/Willow Avenue/San Pablo Avenue
intersection, frontage improvements along several local streets (sidewalks, curb-and-
gutter,etc.),and other circulation system improvements. '�`-
Public and Community FFunding assistance toward park and other community
facilities development.
Other Infrastructure ImUaMM=- Funding assistance toward needed improvements to
PIthe project areaamurn drainage system,sewer system,water system,etc.
Housing Rehabilitation and New Construction. Added funding to provide financial
assistance toward the rehabilitation of existing rental and ownership housing, and toward
the development of affordable new rental and ownership housing, including housing for
senior citizens.
To achieve these goals for the commercial area of Rodeo, the Agency funded preparation of a
Specific Plan. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish policies for land use,transportation
and circulation, and public infrastructure; provide design guidelines for the character of public
and private development; and outline a strategy and funding approach to implement each
element. The law requires that a Specific Plan include text and diagrams specifying the
following:
Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, -�
0 0
Prel mary Redevelopment Plan for the Rodeo Redevelopment Project Area,October 1989,p.3.
1.0-2
IM
jand Uses. The distribution, location and intensity of land uses, including open space,
within the plan area.
In stmaure The distribution, location and capacity of transportation, sewage, water,
storm drainage,solid waste and energy systems.
Resources. Standards and criteria for development and utilization of natural resources.
Financingjml2lementation. An implementation program including capital improvement
plans,regulations and financing strategies.
Specific Plans are intended to be vehicles for implementation of General Plan goals and policies.
A specific plan must be consistent with the jurisdiction's general plan, which in this case, is the
Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005. Because land uses called for by the Specific Plan
are different than those of the adopted General Plan, approval of a GP amendment is associated
with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will be consistent with the amended General Plan.
1.4 Project Overview
Contra Costa County prepared an Initial Study and issued a public Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for this EIR on 9 January 1995 (see Appendix A). The subject of that NOP was a Specific Plan
land use map that was based on the Public Review Draft(PRD)of the Specific Plan. Two other
land use scenarios have been prepared for the Specific Plan,which are also analyzed by this EIR.
They can be referred to as the Land Use Map based on staff/consultant modifications(S/C Land
Use Map) and a General Commercial (GC) Land Use Map based in part on Chamber of
Commerce Recommendations(GC Land Use Map). The S/C Land Use Map provides more land
for residential uses than the PRD Land Use Map. The GC Land Use Map de-emphasizes
residential uses and provides more land designated for commercial uses in the Planning Area.
Land]Use-Catei * i
The land use categories and allowable densities for the various alternative Specific Plan Land Use
maps are identical to General Plan land use categories. Consequently, each Specific Plan Land
Usemap also serves as a GPA land use map.
1.5 Project Objectives
Specific Plan Qbiectves
The Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan presents a strategy for the revitalization,both
physically and economically,of the planning area. The key revitalization srtrategies are as
follows:
• Capitalize on Rodeo's bay front location
• Enhance and create visitor-serving attractions
• Restore downtown and refocus commercial uses on First Street
• Create opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the downtown by
increasing residential opportunities nearby
1.Q3
• Enhance the artist/bungalow character of Rodeo
• Improve Parker Avenue as the community entry way �`
General Plan amendment Obi ives
The proposed GPA is intended to facilitate the revitalization of the Rodeo Downtovm/Waterfront
Area,and to further the public health,safety and welfare,
1.6 Areas of Possible Controversy
0
As provided in CEQA status us and guidelines, the focus of this EIR is limited to those arm of
controversy or issues known to Contra Costa County (the Lead Agency), including those
concerns identified as possibly significant by the Country in its preliminary review(Initial Study)
of the proposed project, along with the concerns identified by other interested agencies and
individuals in response to the NOP. These areas of controversy and concern include:
Earth: potential geologic hazards,grading effects
Water: flood hazards
Ad%^
Biotics: possible effects on habitat/sensitive species
Noise: possible increase in noise
Land Use: potential for land use conflicts
Risk of Upset: possible environmental hazards
Population: possible alteration in location,distribution,etc.
Trans./Circ. possible traffic impacts -�.
Public possible additional demand for services
Services:
Utilities: possible utility-related effects
Human Health possible exposure to health hazards
Cultural Res. potential effects on cultural/historic resources
Cum.Impacts: potential effects on quality of life
1.7 Intended Uses of the EIR
For purposes of CEQA, the State and County CEQA Guidelines define a "Responsible Agency"
as a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project for which a Lead Agency is
preparing an EIR. In this case, Contra Costa County is the Lead Agency,or the agency with the
widest discretionary review of the project. The term "Responsible Agency" includes all public
agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project.
• Listed below are the agencies known by the County of Contra Costa which may have
discretionary approval authority over the project and/or which may contribute funding for the
project. The listing includes a description of the various approvals and/or funding allocation
decisions for which the EIR will be used by each agency. These agencies may be expected to
use the EIR in their decision-making.
1.0-4
Contra Costa County
• Adoption of a General Plan Amendment
• Adoption of a Specific Plan
•
V +,2*ang street rights-of-way
• Approval of land use permits,developmplans and subdivisions
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
• Modification of the Rodeo Redevelopm Plan
• Allocation of funding for the project
• Plan regulationand administration
State of California
• State Lands Commission-jurisdiction along shoreline of San Pablo Bay
Local and Regional Agencies
• LAFCO-for possible boundary reorganization
• Rodeo Sanitary District-possible annex ion
• East Bay Regional Park District-possible acquisition of park lands
• BCDC-permit granting authority over shoreline projects
1.8 Previous EIR
In 1990, the Redevelopment Agency served as a Iced agency for an EIR which analyzed the
establishment of a redevelopment area in Rodeo. Tkt study area was approximately 650 acres,
which was bounded by I40 on the southeast,San P Bay on the northeast,the corporate limits
of Hercules on the southwest, and the Unocal property on the northeast. The 1990 EIR, which
was a program EIR, made no mention of a Specific Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Area.
However, it provides relevant information on the envionmental setting of the 89.7 acre planning
area that is the subject ofthis EIR.
1.9 Report Organization
Following this introduction,the Draft Env ronmental Impact Report(DEIR)presents a summary
of impacts and mitigation measures. Section 2.0 d bes the project; Section 3.0 provides an
environmental analysis of the project, including wring, impacts and mitigations. Section 4.0
provides a discussion of special topics required by CSA. Section S.0 describes the"no project"
alternative, compares alternative land use plans far the planning area, discusses an off-site
alternative and identifies the "environmentally ipmor plan. Section 6.0 identifies selected
references and lists EIR preparers.
2 Environmmental Impact Report,Rodeo Area Redevelopment Plan,County File CR 89-2,SCH#
89030083(DEIR dated March, 1990).
100-5
TABLE 1.94
SUfiVIlVIARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
r.
-- ---------------- ----------------
'roe
Land Use and Planninp.PolIcV
1. Development Standards(p.3.1.11)
The Specific Plan does not directly If the Specific Plan and GPA are Less than
require consolidation of parcels. The approved,the resolution rezoning the significant,after
development guidelines in the Specific entire downtown area to P-1 should mitigation.
Plan provide a context for project review provide complete design and development
but it does not prrn7de development standards
standards comparable to those provided
by conventional zoning districts.
Piecemeal redevelopment will make it
more difficult to comply with adopted
General Plan standards and criteria,and
with design guidelines.
I Parking(p.3.i-ll)
The absence of a community parking plan Prepare a comprehensive parking plan Less than
for the downtown area could conflict With which incorporates shared parking for the significant,after
design objectives for the dowmtown area, commercial core and does not obstruct mitigation.
and conflict with General Plan polio•3- views of the bay.
"�-
170(b
3. Contaminated Soils(p.3.1-12)
The EIR consultant observed visual A phase 2 environmental report required Based on
evidence of contaminated soils on the by regulator agencies having authoritv outcome of studv.Y' 0 'r.
Joseph's Resort property.and the over soil and water contamination prior to clean-up mav be
10
potential for contaminated soils exists on future use of the Joseph's Resort property. required prior to
10
the Bennett's Marina ro m• use.
J. Local Parks(p.3.1-13)
The Specific Plan does not address the Specific Plan should identift,future Less than
local park needs of the Rodeo area. neighborhood park facilities. significant.after
Redevelopment Agency should consider mitigation.
im ng facilities at Left,Gomez Field..
S. Child Care(p.3.1-14)
The Specific Plan does not include a None required. A baseline study will be Less than
comprehensive approach to meeting the required of each proposed project. significant.aft6r
ga
child care needs of the Planning Area. mitition.
6. Bay Conservation and Development
Commission(p.3.1-14)
Proposed plans are consistent with plans None required. Projects will be required Less than
and policies of the commission.but to meet adopted plans at project review significant.,
specific land development proposals for stage.
the waterfront could conflict with adopted
plans when ro'ects are_proposed.
1.9-1
• � •.•••1 11 •.•..•tis►• Y .• Y .•t'• 1• .I•.•r•1. •i•.►••I i!• .•i1• • ..•. • •� .• •. • .: ••Y •r •1.• .r S..ti. .1 1.•.SS•.S S•••••Ys+'•w'aS•'1r`.'w•iS:..•.
•••••S••• y1. s•r..•• ••• .. • .• la.••1 Y..•••• • «• • • r. •• y • •• • •••« .y.•yw•y.«.•.yw•err
re • 4
7. Disturbance of Residents(P,3*145)
Residents and businesses adjacent to the None required. Less than
planning area have the potential to be significant.,
disturbed bv demolition and construction
activities.
8. Annexations(p.3.1-16)
More intense use of the waterfront will None required. Requires LAFCO Less than
increase demand for sewage treatment approval to annex waterfront into Rodeo significant.
service. It is adjacent to the Sanitary Sanitary District.
District boundary.
9. shoreline Trail(P.3,146)
The Specific Plan does not provide a clear Specific Plan should provide specific Less than
vision for the shoreline trail or adequate siting and design criteria;consistent with significant,after
lice direction. EBRPD and Bait Trails andards. mitigation.
lo. Changes to Land Use Map(p.3.1-
17)
The sewage treatment plant is currently The sewage treatmentplant should be Less than
8
designated PR and a 2.000 ft. reach of the designated PS,with a rim of PR along �the significant.after
waters of San Pablo Bay is designated PR. shoreline:the waters of San Pablo Bay mitigation.
ation.
should be designated W.
Mumcmal Services
1. Police Protection(p.3.248)
Redevelopment may result in None required. Redevelopment Agency Less than
P 8
incrementally increased demand for should coordinate with SheriTs significant.
patrols bv the Sherifl"s PSprtment. Department.
2. Waste Water(p.3.2-18) a) Less than
a) Sewage generation will increase a) None required. significant
proportionate to increased development
b) Ground water infiltration into b) Improvement and financinglans b Less than
. P )
collection system results in untreated should be madeprior toprocessingof significant.after
sew a a releases durins,hea,%-%-storms. developmcnt2lans. mitigation
3. schools(p.3.2-19)
Redevelopment will result in additional bounty should involve district in rm iew Less than
students attending John S,%,*-ctt Unifled process for residentialJ ro•ects and significant.after
P 8
School District. Hillcrest Elementary support imposition of fees.if necessar .to mita tion.
iga
School s oN-er-capacity and John Swett meet educational facilities needs.
High School is at McitV.
4. Fire Protection(p.3,2-19)
The Specific Plan limits building heights With a one-time expenditure of$350,000 Lessthan
to 35 feet because the fire department to$500,000 the department could significant.
lacks a ladder truck. purchase a ladder truck to service 4 story
buildings. Additional personnel could be
required.
1.9,-2
.i fr"••r.' • r r• • r w.S•i•j••�r •• •••fir .•r• • • • • •••• ••. r•.w..•••••• •.r.••
• .�. w f Y ••• •i�•'•j • • • • • ••'• S•.�•'• r • • f•'.•i� •.' �f.,,•_•' .•i" r.•r•..••.••i r r i.•.•"Pr'r•r'.'•S'.i i r'••.•.•S
• ' •r r • • Y• • •:rib rS••
•
.• Seri.•
oil
Flood Hazards/Draing
1. Flood Hazard(p.3.342)
The love-lying portions of the Specific a) Incorporate policies into plan to Less than
Plan area are subject to inundation In,the improve storm drainage system and to significant,offer
1 00,year flood. provide criteria for flood proofing mitigation.
�
structures.
b) Redevelopment Agency and Flood
Control District should produce more
accurate floodplain maps and present the
maps to FEMA for amendment of Flood
Insurance(tate Map.
c) Prmoide pumps for low-lying areas
behind levees.
d) Development or substantial
imments in the 100,myear floodplain
are to be designed to mitigate water
damage,
2. Increased runoff(p.3.343)
Intensified development and bone required. Less than
• improvements to storm drainage st stem significant.
could result in minor increases in peak
and total runoff.
1 Water Quality(p.3.3-14)
Runoff from urbanized areas contains None required. Area is already! Less than
elev=ated levels of pollutants which mai• urbanized. si nificant.
g
iMEct Rodeo Creek or San Pablo Bay.
4. Increased Erosion DeAng Grading
(p.3.345) Less than
grading for foundationssill result in Developers should implement an erosion significant,after
increased erosion. control plan as described in Section 3.?- mitigation.
4(a).Geol2pL/Seismicitv.
1.9-3
1}r.
vi•:
rr.
Traffic/Circulation
i.Parker Avenue/4th Street
Intersection(p.3.4-17) (a) Selection of another land use option Less than
Traffic generated under the General of limiting this option to intensities below significant,after
Commercial land use option will degrade the maximum allowed would mitigate the mitigation.
PM peals hour levels of service at the impact.
Parker Avenue/4th Street intersection to
LOS F. (b) Separate left turn lanes on Parker
Avenue should be added at the
intersection.. A separate eastbound left
turn may also be required.
(c) The traffic impacts of development
proposals responding to the proposed
Specific Plan should be analyzed using
methods consistent with the Growth
Management Program. Mitigation
measures should be developed for
significant traffic impacts.
2. Parker Avenue/Willow.-San Pablo
Intersection(p.3.4-17)
Traffic generated under the General None Required. However,intersection Less than
Commercial land use option will degrade modifications could be considered, significant.
PM peak hour levels of service at Parker including addition of a third northbound
Avenue intersection With Willow/San through lane.
Pablo Avenue to LOS E.
3. Parker Avenue/3rd Street
Intersection(p.3.4-18)
The unsignalized Parker Avenue/3rd This intersection should be signalized and Less than
Street intersection mill operate at LOS F separate left turn lanes should be provided significant,after
during the PM peak hour under all land on Parker Avenue mitigation.
use options except the Staff/Consultant
option.
4. Parker Avenue/1st Street
Intersection(p.3.4-]8)
The unsignalized intersection of Parker None required. However,signalization of Less than
Avenue,Mth First Street will operate at this intersection and provision of separate significant.
LOS E under the General Plan and left turn lanes on Parker Avenue should
Staff/Consultant options. be considered as specific land use and
devel2pment patterns are established.
S. Traffic Volumes(p.3.4-18)
Additional traffic generated Hithin the None required. The County should Less than
Specific Plan Area will utilize I40 to continue to advocate for improvements to significant.
access en plrnTment or residence locations I-80 and should continue to encourage the
elsewhere in the Bay Area. The addition use of transit and other alternatives to the
of traffic to segments with LOSE private automobile. The Specific Plan
standards could contribute to the eventual should include urban design standards
1'riolation of the standard. that encourage walking and bicycling
within the area.
1.9-4
Visual Qgality and Desi
3.5-1 Visual Quality(p.3.5-21)
Development that is not sensitive to the (a) Provide a comprehensive plan for the Less than
visual qualities of both the natural and entire Specific Plan area,with strong significant,after
man-made landscapes has the potential to architechural controls to ensure land use mitigation.
conflict with adopted General Plan goals compatibility and maximize views of the
and policies. bay.
(b) Develop an architectural"vocabulary"
for the Specific Plan Area before any
projects are constructed. This vocabulary
should borrow from the most desirable
architectural elements in the community.
(c) Avoid use of brick due to the inherent
. seismic risks to Rodeo posed bv the
Hayward fault.
(d) Limit commercial space.and
concentrate commercial uses on the first
floor in a commercial core,with
residential uses above.
(e) Palms could be used in a major street
tree planting program to create a pleasant
historical theme that would complement �-
residentiaUcommercial development.
3.S-2 Bay Views
Unless properlv designed and sited. (a) Water-fru-nn projects should be Less than
waterfront land development projects clustered,leaving open areas around them significant.after
have potential for a substantial negative to permit views of the Bay. mitigation.
aesthetic impact on Bay views.
(b) Structures at the waterfront should
ordinaril��be limited to one stor��or one
stow and a mezzanine.
0
(c) Structures should be designed to
enhance the pleasure of the user of viewer
of the Bay. To this end,structures should-
be
houldbe designed so that no side appears to be
the rear of the building.
Biotic Resources
1. Wildlife Habitat(p.3.6-6)
important biological values,particularly Seven possible habitat protection or Less than
along the shoreline,could be restoration measures which may be taken significant,after
compromised b}-development which is are presented on p.3.6-7. mitigation.
not sensitive to protection of wildlife
habitat.
1.9-5'
........ ... •••.•...•••••••••••................................ . . . ... . .......... ......... ...... .......... ,. ......... ...........................................
f S••ri.••.•••..•••••••••• ••.••....•••••..•••••..•••.•.••Yr'•r••:V::• ':' •'i•'`•• •r••r•.••••• ••••.••,•i�j •••.r•j•••r•••••y• •ri�•�••i•••••••••�r •�.` • ••••.::••••••i::•fi:::••.••••••j❖••••••.j:•:•i.��i••.�•�•�:•ii•�j•i:.'i i.•
•fir • �•••••j.j• ••j•• ••••• •••• •• • ••• � � • • •• •• • •�••�j• y • •r•Yr.�:i�
••• • �•� • •• :::::•`:::i`•'•b••'xr• ti r�`�iV• ••i••�•i•� ••• • • •� r • • • r •.b •`•�' •• 'rif b ri ��•�.•.••••
ore
MN
• '• iwr�:}�`:��:`.•••1Y•.•�` i i•'•'•`i •••i • • : :':sir.••� r• i ••i'i••• •.'`•i.:`.•i`i
•:'i•••r:•jr.••.'.• i• •.`•i`i�•V:•••'••• •'. ••• `Y••••••Yi`�r`•b•: .�Y ••j•f••:r.i•:'i i i
2. Protected Species(p.3.6-7)
Although no special status plants or a) Site-specific surveys should be done Less than
animals were identified in the Planning prior to approval of shoreline significant.after
Area.it is possible that such resources development. For some species,it is mitigation
may exist. important that the survey be done during
a specific season.
b) Development of shoreline projects
shall include restoration of habitat for
sensitive species. .
Geology/Seismicity-
1. Safety of Bav Mud(p.3.743)
The proms project involves a) Amend design guidelines to require Less than
construction m ithin areas underlain by, geologic/geotechnical investigation. significant.after
Younger Bav Mud which presents mitigation.
stability problems. b) Conditions of approval shall require a
foundation report and criteria to guide
grading,drainage and foundation design.
c) Geologic/geotechnical and foundation
r its are to be subject to r review.
2. Ground Response(p.3.744)
During the useful life of structures.the a) Make demolition or seismic Less than
Rodeo area is likely to be subjected to at retrofitting of URM a priority of the significant.after
least one severe earthquake that will cause Specific Plan. mitigation.
strong ground shaking and mai•result in
loss of life,and structural collapse or b)Modern seismic design in accordance
partial failure of buildings. with Uniform Building Code and County
Codes shall be used in construction.
3. Collapse Hazard Buildings(p.3.7-15)
The existing in,%-cntory of reinforced (a) Require owners of downtown Less than
mason%.(URM)buildings poses a buildings to submit a structural engineer's significant,after
substantial life loss and injury potential. analvsis that identifies the structural mitigation.
deficiencies of their buildings.
(b) Require the owner to post warning
signs on the fronts of those buildings
deemed to be a collapse hazard.
(c) Within the Specific Plan,develop
economic incentives for owners of
substandard buildings to opt for
retrofitting or for demolition and
r lacement•
1.9-6
• • •• • •r•• ••.•.•M•d•• •• •••i•• • • ••••i•••• •••••f••.•s sr ••i••• •i!•'f••t•"••• •• •Y••• t ••e•.a•r •• • • :• ❖.i•• •fa•t'v s•••s•••• ••••r•:•t•.r••.•f
• r► f••• •r• • �• •`.• •• ••1' :•.•S •.••r• S••i«moi r.•r•
!••_ •fit , .r .........
4. Expansive soils and/or Bedrock
(p.3.746) a) Require design-level geotechnical Less than
Expansive soils and/or bedrock Ina`• investigation. significant,after
age foundations,slabs and pavement. mitigation.
b) Foundation design should include
drilled pier and grade beam foundations,
reinforced slabs and thicker pavement
sections design using criteria provided by
the design-level geotechnical
invesfigation.
:�. Erasion and Sedimentation(P.3.7-
17)
Project proponent should provide erosion Less than-
Project.
hanProject involves cuts and fills on a narrow control plan including: grading to significant,after
valley floor with a potential to cause minimize exposed erodible material, mitigation.
sedimentation both on and off"-site. water bars,temporary.culverts and swales,
mulch and jute blankets on exposed
slopes,hydroseeding.silt fences,sediment
!ms/basins.maintenance program.
Noise
1. Residential Uses(p.3.8,-.15) Based on
Residential projects are considered A detailed acoustical analysis shalt be acoustical studv.
sensitive receptors. Such uses mai•not be performed for residential projects within noise insulation
suitable on sites when ambient noise the shaded region of Figure 3.8-2. may become an
levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL. architectural
concern during
ro•ect review. �.
2. Commercial Uses(p.3.&4)
Some non-residential uses may not be Routine noise study as condition of Less than
compatible with noise levels along Parker approval. significant,after
Avenue/San Pablo Avenue corridor. mitigation.
OMWWM�
3. Noise Due to Land Use Changes
(p.3.84)
Successful redevelopment could increase' None required. Less than •
noise levels on the perimeter of the significant.
planning area and along the Parker
Avenue corridor.
4. Construction Noise(p.3.8-6)
Short,-term noise impacts can be a) Restrict construction activities to 7:00 Less than
anticipated on adjacent residential areas. a.m.and 5:00 pMonday through significant,after
• Friday,and between 9:00 a.m.and 5:00 mitigation, •
p.m.on Saturday. No Sunday or holiday
work allowed.
b) Noise-related performance standards
shall be included in Agencv contracts
adjacent to residential areas.
c) Construction documents should
include provisions to ensure that all
equipment is adequately muffled and
maintained.0
,.
1.94
............• .............. .......... ...........,................. ...,.. .............................................. .................................................
•:•:••.•••••.• •• •••.�•• •• • • { Yom.•• •••••••ri. •�.• • ••• •• •••1f it Y•ir r�i ::r:'::::is•:::••••"••
.•r.'.rN•...... .r.: :. .* r A ...•.,r: ,r S{ r..•S:r...,... ... •�. rr' ...., {► r. .�....•. .... .. .
...•{..{-. �'.. .�.r..r.••�.f,�.., r� }'.•,�r' r�_�{.`. } ,�n.•r�,y�0•r. ;fir•�•'•. .:ti 3'...v}�.v..{S •C•••,ti. •.• .r r 7:.� S...S.r. ..?� ;..•....{..•..ti
:::N•�•i�{'•ii.Y l Y ti1•r'••�iL•••r.fr•••i •r� •iri•• 'rN•'�•; _f"S•• •r•"i r ••f.� •.•� ••.••••r ••.••rr'r.`.• f• • ��y�•j •• ••S �� ':r••r:r••:
::rr•`�••::••• ••!•• �•� •••ti { ••� •y.•ti• S�' � �F' • •r•Yr�1S• •���• •f • ••••`�f�•`�••�`rr ••� r ••• • ••� � • •• � � r•Y••••••••.
;:f •••r �Y 4••'�•r•.�.f���•••• f • •r. . • •:r' .•••.f.�'•: ••:••Sf•:•Y i ••••••:•rr•�•I. .'I.� r • `• • •• •:�''�•• • •• r•••r r•`rrr.M•Y.•:•• ••r .•••.•
• � ��i rr •`•~{ N •••r� • ••,'iti r•r• _'M•i• r.:,.r •r�•fS r•r�••••••
•i •••f••••• • ••Ci• •.• • • • .f•• �• N • S •��{ � '•r•' '•Y orf{•:i••
• • •':;iS%• r`•.?r r rrrr r••• :r• •r••• • • i•�•••r .I.ir •• •r•A�•::
Air Quality
1. Ambient Air Quality(p.3.9-9)
More intense development will result in None required. Less than
more people who are sensitive to odors signif cant.
and unhealthful emissions in the planning
area.
2. Project Generated Pollutants(p.3.9-
10)
More intense development will result in None required. Less than
more local air Ilution. significant. •
Cultural Resources
1. Archaeologic Resources(p.3.10-5) a) Amend plan to include prehistoric Less than
Cultural resources of prehistoric age or resource policvTequiring,a program of in- significant,after
character matt•be encountered m ithin the field-testing for prehistoric resources. mitigation.
project site during subsurface construction initiated for redevelopment projects.
or other earthmen ing activities.
b) County representatives performing
mitigation monitoring should be trained
to identify the t.Ves of prehistoric
materials likely-to be exposed during
earthmoving.
c) if ani*archeological materials arc
uncovered,stop earthwork within 30
varils until a certified professional
archaeologist has evaluated the
significance of the find and suggested
mitigations.if deemed necessary.
2. Historic Resources(p.3.10-5)
There are historical buildings in the a) Amend plan to include a policy Less than
planning area, requiring a program of evaluating historic significant,after
resources in the planning area through a mitigation.
comprehensive sun-ev.
0
b) County representatives performing
mitigation monitoring should be trained
to identifi-the types of historic materials
0
likely to be exposed during earthmoving.
c) Measure La)above should be amended •
to include historic resources.
d) If any historic archaeologic materials
are encountered.follow procedures for
l.c)above.
1.9-8
116
Housing.Population.Jobs
1. Increased Housing Units(p.3.11-13)
S/lr plan expected to increase dwelling None required. Less than
units in Specific Plan area by 264. significant.
Maximum theoretical increase is 510
units. Other plans result in less gr
9Wth.
2. Population Increase(P.3.11-15)
A population increase of 558 ne%v None required. Less than
residents is foreseeable if the S/C plan is significant.
develo .
I Jobs(p,,3.1146)
EmploNment in the planning area may None required. Less than
increase to over 60Q jobs if redevelopment significant.
is successfid.
1.9-9
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Plan Overview
Hi ry
In 1990 the Redevelopment Agency certified a final EIR for a proposed 650 acre +-
redevelopment area in Rodeo. Subsequently the Redevelopment Area was created, and work
commenced on implementation of plan goals and srtrategies. With respect to the
Downtown/ area of Rodeo,it was determined that a Specific Plan was a properWaterfmnt vehicle
to guide planning decisions for that area. 9
Figure 2.1-1 shows the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area, and the Specific Plan area is
identified by a dark gray shading. Note stipple pattern along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay,
which denotes mud flats. The northwest boundary of the stipple pattern represents the position of
the shoreline at low tide. The Specific Plan describes the vision for a special place;replete with
views of San Pablo Bay from vantage points in the downtown core area, which is to possess a
busy,vital retail business district. The plan provides open spaces and recreational opportunities,
along with design guidelines intended to retain much of the natural heritage of the Rodeo area. It
has been in the making for several years, under the direction of the Community Development
Department. A planning firm was retained to serve as staff for the preparation of the Specific
Plan,and a citizens steering committee provided direction for formulation of basic plan concepts.
Scone and Purpose
The Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan encompasses about 90 acres of land within the
Redevelopment Area. Its purpose is to enhance environmental quality through providing for
open forms of land use adjacent to the bay. A civic center, which will be the heart of the
community, is to express an architectural theme that is compatible with the existing character of
the Town in terms of scale and design. However, it is to be much more than rehabilitating
historic structures. It is the views, shops and design that will make Rodeo a destination point.
The plan addresses the creation of a variety of housing types in close proximity to jobs, and the
specific plan will contribute substantially to the supply of affordable housing in this portion of the
county.
The circulation system in the plan area is existing. However,in a project that is not related to the
Specific Plan, the Cummings Skyway is planned to be extended westerly to San Pablo Avenue.
When this connection is made,it will reduce the stream of truck traffic through town. Within the
planning area,consideration is given to making circulation improvements to facilitate the smooth
flow of traffic and improve safety. Specifically, consideration is given to closing one block of
Pacific Avenue,just north of its intersection with Parker Avenue, and the design and function of
San Pablo Avenue west of the Parker Avenue intersection is re-evaluated. Community facilities
and utilities are existing, but some infrastructure is near the end of its useful life and in need of
upgrading or replacement.
Specific plans are authorized under California law(Government Code Section 65451 et. seq.)to
provide a greater level of specificity than a general plan offers for planning sites of special
interest or value to a city or county. It creates the opportunity to plan for a site comprehensively,
2.0-1
46
logo
it 16 oe 10
4PO too*
too 00
410
Of 0
woo 041
*'Rtd a rf.
too�. 0
• •
!♦Via!► • •i }y4100
y
• :1.1 • iM•f* i♦
\ Sllrlil#
f • ii►••#
r fi i••fi f!•ffi ..•
�•i•0i0640
ii1.1 a < •♦#,� ..•,. ,"'�
a 34 4r
' •} {;'y� .y '. y' !�'
�
fli�e 000•4liff!! •f•l1s11f •♦
f� ♦�Q1 • f i1
•V#ilj •1i fil�� ♦ < r > w
',•� { K t :r j
.f ..., t :j t •>':.'• r 1ii1!•�ii r#'1�l111f#�►�!� Owe i .�lover
fi ' 'o .; 4 ; ♦ 41 •
s�'e
,. ♦ •t.•��!'��1�f•
if•,#i+MON
ON 0
1!#!f f!i 11 �{ +"rte <y� • ,�iy►- �`+ .
r•' !s ffi�••••f #rte+i \ -�'". �` y ♦ • s>/I � �t
•' ••.lir}'••� ' ALIN
in
P_
4.
Va
• s'• i1• �«'�M!i i i• �w ' ix, r::;,.' ,tom �"'♦♦ �
1►
WON
• �Y i'• :
}: AIL [.•. tib' : .{> t !•:�•.••yii} <
'�• Yi, t./.R'r «`•��•w}x� .y{�}:a �',{i�e,t fir? �••
',•• •ff( ♦ S► fir. v"•"�hrv'^#�',� �,,+'' {�i�'•� 'j• �a••♦ '.�.2�A.'� .♦ •
•, Yr ?<�����• � tii'w i} .s �•;" .,(*b r{/�( yrJ"yy�.; �7�''Ly.r,�• ,�.} '>�
.. {. y�yiw�.�� •r. ����!• .�•� •� '.4.. �?�'r",'�•a •:0.,f.►• •,1•.'•. a{•.t
• I"r, �.*.'�' ! •>��'.�''L.'7C• �'t• � ti 'y 4 !:�t•�S' 1• .!.'ham•.. }kms,•.-fir.
may,; �y�,V�r �,�<•. 1�/ f,, ••:
tf !,r •• ' t> �' Af r I O' �9M1•1•�f.• N�La
•VL i'' '�! y�i �� A�: � j•a<• '� t'•� ,.� }L'`� t 4'rf•t r• :'�'".�•"
A.
v t?•.,,Z. �4�ly,�y��; '>?t. i 5R r',•� ;(iiC^'!• •� .i[''•.\'' ,"'``• ..w•'r... i.
�'`+4;?i +t"�'4.Ax•:•• !'�i,'+i�l;i'.?'�?y��, ,r.+ �}f• ;r i t y� �'Y: -''�''`' , -Y•'
• ,���t� `f��.{} ,,�'��'.:: ••.��.� �!y +`•,�t�� ,y r'r} ''":r r�'� ti�•wt.�: c��}r (�i��ti'y4 A t'?t
#i !.:'.7y"ti' r'':. k s S►S. > •4. A`:>, ti ,'�y �f.,�c'w..t ; �►9 'R� •
1 IN0� Z,, �>•?'`w' to Krky}:� vid "1t ?, •�Ft �fy l L .• 0 `
#:+ '� "_^'� w•'r'Gf'A;:�r<': i� , �• �{. :�,y��f{��i ti '�'• .•.��'`''�••'� 1�."� !.\•(� a. +fit, J��/y,
ID
♦�f a 't}„'ti�`�j;�;, .�•a;r;�;�':�,:,,• •:+t�� ( ,•"�'�� i�, •r! a� •• .y,��Z'' -a{ �" � P
��� � ?>': ,t a ^.6 *'•� '"-� +M�i: � 'rte A<.wl'�talk•.*•`•'�•S�ii•t
•!:1i �i�llctgi�'`;,• � ':2nS` .+�'� f. �X S > � �' r "�}. �• ..
w • r 'Rs tir
a • .; <'
0 410
*to Milt
IV
.� ,y� ,s'ti {r •',,'yy'��p• ''{� a � f!{ �,.r ii'•¢r;•
Of
} .�"''"�',v ,f�y R6i?lrf; �',YR!',�ft,CiR•• a y,��:••'�+!1'., y\ {r .A�y!,� � •-, �+
v,.�-+�'.+?!'• <,<�;.:�'{'•' :'r...�,*:}.� 6�•�y:1? yt�� �•>`'r4•Y •�.y,.>i+: y}k�.:",''jf; �i''�
0:ORI
�'S �'ti�rt,� yam.` .�s(' � �. .-ra:� ?' •�..� •�' ';�r:
}� •:. a / :9•;• a'.� x? of}w:•:-t �'I
I � � •,}' •( �•• '.,��S•''0.f• �t lr+s Ya..
••> '' :''•` S1M�:.ti;Tya{•: :y''»•� '.1. �f!G;1�r}.�,,.�'! •f 7n4
t � •i' .'�,?��� :a\.• �{",/} !, i'"0. !.' '�.•.;�-.
tL 'I.1`: �}• A:4CS aL,'+t'S 1••• r++{•'•
'� •rte Y''r\ �:'•�'•rf!• �"'�•�" \, ? •,��,'• •Y.
sY +�Raty�/yam •}• •� � ,'± }.��: •* �.!y'f%{•
AM
41
31
+''C ,n�yi�� •'ti .•• •1•:1. t. -
rem,
y- - •''�ay..»y,�_v__- ? Ir•!t•••••� '• , t,.-`••'t;-t, \'i7},at'r'4f7'7'
Figure:2.1 - 1
Graphic Scale
Limaits of Redevelopment Area
o �� ,000
based on more specific information about the site conditions and the surrounding physical,
environmental and policy context. Specific plans establish the nature, character and location of
activities and development, guide the orderly growth of an area, and describe other aspects of
planning.
Plannin"japnmh
The Plan marks an unprecedented step to revitalize a community with significant historic roots,
but which lacks economic vitality at present. The Plan attempts to provide for a downtown area
in a comprehensive and far-sighted fashion, balancing public objectives and community values
while taking into account the interests of residents,employers and property owners. Inareatin
framework for future growth the plan has major components,which are reviewed below:
Revitalization Strategy. This chapter presents the revitalization strategy,forming the backbone of
the Specific Plan policies and guidelines. The strategies address the following needs:
• Capitalize on Rodeo's bay front location waterfront
• Create opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the downtown by
increasing residential opportunities nearby
• Enhance the artist/bungalow character of Rodeo
• Improve Parker Avenue as the community entryway
• Provide public improvements to stimulate private inve ent
Land Use and Development. This chapter provides a guide for future land development in the
planning area. The Specific Plan is divided into six geographic areas and five land use types as
follows:
• Commercial Core
• Waterfront Park
• Residential Townhomes
• Waterfront Marina
• Mixed Use Area
For each land use type, planning and design concepts are outlined; and special topic areas
discussed (e.g. shared parking; parcel assembly incentives; mixed use diPlan land use mapstrict objectives). This
chapter includes a General Plan/Specific , along with land use goals and
policies. Finally, development standards are provided which address uses, building intensity,
height,parking,setbacks,and other design considerations. .
Environmental Enhancement Element. This chapter divides the town environment into three
components: waterfront,town and local road environments. With this vision, urban design and
transportation goals are identified, and design, guidelines are proposed for both Parker, Pacific
and Rodeo Avenues and for First Street, as well as for the marina green and pedestrian
promenade.
Implementation Program. This chapter addresses the fiscal aspects of the Specific Plan,including
the capital improvement budget, financial assistance programs and plan regulation and
administration.
24,04,2
2.2 Site Description
The Rodeo Specific Planning Area is a 90 acre area centered in the northwest portion of Contra
Costa County. It includes the waterfront of Rodeo, which encompasses approximately I mile of
shoreline along San Pablo Bay. It also includes the downtown area of Rodeo, which is centered
on a 2,000 foot long reach of Parker Avenue. The southern boundary of the planning area is
Fourth Street.
Figure 2.2-1 is a Regional Location Map. It indicates the location of the site with respect to
incorporated communities in Contra Costa County. Just southwest of the site is the City of
Hercules. The unincorporated community of Crockett is less than 2 miles to the northeast.
Figure 2.2w,2 is a U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map of the planning area. It shows terrain
features and cultural features at a scale of 1'7--2,500'. Although the surrounding area tends to be
hilly, elevations in the planning area range from 0 to 25 feet (mean sea level and slope
gradients typically in the range of 0 to 5 percent are representative of broad areas (with the
exception of embankments and sea cliffs). San Pablo Avenue--Parker Avenue is the only
ft IN
collector street in the planning area. Interstate 80 passes less than I mile to the east of the
Planning Area. The Carquinez Bridge at Crockett is 1.7 miles away. The major drainage feature
in the planning area is the channel of Rodeo Creek,which approximately coincides with the east
boundary of the downtown area. At the mouth of Rodeo Creek sediment has accumulated,
creating a shallow water/mud flat area that is represented by a stipple pattern in Figure 2.2-2.
Figure 2.2,,3 is an aerial photograph of the planning area. It indicates that the Rodeo area is a
nearly fully developed community. The primary undeveloped lands in the Specific Plan area are
park lands of the East Bay Regional Park District. Lone Tree Point Park is located in the west
comer of the planning area. The shoreline area is bisected by the Southern Pacific Railroad line.
The marina area is choked with sediment, and at low tide it becomes a mud flat. The downtown
area consists of a number of very small parcels.
2.3 Project Description
As mentioned previously, the proposed project that is the subject of this EIR consists of thrie
components: adoption of a Specific Plan,adoption of a related General Plan Amendment(GPA),
and the individual land development projects that would follow as a result of plan
implementation. The only excluded land development projects are those located between the
waters of San Pablo Bay and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. This exclusion is necessary
because the bay margins are environmentally sensitive lands,and it is difficult to forecast impacts
of specific projects whose characteristics are as yet undefined. 4
There are three alternative land use plans that are being considered. These are referred to as the
Public Review Draft(PRD) Specific Plan, StaffiConsultant Modification(S/C) Specific Plan and
the General Commercial (GC) Specific Plan. Following certification of the Final EIR, it is
anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will adopt a Specific Plan and GPA- The land uses
selected will be based upon the plans analyzed herein. For each scenario,the land use categories
are identical to General Plan land use categories. Consequently, each alternative Specific Plan
also serves as a proposed GPA land use map. The adopted County General Plan is described
below, followed by a description of each Specific Plan land use alternative considered by this
EIR. --�
2.0-3
i
J
Site
NL
4•. /
..:,� ��`*� .:�� t• is n ... •+.�`'`��'�'� r
aI-,.N 1` .a A+'."� �•.,��yY�Iw�..yJ.1 �ti f'Y ` �{ r
.. �1`7 y 4 r .. ;M ?.. i"♦ '+� 111{+
k L.¢;5 ti i S' ,.�' ' ''}t+tAhr�4 /♦ 1 •�yw..a 1 t. :' ..,A p t
fl
?
a..w,,.Y•i�"� i-j !'.4,.R fa,d,i•�.-:py•?.�'fiJ.",. '�.�* �j ♦� � ., ..• `.
AL
�"°`',j Y�~y'., �3 t. '1 r IC �E � `�`r Y.. . ..^>�- . -•.r.u,ir�y,,�
� it• .^,•�,tit:�'7S*^"t'i�a+, .-�. .Y r �. ,r
rr ry tA"bo6+5f1R l...i.�..,._� :.^.•+''rr>..7 '• ►• - � r, l ��t ,, �
\.. y X v �.YJ j�pCi�i[.tyj(QGM'O�-Z►1s, ,•a�.a.-,•..3 �'�' t '�i� � _,..�'a
fir►til i. w iw''°wR�C1`;Y:CA
•4 y �,t +an�y•\Y/ {.y-'-'n..t' ��..r r. (♦•. '��., + r
,C •">�"'1� L nnn:,.} r �'1��s' `f7C�1 ,. �Y,.,.\�``a � %.
•r} _ t "Ts"1lr+od'ice' � �' .. L
'�•.� ^!'S��yy}4;'."�5 � � ..nd 'ar. ,,,k.« '� iC"• :.M:'P= 4 r `� ♦e v�v'. ...' � a.
�t.{iI �� �t� ��',.u'{lS � V�'O+.S trt 1 a 0 r a % 4 � �w` • ti�rrf.'t�'.Sf•.
�< -tea `. .. l R•�.:t t Y ^4• i
+�. `��i 4�' +��... ,.�, ,fir♦�,Sy;,wr`}
t ..
y.xxcsr 2 1v t va 7�+ •x�
f
T J�
F 1
r0
!r
Am
a AL
f ! !
i
f
i
t -
f
� w
� X ♦r� `+,y'�.r..� �a ��Rrii�t�'a.,.,�.ff+'�r'..__ ,""'F, .. /� w.
/BEW �-. �; --...•P� fir:.a .�� t M_,�r, I���".�-•'+���+ "►r/►`-1�A�i Y�;!-♦
.� �� T► ,.+I.%-'.r .�I'
f'``��Ili�� �,•��.1.i i�w `Il+, �\`�,.+✓ � •`'�1/���
♦� .•,,� �, ,,�-�-�'`��4*�T..^.�^I2/'j!�f ��� �t -�' ..tea.-�'f''.7 �%'I,/'I4?'^1�•��-.� 3...L •t
' � �"�`'�'�=�,� 1•`'`` ���.._ J�`'`� /' � moi'
Or
.�► L"'�, � ` � 4 t r y�i f+f�+;./�,{t�ti+r T J !,,� ! 3; �t�t{.4.�i �
Ze
i � � � ,+R'ft Y.+LSy' � `-` �` �'r �+`��� rA r' y �/ �rs����`�. �\�,��..�1..��. �l`"... �RL�, `► �'�
07,
..��',.1,1`j"l.(1, t `1+ s 1��! r� 1►� "t! �� r✓i ,�' ��J t.S� `+"�"1��� ��,(., ' � *R
'R •✓
t, , 1'��_'•, "�;,,,STT ,' � ,!--_ - � .,�c
-•� r�� f� ��,`� _ ;i, }x-.�',•rAi� •�� 1`�'�„+ t',�. �'"+�
/ r�ti✓�r i✓'" + s>tt r/� ♦1,. ^�.}l+ "+"'!'ra Y ''t t/+\ T`I�•,'.�.1 11'%x•I 1i
3o j
RW
IV:11
1.M � .•'� }o" � r,r �'R � �' ��414.}�� + "y�t(,�\��.T\r\�r�
,
st
%
, 1
r'r` t +„r ,sL M' .;�,� .. ,/ .! � � � �♦�, eft` - ;t, :.�'� ,�\ ,• -`-�.�,ry�'-;
>r�+ .� �',t '`'` , � I�M�p�� ', �44� T \�•i�\+'.S{~jIr'���i+�•��i � `4"fi�,J i�� �,a `.''� ,�\
�'�rt? �' •.�`,• { i }f" "w { �� �Uzi
a✓! rt 4�' i± ...�`�L•A�, �� �r�.���x'i
ri,�'��yh,y�! ^ 1� •-�r� _ It �i '/ � � � •� �1{`��(l1',����•`'�� i{�',"� "�i t���r,�r►
Cb
1 h){f , r 4 �l • . .'T� 1 - f�Tv.•nr.�`';-'ti+ 1 ` ,t i `'?+
1 t f%"t� /} .I► { J r }i 1
'C��'Ia a'� ' S L s t'} r.' �`~ ,'I ! , r-` }� •,�,�....,„`:.....r.'`'• i►
,c�{ c�� ..1 -�"'r•�l�� ,i•Ill��l�r'1.,'��.�,r.`
i 4 ' y 46 Nill
10
R `
�� �t�•,t�i 3' * ' �� � � �� .�rte/�Alm ��� ./r'�(�y f a.�� �•i
�'>r�.t',��i •. � � .�t` jf7������ +1q✓j�J'.++��*�.(j�jly�,'.,.-,r.A',,,..*,�' �'f x,� a ,��"1'!,r'T'7,�
'f� ��} � ��, �,-ww+.�+"� l�*'1R1 y'w�",Z�.:•�R ��r...♦y�r' � _--.�,r i .1-1'. r'},(1 N r,..+1 ' • t
yu�./ � `?►f �I ���+��i-�� +.� -�,,,, �T Mt�.I;�'.. /+'a= ,!1.. 1�f II t+r ��l�,�'�
ILITOP<Yf�. ►�7i
f Irl .•�..-.. {.- �.w�+4
1
•
• • • • • 40 i
4
t
•
V ��
t
E, .
`• CC
♦
41f 00
r.
tr o 4
J� T• y.t' J b
.. �a� L � �� ..� v � •rY 7�-j 4r �. '- ; .y-LMS TT r*P 41�
'+
-,I J.P ld4h W
�; r.;.. `. #� -;4 � i�r��.r'"" al��,. S, �,.Ir �;•F" ��'t r a + � •�y w; 11 t���t� ,'';' ��r Y{.�' ��!
6"_ f r Y. ,+r".►V .y��tA' t '"r {' +y _ I• t '�'r'd y \
,.►5.rep J. r ���,•. A .c'� i• y
ri _ - •f::~ rt,:.. r,� .rQi:'�.t, +� r "�r4°`'/Ix ` '� 4 r + • it `-q,
* I*`,�`A• � ♦ ••• rte,��+[ ,.7Y' + .•F � � ��• ♦ � _ "\ YT J�F��.iir'�w �� ���1�� +" "rrsl'A f s...r-.�+�' ! S
le
�t C� T'' ►..� Z�y j}}.��.,,1 t r M.P i ;r.s w ! � �I'
• ~,rte �R r''`� �yq& '4 - fff✓✓''"`" � AMr.! �N yIM
4�- �q'a '' ..-_. 1 � r- � ,,� •fly '
lw
All.
.r...`'�"�•\�,.r"_ ._•,,•'�"� S r ,�� J i�� �� � T a•a. Z r1♦ } . ''�fIM�� '{ �,.. ��.•�,q/ y
r _ i, J} III//"' f i• r v �:r ♦ r .t�Aw
'r►6't ' i
-Al 00
fee`+' � �' � �,ey '.,� �.�^ ^�►-'�'a► RnR r,�► {'� r. � ♦ � �J K. �•'4t.! +),��.
AW 40%649
df
SA 4-A �pv . GL i * 0;
+� � ,�/ d' r ,ter'�'�`'.^' ?� a�-.`` ' ` r� `r � _ � � 'i .,,♦ � I"�'~
`1 r
.{ fl,',� A* ,rte a .r • ,�.�,} �,+ -ryjsu,.,, :,t;�.s �r► .
• 14-f
r 4'�jiMMliiF
477
61 'p,�r` .w� t e•'��� � Y ,,.�,�.V � * t t „t�,\„A S �,� «,. -... ,rr f Y" ♦♦ � ".i s t
!i =,moi't• ,�+' . . 0•
SIG � s' •' '' v' .��.! .-� `�'� {++�4 ��. .�''� �4 �;► 7� },�,i` � '1�r �,• � $r � � a � �f�
syr � �.'L� r � '�'' � � 1. �� �c x erz•� ;�� •
~ 't ;:�''. - '� v f to +` •1.S, e "•.+'Fmow
:c .:.ilt,,,_ 3 `! > t�"i� fr. .....•�,. +� 3
-$- dSn Y `.r.+f.Z 1 ,�,��a�+` •'� ) '�-�S "�. ,.,,''rs'i+�+`r" '' " Z t wr''"'r"t ,. ', 4061 _�►1` "�
airpar-
40*
iou
V, •�' ...,r '- fir. L}�• ,i . �.i��A' *t"� •... _ �/` ` i w s
cVat-
loop
5 t x 4'1 Atm
,.y ✓may}
4�•A
'd r• # x «
' � � •� ` � T'•�y � r j t .��� V� t'-e.. I ���� j�
\t� �� �r. ♦r ?,.� �i
y � f " .`` { 1••� �. 1 �• ` It �►• /�__y4 p '.�
t Cyt t r �I-+l�, • S;, ,�•� 1" F •,' :. 1> �,4T•. '1"+, . 4 �\,,.
1000
OF
-A
'00L
v- - '6♦ ! ` `� .}�' X11► � �+I .rt ♦ j3+ /'� �,j�'► ir,� ''S
''►... A •' .;�;,.•c. ��r yyp�r .. � r� "•,y# � a,R� � � �V�`•:,i)r J q s �
� ♦�'S.� �l'" � � 4'''� y �� %O� � # � '. �d k�s '< {L}.•4��.i,' +r'�f.' ee��„►1' off.rdf,fir� F
X •+� "moi►1'�''� � .'�'''"� � ,•' `�. .,r� `-�t' '� ti i!' ^• � � � " „lMrr►} ,•- "'''�`
y,- •fit„ ,,,� +►'' ♦ .-.,*'+• rel►�F:`.' &c * ' `y. '.• N •!
4A fow
r
40
db
f `
,s
i
s i -
r �
., � . •.
•
•
•
Existing General 1!1&n
The adopted County General Plan would be amended, if a Specific Plan (SP) is adopted. Figure
2.3-1 shows the prevailing general plan land use designations in the 90 acre SP area. Note that
the inland boundary of the SP area is represented by a heavy black line. The source of this map is
the NOP(see Appendix A,figure that follows p.28). This official map represents adopted policy
However, the shoreline shown on that map is not an accurate representation of the existing
shoreline (compare Figures 2-2-m3 and 2.3-1). Some parcel boundaries are not accurately
--resented. For example, in Figure 2.3-1 the Sanitary District's treatrnent plant, located in the
northeast comer of the map, is classified "parks and ion". The boundary shovM is
-.41
generalized and diagrammatic. These boundary problems are not Afalat at the scale of the
official map(I inch=4,000 feet). However,for the purpose of the Specific Plan,a more detailed
scale was required. (The Public Review Draft of the Specific Plan and NOP included maps at a
scale of I *inch 40WO 600 feet,but the margins of San Pablo Bay are generalized and diagrammatic).
Figure 2.3-2 attempts to translate the adopted General Plan to a base map at this scale which
properly shows an accurate shoreline. It also shows boundaries north of the San Pablo Avenue.To facilitate comparison of Figure 2.3-1 and 23w2, the shoreline shown on the offiis
cial map
presented in Figure 2.3-2 as a dashed line. The shoreline from the official General Plan land use
map is also plotted on figures 2.3-4 and 2.3-5.
According to the adopted General Plan, the waters of San Pablo Bay are designated water(VV).
4!
Construction of new residences, commercial buildings or subdivisions of land are inconsistent
with this land use category. There is a 2,000 foot long reach of the shoreline of San Pablo Bay,
between the marina area and sewage treatment plant,where the lands north of the railroad tracks
""+`'-
are part of San Pablo Bay. The adopted General Plan Land Use Map indicates approximately six
acres of land designated "Parks and recreation" (PR) between the bay and the railroad tracks.
Since there is no land,the PR designation applies to the waters of San Pablo Bay.
Note that the legend for Figure 2.3-2 provides both the percent of the SP area designated for each
land use, as well as the net acreage in each land use category. On the map itself,the number of
square feet in each category are listed,block by block. For readability,the land use designations
of existing public roads are not shown in Figure 2.3=2. The designation of streets is identical with
that of adjacent properties. Thi individual categories are described below,
Single Family Residential - High Density (SH). This designation allows between 5.0 and 7.2
single family units per net acre. Attached single family units(duplexes or duets)may be allowed
in this land use category. Secondary uses generally considered to be compatible with single
family homes includes home occupations,small residential care and child care facilities,churches
and other places of worship, secondary dwelling units,and other uses and structures incidental to
the primary uses.
Floor-Area-Ratios (FAR) do not apply to residential land uses. Maximum ground coverage is
determined by the specific zoning based on lot sizes. Maximum heights are determined by
zoning and fire district limitations.
It
Multiple Family Residential,-Low Density (NII,.). This designation allows between 7.3 and 11.9
multiple family units per net acre. Zoning Districts compatible with this designation are the .--.:
Multiple Family Residential District(M-12),along with the Planned Unit District(P-1).
2.0-4
Primary land uses shall include attached single family residences (such as duplexes or duets),
multiple family residences such as condominiums,town houses,apartments,mobile home parks,
and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses. Secondary land uses which do
not conflict with primary uses may be allowed, including churches, second dwelling units, home
occupations,and group care and/or child care facilities.
Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density(MM). This designation allows between 12.0 and
21.9 multiple family units per net acre. The Zoning Districts compatible with this general plan
designation include the Multiple Family Residential Districts(M-29,M-17 and M-12)along with
the Planned Unit District(P-1). Allowable secondary land uses are the same as NII,. 0
Multiple Family Residential High Density(W. This designation allows between 22.0 and 29.9
multiple family units per net acre. The Zoning Districts compatible with this general plan
designation include Multiple Family Residential District (M-29)and Planned Unit District(P-1).
Allowable secondary land uses are the same as ML.
Commercial(CO). This designation allows for a broad range of commercial uses typically found
in smaller scale neighborhood,community and thoroughfare commercial districts,including retail
and personal service facilities, limited office and financial uses. Maximum site coverage is 40
percent. Maximum building height is 35 feet. Maximum FAR is 1.0.1 Zoning Districts
compatible with this land use include Community Business District (CB), Neighborhood
Business(NB),Retail Business(RB),Limited Office District(O-1),and Planned Unit District(P-
1).
Commercial Recreation(CR). This designation allows a range of privately operated recreational
uses of a commercial character, including marinas and similar facilities, campgrounds, golf
courses, outdoor sports and athletic complexes. Maximum site coverage is 40 percent.
Maximum building height is 35 feet. Maximum FAR is 1.0.
Office (OF). This designation allows office facilities of an administrative character including
branch and head offices,multi-tenant structures and similar uses,and medical offices. Maximum
site coverage is 40 percent. Maximum building height is 50 feet. Maximum FAR is 1.5.
Parks and Recreation (PR). This designation includes all publicly-owned city, district, County
and regional parks facilities, as well as all golf courses, whether publicly or privately owned.
Appropriate uses in the designation are passive and active recreation-oriented activities, and
ancillary commercial uses such as snack bars,and restaurants. The construction of new privately
owned residences or commercial uses, and the subdivision of land, is inconsistent with this
General Plan designation.
Public/Sen i,,Public (PS). This designation includes properties owned by public governmental
agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, and improved creek channels. This designation
also applies to public transportation corridors (freeways, highways, and BART), as well as
privately owned transportation and utility corridors such as railroads,PG&E lines, and pipelines.
1 FAR is defined as Floor to Area Ratio. This number is arrived at by dividing the square feet of the
building's floorspace by the net acreage of the parcel. Thus a 4,000 square foot building on a 10,000 square
foot lot has an FAR of 0.4.
24.0-5
s
i
••`•i
•-•��
i
0 rIr •i► •.i'�
i •
i • amp�i�•
f
400
•
rf � ••�-art••
! =irk*•-
i i *•
00 so
•i • iii ilii •••i+' 1
i•!�•i ••:i• +�•• a
••*••••!•• •i- • •• *• •• ••
r . ••1f ••••r-i• • .�� i •• r=
f +•i i••'�i j i••• i• • • -
Air ewe
••i•• .o•'•��ii"i ill►* i
At
�'� �t �•
At AIR
W, SIR
!1"�•t�•j.• * • * t � �• bib
��irk►
•.::,.�: • �,. 1 t
tat
.:::= sl,�•►� ���, t 111 � �
,��,,�• .'..•� 1 air ss
• ! � it� � ! �!���
• •- - + i
rrnl►-
.i• t Am1
lot*
!
i 1 %still1 7t
.� r • tz 0.
s
'1
•
e=� PubG
Pub m
•:•i:•iii•+ e/ S
at
d al 0 0 0 0 0
,. • F=ny �� OU
•LOW3ea= 'Y Parks&
•
IL
•
o�
COM
•
itivle Fa=ny
• +`• 40 UP i�� t ! tt V C• 4a De
'm
00**** dow"
Woo 0060
_ Graphic Scale
Figure.2.3 1 �omle � .
Acre me foo'
�1
Plan �.�ridd� tA ed Gener a
Source NOP
.t
• C1309400 ,
i•• •• IL
OxNew bag 1994
• ! • •
01411*
f i�300+•
•• i18i300,• • .• CL
• • • •i IF
Go
00
owe 0 hats adopted
eneral PW mi
•
•• a • i�r
ii• ••••••••i
•
i
60000484
,•
!•
i••••!•!••;•••• !•i i • ! • ii
• ii •
i••i• ! • •• •••
•,•,• ,• i•• ••• ,
! • , • • i
ri+!•!•• •i! •;•,•,• !f•
••;
•
i•
Av*.
•r••i•+ • f •••••i••i ! ••••i•••
•
!•i,*0•i•11••!••••;•,•••••,•!• ,•
l,l•isi+!i.r•fi •!,i!,* iM•r••i••!i i • •!
• • i
i • 00
T1 adopted • ii•• 0 ! ; •i•
•±
•
!• 7
00
41
i ••••••.• • r;
r,•, ,!,!•• i•,•• ••••• i�iGeA"Pbn m •i i • iii•f• -0- ;•
iii•• i f!i•w•!i!i 37
iiir
r• i
0 ZOO 00
0
•i••,•
7-M
,••,•,i
•
meow
f ii:•! !r!•�•� ��� ���II'' 111
; 11f t
•••'' 1t t•�•� 14j_•
A w #
11190009
•�
sellitil lots Id
500 a?'iii •••••'• •'• 11.700 ..
1 Sitt!►�t 167x00 ;•;• •; ;+�;•
71000 •1 QQ 300 �` !'•#•'
,rp ! • •
�• � t t i•�t; t;t;•9 0
t f#tit# •tit# t
r 209300 ,� • ! • • • t
•',• E• www •r••t•
•
is w.S9.80Q` 18 700 8700 79100
•� w w w w •tit•
•p, ' Ib 700 • !•#t! lir
SII "'' tit•• ��
4
1791001
• #
1 •e• �--,
:. S+�•�� �1t 300 t•• 1
so OIL
So ,,,� rt• •t•
��' f • • •••11.400
IN-
X400 ;• •t• '
� � +'� r• 126 600•
.;��- .SLS• �'�. �•� ''�' ••i•:•i• gt
• i•lti0 1tN9 4th ,...�
.f
GONE
Legend: Note: SmaN arabic numbers an plan are approximate net areas(in square feet)of the various uses shown.
w w w w
VOWww"�."�.�`A Single Family Residential-High De ' • 2.5 A. 1100-ft5. '"x► urnice-1.0 A.
0.5% Multiple Family Residential-Low Dens •0.3 A. 15.4% Public/
�y 'aemt Public 10.7A.
3.6% Multiple Family Residential-Med.Density- 2.5 A. 20.0% Parks&Recreation-13.9 A.
i • •
4*2% Multiple Fa •mily Residential-High Density• 2.9 A. 3Q.9*/* ;:;;;`;; Commercial Recreation•21.4 A.
f
�:='=�. Mixed Use-0 0 A 2a 4'X. •'t'•e•�• �m -
0•t�9r6 ___ . A. # # # # ercial 14.2 A.
• • • •
Figure:2.3-2
Graphic kale
Translated General Plan Land Use MapOne Acre ��---
For Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Area J 0 =I woo
A wide variety of public and private uses are allowed in this General Plan category. However,
the construction of private residences or private commercial uses,and the subdivision of land,are �`
not considered compatible with this designation.
Water (VV). This designation is applied to approximately 68 square miles of water in the San
Francisco-San Pablo Bay and Sacramento-Ssn Joaquin River estuary system which is within the
County. The designation is also applied to all large inland bodies of water such as reservoirs.
Uses allowed in the"Water"designation area include transport facilities associated with adjacent
heavy industrial plants, such as ports and wharves; and water-oriented recreation uses such as
boating and fishing. Construction of new residences or commercial uses and the subdivision of
land is inconsistent with this General Plan designation. is
Mixed Use(MU). Mixed Use does not appear on the adopted General Plan land use map for the
Specific Plan area. Lands designated Mixed Use do occur in the Rodeo area,just south of the
Specific Plan area. This designation allows, but does not require, the placement of residential
units above street level businesses. Businesses require 100 feet of frontage. If a parcel does not
have 100 feet of frontage, and is not consolidated with neighboring parcels to create such
frontage, then a parcel within the MU category is to be considered multiple family residential--
high density. Two of the three Specific Plan land use maps evaluated by the EIR classify
portions of the planning area as MU. If the same definition of mixed use was applied to the
Specific Plan area, consolidation of parcels would generally be required to yield 100 feet of
frontage,
PRD s is Plan
Figure 2.1-3 shows the Public Review Draft land use map. This Specific Plan Land Use Map
designated the downtown core area "Commercial" (CO). It is the area bounded by Rodeo
Avenue, Parker Avenue, San Pablo Avenue and Second Street. Excluding the nights of way of
public roads,the Commercial Core is 3.9 net acres. Assuming maximum building coverage of 40
percent, only 1.56 acres of this area could be occupied by buildings, with the remainder as
landscaped areas, walkways/patios, parking, etc. A "Mixed Use" (MU) designation flanks the
Commercial Core to the east and west. The MU designated lands could be used for ground floor
commercial with residential uses above; loft style live-work units, or multiple-family residential
projects
The existing waterfront marina area is designated "Commercial Recreation" (CR), along with
0
most of the shoreline between the manna and the Rodeo Sewage Treatment Plant. In the area of
Joseph's Resort/Bennett's Marina the shoreline lands amount to approximately 12 acres. The CR
designation is consistent with use of the site as a marina and ancillary uses (e.g. dry dock, bait
shop, store). Other potential uses might include restaurant,hotel/motel or shops. The remaining
shoreline lands an designated "Parks and Recreation" (PR). They include East Bay Regional
Park District's (FBRPD) Lone Tree Point Park, a 11"JUINJ-W reach of land at the mouth of Rodeo
Creek and the SaniRary District's treatment plant site.
Adjacent to the upland portion of Lone Tree Point Park are 2.5 net acres of lands designated
"Single Family Residential--high density"(SH), This is the prevailing General Plan designation
of these parcels,aed no change is proposed. This area is west of the downtown,
2.0-6
•;.;•z};.tip .v
w,.
w
i
. 00 1 400 4000 a
{�y ••;0 0.• ,•;;•;
Sflorellf�e�i iA'i
1994 ''�''�i • '''a 00 0 00* M.
aerial ph0►toQraph #� ► s ';:•i; *::.:0. 00
CL
• • i•f 4• 4•.4••4••
000 0
• r •
so 000
•• •• •ice 0'
0 0 WNW hoe led
#• r
*�.�•
0
•.
w i:-' Pis* !,•.*1 m
00 0• •••
• i !
00
041,660,goo•
0*0
iii . '4i!4ii' fi
::.0 +RA•
o W •» • `
9
w44 i4 :4•+i•:i *000•
•
•••.•••••i 4•••#4••!i•#.#1•••!w w•4• • • i •'''• i
• M_
�.•
• • ••
;i•
;
1•••�
4�y•�
!
• 1• • "ii f.ii •
• • 41 • . / . 4•.i a i•
• 1 •iI!i•!i•i• w!•
wi
Avg•
•. • i1.f i i
• •• • ! i !• •••i•. .•. .• # • •
•i • • • . • . fiw•.•4i•4•41 /!•4••i 004i 46 • •
• 40*0004000400040000
• 010 0,•.•0,•••i•.•••i•••i • • • i
• • • •'.'•'•'•'• • ii`.' 00 00
• ••
. w 1
00
f 4. 4*It# ••. !• • . i
'i
• • 5
VW ~ V•
� i•i•i�i �
158,200 21 400 t}
. 0
�� � 43.00 �
;! •• W 14900
A w i
•mow�wy� !••• �'�•.`'�'�"� 8 t.
+�iiI�VV�/•� � ii•••• t"
w A •!!i•!• 101,T00
T•� i�ii•�• !
list� 1G,700 iii'•i• !
A M
�IdNa •109►3W 21,000
• • i t !.
418.800 $' a r^ •;•;i;• ! t
•i•i• �" � "`i
A � •ii
w w ! �
f
ow :1T0no; •w w 71W
59 t1! t 5�000 '
w w w•w ! �
20100 17,100
7 -..
'S.P• 11.300 • !
J ` �t
tt' ; 53 800 ,
� t
,. 38.000
a
15,$00 0.
P
legend;
Note: SmaN arabic numbers on plan areapproximate net areas(in square feet)of the various uses shown.
3.554 "wAAwwww Sin le Family Residential-High Dens 2.5 A. 0.0% ALM 11 �e•0.0 A.
9 Y 9 �y
w
• Multiple Family Residential-Low Density- 0.0 A. 15.4% Public I Semi-Public-10.7 A.
7.0'/8 Multiple Family Residential-Med.Density- 4.9 A. 5 Parks&Recreation-15.2 A.
Iw-
o
2.7°X. Multiple Family Residential-High Density• 1.9 A. 27.5 Commercial Recreation- 19.1 A.
r • • •
i i • !
11.9% �_.� Mixed Use-8.3 A. 8. :;:;$;I; Commercial• 6.0 A.
! ! •
Figure:2.3,,3 Public Review Craft (PRD) Plan
Graphic Scale
Pro used General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Mapone� FECEME=
Based on Public Review Draft of Specific Plan 0 =0600
S/C Snecjfic Plan
The Staff/Consultant Modification Specific Plan land use map is presented in Figure 2.3-4. This
Specific Plan land use map concentrates commercial activities into two areas: the waterfront
commercial area in the north and the mixed use community entryway along Parker Avenue in the
south end of the Planning Area. On the west side of Parker Avenue, lands designated mixed use
extend from Fourth to Second Street; and multiple family residential--medium density (MM)
extend from First to Second Street westward to the Specific Plan boundary. On the east side of
Parker Avenue,the mixed use area is from Fourth to Investment Street,and the MM area is from
Investment Street to San Pablo Avenue,
The waterfront commercial area consists of one and one half blocks of general commercial (c)
between Parker and Pacific Avenues south of San Pablo Avenue, along with half a block of
mixed use (MU) along the frontage of Pacific Avenue just south of San Pablo Avenue. Lands
designated commercial recreation(CR) extend easterly along the shoreline from Joseph's Resort
to the eastern SP boundary. A dashed line is shown north of the railroad tracks, in the waters of
San Pablo Bay. This line represents the shoreline as shown in the S/C Plan. The lands between'
at the shoreline and the railroad are classified as CR on the plan. noted previously,the railroad
corridor abuts the shore of San Pablo Bay for approximately 2,000 feet. Since there is no land,
carrying this CR designation forward in the Specific Plan may tend to give further creditability to
development of these lands,
This plan changes the designation of approximately 1.4 acres of land between John Street and
Railroad Avenue from multiple family (VIII and ML) to single family residential--high density,
With regard to traffic and circulation, the S/C Plan proposes the closure of San Pablo Avenue '`"�,
between Parker and Pacific Avenues, and the closure of Pacific Avenue between 2nd Street and
Parker Avenue. These road closures do not result in disruption of local circulation. There are
sufficient minor streets to safely carry local traffic. Closure of San Pablo Avenue is proposed in
the S/C Plan to create space for open forms of land use between the downtown area and San
Pablo Bay. Closure of Pacific Avenue at Parker Avenue is intended to facilitate the smooth flow
of traffic. Specifically, as traffic volumes increase, turning movements at this intersection could
become hazardous or impair the smooth flow of traffic on Parker Avenue.
GC See, cific Plan
The General Commercial Specific Plan is shown on Figure 2.3-5 This plan designates properties
fronting the south side of San Pablo Avenue MU. It proposes retaining the existing land use
designations for land west of Pacific Avenue and east of Railroad Avenue. It proposes creating a
senior care center at the southwest comer of John and First. All other parcels south of San Pablo
Avenue are designated commercial(CO).
With regard to the shoreline of San Pablo Bay, the Southern Pacific railroad track corridor and
sewage treatment plant are designated public/semi-public; and 3.4 acres at the north abutment of
the bridge is designated commercial recreation (permitting tworestaurants, or other appropriate
uses). The remaining 29.0 acres of shoreline are designated PR.
24,04
ONO
46
•
•','
130.4W
:•:•• gas:
Shoe f m 1994of
1, 0'• 00
Pi a • s w ,r •' • '='
.: t�
•I666909 f :•.:f.:•.:
00,•, ,.f.00
.• • . •
• Men .
Poo of 0
• '
f
• • • • •
•
• •• •f• • •
• •
••••.••••.,•••••f f••••f • • f .
•••' •••
Aw
AA
w
�•• f ••f••0f•.•• •
•f.••• .••••• • f ••
• • 00 • f . •f • f f •,•f,•,•,•••••• •,.,',•, ,•,•, ' •,• '• ••• • •'f•'•• f•••••••. . . • • •'• i•'fii • ' •i•i•ii• •
••i••i•• ••i•• ••i • •i• • • • • f: . • •• ••:• • 48,900• 41.500
•:.•:• • •. ... .'.'f •' '.68
• f.•.•.'•.'•.' •'• • .•.'•.•.••'• . • •.•
, 0
O
Plan •: . :000 00 :•:
• 0 0 •: , •
.•
We.000 f .•• f •• ••••• ••'
• • i N
158,200 6
•�0: •' i• •�•�•�ii9000
1' •70,400 i
. 800 :•:•:•: 149900
100 e�•• 1
x,Ow w IL •
w w w
7 500 1227
1St S 189700
�y
�r
10 108 300
388,200 B.P. ti+se
20,300
7,100 1
•►
59.8w• Street1 a
w w w ,700 Ia
171 I eet
00
t Stt�t
3� 1
a • 400
Q 0 138 1
5 � 1
.fi.
S.P.
1 1
Legend: Note: Small arabic numbers on plan are approximate not areas(in square feet)of tho various uses shown.
w w w w
[ILI A A I I V-1 1]
5.4% wwwwwwww Single Family Residential-High Density- 3.7 A. 000% office-0.0 A.
0.0% Multiple Family Residential-Low Density- 0.0 A. 15,4% Public/Semi-Public-10.7 A.
14.6% Multiple Family Residential-Med.Density- 10.1 A. 22.4% Parks&Recreation-15.5 A.
000% Multiple Family Residential-High Density- 0.0 A. 28,7% ;: Commercial Recreation- 20.3 A.
11.9'X. Mixed Use- 8.4 A. 3.0� ;:;:;:;:; Commercial-2.2 A.
Figure:2.3-4 Staff/Consultant SIC Plan
1Graphic Scale
Proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Mapone
Ba6===M�
sed on Staff/Consultant Modifications3
�� 0 me soo
94rJ4r�• v,r{ rrMdwrx.tiyxv�pQc..,M1•yry..;:��::tC?+C`riTS"v..jiv,,�,:•.:�... .yr..: }.. ....r.y t ,,. ., ... .. •.•h -
". :t{,"�,.... .v. ...Y.ti'r .^.."{ t S''•.....•.v?...- .... .....- .. r - ,. .'\T.': ,,Y.; ,.,... ;?'•}::i^': .�`.:•"• '.�'vx,'.•.•wrr,r'•:' i'!.y.v.,r.1..vpr
F-1, <..;5� S r}.r �+ .. . ,,•} - -'-
ti 3
VXXXXIII00040
ap
Ori.hi.,^•drti.+�.'.O:.x:•, lrv'..r r r,
r v
}{ {{yr r r y r♦f#a
1r ..
f
r QY W h++♦++++++�+�
r
J
r+++'+
+#♦♦+++++♦♦f?+♦+
s ?f1C:ilrr y r f#+ff+t++++++#+t+++t++♦++
n +f+++*+ f##+
r
n! t.+S.i r ,1 ._ ♦^+++T++*+f++++♦♦++I R
• • ++�+f+++++'r++
}5 jltitis{???sr ;yrhr t^ +1++#++++Y♦t+� •
{ 'Bay
San Pablo
l
Y�.jl{r v • • •• • .f+;�`+fir#+*++�i
++ V
1S : +r' +++• •
++++++
f �+1+++++
r r
h
!r: r++fes
x T. •+++#f♦+1
1.�....{ ..{•• .. � , .. .. -f.•..1 r+++#,`'�1�
r Y r {`�f t^.ln ~, r s 'tia ,yet}i'.i/ 4 �'., .. r, •! '•T^+Tf+++j++j+ • • Y.
�:�:rl;` �' Y�f 4 t t:.'r!"�'.Y'ti.,rri•'++1++++#a+j t
T+++++
+
:
k, • + �+ 1•
kx^7� '*r'�♦+♦#�� . t!• f 1
{'.`7r;6p tij{rx J ytl+r N• r{{ �.r�' ,�•,.r� r " +.+ ` � 1 1• 1+ •1•
rrlY{rt }1 r n'�}arl 1.r''_ ���,�QGy' �:rh✓� t♦ � _ ---- •
Cry""1 r,tC• tr !.•}'!rt�f T.r_}r.. t�+#f;++++♦ - -�
++f#♦;++f+j+i - 1 , "i L _1•
111
r 1 11
lJH.'J? t, 'h +:l-'j3'�='•'S'1.�'.•t.V.� t f♦+♦a� •�...�. _...... 1• i
}.1 •l
+
+++++
r ': f *♦+++;
f}�ry 4+•+►4 w
# 1 +
h K h t `f++ �• 1 r
M'•
•
t.
.4
1"
r 4r}r
Note: Sm&N and*numbers an plan are appp%6 10 A OF I IM!9 not areas(in square feet)of the various uses shown.
Ilmonsoons
i • t • i +++++++++++++++++ i
/J/
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IlVPACTS AND NIITIGATION MEASURES
The Initial Study identified environmental effects considered to be significant, as well as those
not considered to be significaa. The purpose of the following chapters is to identify and evaluate
environmental consequences in regard to potentially significant effects that would result from
adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan, including approval of the GPA ,and
construction of land development projects southeast of the Southern Pacific Railroad corridors.
Each chapter includes an analysis of potentially significant environmental effects, as well as
mitigation measures that would reduce any potential significant environmental unmental impacts to less-
than significant levels,
The Setting section summarizes background information *including pertinent County General Plan
goals and policies. The purpose of the Setting section is to provide sufficient text and maps to
serve as a framework for evaluating the environmental effects of the project. Data sources
include published reports, independent research and consultation with representatives of
regulatory agencies. These sources are identified in a list of references provided at the end of the
EIR.
An assessment of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end of each chapter. The
purpose of the Impacts and Mitigation section is to 1) identify potentially hazardous conditions
that may affect the proposed project, 2) identify significant adverse impacts of the proposed
project, and 3) provide techniques to reduce, eliminate, or avoid these conditions and impacts.
Prior to analyzing environmental impacts, the criteria used to designate a significant impact is
presented.
3.0-1
3.1 LAND USE/PLANNING POLICY
E ting Land Use Patterns
The unincorporated community of Rodeo is divided by the I40 freeway into an older, northwest
section(the original town of Rodeo)and a newer,southeast section(the Viewpoints subdivision).
The Specific Plan area encompasses a relatively small, older, commercial area, along with
Rodeo's San Pablo Bay shoreline. The waterfront area includes an old marina and resort.
The 1990 EIR provides an overview of existing land uses in the 650+/,- acre Rodeo
Redevelopment area,which includes the planning area that is the subject of this EIR. Figure*3.I-
I
presents a Land Use Map of the Specific Plan area. It is based chiefly on a 1985 map prepared
by the Community Development Department. A few parcels were not classified in 1985. For
those properties, land use designations were assigned on the basis of a 1995 drive-by
investigation.Because there have been only minor land use changes since preparation of the 1985
map, it continues to serve as a reliable indicator of land uses. Figure 2.2.,3, Aerial Photograph,
shows the intensity of development in the planning area. With the exception of a few vacant
parcels,the entire Specific Plan area is developed.
When the County General Plan was adopted in 1991,it recognized most of the existing land uses,
except for the residential uses along the east side of Parker Avenue from Investment to Fourth
Streets. These parcels are designated commercial(CO). The acreage devoted to the various land
uses is presented in Table 3.1-1.
Table 3.1-1
EXISTING PROJECT AREA LAND USE1
Land Use AcreagCPercent of Total
Residential
Single Family 4.9 5.5
Multi-Family 5.7 6.4
Total 10.6 11.8
Commercial 29.3 32.7
Regional Park/Open Space 13.9 15.5
Railroad and Creek r.o.w.'s 10.7 11.9
Roads 20.3 22.6
Vacant Iands
Total 89.7 100.0
1 Data compiled by subtracting area of vacant parcels(as shown on Figure 2.2-3)from acreages shown on
Figure 2.3-1 and correcting for actual residential use from Investment Street to 4th Street east of Parker
Avenue.
3.1.1
x•
•• a
i
00 00
,t •,
t,•,•
MY �' i=`i=•i•`•
fi
t,•,.,
'00 10 0 ` a
60 1 00 0
#•l•t
00
. .
•,•0•
• t
00
••,000 0
• •,fa,t
• ai 0•
•! i ••*!•
!!• # • •
•#• r! ,•_
/ !•iii
! r• illi! ��
•!•/! i i !i•i!i• •
!r!#i/i i • ••• i i!•i r!•! ••!
i / • ! • ! • i ! ! i ! i •
i / t i i ! i • • ! • ! i i
• ! • / # i i / • ! i i •
iiilriiil•i•i!l#!•iii #! " .`•�. ! . .
• # • • ! ! i • • • IPS �� .
i�iiii•i•iiii�!•• �' i!i/ i www ISE • ..
ii•/•ilii • • • • i w # � (�}
• •• �'`'
tom•44
iii �� � :,:-:• ., •. • •
w
00
Ow
w w • i -
w ���v' _ i i ' • •i •t fs•
SOP .... • •.
t www f....+•.•. •..• ••! •i w � ..•.. � •..•... ••'•, .
... :• .? ...• � iii "u� -•. .. :
• ,'. i ••rill : '
, • • i
000
' - .. •..- •-• it iiiii ii• �i��
SP. !
f.f�� y . .... fit►S� .. .: .�- . .•.• .. ..... • •
legend:
RetaIM-ommerc ial Public&Private Parking
w w Single Family Residential �° ♦"�
w w w w ♦Jmce
Public/ •
u c Semi
-Public Multiple Family Residential
0
f 00;:;:: All Vacant Properties Park
L-and-s&Railroad
Figure:3.1 - 1
Land Use InventoryGraphickale
PIan Area)
fou acre SAM ,
�. Contra Costa County 0 Soo 6
As shown in Table 3.1-1, lands currently used for residential purposes represent 10.6 acres of the ...-.,,
89.7 acre Planning Area(11.8 percent). Commercial land uses occupy roughly 29.3 acres (32.7
percent), and Lone Tree Point Park comprises 13.9 acres(IS.5 percent)., Vacant lands comprise
4.9 acres (5.5 percent). The inventory of vacant land includes undeveloped residential and
commercial property in the old town area as well as lands along the waterfront in the northeast
portion of the Specific Plan area that are owned by the East Bay Regional Park District and the
Trust For Public Lands. Railroad and Rodeo Creek rights-of-way comprise 10.7 acres (11.9
percent)and public roads cover 20.3 acres(22.6 of the planning area.
Road Network
The road network in this portion of Rodeo is characterized by a conventional grid pattern, cut by
two diagonal streets(Railroad and Pacific Avenues). The Southern Pacific Railroad parallels the
shoreline of San Pablo Bay, and serves to divide the Specific Plan area into a waterfront
(northwest of railroad) and downtown (southeast of railroad). The only road.access to the
waterfront is a narrow two-lane bridge crossing of the railroad right-of-way
Downtown Rodeo
A 1995 field survey performed by the EIR consultant counted 62 single-family and 101 multiple-
family dwelling units in the downtown area, along with 23 mobile homes. Additionally,them is
an estimated 110,000 gross square feet of occupied commercial building,35,450 gross square feet
of vacant commercial buildings and 8,500 gross square feet of other uses (i.e. daycare center,
library and church). In summary, the downtown area consists of a variety of retail and y`'
commercial land uses interspersed with vacant properties and vacant buildings. Approximately
25 percent of the commercial buildings in the downtown area are vacant. Residences and offices
are also located in this portion of the planning area. The small sizes of parcels in the downtown
area will complicate redevelopment unless they are consolidated. There are approximately 46
parcels between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet in size; 28 parcels between 3,000 and 6,000 square
feet;and 19 parcels between 7,000 and 28,800 square feet.
Waterfront
Bay-oriented existing commercial uses at the waterfront include Joseph's Resort and Bennett's
Marina. Additionally,the East Bay Regional Park District, Southern Pacific Railroad,and Rodeo
Sanitary District own properly along the shoreline. The location of these properties are shown in
Figure 3.1-2.
East Bay Regional Park District. The East Bay Regional Park District, with assistance from the
County, has purchased 16.6 acres of land along the shoreline. Lone Tree Point-Regional Park
was established on 13.9 acres in the western portion of the planning area (see Figure 33,,2).
Much of this park land has not yet been made officially open to the public,as the District has not
secured public access across the adjacent Joseph's Resort property.
Most of Lone Tree Point Regional Park is west of Pacific Avenue, but them is a narrow strip of
parklands that is east of Pacific Avenue,which is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad and
San Pablo Avenue. EBRPD currently has a graveled parking lot for approximately 20 vehicles -�.
on this parcel, which is locally referred to as Terry's Park. Ultimately EBRPD expects to make
3.1-2
iii►.
•.
tip
•
•M
••• •
.
i
gyp►. ��'
•
M
Via'ww.
4Ist.r
a saps
8%6 C6
a• •
gip. id
SY.�3 !
went
St.
� 1
? t
Legend:
9a0aaaaa 1 TmeP#ntAll� PW
fir►, a East Bay Regional Park District Lands
SM
:600900 00010
JaMph's Aa�at
:::•0:0s::•;' Trust for Public land
Prtip��{Old Spcx
Proposed Regional Trail(approximate alignment) S.P. tsrnan's Club}
R+od.o a n t r Dk*rW Tnmmmwit Pww
Figure:3.1 -2
graphic zIcaie
ParkS °"�&
acre
0 me 600`
park improvements on the segment of the Regional Park that is.south of the railroad tracks and ,...,�
west of Pacific Avenue. Possible improvements include a parking lot,picnic area,construction of
a segment of the shorelines trail and construction of a pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks.
The 2.7 acre portion of the EBRPD property adjacent to the Sanitary District treatrnent plant is
designated Commercial Recreation (CR) by the adopted General Plan. Currently it is mantled
with litter and construction debris (including broken glass, rip-rap and rebar), and has not been
opened for public use.
Joseph's Resort. Joseph's Resort is on the site of an old petroleum refinery, and is just east of
Lone Tree Point Regional Park (see Figure 3.1-2). Remnants of the refining process, possibly
including machinery,contaminated soils and petroleum products,were buried below the parking
lot of Joseph's Resort. There is visual evidence of contaminants(petroleum products?)bubbling
up through the pavement and the property has a black sand beach. The color of these sands may
be evidence of present or past seepage of pollutants. However, no reports have been released
addressing the precise nature of the contamination and evaluating its effect on future uses.
Joseph's Resort is closed and the pier is deteriorated and may be unsafe for use in its existing
condition. There is a caretaker's mobile home on the site.
Bennett's Marina. Bennett's Marina is located just east of Joseph's Resort(see Figure 3.1-2). Its
artificial cove has become silted-in, so that the boats sit on a mud flat at low-tide. The marina,
like Joseph's Resort,is outside the boundary of the Rodeo Sanitary District. Currently it relies on
aseptic system. The proximity of the leach field to the edge of the Bay presents a possible risk of
bacterial contamination of Bay waters. Underground storage tanks exist on the site. Their
condition and status of permits have not been reviewed for this EIR. The marina, at present, is
marginally operational.
Southern Pacific Railroad. The shoreline northeast of Bennett's Marina is owned by the Southern
Pacific Railroad(SPRR). Northeast of the marina are the ruins of a fishing pier and sportsmen's
club on the SPRR property. Rodeo Creek empties into San Pablo Bay at John Street. It is an
improved creek channel that is owned and maintained by the Contra Costa County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District.
Northeast Shoreline. Further northeast, the East Bay Regional Park District owns a 2.7 acre
parcel that is just west of the Rodeo Sanitary District's treatment plant,, This property includes a
sandy beach and grassland area. A sign is posted, indicating the property is not safe for public
use. However, the beach appears to have potential recreational value. No petroleum residues
were visibly or olfactorally detectable by the EIR consultant. The Sanitary District shares this
small peninsula with the EBRPD. The RSD property represents the northeast boundary of the
Specific Plan Area.
Other Open S12A&e
The Trust For Public Lands holds a deed to a 1.22 acre site in the northeast portion of the Specific
Plan area, which is expected to remain in open spate (see Figure 3.1-2). Finally, the planned
creation of a regional trail may result in an EBRPD acquisition of a trail right-of-way inland of
the railroad tracks throughout the Planning Area.
2 Personal Communication: Nancy Schaefer,Consultant to Trust For Public Lands July 10, 1995
3.1-3
Just northeast of the parcel owned by the Trust for Public Land is a 2.35 acre parcel that is
bounded by San Pablo Avenue on the southeast and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks on the
northwest. This property is undeveloped, except for an old house located near the east comer of
the parcel. This parcel is currently designated commercial recreation(CR)by the County General
Plan. In the past,the Rodeo Sanitary District negotiated to purchase this site, but was unable to
agree upon a price with the property owner. This parcel remains a desirable site for acquisition
by the District.
Land Use Problems and Deficiencies
The rate of current development and land use change in the area has been characterized in recent
years as stagnant, due to a number of land use problems and blighting factors which have
discouraged private economic investment and improvement. These land use deficiencies are
summarized below:
Land Use IncomRatibilities
The old downtown and manna area appear to have gradually deteriorated due to historic
happenstance and economic forces. Current land use planning and development controls are
inadequate to deal with those conditions. As a result,there are a number of land uses which are
not compatible with the general character of surrounding development,and some are inconsistent
with adopted general plan land use designations. A number of structures in the area, both
residential and commercial,have been developed with limited design consideration and attention
to surrounding land uses and buildings. Several automobile repair businesses have also been
established in the area, resulting in inoperable vehicles and vehicle parts scattered around these
premises and spilling into the road right of way and in some cases adjacent residential lots. Some
of these automobile-related businesses are located along the principle entranceway to the
community.3
Land Use and Building Deterioration
Buildings in the planning area exhibit numerous substandard conditions and deterioration, again
due largely to age and construction type. Some residential structures have deteriorated to such an
extent that rehabilitation may be infeasible. Approximately half the commercial buildings may be
unreinforced masonry structures built prior to 1950(see Figure 3.7-4). Structural aging of many
buildings and the need for seismic retrofitting are two of the principal factors identified by the
Agency as contributing to"the severe physical and economic decline'of the downtown area. It
contains a large number of both occupied and vacant structures which have deteriorated due t9 a
lack of maintenance. In particular,many buildings have been identified as in need of substantial
rehabilitation in order to provide modem conveniences and amenities, and to prolong their
economic viability.
In gwgWre L.Igfici a
The lack of adequate infrastructure is cited in the previous EIR as another factor which has
stymied the coordinated development and improvement of the project area. There is an identified
streets Rd.- --&-,
problem of substandard NUVUL3 (i.e., narrow widths, no curb and gutter, etc.), inadequate btv11711
3 Rodeo Area Redevelopment EIR, Redevelopment Agency,March 8, 1990 p-45=46
3.1-4
drainage, and poor traffic circulation, all combining to discourage economic development and
investment.
Under-utilization
The cumulative effect of the numerous problems described above is a significant under-utilization
of project area land resources which, in turn, has created a significant physical, social, and
economic burden on the community, and has prevented achievement of the land use goals of the
adopted General Plan.
Adopted General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005,was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
1991. It includes a land use map and text, which provide policy direction for the Specific Plan
area. Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 show existing General Plan designations for the Specific Plan area.
The General Plan also provides text,which is presented in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan,commencing on page 3-75. In general,this text seeks to revitalize and preserve the historic
downtown of Rodeo and capitalize on the recreational and visual assets of the waterfront.
Rodeo Policies
Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate implementation of many of the adopted
policies for the Rodeo Area. Specifically, adoption of the Rodeo Specific Plan would assist in
translating the following Land Use Element policies into an action program:
3-162: Direct the major portion of new residential development toward infilling and
redevelopment of Rodeo proper.
3-163: Encourage reuse of existing buildings.
3-164: Establish the waterfront area as a focal point for the community by the development of a
mixture of multiple family,park land,retail and commercial recreational land uses.
3-165: Focus waterfront development around a shoreline park and promenade.
3-167: Maximize public access to the bay.
3.169: Encourage particularly the renovation of Rodeo's notable architectural specimens.
3-170: The policies set forth below are intended to guide the revitalization of Old Rodeo:
a. A mixture of land uses,residential and commercial,must be established.
b. A community parking plan must be devised and implemented to provide a sensible
A%-- for development in Old Rodeo, including a parking plan for Lone Tree
Point Park.
c. When on-site parking is provided, it should be established at the rear of commercial
Pope so that a unified commercial frontage is presented to the sidewalk.
d. Zero building setback(as provided for in the C=B zone or by variance procedures)are
necessary for continuity with existing buildings.
3.1-5
e. Landscaped courtyards, atriums and streetside plantings should be included in
development plans to provide visual and physical relief from the hard surfaces of the
urban landscape.
f. Sitting places for resting, socializing or people watching should be incorporated into
project designs.
g. Developers are encouraged to preserve and reuse Rodeo's architectural specimens
(unless financially infeasible due to seismic retrofit requirements.,etc,,),
h. Provide for integration of development in Old Rodeo with the waterfront area.
3-174: Retail business and services directly or indirectly related to recreation uses of the shore
area are compatible with the Commercial Recreation designation,including restaurants,
chandlers,hotels or motels,and bait and tackle shops.
Policy 3-174 above expands the allowable uses under the Commercial Recreation designation in
Rodeo from the more restrictive list of uses for this designation countywide. General discussion
of Commercial Recreation designation throughout the county is on page 3-32 of the General Plan.
Traffic od Circulation Element
This element establishes transportation goals and policies,and includes implementation measures
to assure that the transportation system will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth
through the year 2005, W
The Parker Avenue-San Pablo Avenue corridor in the SP area is classified as an existing arterial.
Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue east of its intersection with Parker Avenue are designated
Scenic Routes by the Transportation and Circulation Element. Preservation of scenic views along
this route are to be enhanced and protected. Applicable policies include 5-34 through 5,38 and 5-
40 through 5-42. Implementation measures are listed below.
5-aj. Develop and enforce guidelines for development along scenic routes to maintain the
visual quality of those routes.
5-al. Consider the visual qualities and character of the corridor in reviewing plans for new
roads,road improvements,or other public projects. This should include width,
alignment,grade,slope and curvatures of traffic islands and side paths,drainage
facilities,additional setbacks,and landscaping.
5-am. Attain development project design flexibility within the scenic corridor through
application of the Planned Unit Development District Zoning.
Crowth MaLla¢ement Element
The Growth Management Element establishes standards for ftfFic levels of service (LOS) and
performance standards for municipal services to ensure that growth does not outpace the
provision of urban services.. The traffic-related standards are described in Chapter 3.4 of this
EIR. Availability of domestic water service is required prior to final approval of land
development projects. Availability of sanitary sewer connections,or evidence that the leach field
site is acceptable to the Environmental Health Division of the County Health Department is also
required prior to final approval of projects. The growth Management Element also includes
3.1-6
standards for fire and police protection, as well as standards pertaining to the provision of
parklands and protection from flooding. ~y
The Growth Management Element (p.4-11) specifies a standard of three acres of neighborhood
park per 1,000 population.
QWn S12ace Element
This element defines neighborhood and community parksd. It also requires 1.5 acres of
community park per 1,000 population. The definitions for neighborhood and community parks
are presented below.
Neighborhood parks serve the residences within one-half mile radius. Facilities are to include
landscaped open space(trees,grass,shrubbery),benches,tables,and walks. Neighborhood parks
are best located adjacent to playgrounds, playing fields and elementary schools. They may
contain a neighborhood recreation center. Without a playground,neighborhood parks shall range
from three to seven acres. With a playground, neighborhood parks shall range from six to eight
acres. With a playing field,neighborhood parks shall range from 12 to 17 acres.4
Community parks serve the residences within a two mile radius. Facilities are to include both
landscaped and natural open space, playgrounds and playing fields, parking, special facilities
such as golf, boating and swimming, and a community center. Community parks should be
located in the center of a group of neighborhoods. Ideally a site for a community park should
have natural features of interest such as water frontage or rough topography. According to the
General Plan, community parks independent of playgrounds or playing fields shall be 15 to 20 ----•�,
acres; those containing playgrounds or playing fields are recommended to be a minimum of 25
acres;40 to 50 acres is desirables
Zoning
Figure 3.1-3 is a Zoning Map of the planning area and vicinity. It is anticipated that if the
Specific Plan and GPA is approved, the entire Specific Plan area would be rezoned to Planned
Unit Development(P-1)and the Development Guidelines in the Specific Plan would provide the
standards and criteria used to guide the design of specific projects.
Existing zoning districts in the planning area include R4 single family residential,M-29 multiple
family residential,D-1 twafamily residential,RrB retail business,C general commercial and H-1
heavy industrial. The following is a summary of the key provisions of these districts, along with
the P-1 district.
R-6 Single family residential
minimum 6,000 square foot lots
minimum average lot width: 36 feet
minimum lot depth: 90 feet
maximum building height: 35 feet
side yard: 15 feet minimum aggregate;minimum 5 feet per side
4 County General Plan Open Space Element p.9-25 ,..,,.
S County General Plan Open Space Element p.9.25
3.1-7
«r.
•wM!
•,rJr:
SanitaryIL
'
''�_r•
.. C
OB
ti•
C
r r
y M=2M
HwI ..•lr s J• •: d r
.1 POW.'
%.W.-K MV
~{r'r•••l'• ��� ` D-1 � .
Rw6r r:
SOOP
R B
R=6
In
;?:111:•:::`:+.r':••1• �
4
r '
''go; RmB
R=6'
1
Mal? N1,,29
�► , h
1R 6
NowRMB
�C .
�..
legend:
_•■••• 8ouridarybetween zoning ca18 9 5 cis M'029 MultilPle family residential-high density(17-29 unitshw acre)
R-6 Singie Family residential-high density
C General Commercial
(minimum parcel sin 69000 sf) RB Retail Business
1)01 Two f=4 residential(minimum parOal site 8.000 so HwI Meavy industry
M=17 Mum*family— -Modk n density(12-17 unkstm acre)
RaWoad Corridor Combinhg District(Ord,87-19 2685-M) Specific Plan Area Shown Shaded
Figure:3.1 -3
ExistiongZonsingMapOri
Graphic Scale
Acne
For Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Area 0 woo
minimum setback: 20 feet front; 15 feet rear for principal structure
minimum parking: two off-street spaces per dwelling unit ��`��
M-29 Multiple family residential:
minimum lot size depends upon building type:
detached single family 6,000 square feet
duplex 8,000 square feet
multiple family 10,000 square feet
other structure 10,000 square feet
no minimum width or depth;maximwn building coverage 35%
maximum building height: 35 feet;20 feet for buildings within 50 feet of a single family
residential district
side yards: minimum 20 feet per side between property line and any structure other than
a garage. .
minimum setback: 25 feet front;20 feet rear for principal structure
maximum unit density: 29 apartments per acre
Off-bmm parking: (a)Every apartment or dwelling unit shall have,on the same lot or
parcel,offstreet automobile storage space as follows:
(1) Studio dwelling unit,one space;one bedroom dwelling unit,one and one-half spaces;
two or more bedroom units,two spaces;plus
(2) One-quarter space per each dwelling unit for guest parking, which may include
available curb parking along the subject property's street frontage, and fractional --;
amounts of which shall be rounded out to the next higher whole number of spaces.
(3) Each space shall have minimum dimensions of nine feet clear by nineteen feet of
surfaced area, and shall not be located within the side yard or setback areas of the
principal structure. One half of the required spaces shall be covered.
D-1 Twc4amily residential:
minimum 8,000 square foot lots
minimum average lot width: 80 feet
minimum lot depth: 90 feet
maximum building height: 35 feet
side yard: minimum 10 feet per side .
minimum setback: 20 feet front; 15 feet rear for principal structure
minimum parking: two spaces per dwelling unit
R.-B Retail Business:
minimum 3,500 square foot lots
minimum average width:35 feet
maximum height: 50 feet
side yard: none
minimum setback: 10 feet front;none rear
3.1-8'
C General Commercial;
minimum 7,500 square foot lots
minimum average width and depth:none
maximum building height: 50 feet
sideyard: required on both sides,minimum aggregate of 10 feet
minimum setback: 10 feet front;20 feet rear
H4 Heavy Industrial:
There are no lot area,height,or side yard regulations or limitations in the H-1 district
P-1 Planned Unit Development:
Minimum area for P•1 district containing residential and non-residential uses is 15 acres.
Development densities are not established.
Allowable uses are(1)any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan,
(2)one detached single-family dwelling and accessory structure per legally established
lot,and(3)secondary residential units complying with the provisions of Chapter 84-24
of the County Zoning Ordinance if residential uses are approved as part of the P-1
district.
Child Care
The County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 82-22 prescribes requirements for child care facilities.
Every residential project requires a study of child care needs and a report on how those needs will
be met. Residential projects of one to 29 units are to pay a child care impact fee to the
Community Development Department in lieu of performing the child care study. The dollar
amount of the fees are $400 per single family unit, $200 per townhouse or condominium, and
$100 per two-bedroom or larger apartment. The funds generated by fees are used within that
census tract to ensure the provision of adequate and affordable child care facilities (by providing
training programs for care providers,etc). The funds will not go to families as a direct subsidy.
Non-residential projects with 100 or more employees and residential projects larger than 29 units
are to provide child care facilities either on-site or off-site. Off-site child care is preferred to be
integrated with public or private schools, but integration with churches, parks, or community
facilities is also encouraged.
Projects exempted from child care impact considerations are as follows:
• Senior housing projects,
• Studio and one-bedroom dwelling units shall not be counted in multifamily residential
projects of more than thirty units,
• Significant remodeling or rehabilitation of a residential or nonresidential building,
provided there is no intensification of land use,
3.1-9
• Nonresidential projects having fewer than 100 potential employees or having a floor area
of less than 15,000 gross square feet, ^-
• Any project, as determined by the Director of Community Development, which will not
*0"
have a significant child care impact.
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
In 1965 the McAteer-Petris Act(California Government Code, Section 66600 et seq.)established
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to regulate development on
and adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The mandate of this Commission is to protect the-Bay
and the quality of its waters; to maximize public access to the Bay; to allow planned, controlled
development along the Bay, particularly water-oriented land uses; to restrict uncoordinated and
haphazard filling of the Bay;and to maintain salt ponds and managed wetlands along the Bay.
Their jurisdiction includes San Pablo Bay, and it extends 100 feet inland from mean high tide,
provided not a tidal marsh area. In tidal marsh areas BCDC's jurisdiction includes the entire
marsh. Furthermore, if infill has been placed on a shoreline property, their jurisdiction extends
inland 100 feet from the shoreline that existed in 1966. The Commission developed the San
Francisco Bay Plan as a comprehensive and enforceable plan for fulfilling its legislated mandate.
It identifies five high-priority uses of the Bay and shoreline for which shoreline areas should be
reserved. These "priority uses" are: ports, water-related industry, airports, wildlife refuges, and
water-related recreation. With regard to the Rodeo area, the plan designates marina and boat
launch as the existing priority use for Rodeo and the development of safe access to recreational
beaches north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks as a goal. ._..�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
This section uses the criteria from Appendix G (Significant Effects) and Appendix I
(Environmental Checklist) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and standard
professional practice to determine the level of significance of an environmental impact. An
impact is considered significant if the project would:
• conflict with adopted Contra Costa County environmental plans and goals of the Rodeo
community expressed in the Contra Costa County General Plan;
• contribute substantially to adverse cumulative regional land use impacts;
• conflict with or exhibit land use incompatibilities with adjacent existing or approved land
development. .
3.1-10
Development Standards
Impact 3.1-1. The Specific Plan does not directly require consolidation of parcels. The
development guidelines in the Specific Plan provide a context for project
review but it does not provide development standards comparable to those
provided by conventional zoning districts. Piecemeal redevelopment will
make it more difficult to comply with adopted General Plan standards and
criterisy and with design guidelines. This is considered a significant impact.
The General Plan land use categories have requirements for site coverage. For example, the
commercial (CO), commercial recreation (CR) and office (OF) land use categories specify 40
percent maximum site coverage with buildings. On a small parcel in the downtown area it may
b e unductive to atte
prompt to impose this standard.
The Specific Plan also stresses that retaining the historic character of the community by retaining
significant buildings;that building facades in the planning area should be unified, interesting and
attractive; and that orienting the community to take advft
antage of Bay views is a key aspect of
redevelopment. The various land use concepts and design suggestions in the Specific Plan cannot
be effectively implemented on a parcel by parcel basis.
Mitigation Measure
3.1-1(a) The Specific Plan contains design guidelines,but the design of the future community in
the downtown/waterfront area is not known. What is known is that the entire area
would be developed under P-1 zoning. The intent of the P-1 is not to skirt the normal
requirements of the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. It is to allow diversification in
the relationship of the various uses,buildings,lot lines and open space while ensuring
substantial compliance with the General Plan and Specific Plan as well as other
standards aimed at protecting the public health,safety and general welfare. If the
Specific Plan and GPA are approved,the resolution should contain specific language
requiring rezoning the entire downtown area to P-1,and modifying the Specific Plan to
provide complete design and development standards.
Design solutions for portions of the community,such as the proposed Downtown
Commercial Core,should have a city block as the basic planning unit,and this unit
should have a broader design context,so that the development of each block is
integrated into the overall community. For example,building coverage on a particular
block might be greater than 40 percent because open areas(e.g.parking)was provided
in an adjacent area.
Parking
Impact 3.1-2 The absence of a community parking plan for the downtown area could
conflict with design objectives for the downtown area,and conflict with
General Plan policy 3-170(b). This is considered a significant impact.
3.1-11
The downtown area lacks a comprehensive parking plan. Some existing businesses have off-
street
parking areas, but others utilize parallel parking along streets in the vicinity for customers
and employees. For the existing business community use of on-street parking has proved to be
adequate. However, if redevelopment is successful,the existing inventory of parking spaces will
not be adequate.
The Specific Plan states that shared parking is appropriate but it does not outline the process for
providing a community parking plan for the planning area,and it does not prescribe parking ratios
for the range of uses anticipated in the commercial core. Instead, it references the County
Parking Ordinance standards,and those standards do not recognize the concept of shared parking
Mitigation M
3.1-2(a)Include in the Specific Plan the adoption of the following:
Allow the Downtown Commercial Core to be developed intensely with provisions for
shared parking. Prior to redevelopment of the Specific Plan area,a comprehensive
parking plan shall be prepared. Because the Specific Plan directs that the downtown area
take advantage of views of the Bay,the strip of land between San Pablo Avenue and the
Southern Pacific Railroad is not well suited to use as a parking lot. The FEMA Flood
• Insurance Rate Maps require that for buildings in the flood plain,the lowest member of
the lowest floor must be elevated at least one foot above the peak water surface elevation
for the 100-year flood. Conceivably,parking could be provided in low lying areas
adjacent to the channel of Rodeo Creek;or partially below grade under some buildings. "�``
Contaminated Soils
Impact 3.14w3 The EIR consultant observed visual evidence of contaminated soils on the
Joseph's Resort property,and the potential for contaminated soils exists on
the Bennett's Marina property. This isconsidered a significant impact.
Historic land use data indicates that the Joseph's Resort parcel was the site of a -petroleum
refinery. The precise limits of that operation are not accurately known,and may not be limited to
this project. In the parking lot of Joseph's Resort, evidence of hydrocarbons was observed
bubbling up through the pavement. Additionally, the beach in the west comer of this property
consists of sand-asized grains coated with carbonaceous (?) material. To date no environmental
reports have been submitted which accurately establish the nature and concentration •Of
contaminants. The vertical and lateral extent of contaminated soils in the waterfront area is
unknown. It is likely that most, if not all, of the contamination is due to the old oil refining
operation.
The contamination on the Joseph's Resort property could present possible environmental hazards
to the public. Specifically,the site is adjacent to the Lone Tree Point Regional Park. Although
them is-legal access to the park across Joseph's resort,them is no public access. Although it has
not been formally opened to the public,the EIR consultant has observed that the park is regularly
used by the public. Uses observed include children wading in the waters of San Pablo Bay,
picnicking,and persons just enjoying views of the Bay. -�..
3.1-12
Mitivation Measure
3.1-3 The General Plan contains policies to protect human health and the environment in the
Safety Element. These policies demand that health and safety issues be a primary
consideration in the suitability of the land to be developed. There are not inconsistencies
between the Specific Plan and General Plan in this regard. Moreover,assessment of
environmental safety issues can only be done on a site specific basis. The County has the
authority to require environmental studies as a part of the routine project review process.
The scope of studies is generally made at the time the application is processed. The
following is intended to guide the scope of the required report:
Agencies having regulatory authority over soil contamination and water quality should
require a Phase 2 environmental report of the Joseph's Resort property. A Phase 2
investigation includes analysis of the previous land uses,the logging of exploratory
borings,sampling which follows proper protocols,laboratory analysis for contaminants,
and engineering evaluation of the data gathered. Ideally,the report should also comment
on the implications of the data gathered on use of the adjacent properties(Lone Tree
Point Park and Bennett's Marina). The absence of environmental documentation would
be a basis for precluding any use of the Joseph's Resort property.
Local Parks
Impact 3.1-4 The Specific Plan does not address the local park needs of the Rodeo area.
This is considered a significant impact.
In 1990,when the Rodeo Redevelopment Area was established,there was an open space/parks
deficiency. Neighborhood parks in Rodeo are limited to the approximately 9-acre Lefty Gomez
Field on the Gaffetson School property and the one acre plus grassy play area in the Bayo Vista
Housing Authority Complex6 on the eastern edge of Rodeo. These lands are outside the planning
area.
Lefty Gomez Field consists of a little league field that is in good condition,a larger baseball field
in need of repairs,the"old field house",playground equipment,tennis courts that are in need of
repair, a picnic area and a parking lot. The baseball fields are used often by the Rodeo (Little
League)Baseball Association and to a lesser extent by John Swett Unified School District teams.
Both ball fields are illuminated at night. The"old field house"was built in the mid-1980's and is
used as a small community center for meetings of various community groups. Renovation plans
are expected to be completed by December, 19957.
A crcekside trail is planned on the reach of Rodeo Creek between Investment Street and
Hawthorne Drive(near I40). The trail will be paved and wheel chair accessible.. Homeowner's
associations own a few tot-lots and grassy fields in the newer portion of Rodeo south of I-80.
6 The open space in the Bayo Vista Housing Authority project is not designated"parks and recreation"by
the General Plan. It is a grassy area between buildings that is maintained by the County Housing Authority
for the benefit of residents of the project. There is no playground equipment,and no evidence that the
jeneral public is allowed to use the area.
Skip Epperly,Public Works Departrnent,personal communication,July 2, 1995
3.1-13
The Open Space Element of the County General Plan prescribes a standard of 2.5 acres of
neighborhood parks per 1,000 population and 1.5 acres of community park per 1,000 population, �`
The 9 acres of neighborhood parks in Rodeo would be sufficient for a population of about 3,600.
The 1990 population of the 650 acre Rodeo Redevelopment Area was about 4.000 persons.
Thus, for neighborhood parks to comply with Open Space policies of the General Plan,
approximately 1.2 acres of additional neighborhood parks are needed within the Rodeo
Redevelopment Area. According to the 1990 census, Rodeo hada 1990 population of 7.5,1091.71
persons. A population of this size requires a community park of over 11 acres. Rodeo has a
regional park, but lacks a community park. As the population increases, additional local park
lands will-be required.
The S/C Specific Plan calls for closing the reach of San Pablo Avenue between Pacific and
Parker Avenues and using part of this area, along with adjacent EBRPD lands to the north for a
marina green parkway. The Specific Plan does not clearly state that this area would be developed
as a neighborhood park or pocket park,but it has that potential, Moreover,a park at that location
has the advantage of being on the shoreline trail, and it would soften views of the railroad,
corridor from vantage points in the downtown area.
Mitigation Measure
3.1-4(a) The Specific Plan should identify future neighborhood park/pocket park facilities with'
the Specific Plan or Redevelopment Area to be acquired to bring the Redevelopment
Area into compliance with standards of the Open Space Element. Potential sites that
should be explored for park use include the right-of-way of San Pablo Avenue(between -----.
Pacific and Parker Avenues);and the narrow strip of land between the EBRPD's"Terry
Park"and the Trust for Public Land's property(see Figure 3.1-2 for location of these
parcels). As buildout of the Specific Plan area occurs,the County should consider
use of redevelopment funds or park dedication fees for upgrading recreational facilities
at Lefty Gomez Field as a cost-effective means of improving recreational facilities
serving the Specific Plan area.
Child Care
Impact 3.1m5 The Specific Plan does not include a comprehensive approach to meeting the
child care needs of the Planning Area. This impact isconsidered to be
less than significant.
County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 82-22 requires that projects consider the impacts of
development on child care needs and mitigate any impacts. No study has een conducted in
Rodeo,so the ability of existing childcare providers to accomodate the increased demand for such
service is not established. Future land development projects would be required to comply with
the Child Care Ordinance,but there is no baseline study to serve as a basis for weighing impacts.
The baseline study includes a listing of existing providers, and outline a program to ensure
adequate facilities are availale in the local area. It will be the responsibility of each proposed
project to provide such analyses, if it is not a part of the Specific Plan. Conceivably, space for a
childcare provider may be needed within the downtown area.
3.1-14
Miti¢ation Measurg
None required.
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Impact 3.1=6 The Specific Plan and GPA are consistent with plans and policies identified
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDG)in the San
Francisco Bay Plan,but specific land development proposals in the
waterfront could conflict with adopted plans. This impact of the Specific
Plan and associated GPA isconsidered less than significant. The impact of
specific land development projects in the waterfront area will be analyzed
on a case by case basis,during the processing of specific development
applications.
The Specific Man and GPA are generally consistent with the priority use designation as identified
by the San Francisco Bay Plan and is consistent with all applicable water-related policies. The
project would firther the stated goals to minimize air and water pollution through compliance
with "all relevant laws, policies, and standards". The proposed project would not involve
leveling or terracing of hillsides, and no overlook point or officially recognized historic areas
would be cons&ucted on, blocked, or otherwise interfered with. Structures on fill near the
shoreline would have adequate flood protection.
Miti¢�nMeasure
3.1-6 None required.
Disturbance ofResidents
Impact 3.1-7 Demolition and construction in the Planning Area has the potential for
disturbance or disruption of adjacent residential land uses. Residential and
other land uses bordering the Specific Plan area have the potential to be
physically disturbed or disrupted by the project's proposed demolition and
construction activities. This impact is considered to be less than significant.
All constructiosand demolition activities would take place in the planning area. Residents living
west, east and mouth of the area would be affected by the project site. Because demolition and
construction acdvities would not cause any physical change to the adjacent residential uses, the
proposed projai would not result in incompatibilities relative to land use issues. However,
temporary disnption related to traffic noise and air quality issues could affect the residents.
These physical aipacts are analyzed separately in the appropriate chapters of this document.
Mit1aafanlMeasuLe
3.1-7 None Rquired.
3.1-15
Annexations
Impact 3.1-8 Redevelopment of the waterfront area will result in a more intense usage
which can be expected to generate increased demand for sewage
service. This impact is considered to be less than significant
The volume of increased sewage cannot be calculated without specific information on the future
use. Those facts will be needed to design improvements but are not essential to analyze policy
issues. The property is adjacent to the boundary of the Rodeo Sanitary District. The facilities
required to serve the site include a piping system and lift station. The cost of facilities to serve
the waterfront could be borne by the developer(s) of those properties. Finally, the District has
sufficient capacity to treat sewage generated by the waterfront. In summary,there are no known
policy issues or environmental constraints that would preclude possible future annexation and
extending sewer service to the site.
Mitivation Measures
3.1-8 None required.
Shoreline Trail
Impact 3.1-9 The Open Space Element of the General Plan (p. 9.31) shows a shoreline
trail connecting Rodeo to other communities along the coast, but the map is
generalized and does not show alignment and design details. The Specific
Plan does not provide a clear vision for this trail or adequate policy
direction. This is considered a significant impact.
The proposed Specific Plan shows a shoreline trail on the Urban Design Diagram, and a goal in
the Environmenal Enhancement Element calls for it to be eight feet wide and incorporated into
the marina green parkway, where it is shown as a sidewalk. To the east and west of the marina
green area,the Specific Plan does not provide a clear picture of the trail alignment or design. The
vision of the Specific Plan for this trail is not well defined (i.e. the width of the right-of-way is
unknown;responsibility for acquiring right-of-way and constructing the trail is unclear,except for
the marina green area, where this responsibility would rest with the Redevelopment Agency).
Finally,the role of the East Bay Regional Park District in the process is not addressed.
Mitigation Measure
3.1-9 The Specific Plan should be amended to provide specific criteria for the siting and design
of the trail to ensure that it is consistent with the EBRPD and Bay Trails standards, as
well as with the goals and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Particular attention
should be given to outlining responsibility for acquisition of right-of-way,construction of
the trail and responsibility for long-term maintenance.
3.1-16
Changes to Land Use Map
3.1-10 The adopted County General Plan and several Specific Plan land use maps under
consideration show the Rodeo Sanitary District's Treatment Plant at PR,and they
shows 2,000 foot long reach of the waters of San Pablo Bay as Park&Recreation
(PR). These are considered to be largely editorial problems that were not
recognized when the General Plan Land Use Map was adopted in 1991. These
land use designations should be reconsidered when the General Plan is amended.
Thisis considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
3.1-10 The sewage treatment plant should be considered for a designation of public and semi-
public(PS)with the northern fringe of the property parks and recreation(PR).
Additionally,the waters of San Pablo Bay between the marina and sewage treatment
plant should be considered for a change from parks and recreation(PR)to water(V ).
3.1-17
3.2 MUNICIPAL SERVICES
SETTING
The Specific Plan area is a developed downtown area and waterfront. Municipal Services am in
place. The following discussion summarizes information on utilities and public services, and
Figure 3.2-1 shows the location of public facilities in Rodeo, The shaded area in the northwest
quadrant of the map is the approximately 90-acre Specific Plan area,
Gas,Electric,Telephone
Electricity and natural gas are provided to the project area by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)..
Telephone service is provided by Pacific Bell. Existing gas, electric and telephone lines are
located throughout the area. PG&E and Pacific Bell did not respond to the NOP, and on that
basis it can be inferred that the proposed project does not pose any unusual service-related
problems.
In recent years there has been considerable debate regarding the potential for long term exposure
to electro--magnetic fields to pose a public health issue. According to PG&E, electromagnetic
fields have not been identified as a health hazard, Utility undergrounding is seen as desirable in
urban areas, primarily for aesthetic reasons. In the Specific Plan area, utility lines are above
ground. Undergrounding greatly reduces electric fields associated with transmission lines but has
little effect on the associated magnetic fields.
Sewage Collection,Treatment and Disposal ----�
County General Plan
The General Plan contains goals, policies and implementation measures pertaining to sewage
service are as follows:
Goals.
7-B. To permit development in unincorporated areas only when financing mechanisms are in
place or committed which assure that adopted performance standards in the growth
management program will be met.
7-K, To provide service collection,treatment and disposal facilities adequate to meet the
current and projected needs of existing and future residents.
7-wNo To assure that new development pays the costs related to the need for increased sewer
system capacity.
Wity,
Policies.
7,-2. New development,not existing residents,should be required to pay all costs of upgrading
existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to
serve new development,
3.2-1
k; Y
T.
CL
San Bay -
•��.Jr'}f�.
06
®r - o
r-r-
=j Bayo Vistaf APO,
; r: roject „�..
do
• } }F. }' vti;.r. ti ii'o}ti'f...•t• • • M Now
o r r/♦I r •
ool:,�!:+�} :'':'%}<^'' f:r:r,: .fir♦
:ti.�:.h":•. •}
• ' • . q._.. P •
Office
r Ici
ry
r1,r
Fl
i +Ij
•
t
•
•
♦1/
�n
IIr
r
m► ♦Ir
I1'
1•�
i i•'r
i r►�♦
lefty Gomez Field ,; - Rodeo Swimming
club Incorporated
r1,
(Garrettson School) "'"
�tr
r
Medl I
me .
7 ,
5t•. atrick s h //7
♦Ir
♦1`
�'• 1
. ij r'•
N •�• Y
! ♦ AI •
ZI
+1, •• ter.
r•�, .,
won
Legend:
Figure:3.2- 1
Graphic Scale
Community Facilities Map
0 1500
'
7-3 1. Urban development shall be encouraged within the sewer Spheres of Influence adopted
by the Local Agency Forty ation Commission. Expansion into new areas within the
Urban Limit Line but beyond the Spheres of Influence should be restricted to those
areas where urban development can meet growth management standards included in this
General Plan.
7-33. At the project approval stage,the County shall require new development to demonstrate
wastewater treatrnent capacity can be provided. The County shall determine whether(1)
capacity exists within the wastewater treatment system if a development project is built
within a set period of time,or(2)capacity will be provided by a funded program or other
mechanism. This finding will be based on information fiunished or made available to the
County from consultations with the appropriate water agency,the applicant,or other
sources.
7-w37. The need for new sewer system improvements shall be reduced by requiring new
development to incorporate water conservation measures which reduce flows into the
sanitary sewer system.
Implementation Measures.
7-t. Conditionally approve all tentative subdivision maps and other preliminary development
plans on verification of adequate wastewater ent capacity for the project. Such
condition shall be satisfied by verification based upon substantial information in the
record that capacity within the system to serve the specific development project exists or
comparable demonstration of adequate wastewater treatment capacity. Where no
tentative map or preliminary plan is required prior to development,approve no map or
development permit without this standard being satisfied.
7-ax. Include wastewater reduction and other measures recommended by sewer service
agencies in the conditions of approval for subdivisions and other new development.
7-y. Encourage sewer service agencies and the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO)to annex lands planned for urban development by this General Plan into then
service areas.
District Boundary
The Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) serves approximately 3,000 residential and commercial
customers including all of the urban land within the Planning Area inland of the SPRIL Bennett's
Marina, Joseph's Resort and Lone Tree Point Park are outside the Sanitary District boundary at
present (Figure 3.1-2 shows the location of these properties). Any of these parcels could be
annexed by the district,but annexation would require approval of the District as well as the Local
Agency Formation Commission.
Collection System
RSD is responsible for the sewage collection system in Rodeo. Wastewater is conveyed by a
gravity sewer system to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in the northeast corner of the
Specific Plan Area. Most of the collection system consists of 6-inch diameter pipes. The main
3.2-2'
running along Railroad-Investment-Parker Avenues is 21 inches. There are 10 to 15 inch mains
along John Street. (Se*e Figure 3.2-2)
Treatment Plant
The treatment plant was designed for a capacity of 1.14 million gallons/day(MGD). During dry
weather the flows to the plant are approximately 50 percent of capacity. The plant can store up to
2.2 million gallons for laterA.- ent. During heavy storms the plant has received up to 700
MGD (200 percent of the combined -ent and storage capacity of the plant). The district
attributes the increase in wet weather flows to infiltration by groundwater into sewer mains.
According to Mr. Guanill,District Manager,RSD is analyzing its collection system to deine
priorities for repair,upgrading or replacement. Manhole inspections began in May, 1995. As of
mid-June, 100 of the 300 manholes in the District have been inspected.1 Macy manholes in
Rodeo have been found to be brick structures, with the mortar missing. Replacing the brick
structures with sewer pipe will reduce infiltration. In some other jurisdictions that had similar
infiltration problems, reconstruction of manholes reduced peak wet weather flows by 5 to 10
percent. This suggests that the mains themselves may need to be studied. A problem faced by
the District is that the studies themselves are expensive as are rehabilitation of mains and
manholes. Other options include expansion of the treatment plant or abandonment in place of
portions of the collection system and installing new mains.
RSD has a 25 foot wide easement extending 1200 feet into the bay for adeep-water outflow pipe,
which facilitates the mixing of reclaimed water exiting the plant with esturine waters of San
Pablo Bay.
Financing Improvements
The Sanitary District is funded by customer fees and a 1% return from state taxes paid by
residents of the district (approximately $150,000 per year). Direct revenue from the customers
alone is not sufficient to pay the operating costs of the collection system and ent facility. In
recent years, the state has shifted revenues from local governments to balance the state budget.
This poses a risk to the district's finances. The redevelopment agency may participate in
correcting the deficiencies of the existing collection system, but the mechanism and dollar
amounts of that assistance are not yet resolved.
Customer fees are established by Rodeo Sanitary District Ordinances 58 and 59. Ordinance 58
establishes plan approval, inspection, connection, extension and annexation fees. Connection
fees are based on the flow factors below. Ordinance 59 establishes monthly service rates and
expected flows from various commercial uses. Each unit, or factor, is 200 gallons per day.
Factors are assigned by the District as follows:
residential unit,office,small business 1.0 bars 4.0
retail,beauty shop,church 1.3 grocery store 6.0
service garage 1.7 food service 6.6
recreation center 3.0 Laundromat 10-00
gas station 3.3
1 Personal communication:Ray Guanill, District Manager,RSD June 26, 1995
3.2-3
chi
i
•
1S: MtApai 8"m
2nd s'a..r
1¢'� Tomity
vo
10
3rd Swat �
o.
� •, Mal+or�►
Q
N� AgoS�pe size Inches;,nch
UnMi*ed 00s
111 Jill illllllllllllllllllll�J
moo
� GraPh�ScaledOWWWO-0.0-0.0-0- moo
o
V:igureIk*3.2'2
stn9
Sewer Mains
Water
County General Plan
The General Plan contains goals, policies and implementation measures pertaining to water
service are as follows:
Goals.
7-B. To permit development in unincorporated areas only when financing mechanisms are in
place or committed which assure that adopted performance standards in the growth
management program will be met.
7-F. To assure potable water availability in quantities sufficient to serve existing and future
residents.
7-H. To encourage the conservation of water resources available to the County and to the
State.
7-J. To ensure that new development pays the costs related to the need for increased water
system capacity.
Policies.
7-1. New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing public
facilities it utilizes,based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to
new development.
7.2. New development,not existing residents,should be required to pay all costs of upgrading
existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to
serve new development.
7-19. Urban development shall be encouraged within existing water Spheres of Influence
adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission;expansion into new areas within
the Urban Limit Line beyond the Spheres of Influence should be restricted to those areas
where urban development can meet all growth management standards included in this
General Plan.
7-2 1. At the project approval stage,the County shall require new development to demonstrate
that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The County shall determine
whether(1)capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built
within a set period of time,or(2)capacity will be provided by a funded program or other
mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the
County from consultations with the appropriate water agency,the applicant,or other
sources.
7-26. The need for water system improvements shall be reduced by encouraging new
development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use.
3.2-4
7-27. The reclamation of water shall be encouraged as a supplement to existing water supplies,
Implementation Measures.
74a, Conditionally approve all tentative subdivision maps and other preliminary development
plans on verification of adequate water supply for the project. Such condition shall be
satisfied by verification,based upon substal in the record,that capacity
A* *
within the system to serve the specific development project exists or comparable
demonstration of adequate wastewater treament capacity.Whereno tentative map or
0* 0
premninary plea is required prior to development,approve no map or development
perimit without this standard being satisfied.
7-m. Encourage water service agencies and the LAFCO to annex lands planned for urban
development by this General Plan into their service areas. Conversely,encourage water
agencies and LAFCO to detach private lands from the service boundaries which are not
planned for urban development and which are not currently served.
7-n. Encourage LAFCO to establish water service Spheres of Influence that are coincident
with the boundary of planned urban development in this General Plan,including those
rural .pflujp�v ies that currently receive service.
Too. Encourage the implementation of existing Urban Water Management Plans.
7-r. Where feasible,include water conservation measures recommended by water service
in agencies the conditions of approval for subdivisions and other new development. �..,
Q&k2roUnd
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides domestic water service to the Rodeo
Area. The entire Specific Plan Area, including Lone Tree Point Park, Joseph's Resort and
Bennett's Marina,are within the service boundary of EBMUD.2 The EBMUD management plan
for growth was based on ABAG's Pro,iections 122Q,which in turn was based on adopted General
Plans for Bay Area Cities and Counties. A change in general plan land use designations within
the EBMUD current service areas to allow more intense development could increase water
consumption above EBMUD plans for the area. However,the Specific Plan area is so small that
it is unlikely to affect facilities needs or substantially increase water e within the District's
Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett planning sub-area.
Water-use assumptions for residential properties in the Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett planning sub-
area are as follows: 375 gallons/ day for single family dwelling units; 225 gallons/ day per
multi-family dwelling unit Water consumption for commercial ercial land uses can not be estimated
becis it on -rants use relatively large amounts of water, but
da,212040k3, For le, re - A too variable. P
office supply stores use relatively little watier.
2Bill McGowan,June 27,, 1995
rUtal WU communication: EBMUD Waw Strvice Planning
3 Personal communication: EBMUD Water Service planning Bill McGowan,June 12, 1995
3.2-5
TABLE 3.2-1
COMPARISON OF LAND USE MAPS
FOR RODEO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Adopted
Land Use General Plan S/C Plan PRD Plan GC Plan
Desianafi=4 (d�i.a�) (net.�s) (n��.as� (nom)
SH . 2.5 3.7 2.5 0.2
NII, 0.3 0 0 1.4
MM 2.5 10.1 4.9 0.5
MH 2,9 0 109 0.6
MU p 8.4 8.3 4.3
C,CR,O 35.0 22.5 25.1 19.9
Table 3.2-1 presents a summary of net acreages as a function of land use for each of the
alternative land use plans under consideration. The acreages were estimated by planimeter
survey of Figures 2.3-2 through 2.3-5.
Buildout of the*various alternatives is not expected to have a substantially different water
consumption rate for the area than buildout of the adopted General Plan. The primary variables
are the water demands of future commercial and mixed use projects. This calculation of water
demand cannot be made until the specific projects are proposed.
Police Protection
General Plan
policies.s
7-57. A sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be
maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.
7-58. Sheriff patrol beats shall be configured to assure minimum response times and efficient
use of resources.
7-59. A maximum response time goal for priority l or 2 calls of five minutes for 90 percent of
all emergency responses in central business district,urban and suburban areas,shall be
striven for by the sheriff when making iag and beat configwation decisions.
4 SH=Single Family,High Density;ML=Multiple Family,Low Density;MM=Multiple Family,Modiutn
Density;MH=Multiple Family,High Density;MU=Mixed Use;Commercial;CR=Commercial
Recreation;OmOffice
s County General Plan p.7-40
3.2-6
7-60. Levels of service above the county-wide standard requested by unincorporated
communities shall be provided through the creation of a County Service Area or other
special governmental unit.
7-61. Increased costs associated with the County's jail system shall not reduce the level of
sheriff patrol service throughout the County.
Implementation Measures.6
7•am. Maintain a sheriffs sub-station in each geographical area of the County(East,West,
Central,South Central)to serve the individual needs of that area,if warranted. Facility
size should be guided by Policy 7-58 and should be commensurate with staffing needs,
with provision for future expansion to match projected increases.
7-an. Encourage the Sheriff s Department,in cooperation with the Community Development
Department,to develop guidelines for defensible space design of buildings and major
subdivision projects. Include such guidelines in the review of development projects to
assure that crime4nviting features are reduced or eliminated.
7-ao. Encourage the use of citizen action programs sponsored by the Sheriff such as
Neighborhood Watch and Operation ID.
7-ap. Consider the use of community service officers to provide law enforcement outreach
programs to schools and other institutions.
7-aq. In developing areas the Sheriff protection service standard shall be achieved by creation
of a County Service Area and special tax and/or creation of a Mello Roos Community
Facilities District that generates special tax revenue to support additional increments of
Sheriff patrol necessary to meet the adopted service standard. Developers,prior to
receiving development approvals,should agree(via a Development Agreement or a
landowner election)to participate in such special funding districts,
Police protection services for Rodeo are primarily provided by the Contra Co County Sheriff's
0
Department from the Bay Station in San Pablo, Iftiamm ly seven miles to the southwest and a
substation in Crockett less than three miles away. The California Highway Patrol provides law
I& A 1& 7 The East Bayenforcement services on Into"'UaLro as well as traffic control on county roads.
Regional Park District provides parkranger and park police service to Lone Tree Point Regional
Park.g Their patrols originate from Oakland.
In 1990, Rodeo had a relatively high crime rate. With less than one percent of the county's
population, the Rodeo area had approximately six percent of the county's total incidence of
6 County General Plan p.7-40
7 Rodeo Area Redevelopment EIR, Redevelopment Agency,,March 89 1990 p,15
8 Thomas Lindemmeyer,EBRPD personal communication June 13, 1995 !�
3.2-7
crime, and over 24 percent Of the west county's total incidence of crime. Emergency response
times were normally between four and six minutes.9
Emergency response times have improved and the crime rate has decreased since 1990. The
most recent data available from the Sheriffs Department shows an average emergency response
time of 4.37 minutes with a range from two to six minutes. Non-emergency response times to
Rodeo average 8.39 minutes with a range from five to twelve minutes. Crime rates now are
consistent with the rest of the sheriff-served areas of west county.10
Fire Protection
General Plan
Goals.
7-Y. To ensure a high standard of fire protection,emergency,and medical response services
for all citizens and properties throughout Contra Costa County.
7-Z. To reduce the severity of structural fires and minimize overall fire loss.
7-AA. To incorporate requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning and
approval process.
7-AB. To minimize the cost of fire protection services through utilization of modern fire
protection practices and technologies.
7-AC. To locate and design new fire stations in a manner compatible with surrounding
development.
7-AD. To provide special fire protection for high-risk land uses and structures.
Policies.
7-62. The County shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles
from the first-due station,and a minimum of 3 firefighters to be maintained in all central
business district(CBD),urban and suburban areas. (These are defined in Section 4).
7-63. The County shall strive to achieve a total response time(dispatch plus running and set-up
time)of five minutes in CBD,urban and suburban areas for 90 percent of all emergency
responses.
7-64. New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and
services.
9 Rodeo Area Redevelopment EK Redevelopment Agency,March 8, 1990 p.85
10 personal communication: John Snell,seargent,Sheriff's Department,Administration June 19, 1995
3.2-8
7-65. Needed upgrades to fire facilities and equipment shall be identified as part Of project
environmental review and am planning activities,in order to reduce fire risk and '``
improve emV*Y response in the County.
A-
7-66. Sprinkler Sys wins may In required in new residentialstructures,
A--acti where to
protect1Lnm1*16 safety and welfare.
7-67. Consolidation of fire fighting -es I be cons such reorganization will
present ,a —±.--the WJ;FW1 LUUJILY for enhanced level of service and/or lowered costs.
7-68. Factors such as response times and distance,call volume and qW,population,fire flow
requireloents,land use,development density and valusti and access I be
considered when evallocations.
7.70. The effectiveness of existing fire protection ilities shall be m ized
by incorporatingg analysis of O-PLiiii:y11mice UM fire and eminto circulation
system design.
7a.72. Special fire protection measures shall be required in high risk uses(e.g.mid rise and
IM
high-rise buildings,and those developments in which harndous materials am used and/
'a's.*
or stored)as conditions of approval or else be available by the district prior to approval.
IV
7.73. Fire fighting equipment access shall be provided to open areas in accordance with
the Fire Protection Code and to all future developmentm" accordance
with Fire Access
Standards.
7.74. All new traffic signals shall be equipped with preemptive devices for emergency response
services. Existing traffic signals significantly impacted by new development shall be
retrofitted with preemptive devices.
7-75. Fire stations and facilities shall be considered consistent with all land use designations
used in the General Plan and all zoning districts.
7-76. The architectural design and landscaping of new fere as I be complementary
with surrounding land uses.
7-77. Fire stations shall be located and designed so as to minimus operating costs and
maximize service standards in the area they serve.
7-78. Interim fire protectionprovisions using temporary and relocaotsble stations shall be
consideredto immediate,
service needs until such time as permanent
stations can be established.
1111P -2--1&2an7=49. Localfire agencies I be encouraged to dmonitor IS M-S Involving the
0
handling and storage of-hazardous m-
Is
7-80. Wildland fire prevention activities andprograms such as controlled fuel
removal,establishment lishment of fuel and water apply -be enCot—MEW
to
reduce wildland fire hazards.
3.2-9
7-81. All structures located in Hazardous Fire Areas,as defined in the Uniform Fire Code,shall
be constructed with fire-resistant exterior materials,such as fire safe roofing,and their
surroundings are to be irrigated and landscaped with fire-resistant plants,consistent with
drought resistance and water conservation policies.
7-82. Recommendations for fire district annexations,consolidations,and other service
management 44"4a ent-programs shall be considered and incorporated when capital facilities
funding proposals are formulated.
7-84. The cost effectiveness of new fire protection facility alternatives shall be considered,and
the most cost-effective alternative shall be selected prior to implementation of any
financing mechanism.
7-P85. Along-term solution to financing ongoing fire protection,emergency,and medical
response services shall be developed.
7-86. The five year plans of the fire agencies should be updated to be consistent with the
County General Plan. The fee ordinances should also be amended and fees increased as
required to meet capital requirements.
Implementation Measures.
7-as. In considering subdivision map approval,evaluate whether the project would violate the
standards expressed in the Growth Management Element,in order to appropriately
condition or deny such approval.
Twat. The Community Development Department shall include fire agency code requirements
requested by the districts as advisory notes to the applicant within proposed conditions of
project approval when the Planning Agency is considering subdivisions,development
plans,use permits and other entitlement requests.
7-au Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review projects and submit
conditions of approval for consideration to determine whether:
• there is an adequate water supply for fire fighting;
• road widths,road grades and turnaround radii are adequate for emergency
equipment;and structures are built to the standards of the Uniform Building
Code,the Uniform Fire Code,other State regulations,and local ordinances
regarding the use of fire-retardant materials and detection,warning and
extinguishment devices.
?-ay. The County Building Inspection Department and Community Development Department
shall submit building and development plans for all new construction,including
remodeling,to the local fire protection agency to assure that fur.safety and control
features are included that meet the adopted codes and ordinances of that agency,
7-aw. Maintain mutual aid agreements among fire protection agencies throughout the County.
3.2-10
7-ax- Periodically review and,if necessary,revise five-year plans for fire protection agencies
receiving fire facilities fees.
7a-ba. Continue to levy fire facility fees for new development in unincorporated areas, in
accordance with five-year plans.
7-bb- Consider establishment of benefit assessment districts for fire protection purposes. In
areas where operating shortfalls will result from increased service requirements related to
new growth or the new service standards,the County should establish and/or increase
fees generated from the benefit assessment districts.
7-bc. Establish a master agreement allowing fire protection agencies to continue to receive tax
in revenue increases redevelopment areas,in order to allow agencies to plan for future
service needs and financing in these areas.
Background
The RodeaHercules Fire Protection District(RHFPD) is an independent district with a board of
directors. While redevelopment law. provides for the Redevelopment Agency to "freeze" the
property tax revenues allocated to other agencies within a redevelopment area, and to use those
revenues for redevelopment projects, the County maintains an "unwritten policy" to allow fire
agencies to continue to receive tax revenue increases as they occur.I I
The RHFPD operates a station in Rodeo adjacent to the downtown area,on Third Street between
Lake Avenue and Garretson Avenue. This station is expected to complete its renovation in ..-r.,,
November 1995. The Redevelopment Agency contributed$297,000 toward the renovation costs.
The station will be staffed with one 1250 gallon-per-minute(gpm)engine, one 1000 gpm engine,
two power wagons (4-wheel fire engine for wildland fire), and one rescue truck. The
configuration of the apparatus room and doors will be large enough to accommodate a ladder
truck. The RHFPD also operates a station in Hercules approximately 1.3 miles miles from
downtown Rodeo. The Hercules station is equipped with one 500 gallon engine and one 350
gallon"power wagon". The City of Pinole has an automatic response agreement with RHFPD to
send assistance immediately to any structural fires. RHFPD is part of a County-wide mutual aid
agreement.12 East Bay Regional Park District has its own wildland fire department which would
be dispatched if necessary to the Rodeo area.13
Within the City of Hercules, the RHFPD assesses a 16.6 cents/ square foot fee to all new
a A
development. In the unincorporated portion of the district,the fee is 16.0 cents/square foot. This
fee is collected at the time that building permits are issued,and subsequently funds are distributed
to the RHFPD.14
The RHFPD would not have a problem providing fire protection services to the additional
residential units and commercial space in the Specific Plan area. Despite proposed General Plan
allowances of 2.5 floor(35 feet high) buildings,the RHFPD requests design guidelines limiting
11 County General Plan p.7-44
12 Dennis Salmi,RHFPD personal communication June 16, 1995
13 nomas Lindenmeyer,EBRPD personal communication June 13, 1995
14 Dennis Salmi,RHFPD Personal Communication June 26 1995
3.2-11
building heights to two floors due to a lack of ladder trucks and elevated hoses in the RHFPD.1 S
Guidelines could later be amended, if these additional capital purchases were made, without
amending the Specific Plan. Buildings exceeding two floors will require the building's architect
to work with the RBFPD to provide fire protection equipment within the building such as smoke
detectors, sprinklers, and fire hoses. A ladder truck to provide access to the roof of a four-story
building is expected to cost approximately $350,000 to X500,000 to purchase. Routine
maintenance costs for a ladder truck are not higher than those characteristic of an engine, but
mechanical problems with the ladder could have high maintenance costs. A ladder
truck could also require additional staffing.l 6potentially
Schools
In 1992, the General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures that pertain to schools
was amended. The following are those which are most applicable to Rodeo.
General Plan
Goals
7,-AR. To assure that primary and secondary school facilities are adequate or committed to be
adequate,prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth.
7-AS. To maximize the use of existing educational resources and school facilities.
7-AT. To assure that school districts are seeking and receiving their fair share of state and/or
federal funds for school facilities.
Policies
7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools
to serve development.
744to To the extent possible,new residential development General Plan Amendments or
Rezonings shall,in the absence of the Planning Agency's satisfaction that there are
overriding considerations(e.g.provision of low or moderate cost housing),be required to
adequately mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities.
7-142. The development of quality schools shall be supported by coordinating development
review with local school districts including such activities as designating school sites,
obtaining dedications of school sites,and supporting local fees,special taxes,and bond
issues intended for school construction.
7-143. The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of
educational facilityO%ft-
- ity.
15 Dennis Salmi,RBFPD personal communication June 16, 1995
16 Fire Chief Jimenez,personal communication,July 19, 1995
3.2-12
7-144. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density
transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. .---,
7-145. To the extent possible,the development of school facilities should be provided in
conjunction with and adjacent to local parks and trailways.
7-146. Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assisted
by coordinating
review of new development with school districts,the cities and other
service providers through the Growth Management Program(see IV),and the
environmental review process and other means.
7-150. The County expects that all growth impacted school districts,where appropriate,shall
actively pursue state and/or Federal funds for school facilities.
7-151 School Districts shall demonstrate,in the school facility plan,efficient utilization of its
facilities. The school facility plan shall consider scheduling alternatives,use of
relocatable facilities and boundary adjustments.,
Implementation Measures,
7-cp. Work with the interested school districts to ensure that new development contributes,
to the extent allowable under State law, its fair and full share of the cost of additional
facilities which are necessary,irrespective ofJurisdictional boundaries.
7-cq. To the extent allowable under State law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for ;,,..�
development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a
development entitlement application is not complete unless it contains satisfactory
written evidence that any involved school district has been advised of and provided with
the proposed application and the applicant and the County planning agency.
7-cr. The procedure provided in School Implementation Measure 7-cq,is to be applied in those
school districts indicating to the County their current concern about education facilities
and desire to participate in the development entitlement review process. Upon the receipt
of any such indication, the involved and interested school district shall be appropriately
designated in the planning agency's notification and contacts list for development
entitlement applications pending in the district's area,
7-cs. To the extent allowable under State law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for
development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a
development entitlement application for a Rezoning or a General Plan Amendment is not
complete unless it contains an identification of the number of residential units which will
be subject to school facility mitigation. All residential units except senior housing,
housing for very low-income households, studio and one-bedroom units shall be
included.
7-ct. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts and residential developers, the
content and format of district facility information which will be used to identify the
impact of a proposed residential project on the district and possible appropriate facility
mitigation. The facility information shall utilize state classroom SIZe standards as a basis ""'``
3.2-13
for determining the adequacy of area schools. The facility information should include
consideration of district reorganization of boundaries to the extent possible.
7-cu. To the extent allowable under State Law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for
development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a
residential development General Plan Amendment or Rezoning application is not
complete unless it indicates the manner in which adequate mitigation for primary and
secondary school facilities needed to serve children generated by the new development is
proposed to be provided.
7mcv. The procedures provided in School Implementation Measure 7-co,7-cs, 7mct and 7-cu are
to be applied to those school districts who notify the County that they may have
inadequate facilities to handle additional residential development and who provide both
evidence of diligent participation in all state and/or Federal funding programs for school
facilities and sufficient district facility information so that the County may determine the
impact of a proposed residential project on a district and determine any appropriate
facility mitigation.
Back
The Specific Plan area is in the John Swett Unified School District which serves the Rodeo and
Crockett areas. Students generated by the Specific Plan area attend Hillcrest Elementary
(kindergarten through fifth), Carquinez Middle School (6th through 8th) and John Swett High
School (9th though 12th). Hillcrest Elementary is located in Rodeo, approximately 1/3 mile
southeast of the Specific Plan area(see Figure 3.2-1). Carquinez Middle School and John Swett
High School are located just east of the commercial district of Crockett, 2.5 miles from the
Specific Plan area. (These schools are shown near the upper right margin of Figure 2.2-2.) Bus
service is available to Carquinez Middle School and John Swett High School in Crockett. The
cost for this service is 5180 per year,through Durham Transportation.
TABLE 3.2-2
ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS
SERVING TIS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Enrollment Estimated
Sch (June. 1292 C W i�X
Hillcrest Elementary(K,,5) 1,021 over
Carquinez Middle(6-8) 508 under
John Swett High(9-12) 598 at capacity
Garretson Middle 0 leased out
Source: John Swett Unified School District
Enrollment
Enrollment data from Jure, 1995,is presented in Table 3.2-2. According to the Superintendent's
Office,District standardsare thirty children per classroom. Enrollment throughout the district has
been stable over the past several years, fluctuating by less than ten students from year to year.
3.2-14
Hillcrest Elementary is considered over-capacity. The District's response to the capacity problem
has been the installation of portable classrooms. Carquinez Middle School had an enrollment of '�,
508 students in June, 1995, with capacity for additional students. The District was unable to
estimate the capacity of the middle school. John Swett High School, with an enrollment of 598
students, was considered at capacity.17 The District has no plans in place to respond to
additional growth in high school enrollment.
Garretson School is an intermediate school in the District which is located in the Rodeo area(see
Figure 3.2-1). Currently, the District leases these school buildings to three organizations:
Spectrum(a private school),a church,and a Head Start program,
Student Population
The number of students expected to be generated by the Specific Plan area can be estimated,but a
number of simplifying assumptions must be made:
• Number(and type)of housing units must be estimated
• Appropriate student generation factors must be selected
e Existing student population of the Specific Plan area must be estimated.
Each of the preceding parameters is individually discussed below.
Number of Housing Units, A difficulty in making this calculation is that the general plan allows
a range of densities in each land use category. For the purpose of this analysis,we have selected
the mid-range density, In the case of parcels designated mixed use, we have assumed a yield of
1 5 dwelling units/net acre, A further complication is that student generation factors are different
for different types of units. Some lands in the planning area are single family residential--high
density. However, much of the residential portion of the planning area is designated multiple
family or mixed use. Finally, this EIR analyzes three land use alternatives and compares them
with the adopted General Plan. The net acreage of lands with residential land use designations
are presented in Table 3.2.,3. Table 3.2-4 calculates the estimated lot yields. In summary, the
adopted General Plan yields approximately 150 dwelling units. The PRD Plan and S/C Plan
more than double the unit yield, but the increase is essentially all in multiple family and mixed
use units. The GC Plan yields 40 fewer units than the adopted General Plan.
Demographics and housing type will play a role in determining the number of students per
household. One bedroom and studio apartments are unlikely to yield school aged children and
even two or three bedroom condominiums/apartments will not yield substantial numbers of
middle school and high school students. Senior housing is not likely to impact schools.
Student generation factors. The State of California has issued student generation factorslg,which
are most applicable to single family dwelling units. According to Linda Moulton, County
Demographer,the State factors approximately correspond with student generation rates in the San
Ramon Valley. The Oakley area would have higher student generation factors, and certain other
areas of the County would have lower student generation factors.
1 7 Superintendent's Office,John Swett Unified School District,Personal Communication,July 19, 1995.
IS The enrollment generation factors are: 0.4 elem--.,A&- students/DU(K-6);0.1 middle school
students/DU(7=8);and 0.2 high school students/DU(942) �``
3.2-15
TABLE 3.2-3
ESTIMATED NET ACREAGE OF LANDS
DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
RODEO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ADOPTED PRD S/C GC
LAND USE GENERAL PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
DESIGNATION (Ijet (net,
SFR H 2.5 2.5 3.7 0.2
MFR L 0.3 0 0 1.4
MFR-M 2.5 4.9 10.1 0.5
MFR H 2.9 1.9 0 0.6
MU .0
Total 8.2 17.6 22.2 7.0
TABLE 3.2-4
ESTIMATED HOUSING UNITS
RODEO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ADOPTED PRD S/C GC
LAND USE GENERAL PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
DESIGNATION
SFR-H 15 15 23 1
MFR-L 03 0 0 13
MFR-M 52 103 212 10
MFR-H 75 49 0 16
MU 4 Cd
Total 145 292 361 105
TABLE 3.2-5
ESTIMATED STUDENT POPULATION
GENERATED BY SPECIFIC PLAN
ADOPTED PRD S/C GC
LAND USE GENERAL PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN
DESIGNATION (k-6/'7-8/9-121 (k-617-8/9-121 (k-6/7-8/9-121 (k-6/7-8/'9-12)
SFR H 6/2/3 6/2/3 9/2/5 0/0/0
MFR L
MFR'M 20/5/4 42/11/8 51/14/10 16/4/3
MFR-H
MU
Total 26/7/7 48/13/11 60/17/18 16/4/3
3.2-16
In the Specific Plan area, multiple family and mixed use residential units are likely to have
relatively low student generation factors, especially for middle school and high school aged
students. Based on consultation with Linda Moulton, the factors selected for use in the Specific
Plan area are as follows:
• For Multiple Family and Mixed Use projects: 0.15 elementary students/DU (K-6); 0.04
middle school students/DU(7=8);and 0.03 high school students/DU(9.12).
• For Single Family projects: the State generation factors will be used.
Existing student population. Table 3.2-5 provides estimates of student generation for the Specific
Plan area based on the housing units calculated in Table 3.2-4. It is estimated that the adopted
General Plan W1*11 yield 40 school aged students. Twenty-six of those students would be of
elementary school age, and 7 each of middle school andhigh school age. The GC alternative
yields only 23 students, but the PRD and S/C alternatives yield substantially more students than
the adopted General Plan. Moreover, 2/3 of the students generated by these alternatives are of
elementary school age. The PRD alternative generates 72 students (48 elementary school age),
and the S/C alternative generates 95 students(60 elementary school age).
There are existing residential uses in the Specific Plan area. Thus,not all of the students forecast
in Table 3.2-5 are new students. Consequently, the impact on the school district is less than is
suggested by Table 3.2-5).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Unless otherwise noted,all identified impacts are considered significant adverse impacts. CEQA
(Appendix G)considers conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community,
0 ATM
or interference with emergency response plans to be significant impacts. The corresponding
mitigation measures,unless otherwise noted,would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Although not required by CEQA, some less-than-significant impacts have been
discussed because they are issues of local concern. While no mitigation is required by CEQA for
such impacts, in some cases mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce the level of
impacts.,
Impacts of the proposed project on public services and utilities were considered significant if
implementation of the project would:
• cause a substantial increase in demand for any public service or facility above those the
agency plans to accommodate,
• cause a substantial decrease in the quality or level of service for any public service or
utility such that Contra Costa County General Plan public service performance standards
may not be met,or
• require extension of a public service or utility to an area not planned for service, ,,..,,�
3.2-17
Police Protection
Impact 3.Z-1 Redevelopment may result in incrementally increased demand for patrols
by the Sheriff's Department. This impact is less than significant
The Sheriff's Department changes its beat structure every two years to keep its response times
down and meet the changing needs of the different areas of the county as they grow. Due to the
prolonged time period that the growth in the Rodeo area will take place,redevelopment in Rodeo
will have a negligible effect on response times and demands for sheriff services, by itself.
However,cumulative effects of growth in the Planning Area and any projects that may take place
outside the Planning Area have not been assessed.19 0
Whichever option for redevelopment is chosen,the Sheriff s Department expects there to be some
increase in demand for police services (i.e., more calls for assistance) and more patrols in the
area. The plan containing the most residential units (S/C plan) is likely to create the greatest
increase in demands. Commercial properties (most common in the GC plan) will also increase
demands for sheriff patrols. In particular,the vacancy of commercial buildings at night increases.
their susceptibility to theft and vandalism. Mixed use development may reduce the susceptibility
of commercial buildings to nighttime theft and vandalism due to"eyes on the street"
Mitigation Measure
3.2-1 While no significant adverse law enforcement impacts have been identified,it is recom-
mended that the Agency coordinate its plan formulation and plan implementation
activities with the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department to ensure that the
Department is kept appraised of Agency actions which might affect ongoing law
enforcement operations in the project area.
Waste Water
Impact 3.2-2 Redevelopment is likely to result in an intensification of residential and
commercial land use. Due to deficiencies in the Sanitary District's collection
system,infiltration of ground water results in releases of untreated sewage
during heavy storms. This is considered a significant impact.
Currently,dry weather flows to the treatment plant amount to 50 percent of capacity. Successful
redevelopment of the Specific Plan area will result in a substantial increase in wastewater flows to
the treatment plant. The actual magnitude of the increase will depend on the types of businesses
located in the planning area and the number of dwelling units. Laundromats, and restaurants are
expected to have the highest sewage production rates, but actual development projects have not
been proposed and future commercial uses are not known. With respect to demand for sewage
service, buildout of the adopted General Plan is not substantially different than buildout of the
various Specific Plan alternatives under consideration. Expansion of the treatment plant will not
be required if groundwater infiltration is controlled. The existing RSD collection systems is
characterized by leaky manholes and pipes. During heavy storms, groundwater infiltrates the
collection system and is conveyed to the treatment plant. This has resulted in the release of
untreated wastewater into San Pablo Bay on several occasions. County policies require a plant to
19 Personal communication: John Snell,seargent,Sheriff s Department,Administration June 19, 1995
3.2-18
MCCIL sewage treatment capacity needs prior to development. Since the existing facility is
overwhelmed at times, it is imperative that the collection system be upgraded prior to
redevelopment of the Specific Plan area.
Mitigation Measures
3.2-2 The District is currently analyzing its collection system. Infiltration by groundwater must
be controlled and/or the capacity of the plant expanded. The extent of needed
improvements has not yet been determined by the District. The District and the
Redevelopment Agency should work together to assure that a District wide Specific Plan
and improvement and financing plans are developed. The Redevelopment Agency may
assist with the infrastructure improvements, but the dollar amount is not known. In
addition, although new development is not considered to have a significant impact on
capacity, water saving devices such as low-flow showers and toilets will reduce the
impact of new development on treatment capacity even further.
Schools
Impact 3.2.m3 Development of new housing in the Specific Plan area will increase
enrollment in John Swett Unified School District. The June 1995 enrollment
data indicate that Hillcrest Elementary School is over-capacity and John
Swett Higb School is considered at capacity. The additional students
generated by residential projects in the planning area are considered a
significant impact.
Successful redevelopment of the Specific Plan area, whether under the prevailing General Plan
policies or the Specific Plan alternatives under consideration, will generate additional students.
The District has informally suggested that a minor increase in students (approximately 20)could
be absorbed, but students in greater number will/may require facilities planning at both the
elementary school and high school. Based on experience with downtown projects, the EIR does
not forecast a large high school population from the planning area, but more than 20 elementary
school-age students would be generated by the adopted General Plan,PRD Plan and S/C Plan.
The Staff/Consultant Plan would have the most significant impact on the school district. The EIR
estimates that this alternative could generate approximately 58 students in grades K-6. The Public
Review Draft would generate approximately 48 students in grades K-4.
iti¢ation Measure
3.2-3 The County should involve the school district in the review process for residential
projects and support the imposition of school fees/developer fees to assist the District in
meeting the educational needs of students generated by Specific Plan projects.
Fire Protection
Impact 3.2-4 The Specific Plan makes the assumption that only two-story buildings are
feasible because the Fire District lacks a ladder truck This unnecessarily
3.2-19
constrains the design and results in what is considered s leas than significant
impact
For redevelopment to be successful, private financing of land development projects is essential.
According to the District, the new fire station that is under construction could accommodate a
ladder truck, although new personnel could be required for this equipment. A one-time
expenditure of X350,000 to 5500,000 is needed to purchase a ladder truck. This piece of
equipment would allow buildings to be three or four stories high. The Alternative section of this
EIR shows a schematic of a project of the type which would be feasible if a ladder truck were
purchased(see Figures 5.0-1 through 5.0-3).
Mation Measure,
None required.
3.2-20
3.3 FLOOD HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY
SETTING
General Plan
The Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990-2005 contains a number of
policies that restrict development in flood prone areas. Those most applicable to the Rodeo
Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan are presented below.
Flood Hazard Goals
10-G. To ensure public safety by directing development away from areas which may pose a
risk to life from flooding,and to mitigate flood risks to property,
10-H, To mitigate the risk of flooding and hazards to life,health,structures,transportation and
utilities due to subsidence,especially in the San Joaquin,-Sacramento Delta area.
General Policies
10.,33. The areas designated on Figure 104 shall be considered inappropriate for
conventional urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as defined by FEMA.
Applications for development at urban or suburban densities in areas where there is a
serious risk to life shall demonstrate appropriate solutions or be denied.
10,34. In mainland areas affected by creeks,development within the 100-year flood plain
shall be limited until a flood management plan can be adopted,which may include
regional and local facilities if needed. The riparian habitat shall be protected by
0 to
proviciing a cross section of channel suitable to carry the 100-year flow. Flood
management shall be accomplished within the guidelines contained in the Open
Space/Conservation Element.
is
10-35. In mainland areas along the fivers and bays affected by water backing up into the
P-
watercourse,it shall be demonstrated prior to development that adequate protection exists
either through levee protection or change of elevation.
10-37. A uniform set of flood damage prevention standards should be established by the
cooperative efforts of all County,State,and federal agencies with responsibilities
for flood control works and development in flood-prone areas in the County.
10-38. Fof structures shall be required in any area subject to flooding;this
shall occur both adjacent to watercourses as well as in the Delta or along the
waterfront.
10.39. In developing areas which are subject to the provisions of the Flood Insurance
Program,for which there is no reasonable expectation of flood control project
participation by the Corps of Engineers and where a significant number of
properties will be affected,the Flood Control District shall be permitted to
3.3-1
construct 100-year flood protection works when so directed by the Board of
Supervisors.
10-40. Planning Agency and Flood Control District review of any significant project
proposed for areas in the County which are not presently in Flood Zones shall include
an evaluation of the potential downstream flood damages which may result from the
project.
Flood Hazard Policies
10-41. Buildings in urban development near the shoreline and in flood-prone areas shall be
protected from flood dangers,including consideration of rising sea levels caused by the
greenhouse effect.
10-42. Habitable areas of structures near the shore line and in flood-prone areas shall be sited
above the highest water level expected during the life of the project,or shall be
protected for the expected life of the project by levees of an adequate design.,
10-44. The County shall review flooding policies in the General Plan on an annual basis,
in order to incorporate any new scientific findings regarding project sea level rise
due to the greenhouse effect,
10-45. The County shall review flooding policies as they relate to properties designated by
FEMA as within both the 100-and the 500-year flood plains.
Policies Rei ing Floodin¢Due IQ Levee or D m Failure,or Tsunami
10-53. Development of levee rehabilitation plans should consider methods to foster riparian
habitat to the fullest extent possible consistent with levee integrity.
10-55. The potential effects of dam or levee failure are so substantial that geologic and
investigation engineering shall be warranted as a prerequisite for authorizing public and
private construction of either public facilities or private development in affected areas.
10,-57. Dam and levee failure,as well as potential inundation from tsunamis and seiche,shall be
a significant consideration of the appropriateness of land use proposals.
10,68. Dams and levees should be designed to withstand the forces of anticipated(design)
earthquakes at their locations.
10-60. Structures for human occupancy,particularly critical structures,and potentially
dangerous commercial or industrial facilities(e.g.,plants for the manufacture or storage
of hazardous materials)shall be protected against tsunami hazard.
Flood Herd ImnlementAtion MeacUrec
10-s, Revise the creek setback ordinance for residential and commercial structures in order to
prevent property damages from bank failure along natural water courses.
391.2
10,.t. Encourage the County Flood Control District to proceed with drainage improvements
in areas subject to flooding from inadequate facilities,and to ensure that additional
new drainage facilities,including road culverts and bridges,are designed to pass the
flow specified by County Ordinance Code.
10-mu. Develop Flood Control Zone plans based on the concepts found in this General Plan. As
adopted zone plans are revised,they should be brought into conformity with these
concepts..
10-v. Draft and adopt a flood management plan for mainland areas affected by creeks,in
accordance with the guidelines contained M' the Safety Element and Open
Space/Conservation Element of this General Plan.
10-x. Establish a uniform set of flood damage prevention standards m* cooperation with
County,appro ate State,and federal agencies.
10-my. Through the environmental review process,ensure that potential flooding impacts,
due to new development,including one-site and downstream flood damage,
subsidence,dam or levee failure,and potential inundation from tsunamis and seiche,are
adequately assessed. Impose appropriate mitigation measures(e.g.flood-proofing,levee
protection,Delta reclamations).
10-aa. Adopt ordinances implementing the FEMA Flood Insurance Program.
10-ab. Prohibit new structures which would restrict maintenance or future efforts to
increase the height of the levees from being constructed on top or immediately
adjacent to the levees.
10-ac. All analysis of levee safety shall include consideration of the worst case situation
of high tides coupled with storm-driven waves.
Eloo i2lain Mana¢ement Ordinance
81,28.436 Floodproofing. "Floodproofing"means any combination of structural and
nonstructural additions,changes,or adjustrnents to structures which
reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property,
water and sanitary facilities,structures and their contents. (Orris.90-118,
884050,87-45).
82,,28.440 Freeboard. "Freeboard"means a factor of safety usually expressed in feet
above a flood level for purposes of flood plain management. "Freeboard"
tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to
flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood
and floodway conditions,such as wave action,bridge openings,and the
hydrological effects of urbanization of the watershed. (Orris.90-118,88,-
509 87-45),
82-28.1012 Coastal High Hazard Areas. Within coastal high hazard areas established
in Section 82-28.604,the following standards and provisions shall apply: ^>
3.3-3
(1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated on
adequately anchored pilings or columns and securely anchored to such
pilings or columns so that the lowest horizontal portion of the structural
members of the lowest floor(excluding the pilings or columns)is elevated
to or above the base flood elevation plus required freeboard. In the San
Francisco Bay Delta Estuarine Region two feet of freeboard is required. In
all other unincorporated areas of the county,one foot of freeboard is required.
(2) All new construction shall be located on the landward side of the reach of
mean high tide.
(3)) All new construction and substantial improvements shall have the space
temporarily enclosed space shall not be used for human habitation.
(4) Fill shall not be used for structural support of buildings.
(5) Man-made alteration of sand dunes which would increase potential flood
damage is prohibited.
(6) The flood plain administrator shall be provided the following records:
(A) Certification by a registered engineer or architect that a proposed structure
complies with Section 82-28.1012(1).
(B) The elevation(in relation to mean sea level)of the bottom of the lowest
structural member of the lowest floor(excluding pilings or columns)of all
new and substantially improved structures and identification of basements.
(Ords.90-118,88-50, 87a.45)0
Jurisdictional Authority
The implementation and maintenance of regional drainage facilities in the County is within the
jurisdiction of the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which has adopted
plans for most urbanized watersheds in the County. The basic unit for storm drainage planning is
a watershed whose boundaries do not coincide with political boundaries. Consequently, much
flood control planning of the District serves both cities and the unincorporated area. .
Historically,the method used to fund regional drainage facilities is a fee paid by new construction
projects, with the dollar amount of the fee directly proportional to the amount of impervious
surface created. The process to implement regional drainage facilities is normally initiated by the
property owners who are experiencing a flooding problem,or a coordinated city/county effort.
The establishment of a drainage area is a mechanism to provide needed drainage improvements.
The first step in the process is for the Flood Control District to analyze the hydrology of the
watershed and identify deficiencies in existing drainage improvements. According to District
standards,in watersheds of one to four square miles,drainage facilities must be sized to pass peak
runoff from a 25-year storm; for watersheds larger than four square miles, the facilities must be
able to pass peak runoff from a 100-year event. The Rodeo Creek watershed is approximately
10.2 square miles. Thus,the design of drainage improvements on this channel must be sized to
pass peak flows from the 1 00-year storm.
Based on the rainfall characteristics of the watershed and future land use in the watershed (i.e.
assuming building out the General Plan),the Flood Control District calculates peak runoff for the
134
Pq A 14
design bLUM-1 (100-year event for large watersheds, such as Rodeo Creek). It then estimates the
cost of the improvements. Based on the cost estimate,a fee schedule is adopted for the watershed '"`
by the Board Supervisors, with the dollar amount of fees based on the amount of impervious
surface created. In this manner, new development is required to bear the cost of the required
improvements.
Currently,the Rodeo Creek watershed is not within an established drainage area. Consequently,
the hydrology of the watershed has not been systematically analyzed by the District,and there are
no adopted improvement plans or drainage fees.
Regional Drainage Improvements
Desj,s,p„FjQ�
In 1962 the Corps of Engineers initiated a local flood protection project on Rodeo Creek, which
included analysis of the hydrology of the watershed to determine peak flows and design of
drainage improvements.In the late 1970's,drainage improvements were constructed by the Corps
along the reach of Rodeo Creek downstream from the AT&SF Railroad culvert. The reach of
channel that was improved is represented by a dashed line on Figure 3.3-1. The AT&SF culvert
is at the upstream limit of the channel improvement project. It was not necessary to construct
improvements upstream from the AT&SF culvert because that reach of the channel was not
subject to flooding.
The Corps of Engineers determined that peak flows for the lower reach of the watershed was
3,000 cubic feet per second(cfs). However,the AT&SF culvert has the effect of regulating large ,�
flood flows. This restriction had the effect of reducing peak flows in the lower reaches of the
watershed from 3,000 cfs to 2,500 cfs. Figure 3.3-1 shows the maximum inferred extent of the
temporary detention basin upstream from the railroad culvert. At maximum storage, the
temporary detention basin innundates a segment of State Route 4. The maximum extent of the
detention basin is shown as the dark shaded area in Figure 3.3-1.
For their hydrology study the Corps also analyzed the effect of ultimate expected development
runoff. The channel design was based upon a discharge of 2,500 cfs in the lower watershed area
with about one foot of freeboard.
The design of the project which was constructed provided a trapezoidal•shaped earthen channel
from the head of the project downstream to Third Street. Below Third Street, a concrete channel
with vertical banks was constructed.
Hydraulic Com i
The concrete wall and embankment heights were calculated by the Corps of Engineers, taking
into account the effect of tidal fluctuations in the lowest reach of the channel. In backwater
computation,a controlling water surface elevation of+3.2 feet,mean sea level datum,was used at
the mouth of Rodeo. This corresponds to the elevation of mean higher high water.
3.3-5
��. %"`'" �� F I �,j p�-;%�r y-�;
�*� �. 'S�"' t s~ . , j' y '*nt`- n '�tt s'ivtsa q
C [ / . 1. w
41 �. - 0 t�,� 0
....".,.- i
�! • M-} ►'~ ./' t♦L . 0 r ` - �o^,,".
A w " • r )..•�' r y CfN
I C daawy1 r
j .. . ,I. .1�-i'. ', •�- i�• ",', y f ,�.�1' ' � y"..�). ?• `P' _ ` '
' ''V ,V% -•. t+� ) .. r. J` C•+y'W'. t`,'� ', '. K ms1'r °`,, , t.P r 1...i.. ! `-�� �r• vrtl +" Ry �'. _II A �`; t}�L.♦1 ' 5 Y� of
. f� I
1/,• _• `. •tt-• _ f, .- fib' � , ;, L. <
• y 'Vf_i ZI ' ,��.I- '� !' I R.�t r .'t110'.
..'"., " .... .I
•. \ ,� '{. ,• fI `.4 r.�a. �`r. 5 - '�. ,
A. : .,I;, , - /
�`'}.1�. ., , `41 ! / i i , '/,*+ /j ,a.' n � ♦ ,ti N+"fit
.. •1 ,. `� .,t r` .. }1`[t' . �4-i�j rn12 k�� ..I :-6 •, ,e . >, r
_ \ 1,�,;r' }•t I-. -. �'••�- ,.\. ` ` ''I�.✓// t ♦ Y .'r{'^►^�'+ ,,.�'���. f 4Y![ /I ' "• l r R �.
` , '_<.� r ,l*. ►t,2+ ,fi b.♦• "l t �Y f/r - .A„1! ,T. t`i ♦ :i�� .�`, r ` s• i?. 'r .!►,"
41 1' / '/ _11 1j� Yt� 1�' f 1' .�t r.//pr`t��� 2 ..f' r.1, •t r a 9 r 2 z �j / ~t-1 �.� •'y!y��r� r �
N. ,I ��J,a'- +' /•'' Z•tr. r V', r l� N .rf• ti, •" `. • + "` Vf
♦ �' •t 2.4.' {/ \ t ✓1, ��V,-:X,�, +J 4,s'?
P. f 4 r'�tf! .4. \.wc�'. �.* �� v,
r Z' ^ 4 I L, }�')'.�,�� I j"K.p�.� /��i •1 L>'. '�+a, �1-t♦?S��u�t.1�, I�`at ,y'� y 6 f rir_`,'r S� Q; • �,,y /� �
>� '� t . I ,L;�4 if.-' ;,�*�' _ '.. .rt'f l 411� •,,�o rs--aSIN
ti r. e'�{2 t�+•'//,IS, �!�-t♦�, r�I t"Jf�f s .`;r.i1 S '4.. b
/7 ..'r- t 4 . +' h �.S r r.Y'r 4y 1 '•r ♦i T�)4 t• ►+.r v c`
1.01
I 14
Pgr
/ ,,t I�/+. ''; •. �- 'Ile`f^,.., iw.t �;� VA �Ii �- ~ ,r t�� , • 7'TjZ -:�`.'f.,'r�y- ® ,� .Y,•r}-0'<%S ~
�. I ♦ /L� �•- ...i' ) 'Lr�a!. /� .I/j!��j .!/� ~•y�} r•."`!♦'r,!\ �.,���/,-/ .i�I•/'fJ� S ��'}//�. +�.1fr . '2 i"` ._}y '.1 1. _ �, ♦.t'
11/ , Y_tv...4 ';�7�r l a! L ai, .r', 4 5;-',,� /• '1► , f�'''�'�.y3"r/ ���r-t �. I `�/,. �-.•{#T }`r �>' n;-�'
' �/J`.Z ,�111
/+ �1� '>_.�„� r ,e�a r?�'.+.-r.tic..' `,,0
_'4 3••'�..f•'ll y {'4`1�t'a• r . '• .'; ic/4N r a 1�41• �//---r/r�, `r 4' \_-�� H !r It r',y '"i Cj♦11 ' I-. .. ytp� 1' ',r. S p',
7 1`T1"r14,110,
'7✓! • -� ♦♦ •A P� /��, / .♦/,�, r 'I t1�(�^ yt f ` / 1 .. �� ` �f- ,*^.� e, 1. vr..;:v �f k •Jr., ,4
I jr , � mss•// .••�, ~t -',i ` .! f E \74�' +:5./� ,�c �P f.;
''�t,♦L `r,'�.r' j[ ,,,_• �Y. ,;-'x'+51•`f`-~-> \% •l , r,C'fir J'" .fi'/
��` litj �,('� * j / �� 1 10 1 y� .e -j +, 1 i',', ; ,$ l '''"�� \ /y .y �tL/ ,, �► ��i��� \ �- f 3 s r. 't+�
.J `„r•,r�r J� *1 t`L j. h ._� \��Y��• - _e f ,) `' 'f/T! /. w<x /<''yY/ "
/ - 1. \/ . • < ^f .1 '.i ., _r� 1 !r ��_
a1 y.,.• .�i, 1 SdY x� C4 -�•r N, ` ', r�.t►ti ' ��t>!'•.<'iir•Yr � ♦~ �� r -n?�,'•�,7-'_'� YN f �.- �."--- rP/Jj� ► ^- - ,"t y C.,r 's , 16
010 _ri� •�/},•'I l . r ♦,Z-T �� �,,t'�t � tJ 1\ +x LL':t if�� ,�,>k - s/��✓ If," f A 99`
.` 4'M'•C1 l ���� c..�'1�r'T:'f''� ` �'�' /J r1,1` �.ry 3'+,:2 r.4'�'.. r,t r..�r% ��y •'! ¢ ` ,Y 4 t / ...,�
-'. ` r ' .'' . . .'.-.�-"'_1 _4 '_4,1 r -a. 7 (• k+'I * >.��h f/,'�
\1 i`"•'"! v r:�•'"'� r r „fS 'YYY ,•.rt`... ` ��;
°1 Kl` � �•�_"
•'a-/3\,, 'tS ``. `tr. v1-' +j ✓...- �� i ~rr���•'�f t r ,/ - -'�' „j' �.•` � G.. .4 'r.f ' �t
'p t `�S �,'��� l ` .t. 4 ` f r-`' �' J i�a 7 ,' ,�y}r}1 • y �4 ' i� ' 't d J ,C e ,.t!'/'�fl
`it-,, '�,.` V1r t' \ ,
4_.f
t` • { I. ,' ��li - w 's""_ qi' 4 \' Y.'?^. ti.` ., r, r }'t�
t��� • 1 .•1^'c: M1 - 4'/ /' ,rr• �'• ♦v i 3' ,. q;,1" J - 1,�, 4 I A• !i \',, ,I .a.� • I � 777 '/'�` � X , : ' ' ,1�.'.t y', i _+..� ro�� 'A. �•+��
71.. ` ,'I".. / �,� ,hr ' �{ :syr: r.:i?J. r'` r - ¢`^. �� ';' '�I�.r�
< ([y7F'� . �_'' Z ♦I:. ♦`� -f� r` tc' ..-- T ����, r t '/rs.�- 1 �? ` ,�4 ./ t/),• `,�l�'`� Y.Y?. Y arc.t 0S` ~ `�Z,r /.*Jar- ♦tIl�V
`•"��'.�'' y .Y ♦♦I: ��• ' .J 7�vhl�.� ,d w _j+ ,,• r {, r' ►ati• r �� ` r{{.i'.. 9r - ti _ ��1•f ~,,r.
�t Z:q' ,� ,I'Y �. 1 I J \ L�7/,. J t „, � `..�.r ry.,J' d¢ % 4^i''.ti...,` .w r • }N
r`'`x;dI\.�.1'T r �►lt�� / ''••r .<.%,�.�;�f 1'ff r� l i`�1 �» �. '� ")� M - �./y i y C r�,,{j�'f••a�,iS• r,.N't .�r , r •:v' v< -,�`` �t
J� (t I 1 r rj I 1 r'v TT ° - ,l l( t �Py1 -0 , �: _ - •
1 11 I
;�,, �, ,..,,,1, ,�>��1r;21 !/r .�;+". I rjt►�. ,''f ?a+ r�. ; t�- ti' - E !kY` �-• e .� �';I .��' J
Oki• t ,- . .
,\�� .�.•./ �;t+I,�'/ 1` J r 1, {�/1tf �, r t. v� 4. s t yam /' O '' x.`%s 9 r'� f , ° l♦;(!x_ �'4L"
\ ; `� 7L(~ c `�'r. t, 1 lr'.�;\ti_ �^. �/"4 `�' Y w ,'�♦['q ap+ ,e.e r<i.' t r;{3Yhr, �� i' _ll� ! • y^V'
�)(�+'- 6,. • �.I±��- 'I 1. r ...;�l^`i��.I t',�.��. I T - .�`� ~� i `�. ` F ► ,.�•'� ;, /, - '4,.. �, ti t;,ti t f, Vj'1.l►.' ixl' P� t�.ti F , ._.��P.'.eto�:j.>1►�..� L 1
l.S) �1.../- - .- • -%I t•., f �A 'K';• ��,-..+.�` .9 r't ,� ,*,�. �...•-• ,i ,Wt'�. 4�.t ' Y I ; %��I 1 C s
�«1H•J 2.'�� 1* v :*.Y�/ ♦�/ ��•�-'//'� ��\� _:�. c '-, /. r .a i.. ►w ���A',1' I l { ' / , r
tlc
•✓�� ` ,.f �,,�� ,e ,`� + i`r ` - °"* !�_' t rt'D'4g ki i�•` •�"'',�'d..�'Ot f • ..\\`� `.4v,+ R`• /Jsx I .,• •�r''--', \
s 4c
•t ? r ` �w t
i s��� r,- 2_.�1� j y o {Sai sa w �' f �� > w Y �''i ,4 J f'� t.•'rr, M �
y/J�?' �r'' •,'�/^ ♦ , 1►-l •t''•N,.1 .}f- C: ?� jjt♦(l a " '�<. .,.. •,y r C r t A`
fII �' p\\ ) tV. r -•• _ '. �C �t .r I 7 • _ . 1 i �q� •I,. `
r:�Mr.x ..:y /.)��/ f '� `. ; r7 �"I'1 '� �'. y'A 4 ��r �1� c. a• t , BR's' ^ '^C ~ Y f ry,d,�' •�Y
jj.,,,Tf / f }1�n]H �tf'' ,J - ,�S'�y
`/< Y. A. t�'� r'►{r r 1 ' r ~ ! VV a,t �.( 1�_ `'1 ,, t 1;Si ;t • ,/�',��►•t�•a� "11 7
'' +/ (~ v Y {� �f S 1 • k _, sem. ,0 1 �• .'���d�' ., \ ! "�/ti/ r, r - �'�`���Z.� „t 1' �` *^2
1f r ci I `'�) ►� L•` �li(tcr 16 �'r�' ►� .• r'"R" ', rE 6 �+ +f'•. /�` ` `'aµ tl ,,t •1-
7'• 1 7^:� .-•a t t o ��yy, `' '� d�' < • a 1- �_ . r ,;1*.r
♦ • ` J
' `� •t ;� , /II ..j S,LL P'vc^ZS _�~ , \ ;'j'-^"^n'.r6` e •-v7 j+}. Y • �j`^�`t''�'1,41
_rte./Nv r�/••'.'. 1p
. . I i
�,,"JJ /�j�jtjT► g f ` . Vo .•o ' ` <•' I ,-��, 3A '�.. �.•N,G' ,,•.f �,t,�'r•r
' 1�.•\1�:!+,r 'r•, lam' .��-A�� ...t .1 • ` t \{,• j t♦ ! "V�r .arA. '� t•.r � '. V, J�• - ''.
,y�t���• 'I y��l t 1. LLL Y� X K , -1 r . ��•i
3� ',"v�l ? V 'lytJ}r ^41 1nf>tl o 1.I ! t l 7 f \ P I , , - .
*:,- ' ��l , t"f fk)'f T- ..,.� ` ...-f J.'- .fes"
1 ///f J/ll++ _. I•.` r. __ , i QI 7 Ti }i S'- oto. ' ,•fir, , s +r 1 t (_-',f�'j1 c ,-*t
ra 'r!•`.1f!/� I ".` II ,l •'I #'. �S ` f' f v �.,,+i !�' l,•'', Y r''-, i , `�,, '/ �'r��• Y - , /tr�J
�'�/ <. • I/ �,(��J( c I - ♦ ♦ v - 41 �'f`.,,:. >. tK.'moi r. lr NA 7 f!
\,•� I,e.14,T,,•`�.y r�• :7�♦. �� . I 7:, - 1 � ♦ � � • � ♦.�tt�..� � ���q ��•f5- �Y ~.,~• _% '1�';� '.Z� � /'�`_l.,;�{yf��A.��t�,.,'_ ~
h� �i.. r-i✓�' ?, , f -1 * . n✓' i 1 j q�.� r 6 1,"A z.. � •' 'Y r.�w., 'h�'•♦'r � J,S/ �/ "�, y
+,A* rl'`•' ' 7- /t?r( �' ♦ tI ..�!* 3 l .l �fi'¢' ♦-'6 a r.n... y � � vi:i
1 [!..^'r -'��' 41 -,;J,.iJ r ./ . • '0 , .i l-.111 r 1 /' • •t ^'�•,,,,,y/- �C`l Va>� •i •+Vn' ,•� '' 7.
�
1�1
�Otz
~ ♦\,1 4 •`�I,r� t t l/ I 1 - , , _ \, /,�' ��k` r �$�;/ �." . -1�!•'` «.. c r tiY� X i-y/rr, c�'.l"...:i jl�� <./�
1 + �S 1. / �� 1.�>ry '}�--;0 T'1. , .(\\ / - 0 r 4 ,.r • ` '.a►"• , - r `�'/_2.I t. •.r �~ 1 ►0.1•, .K 16
.a'-' ,� ��� ,).t../�� _W-v t \ .', \ �� . r. .•y v I �P' .r- y 'r �J 1. 'f . '�ry'V.Jr �c♦• M
y. -
I .ti� j •Y r rI ♦ 1IL 1 n . ` �4 N . I It 'A f ,, . i.
� 4 4 V�!,r ,.�
i *, arT �s` , h ..I Z {I r•, t I 1�p r N '4e,��i*1' J `t`J•Y.
' - .11, N, L)j::
I I , 4 1 ,L--:,*- .,I I i - I - , . .1:�::� -I-. I , .*1,
�,,__�:" .J, "'- �f", r "..,.�:', I,k- 'W"Os, 0,11 ,..L"�IbA,e, -I, -, .. - 1�, v I Irl, 0,- , ..- .;� -4C4, ',",.',t,
". . , ;O��"�Y'!'r ..
�41��;
'1,4y/I �`I, 1;i'N I ., o-1 11 �k ���� %w , �►��i � 1Y e ♦ ` Y { a A ;
++(771=�1 � ,� � �'_`C1, •�`'r+ .f -�< t, - t �.� .i t �..+'~'' -
j+`�. 7L` rpt _� { L.may, 1. a!' >.` 4, `� '�" 1 ^ 1 �. --- -
j }�rC: ~.: �-�y..I ��,} �/ 1111 { n �, .•.'. �'1 ++
y•,a/4TI'-f t •r , 1 �� I'1 - e 2 .l ZZ}y S- i 7i I _ ,j
• '•I ti w i, �.'Y` 'If .1? .. , y ) �` 4T r r cy .♦.A
i✓.. f'{.1,`♦'-1.. `�- �f•'• `' I �J(/„!,•� '!i•^ .+'•-. <. s(79R,v ! F !i• < ,.ti[•r F 1..y�Y.y �.-
_ ,'� /1 `-�:� I.7 �1. 'r, f T"Y DtJr!1 I: Ix J lir ♦ ....1! ,` i1
f,/� � ., • ,.e�',
f j.1 `i.,t . ,-•a I i �` +5.1+.. t. - �.1 'r'v f •".•,a. a',t� , ►•-�.rl r'�r•
f� *-w 15Q } [`♦ '••' f�i Ili ' a►' f • V •,f, J�, !r" ,; '1
�/ �` f-J�1.0 ."`�\, _'
`- f t _' , ,' -♦• r'� ./ �.4�`' ✓ �- 1r^ r tt . Y }.to . p \'.«/ *.F < ,+.r� 7y,.►�l•� '+.' ,
`•J J a i k• Fj i .!1 r �f w" w . '•:4' .J ,_ } ,1 t h 7 �► •
MW-/
J `.Y . ..r\}.1 Ir # s\!�p S k`' k' l / h
\ ♦ .r1. 'I- � � _ : +,,t 7 -) , 'r_'P• 'i ♦ '«y'A' .4/ � • \'. 4 Rt'i 'r,.^ )f:LA-�,� v { •
I,r..� �+A�t .�. T �u. .-I C1 V.... .-IN x ,1 �' _ 't . ,> / . "^*M '�► t'�'
r y`ij 1 ;� i�`, �141 - .:1•� -J t• Y ,,�v <ST r� ,.[, - \ , r rti,� r'.yi �a SSa:Sr}'fr-*. µ,,, d .'t\ �'� r� 1[
r
�,11,
�' h' ~ � 1 j �._�...^ •►{fit V�► , 1 �... r""� 1, /r: yC'''Ir 7 =-� ',y 1�' ��i 1 J r (
t>,o � �-" T }� �� r cry+ ~ r �..,, tit ? . • ► 1�1tF1lS 00} Kiri#�y.• +l �I ',(j� � i+
lr I is �>. !�1 �,, y,r, 4 y` rSy•'s!,'Ic� _ �' ����+'• �I `
'�r 1 1 , �-�%► �► \ +il / r r,o ; 'ti• 4 *F /r�� 71_, �� `"r' S'4/ � �'�y t� S
f.. �:.,.�-, ,1 ♦'-V J{,^`JJ�•-��._ S I `/L {+`' $ O •J _. .li�f `(I�•,:.'�'• sV ,, $ r }
a*''.I,, 1 f �/ ..l' wp"�)� �.v r1l y f _ 1� �-.4 1�r r ,r-•-- try-4*/ � � f-I s1• '{ • .v
,�, _I _'`I, /�/�` ,+1� ``&L ' I�S ,• `♦ it `� ter' .Yp R h`o - ;r 1•/�!� ,✓..� ." /`r . L f fI/lo-
[ '. •1
.01&
q• M 1.,�--,/ / �7' ) ��yrj k X44,, �; •��_lN� r; , f Ii ;' „1. ' r
. 0 17w:� t
♦'- x. , • �,.1T11- d-t.�.J'+f {t1'� x', , �C,. � ;4/r `�I .i, }1)I tl t- �� ` a �� } - ,H
,�,,�t r/i , ,
--,,", . It- 14" _Y F i 6 11 ,*- -, - I ,I,t �4 1 - , A
T
k / �y.J" ��`�� 1 t�1 (`� .` / } x }.d�� ) ( $ rt .�Gti��!T� (.',. �� a�lyl •t i�.:i .12
,i�„T r, 'n.4''�, r f+ ♦ i•s•''[ �.T''• ,w p'k, yyv•7},�{ l{i ~ '.r, tea- t` \.r a•1 .-�t t' • �»i/� ..t -
�\ `_ ✓+,' . t� � �L f•• a. `��J .P lo,y\:r'.�tT•rti11>�4.•}.. }w.� 4 r �� S,��7 •. �..a•\�`I•.•• ffI.i�r, '� !9� )Ly/�+if , iwf
t , t7►. T /)1♦ c' qi S ` �Y li �.J / C '«lam"(
�,'1,
�`,� •;/14 G rij' ��r-.iI 04 ��{,� Ct'c`I.�:J a,,t;., ti ¢£•.:'r� *' '_ r "'. ty e . r•(�1'� r"'. ;+'1 /J
��/�,,!/` f"�4 c •�,'�''f' ,♦,i" t r`.I.>`.:v i:• aa"i , - 4. .{ • `1 u.`/ _.t_ •.,%. e{.
���I �J t - ' Vii, .!s 3 •.. iyp:,p , ~.yew' , r •t . .,k}. i �� � � _ t 1 ! ,))�
\ , rt�' !'• Ti) a :��.I101 ^-�M/. �.... ... �►' ,""'�I�a ~•� • f �..-�.� ` •�v.. ~ a
-I L `11' vt c.� --I., 5' r'< I , -) N ��� . '.:. *�r'�'� `� �1�' A t 4 , `�.
`~r If !" '+►��1 / • i, $ 2t` , Y' '`1..- ✓/ �T1� � ;(�J 'J+��r�Y �,�j'v
If
7'1
/40 / } tom. ( \ ,�'t s,i _ 1 i••"(� �' I 4 f .
vf
r! c't�. r •`� L/a. q`W •ter s0 I , ` j� ' )�; w 1' 71t
�' ' 11. v h'�' / t}:r `•tri,,/r 4 r_ 14• ,, .+�i
I e�,A.��% , * . I 4 1'41�.1 . 11 , ** I - 1� 0))�I
iiiiiiii
♦ l 0 ♦ ,
�. f
it .46 a , z;l M..,q� � 1 ~Dt r',I,"
I..,,,I ?,Y i
• 1 ?$ 4, .
1
-, ."�
I 11
J o le
N
If' f y+t t i 14*1�� I
R r .� �,� "� d.,,r9>X•7^ice{ F `;'i,. ,ryti w Y S .1 r I f l f
.V,'e, t�•+ * �; �;
.{ it ;:.S Y �� (�
.F, - .f T� ) •'1 )
+ \ A f
. -1 � I - . v
`+/yl -
tt
..�'/. � 2� ,.1
�-' _ � .
4 ` s- 0 2 t 1 1 ti
summary
The design provides for a freeboard of one foot based on peak flows of 2,500 cfs, and water
surface at the mouth of Rodeo Creek at mean higher high tide (elevation+3-2 feet). The design
storm was considered by the Corps to be an event with a recurrence interval of approximately
200-years.
Flood Insurance Rate Map
In 1987, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued maps for unincorporated
portions of Contra Costa County, along with a Flood Insurance Study which provided hydrology
data. The maps delineate areas subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. This event, on
average, has a one percent probability of occurrence in any year, but it could occur two or more
times in a decade. Theoretically,it could even reoccur in a single year.
The FEMA map is presented in Figure 3.3m2. It indicates that the channel of Rodeo Creek is
inadequate to carry peak runoff from the 100-year 5to and that essentially all of the low lying
portions of tile planning area are subject to inundation. Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of
discharges for Rodeo Creek at San Pablo Bay. It indicates that the 100-year event yields flows of
2,100 cfs,and the 500-year event yields flows of 2,900 cfs. These results are in good agreement
with the Corps of Engineers, who determined that peak flows for the 200-year event were 2,500
cfs.
TABLE 3.3-1 '�
SithIlViARY OF DISCHARGES FOR RODEO CREEK
AT SAN PABLO BAY
Drainage AreaQlo(sq.mi.) Q50 Q100 Q500
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
10.2 19100 19,800 2,100 29900
Source: FEMA Flood Insurance(1987)
The Flood Insurance Rate Map issued by FEMA assumes a water surface elevation of+seven
feet, which is +3.8 feet higher than the water surface elevation assumed by the Corps of
Engineers. Because the project was designed with only one foot of freeboard, raising the water
surface elevation by 3.8 feet results in the channel embankment being overtopped, and sheetflow
flooding *in the planning area. The Flood Insurance Rate Map does not provide information on
the depth of floodwaters in the planning area. Presumably, any lands below elevation of+7 feet
would be inundated, and lands over elevation+ seven feet would experience sheetflow flooding,
with water depths of one foot or less.
During flood flows, not all of the flooding problems in Rodeo would be from overbank flooding
of Rodeo Creek. The other problem is storm drainage facilities in the community. In the Specific
Plan area,the flow line at the outfall of storm drains in the Specific Plan area is at or just below -^w
elevation+3.0 feet. When water in the channel is above the elevation of the storm drain outfall,
3.3-6
rj� 4 rpy +}bA�eG-,}vrr.;'�rypL�?ry{'���y�.{nv.r,�r v)¢yr yv+:riti:,.��^pprXvf r^•';.y M`•::rr.�.w�f.rr.•v�(•,r'...}{�;.,.'h':{i r.;,�.i.:.':-, n,(..:y.�..•,•�) .,q.;:!!..'T '�k<�? yP- .S'..j7X'a�.*Y�r:��(h�,X'J4.'ti Y}.r�ti�?y).
bC •�,h9�} }}. it;• �.r i.N �Q}'�''r r r � h 7
4R ti
-
Jrr.�
r.
�� )fes f - M1. •
yJ .� titi
Y
i r r C
•L r
r � 1, `� .•, �p�V{` �r P
mill
lilt IMM
j�
r • WAMW
son fillfor aft
.:��v.r ',�� ti Nv. �" �,�` �,�t��Q.r r'r.'�?8i..L.T�•'�.'� �-
600090
..rte . oil. • ,{+SD W" nl r tir:f > v�.4 y F _r
r
goo �� �� rrr:f.• {.� �`$: {. o..,.
Agri.,h,�} �. r C'r 4.}C 4 p x�
r 4 X ` #I
'4��{ 11 on fte �an
7we son►soon,
Xw,
400 oft
r
J.A tib.} h r;:. •,V aft111,1,�JI �, 1#
t,S{J ?'i}••{. ��� goo, .} F{4C �'>' r''� ; , •'�!
flaw Raise
an
. ~'�$q'b'. .X j �``"({ 4;V am awe _� �
off
rY }rr -{,.tom• __„I, .QQ{t�•yr :,.' �? IN
,��,qqpppp �4r ,l till
_ r.■• .'�",i .'Vin:``' 1 t�1
Iowa on NOLAN
.•� so
goo ' �- r•. 111 �; y {r< . -- ..lith
k y Y
rte,}}{•,�,�1.ter. ��
got ti j}.J,p�cpr � }
an
,y� Almamok
two
will
sow
.'w�V,r�}Y.W +Y ti}ya4,U('y'rf .{yy.y' ,,♦, ,' •0000
Nq�114
yrs.' ,.. r}7`7 kvz
` + • '� ,` , ,►
`NO qw A16
Ll
Soso was
'' , `, •' ,
Aft Aftgoo
1� 41
000
OWN
goo
to'woe
wow
r. ♦ �1
IVA
IPA
JMMM VIP
Explanation:
V11 4W
Areas of Inundadon by 100 y"r
bass fk)od elevaWns and
Zone A flwd hazard facWrs not deteffnined
�r�. • !♦
•. • 1P ♦ ♦ •
�� � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Owl
r. 1
■
the local storm drainage system in the roads will no longer function,and runoff will be carried by
the streets toward San Pablo Bay. ""`'
Local Storm Drainage Facilities
In addition to the flooding problem posed by Rodeo Creek, there is a localized neighborhood
flooding problem. Specifically, development within the older section of Rodeo, including the
Specific Plan area, took place in the first half of the 20th Century. Much of the land surface is
covered with paved surfaces and structures, increasing the total volume and speed of runoff.
Because development preceded adoption Of modem regulations requiring storm drainage
facilities, the existing drainage system in the downtown area is inadequate (either undersized or
absent),resulting in sheedlow of water in sheets and ponding of water in low spots. In addition,
curbs and gutters are lacking along some residential streets on the periphery of the planning area.
Although these areas are outside the redevelopment area, drainage from the streets sheetflows
into the Specific Plan Area. a
The Flood Control District has identified locations where storm drainage facilities are needed.
Those within and immediately adjacent to the planning areas are shown in Figure 3.3-3. Several
other streets to the south of the Specific Plan area have also been identified by the District as
having drainage deficiencies(see 1990 EIR,p. 100).
Maintenance of Drainage Facilities
The right-of-way of the improved channel of Rodeo Creek was dedicated to the County Flood
Control District,and it is the District which maintains the channel. Routine maintenance consists
of removing sediment,vegetation and litter from the improved creek channel. There is no history
of ov b,rbank flooding in the 20 years since the channel was improved, because the water surface
in San Pablo Bay has never approached elevation+7 feet. There are no funds to reconstruct the
channel of Rodeo Creek. The local storm drainage system in public roads is maintained by the
County Public Works Department.
Seismic•Related Flooding 40
Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are long period waves triggered by underwater disturbances
(landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic events. Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami
inundation tend to be located in low-lying coastal areas such as tidal flats,marshlands,and former
bay margins that have been artificially filled but are still at or near seal level. Although tsunamis
are generated in many areas along the - 'eter of the Pacific Basin,historical data suggests that
only the Aleutian Trench generates tsunamis capable of causing significant runup inside San
Francisco Bay.
An evaluation of the areas within San Francisco Bay that may be inundated by a tsunami was
made by the USGS (Ritter and Dupre 1972). The evaluation was based on a tsunami having a
wave height or runup of 20 feet which were forecast to arrive at the Golden Gate once every 200
years. Due to attenuation within the bay,a 20.foot wave at the Golden Gate would diminish to a
height of approximately two feet in the Rodeo area. If the tsunami runup coincided with mean
higher high tide(elevation+3.2 feet),the tsunami runup could reach elevation 5.2 feet.
3.3.7
.e
CLI
�g
if
San Pabb Ave. C�
PP'
..................
:.. ..._1st Sir"
r
A Q+�"°.: ..Concrete _ .
� ;t pose 3t
s+�. ..........
une
net
4 ........... ....................
3rd SVW
:3
A Z
a PaZoidai
r
Chanei
MihpflY
CL
R
Leywnd� Nesae�
�t�nasi�&cu1v8� germs,cutveccs)
Stour D�`�Siem
RodOO Cteek
G�Ph�Scale
pneWANNIM
Aire 0
F;9ure:3.3"3 ien�1es Map Ment P%an(1990)
pef�c R�eve�oP
t)ralinage ft elf,lot Fjode0 Area
SOU-MLCK
Greenhouse Effect
The Greenhouse Effect is a scientific theory that global warming may cause melting of the polar
ice caps and a potential resultant rise in sea level in the next century due to atmospheric changes.
Some experts theoric that recent climatological changes are due to historically recorded cyclical
changes rather than a constant temperature increase which woud result in substantial melting of
the polar ice caps in the near future. There is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude and rate
of this change,but the total rise has been forecast to be as high as 8 to 10 feet over the next 100
years. However,there is no scientifically-accepted method to calculate the total rise in elevation
over the next 100 years,. It is not even established that there will be a rise in seabed. 0
The effects of a change in the elevation of mean sea level should be considered in flood control
planning,specifically with respect to development of the Rodeo Specific Plan area. In part due to
the Greenhouse effect, a BCDC policy states 1 that to prevent damage.from floodings, building
near the shoreline should be at least nine feet above mean sea level, or should be protected by
dikes of an equivalent height and provided with associated pumping facilities.
Flood Plain Permits
Anyone requesting construction permits in the flood plain delineated by FEMA is required to
obtain a Flood Plain Permit. One requirement of the permit is that the lowest member of the
lowest floor of structures in a flood plain be elevated one foot above the elevation of the 1 00-year
flood. In the Specific Plan Area, where FEMA does not provide elevations, it is reasonable to --�
assume that new structures would be elevated to nine feet above mean sea level. The Flood Plain
Administrator of the County,Rich Lyerly,would provide standards for new construction.
Surface Water Quality
Federal Clean Water Act
The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the
nation's waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies.
Section 303 of the Clean mater Act requires states to establish water quality standards consisting
of designated beneficial uses of water bodies and water quality standards to protect those uses for
all waters of the United Stites. Section 303(cX2)(B)of the Clean Water Act, added in the most
recent 1987 revisions, re res states to adopt numerical criteria for toxic pollutants for which
federal water quality criteRa have been published by the EPA. Section 304(1)requires states to
submit to EPA lists of watecs that cannot reasonably be expected to attain water quality objectives
after application of required effluent limits. States are required to develop control strategies, by
individual water segments to reduce toxic pollutants from point sources, and thereby meet the
Clean Water Act's water quality objectives. Both the Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay appear
on the federal 304(1) list and are classified as "impaired" due to point and non-point source
pollution?
1
BCDC,, 1 989,"San Francism.Bay Plan",,Part IV,page 14,item 4. ..�.
2 State Water Resources Comtel Board. Water Quality Assessment. 18 May 1992,p.33.
3.3-8
Enyi pnL1 p=glion-A&C, �
The Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for implementing federal laws
designed to protect air,water,and land. While numerous federal environmental laws guide U.S.
U.S. EPA has developed national water quality standards in accordance with the Clean Water
Act;these standards are used to determine the amount and the conditions under which pollutants
can be discharged.
National Pollutant DischarQe Elimination Sv^stem
Part of the Clean Water Act provides for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), in which discharges into navigable waters are prohibited except in compliance with
specified requirements and authorizations. Under this system, municipal and industrial facilities
are required to obtain a NPDES permit that specifies allowable limits for pollutant levels in their
eluent. These limits reflect available waste water treatment technologies and are intended to
achieve the water quality objectives for waters within the United States. In California, the U.S.
EPA has delegated the implementation of this program to the State Water Quality Control Board
and to the Regional Boards.
Storm water discharges are regulated somewhat differently. Storm water runoff from
construction areas of five acres or more require either an individual permit or coverage under the
statewide General Construction Storm Water Permit. In addition, specific industries including
waste water treatment plants that have direct storm water discharges to navigable waters 'ate
required to obtain either an individual permit issued by the Regional Board, or obtain coverage
under the statewide General Industrial Storm Water Permit for storm water discharges. To have a
land development project fall under the State General Construction Activities Stoni water Permit,
the applicant is required to:
• Submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
construction
• Prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPP)
• Monitor and record how well pollution prevention measures are performing
• Annually submit a Compliance Status Report form to the State
• File a Notice of Tei n ination with the State when construction is completed
&crignal Water QUality Control Board,fan Francisca Bay Rea'
The water quality in San Pablo Bay is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. The Regional
Board is responsible for developing and implementing the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan which
documents approaches to implementing State and Federal policies in the context of actual water
quality conditions. This plan specifies beneficial uses of receiving waters, water quality
objectives imposed to protect the designated beneficial uses, and strategies and schedules for
achieving water quality objectives. Section 303(cX2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires Basin
Plans to include water quality objectives governing approximately 68 of EPA's list of 126
3.3-9
pollutants. The Regional Board's other activities include permitting of waste discharges, and
implementing monitoring programs of pollutant effects.
Water quality objectives are achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of
Waste Discharge Requirements for each wastewater discharger. The 1986 Basin Plan was
amended in 1992 to include stricter water quality criteria than were previously adopted in the
1991 California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan. However,a California superior court recently
found the California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan to be legally defective due to inadequate
environmental review as required by CEQA prior to adoption of this plan. As a result,the 1991
California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan, a well as the 1992 amendment, are no longer in
effect. The U.S.EPA is currently in the process of promulgating regulations that will require the
State Board to meet federal standards or implement standards in the State plans already
developed.
Cot ants in Urban Runoff
Urban runoff can carry a variety of accumulated pollutants such as oil and grease, detergents,.
heavy metals, pesticide residues, sediment, litter and fecal coliform bacteria. Pollutant
concentrations in urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on storm intensity, land
use, elapsed time since the previous storm, and volume of runoff generated. The most critical
time for urban runoff effects is in the fall,under low flow conditions. Pollutant concentrations are
typically highest during the first major rainfall event following a dry season and is referred to as
the"first flush".
Quantitative estimates of pollutant loadings from urban runoff are both scarce and of questionable ,....�
accuracy in general. The data considered the best available for application to urban runoff in this
area are from a study funded by EPA for the nationwide urban runoff Program(NURP)in Fresno,
California performed by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood
Control District in 1983. This study analyzed storm runoff from four land use types and
quantified the concentrations of various constituents considered important in evaluating the water
quality of urban runoff. The water quality parameters analyzed and the median concentrations
found in the NURP study are shown in Table 3.3-v2. Pollutants found in urban runoff include
lead,copper and sediment. Organic compounds were not included in the study.
TABLE 3.3-2
MEDIAN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN RUNOFF
FOR SELECTED CONSTITUENTS BASED ON LAND USE
Multiple Single
Dwelling Dwelling
Runoff Constituent Commercial Residential Residential
Total dissolved solids(mg/1) 39 32 34
Suspended sediment(mg/1) 57 333 70
5-day biochemical oxygen demand(mg/1) 5.6 7.2 8.3
Dissolved nitrogen as NO2 and NO3 0.55 0.60 0.5
Total orthophosphate(mg/1) 0.09 0.27 0.22
3346
Dissolved lead(mg/1) 12 12 5
Total recoverage lead(mg/1) 100 170 170
Dissolved copper(mg/1) 4 5 S
Total recoverage copper(mg/1) 18 22 14
Source: U.S.Geological Survey Report No.84-710. Fresno Nationwide Urban Runoff Project.
No significant water quality problems have been identified in the Specific Plan area, but there is
no published data on existing water quality for Rodeo Creek. Visual inspection of the reach of
channel in the planning area indicates that it is well maintained and free of litter and vegetation.
Gtoundwater
The Rodeo Creek watershed is not underlain by a groundwater basin that is recognized by the
Department of Water Resources-3 The nearest groundwater basin is the Arroyo del Hambre
valley,which is just west of Diablo Valley in the Briones Hills. It is approximately 10 miles from
the Specific Plan area.
Although the planning area is not officially recognized as a ground water basin by the State,two
aquifers are inferred to be present in the Rodeo Creek watershed. The upper aquifer occurs in the
alluvium on the valley floor. It overlies the relatively impervious bedrock and is recharged by the
surface waters in Rodeo Creek. Another aquifer that is believed to exist in the planning area is in
Bay Sand. This unit is overlain by nearly impervious Bay Mud. Ground water flow in both
aquifers is generally northwest toward San Pablo Bay.
Limited groundwater recharge of the shallow aquifer occurs in the area as a result of both direct
infiltration of precipitation through the ground surface and underflow from Rodeo Creek.
Groundwater is not extensively used in the Rodeo area because of the availability of higher
quality water supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Also, the proximity of the
project area to San Pablo Bay and the shallowness of the water table would be expected to lead to
salt water intrusion into the local aquifer if extensive groundwater pumping were to occur in the
area.
ENVIRONN04TAL IMPACTS AND MIIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Impacts and Mitigation measures related to drainage and hydrology are described in this section.
The focus of the analysis is on the impacts within the Specific Plan area, not the Rodeo Creek
watershed as a whole. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines,Appendix
G (1992 revised) indicates that a project will normally have a significant adverse effect on the
environment if it will increase the amount of surface runoff(beyond that which can be conveyed
in the downstream channels without damage),change the pattern of surface runoff(to the extent
that beneficial uses are reduced or eliminated).
3 Departrnent of Water Resources, 1990,"Ground Water Basins in California,A report to the Legislature in
Response to Water Code Section 12924,Bulletin 1840.
3341
Methodology and Key Assumptions ""`'-
Existing hydrologic analyses were used to assess project.-related impacts of the surface water and
groundwater resources in the planning area and the region. The project's compliance with
existing plans and policies, and state and federal regulations was considered when assessing
flooding, erosion and water quality issues and potential impacts. The EIR consultant did not
perform an independent hydrologic analysis for the Specific Plan area, The portion of the
'D
planning area that Is in the Rodeo Creek watershed is currently developed and paved. The
hydrologic studies of the Corps of Engineers and FEMA considered runoff from the Rodeo
downtown area in their analysis. The development that would follow adoption of the Specific
Plan should not result in a substantial change in the volume of runoff. Moreover, the Rodeo
downtown area is bisected by the lowest reach of Rodeo Creek. Runoff exiting the planning area
is discharged directly into San Pablo Bay. Consequently, runoff from the planning area will not
impact downstream development. The key assumptions used in evaluation ofproject impacts are
as follows:
• The preliminary hydrologic analyses performed by the Corps of Engineers and FEMA are
sufficient to determine potential project impacts.
• Individual land development projects will be designed to be flood proof, with the lowest
structural member of the lowest floor elevated at least one foot above the elevation of the
peak water surface. A parking garage below the lowest floor is considered feasible.
• There will be no improvements to the reach of Rodeo Creek between the AT&SF railroad --�
crossing and the mouth of Rodeo Creek.
• The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map does not precisely delineate the area subject to
flooding because the topographic base map for the Specific Plan Map is generalized.
General Plan Compliance
General plan policies do not provide objective design standards, but do provide policy direction.
The data presented in this chapter of the DEIR indicate that the lower elevations of the planning
area are at high risk of flooding. These policies demand that in high risk areas such as the Rodeo
r- --u" property r___ I the effects of flooding shall
DowntoviviMatenrArea protection of people and
^A Is
be a primary consideration of the suitability of the land to be developed.
It is difficult to accurately assess the flood hazards to specific lots and blocks on the basis of
USGS topography. Prior to commencing design work for projects in the Specific Plan Area, a
detailed topographic map is needed, with a contour interval of one foot(or less).. This map will
be a starting point for determining water depths and design of the downtown area to
prevent/control flood damage. In summary,the General Plan provides sufficient policy direction
to ensure that compatibility of land uses with flood hazards and FEMA mapping is adequate to
identify flood prone areas at a General Plan level of detail.
3.3-12
Flood HAZitf'd
Impact 3.3-1 The low-lying portions of the Specific Plan area are subject to inundation
by the 100-year flood. This is considered to be a significant impact.
A two-mile long reach of Rodeo Creek was improved by the Corps of Engineers in the 1970's,
extending from its mouth to the AT&SF railroad culvert (see Figure 3.3-1). This channel was
designed to pass peak runoff from the 200-year storm with one foot of freeboard. The design of
improvements assumed that the peak water surface elevation in San Pablo Bay was +3.2 feet,
which is the elevation of mean higher high tide in the Rodeo area. In 1987 FEMA issued Food
Insurance Rate Maps which forecast a peak water surface elevation of+seven feet in San Pablo
Bay for the 1 00-year flood. Under this condition, San Pablo Bay waters_back up into the lower
reach of Rodeo Creek, and water surface elevations in the channel are raised between its mouth
and the I40 culvert. The result is overbank flooding on Rodeo Creek. The local storm drainage
system in the Specific Plan area ceases to function properly when the water surface elevation in
Rodeo Creek is greater than three feet. The flowlines of existing storm drains are at or just below
elevation+three feet where they intersect the channel of Rodeo Creek. The result is sheetflow of
urban runoff toward San Pablo Bay,and flooding of low lying areas.
Contra Costa County has entered into an agreement with FEMA whereby subsidized insurance
rates are available for properties in the floodplain,provided floodplain management practices are
implemented by the County to control damage.
Mitigation Measures
3.3-1(a) Incorporate the following policies into the Specific Plan:
Policy xx-xx: Establish a local stone drainage system that protects property and
ensures public safety.
Policy xx-xx: Floodplain administrator to provide criteria to be used by design*
professionals for flood proofing structures.
3.3.1(b) The Redevelopment Agency, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, shall
prepare more accurate maps showing the floodplain and provide the peak water
surface elevation, based on accurate topographic data and more detailed hydrologic
studies. The revised map,along with supporting documentation shall be provided to
FEMA along with a formal request for amendment of the official Flood Insurance
Rate Map.
3.3-1(c) Provide pumps for low-lying areas behind levees. (Ponded water on floodplain will
contain debris and sediment. Pumping is the most practical way to get runoff to the
channel during and following a runoff event that produces flooding.)
3.3-1(d) Properties that are developed or substantially improved within the 100-year flood
plain shall be designed to mitigate water damage(e.g.walls,footings,piers,slabs and
other structural elements that cannot be raised-above the area subject to inundation.)
3.3-13
Increased Runoff
Impact 3.34 The intensification of development that is proposed, along with associated
improvements in the local drainage system, will increase storm runoff to
Rodeo Creek. The result will be relatively minor increases in peak flows
and total volume of runoff that could aggravate the e ting flooding
problem. Thu impact uO considered to be less than significant
Buildout of the project may result in more paved surfaces. Presurfacing or reconstruction of
existing roads which are cracked and possess some permeability. will decrease in pervious areas
and result in less infiltration of rainfall into the ground. As a consequence,peak flows as well as
total volumes will increase. Also,the improvements to the local storm drainage system will tend
to speed storm runoff to Rodeo Creek. The result will be an increase in storm peak flows from
the planning area. Because the Specific Plan area is in the lowest portion of the Rodeo Creek
wateshed, the increased runoff will not impact downstream properties. The flooding problem in
the planning area is due to the elevation of waters forecast by FEMA for San Pablo Bay. The
increase in runoff contributed by buildout of the Specific Plan area isnot substantial.
Miti¢ation Measures
3.3-2 None required
Water Quality
Impact 3.34w3 Runoff from urbanized areas contains elevated levels of pollutants. These ---_,
pollutants have the capacity to impact water quality in Rodeo Creek and
affect San Palo Bay. Because the area is already urbanized,this impact is
not considered significant.
Urban runoff can carry a variety of accumulated toxic pollutants such as oil and grease, heavy
metals, sediment, pesticide residues, and fecal coliform bacteria from roadways, parking lots,
& A in
rooftops,and other surfaces and deposit them in adjacent waterways. Pollutant concentrations
urban runoff are extremely variable and are dependent on intensity, land use, elapsed time
since the previous storm, and the volume of runoff generated in a given area that reaches a
receiving water. Pollutant sources in urban runoff include household hazardous waste,
0 04d
automotme wastes such as oil and antifreeze, and pesticides and other chemicals used for yards
and gardens.
The most critical time for urban runoff effects would be in the fall under low flow conditions.
Pollutant concentrations are typically highest during the first major rainfall event after the dry
season,known as the"first flush,"
Quantitative estimates of pollutant loadings from urban runoff are both scarce and of questionable
accuracy in general. The data considered the best available for application to urban runoff in this
area we from a study funded by EPA for the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program {NURP) in
Fresno, California, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District in 1983. This study analyzed storm runoff from four land
4 A_ A�
use types and quantified the concentrations of various constituents considered important in
evaluating the water quality of urban runoff. The water quality parameters analyzed and the
33,w14
median concentrations found in the NURP study are shown in Table 3.3-2. Pollutants found in
urban runoff include lead,copper and sediment,as well as organic compounds. In concentrations
typical of residential and downtown areas,these substances are not toxic to wildlife or fish.
Mitivation Measures
Land development projects in the Specific Plan area are subject to applicable NPDES
requirements. No additional measures are required.
Increased Erosion During Grading
Impact 3.3-4 Implementation of the project would require foundation work and minor
grading throughout lands proposed for development, resulting in an
increase in erosion. This is considered to be a significant impact.
Construction and grading activities could temporarily cause significant increases in site erosion
associated with storm runoff. Sediment laded runoff entering nearby drainages is capable of-
as sing
fausing increased channel siltation and reduced flood carrying capacity of Rodeo Creek.
These water quality impacts are considered significant because increased erosion may degrade
downstream aquatic habitat and resources the mouth of Rodeo Creek and an adjacent portion of
San Pablo Bay.
Erosion control involves reseeding/revegetation of graded areas, effective measures to trap
sediment, and maintenance of erosion control structures during the rainy season. A particular
problem for the Rodeo Specific Plan area is that the soils are fine-grained. When disturbed by
earthwork, many of the sediments released are clays. They are exceedingly difficult to trap in
temporary sedimentation basins because they can stay in suspension for more than 24 hours.
Mitivation Measure
3.3-4 The applicant shall implement an erosion control plan as described in Section 3.7-4(a),
Geology/Seismicity.
Glossary
Aquifer: a geologic formation which transmits water rapidly when compared with an aquitard.
Design Storm: consists of the storm duration, the point depth, any areal depth adjustment, the
storm intensity and time distribution,and the areal distribution pattern of rainfall. Design storms
are used to determiner hydraulic requirements in structures.
Freeboard: The difference in elevation between the water surface elevation during peak
discharge and the top-of-bank
Non-Point Source: A diffuse source of stormwater runoff, such as urban runoff, pasture land,
open land
Point Source: A discernible,confined source of stormwater runoff,such as a refinery or factory..
3345
3.4 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
SETTING
Eids
d-,Use and Trip Generation
Rodeo is a unique, unincorporated area nestled along San Pablo Bay in Contra Costa County.
While being within a relatively shortdistancethe major San Francisco East Bay
employment centers, Rodeo maintains a small town character and feel. This small town
0 *I%AMAInterstatecharacter has been while being located within 0 s of 80(1-80), one of
the most heavily travelled corridors in the Bay Area,
The traffic impacts of the proposed Specific Plan will,, in part, result from the proposed
intensification of land use within the Rodeo Waterfront and Downtown area. Aerial
Photographs along with a "windshield survey" of the area were used to estimate existing
land uses in the Specific Plan Area. The results of that survey are presented "in Table 14-
1 9 The land use is by traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The TATs used in the
analysis are shown in Figure 3.4-1.
E�sting A L.9-
Trans-pormuSystein
Fxic Streets and Hi¢hwavc
Rodeo is served by 1-80, a freeway connecting the community to Oakland and San Francisco to the
South; and Solano County and Sacramento to the northeast. Access to I-80 is provided via San ---�.Pablo Avenue and Willow Avenue (Figure 1Interchanges4-2). southern are provided at the southeend
of the Carquinez Bridge north of Rodeo and at Willow Road southeast of Rodeo. San Pablo
Avenue also provides an arterial route parallel to 1-40 and connects Rodeo with Pinole and
Richmond to the south. Willow Road extends from Parker Avenue.^in Rodeo to 1,80 and State
Route 4 (SR-4) in Hercules. SR-4 provides access to Martinez and central Contra Costa County to
the east. Within Rodeo, Parker Avenue is the primary arterial spine that serves the downtown area
and provides access to the local streets that directly serve the residential areas of Rodeo.
Study Intersections
Figure 3.4-2 is a vicinity map showing the location of Rodeo with respect to freeways and nearby
collector streets. The Specific Plan area is represented by a stipple pattern. Seven intersections
along Parker Avenue were selected for level of service analysis as the besti�icators of potential
traffic impacts UMUIC of the *ect. The study intersections are represened with circles in Figure 3.4,-2.
. proi
They include the Parker Avenue intersections with the following cross streets:
San Pablo Avenue Third Street
First Street Fourth Street
Second Street Willow AvenueiSanPablo Avenue
Pacific Avenue
3.4-1
t
i
yryr.
•t.
X
xhY "'a
{
XPr,-
IL
t
•
j
mm10
fin.J-�''ap" �� • •
- ..t
rr�rr,
• r�
r }
r
r L �
a.. r r•.aa�� � �
.4'a•�jjj��l
.?S
l
t •
v Yt7 '
I
I
7 1
i
� r
t �
•
• `1
•
•moi
• 80
•
•
SPECIFIC
PLANAREA
t .
r'
w
Y
w4•
•
•• w� y�1
�«�r '•� t� ���+ RODEO
� •; M
•4 «t.
• yrs
wY
•
•
•
•
M
,; D
• 0 UNSICNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION
SIGNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION
i
i
•
•
1
•
•
t
•
Figure: 3.4 - 2
Existing Streets & Highways
TABLE 3.4-1
EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORYI
R tide tial Ilse ('o±±?me±rinl use
(dwdliny ni cl (aTross floor areal
TAZ2 Sing--le Multi- Mobile Occupied Vacant Other3
Family Family Home
1 7 6 0 - - -
2 3 9 0 3,600 - -
3 0 0 0 30,000 1,1600 2,1500
4 23 2 0 4,000 - 3,600
5 0 23 0 - - -
6 5 12 0 - 450 0
7 3 5 0 15,400 22,j200 0
8 0 11 0 - - -
9 4 8 0 25,300 7,200 1.0000
10 7 0 0 169500 2,500 -
11 3 25 0 119700 -
12 6 0 23 3,j500 1,500 19400
13 0 0 0 119400 - -
14 0 0 0 79700 - -
15 1 0 0 - - -
62 101 23 12990100 35,450 8,500
The intersections of Parker Avenue with Second Street,Fourth Street and Willow Road/San Pablo
Avenue are currently signalized. The other four intersections are unsignalized with stop sites on the
cross streets. These intersections have been selected based on the potential change in traffic demand as a
result of implementation of the propumsed redevelopment of the downtown under the proposed Specific
Plan.
3.42
� Based on information obtained from aerial photograph and windshield survey conducad by Patterson
Association.
Z Includes daycare center, library and churches.
3 Traffic Analysis Zone(see Figure 3,4-1).
3.42
n
In addition to the study intersections,the potential impacts to the highway serving the Specific Plan Area
were also evaluated. It is anticipated that the vast majority of traffic generated within Rodeo will be
freeway/highway oriented. Traffic destined for retail centers outside of Rodeo will impact streets within
Hercules. However,the potential impacts to individual streets or intersections outside of Rodeo were not
expected to be significant.
Transit Service
The Specific Plan Area is served by AC Transit Route 74 which originates in Crockett and serves stops
along San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo continuing through Richmond and into Alameda County. In addition,
WestCAT provides seven fixed mutes and dialma-ride service within Pinole,Hercules,Rodeo and•
Crockett. The BART Express J route provides service between the Specific Plan Area and the El Cerrito
del Norte BART station.
Capital Coffidor/AMTRAC rail service is provided with a station in Richmond. The Capital
Corridor rail service,initiated in 199 1,provides intrastate rail service connecting destinations
between San Jose and Sacramento. The San Joaquin train provides service to the San Joaquin
Valley and Los Angeles. The AMTRAC also provides long distance,intrastate rail service.
It is anticipated that transit provides an important part of the transportation system. Existing transit
achieves the following West Contra Costa daily ridership levels(WCCTAC, 199 1):
BART 25,000 riders/day
AC Transit 27,000 riders/day
WestCAT(fixed route) 1,155 riders/day
WestCAT(dial-a-ride) 300 riders/day
pedestrian_and Bicycle Facilities
The extent to which pedestrians are accommodated within the Specific Plan Area varies. Along
Parker Avenue standard sidewalks are provided. At the signalized intersections in the Specific
Plan Area,crosswalks are provided along with pedestrian traffic signal control. However,in '
other areas sidewalks of less than 5 feet in width are provided and in areas of transition between
existing commercial and residential uses,sidewalk widths vary significantly and in some cases
sidewalks are not provided. No specific provisions for bicycles are provided in the Specific Plan
Area..
Existina Park �
On-street parking is provided throughout the Specific Plan Area. In most cases parallel parking is
available. Diagonal parking is provided along First Street between Parker Avenue and Rodeo
Avenue. Provision of off-street parking varies within the Specific Plan Area. In general, off-
street parking is limited west of Parker Avenue. Offe-suve parking is provided for most of the
existing uses east of Parker Avenue. With the existing low intensity of retail activity and current
vacancy levels, the parking supply is adequate to serve existing commercial patrons in the
downtown area. Parking in the residential areas is generally adequate with some shortages
occurring occasionally in the vicinity of some existing multi-family units
3.a-3
Parking for the existing regional open is provided adjacent to the SP right of way at the end of
Rodeo Avenue. Weekdayusage of this parking is limited with more frequent use on weekends.
Planned Improvements
Table 3,,4.,2 lists roadway and transit improvements anticipated in or near the Specific Plan Area4.
TAB
3.4-2
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IIVPROVE&flRsM
Facility Project Description Status
I-80 HOV Lanes Atlas to Carquinez Track I
Bridge
Add new bridge span on Track 2
Carquinez Bridge
Park&Ride lot at SR-4 Under Construction
Interchange
Ramp Metering Action Plan
San Pablo Avenue Intersection at Cummings Track 2
Skyway Extension
Parker Avenue intersection Action Plan
improvements
Cummings Skyway Extend to San Pablo Avenue Track 2
BART Extension to Crockett Action Plan
TABLE 3.4-3
EXISTING DAILY AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Sl= Location Daily AM Peak pM Peak
Parker Avenue N.of San Pablo 119700 600 900
Parker Avenue N.of Second Street 39900 260 310
San Pablo Avenue S.of Willow Road 79200 370 630
San Pablo Avenue W.of Parker 200 20 20
Pacific Avenue W.of Parker 19500 so 140
vsAm NORq
*rmck iimprovements rx)sed in MTCs Smmcially oonsdainod Proicct Alternative in the 1994
RTP, Track 2 projects are pndidstes for longer range implementation. Action Plan projects
we not included within existing probut have bxn proposed for long term
implementation as past of the West County Action Plan and County"wide Transportation Plan
(CCTA,199S).
3.4-4
The extension of Cummings Skyway is partially funded through the Expenditure Plan for the �
Unocal Corporation's clean Fuel Project. The Conditions of Approval for this project require
the expenditure of X4.5 Million for local road improvM" While several potential projects
were identified under this funding, the extension of Cummings Skyway is considered the
highest priority. Total costs, including engineering, are estimated at X7.0 million. Therefore,
supplemental public or private funding will be required.
Traffic Volumes
Machine counts (24 hour) were collected on key study streets. Daily traffic volumes are,
generally low within the Specific Plan Area. The existing daily and peak hour volumes are
summarized in Table 3.4-3. Facisting turning movements are shown in Figure 3.4-3.
The hourly variation in traffic volumes on Specific Plan Area streets is presented in Appendix .
B. In general, the midday and evening(PM)peak hours experience the highest traffic demand.
Therefore, the trafficanalysis focussed on these two time periods in evaluating the impactsof the
proposed Specific Plan on the existing transportation system.
Truck Volumes and Vehicle Mix
Activities at the Unocal refinery generate a significant amount of truck traffic. While much of the
I us c is oriented toward the freeway system, some of the truck traffic uses Parker Avenue to access
San Pablo Avenue and I40 south of Rodeo. ,
Vehicle classification counts were included as part of the data collection effort. Classification
counts were conducted concurrent with the daily machine counts on Parker Avenue
betweenFirst and Second Streets and on Pacific Avenue between Parker and ond Street. The
results indicate that trucks represent approximately 8 to 9 percent of all traffic on Parker
Avenue and about 5 percent on Pacific Avenue. Most of the trucks on Pacific Avenue are
small delivery type trucks. On Parker Avenue almost a third are large semi tractor-trailer
trucks. While the percentage of trucks on Pacific Avenue is relatively high, the number of
trucks is actually quite low since total traffic volumes on Pacific Avenue are light.
Izvels of Service
The Contra Costa Growth Management Program requires the use of a modified Circular 212 method
for estunating operating levels of service at signalized intersections. The VCCC software was
developed to provide a computer tool consistent with the adopted methodology. The VCCC software
was used in the analysis of signalized intersections within the Specific Plan Area.
Four of the study intersections are currently unsignalized. No specific method has been
adopted in Contra Costa County for the analysis of igrWized intersections. The 1985
Highway Capacity method for ignalized intersections has been used.
All study rsections are currently operating at level of service B (LOS B) or bitter with the
exception of the intersection of Parker Avenue with Third Street which operates at LOS C in the
PM peak hour,, Table 3.4-4 presents volume-to-capacity (V/Q ratios and associated LOS for the
middal peak and PM peak. A description of the levels of service is provided in Appendix B.
3.4-5
Oc)FO
1
0
M\OKAYiiijj� 1111111111111111
Xx01A' P� A
v 001111111111111111
Z, i+
6
CO *mow
to
JA4(1AOM)
Mmh
Lev
ko
4*0
Cb
C4
0
00-02b in woo (70, t
ftoo
9 400
ip- q'o
MAD) CY
6(Zio� to
6 2.10
N6000
0
-Oro
to
N 0
"'010 1k000 illilljlllllllllllliiililillllllllllllo
C4
V 000-!111111
j0PTb 00,OiiiiiiillllllllllililillllllllI
A
M°veme�ts
�S,�u'min9
0 34.3 0
tile. ,ntgcsec;tio
The 1993 Contra Costa CMP LOS monitoring program reported levels of service on existing freeway
segments with established LOS E standards. This included the two segments of 1-80 south of the �`
Carquinez Bridge (AM Peak only). Levels of service were established based on Measured travel
speeds. The two segments on 1-80 had measured levels of service of LOS C.
PROJECT CONDITIONS
Project Alternatives
The Public Review Draft of the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan(PDR)was circulated
in November of 1994. The Public Review Draft recommends revisions to the existing General
Plan land use and zoning within the Specific Plan Area. Two other alternatives have also been
developed,referred to as the Staff/Consultant(S/C)Plan and the General Commercial(GC)Plan .
The four land use options analyzed therefore include:
General Plan(No Project)
Staff/Consultant Land Use Plan
Public Review Draft Specific Plan
General Commercial Plan
TABLE 3.4-4
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
Midday Peak PM Peak
Signalized Intersection V/C LOSS V/C LOS
2nd St.@Parker Ave, 0009 A 0.12 A
4th St.@Parker Ave. 0.18 A 0.22 A
Willow Ave.@Parker/San Pablo Ave. 0918 A 0.23 A
Unsignalized Intersections Reserve LOS Reserve LOS
Capacity Capacity
San Pablo Ave.@Parker Ave,
Southbound approach 630 A 630 A
1st St.@Parker Ave.
Eastbound approach 655 A 611 A
Westbound approach 494 A 419 A
Pacific Ave.@Parker Ave.
Eastbound approach 810 A 841 A
3rd St.@Parker Ave.
Eastbound approach 318 B 553 A
Westbound approach 771 A 220 C
LOS Level of Service V/C=Volume to Capacity ratio
Under each alternative a range of land use types and
intensities are permitted. The net change in
land use for the low and high intensity alternatives is provided in Table 3.4-5. The net change in
land use was estimated for each TAZ in the Specific Plan Area. It represents the difference
between existing land use patterns(Table 3.4.1)and those proposed under each Specific Plan
0
land use option. As indicated in Table 3.4-5,some TATs may experience a net loss in the
Los c-Level of Service; V/C=Volume to capacity ratio �'
3,4-6
number of dwelling units relative to existing conditions. A comparison of total dwelling units
under the low,mid range and high land use intensities is provided in Table 3.4,.6.
TABLE 3A,-5
ESTIMATED NET CHANGE IN LAND USE
Residential Commercia,
(DU) I(ksf)
Scenario Single MFR- MFR- Mixed Use Commercial Office Comm./Rec
Family L&M H (Acres)
LOW Intensity
Existing General P6 0 - 0 0 20
Staff Land Use Plan -44 9 0 167,700 0 0 20
Public Review Plan -51 0 0 179,750 19600 2,1500 19
Chamber Plan -55 2 0 1069350 0 3,9600 3
High Intensity
Existing General Plan -48 -56 87 0 190719050 22,35 20
0
Staff Land Use Plan -39 333 0 670,800 (2,150) 0 20
Public Review Plan -38 235 55 719,000 357,850 0 19
Chamber Plan -55 38 0 425,400 1,251,450 0 3
TABLE 3.4-6
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WI7'FIIN PLAN OPTIONS
Scenario Low Mid" High
Adopted GP 109 145 157
Staff/Consultant Plan 179 361 470
Public Review Plan 154 292 426
Clamber Plan 36 105 158
Patterson Associates Estimates(Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-5)
"
Darwin Myers(Land Use Chapter of EIR)
3,4-7
Trip Generation
The proposed changes in land use intensities were used to estimate the change in trip generation
within the Specific Plan Area. Since the type and intensity of land use could vary,a range was
defined by the lower and upper limits of permitted land use intensities Since the specific types of
commercial or residential projects are not known,it was necessary to use the following
generalized trip generation rates in trip ends(ITE Manual,Sth Edition.
TABLE 3.4-7
TRAFFIC GENERATION FACTORS
jZATLy PEAK HOLT_R_ ATE PM PEAK SPLIT
Single Family(DU) 10/Day I Midday&PM 70%/30%
Multi-Family(DU) 7/Day 095 Midday&PM 70%/30%
Commercial(ks fl 40/Day I Midday&4 PM 501Y0150%
Office(ksf) 20/Day 3 Midday&PM 900/0/10%
Rec.Com.(Acre) 20/Day I Midday&2 PM 50°/./50%
The resulting trip generation for each project option is summarized in Table 3.4-8. Midday trip
generation rates were not available for the proposed land use types. The AM peak hour trip
generation rates were, therefore used in lieu of midday rates. This may over-estimate the '"`
residential trip generation and is a reasonable estimate for the office and commercial uses given
the uncertainty regarding the actual types of uses to be developed in the area. A 50150 directional
split was assumed for all uses in the Midday.
TABLE 3.4-8
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Low Intensity Land Use High Intensity Land Use
Midday PM Midday PM
Option Daily In Out In Out Daily In Out In out
Adopted General Plan 51899 81 53 340 138" 439419 563 583 2p216 ---616
SIC Plan 29018 21 41 162 45 299091 409 429 1,517 403
PRD Plan 5,889 64 83 351 90 45,1011 597 602 2,309 597
GC Plan 10,780 101 104 539 124 669973 1t637 813 3,338 830
3.4-8
The Staff/Consultant Plan is the least traffic intensive option generating as few as 2,000 new daily trips at the low
end of the permitted land use densities. The General Commercial P---generates the highest number of new trips.
However,it should be noted that the primary reason that the General Commerccial Plan generates more trips is the
substantial amount of commercial land uses that it includes. Trip generation for commercial land uses varies
dramatically depending on the specific use. The rates used for commercial land uses in the Specific Plan area are
representative of the normal mix of reftfl and service uses often found in downtown areas. If less intensive retail
and commercial uses(e.g.retail supporting the oil refinery industry),the difference between land use options would
be narrowed.
Trip Distribution
Given the nature of access into and out of Rodeo,it was possible to estimate the distribution of trips to and from the
area based on existing turning movement data. The results indicate that trips generated in Rodeo will use the
following routes:
27%to and from the north via San Pablo Avenue
28%to and from the south via San Pablo Avenue
45%to and from the east via Willow Avenue
Much of this traffic is freeway oriented with I-80 the primary route for a substantial share of the trips generated in
the Specific Plan Area,
Traffic Volumes
The TRAFFIX model was used to assign trips to the street network. The resulting traffic volumes for each project
option are shown in Figures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5. It's function as the primary access"spine"within the Specific Plan Area
results in substantial increases in the traffic demand on Parker Avenue. Demand on the cross streets will be affected
significantly by the location and amount of parking provided,driveway locations and types of uses in the Specific
Plan area.
Levels of Service
All of the signalized study intersections will operate at LOS A during the midday peak hour under all land
use options(Table 3.4-9). Some minor increases in delay at the intersections could be expected but would
generally not be detected by motorists. The unsignalized intersections,would operate at LOS D or better
with the exception of the intersection of Third Street with Parker Avenue. This intersection would operate
at LOS D or better only in the Staff/Consultant land use option. In all other options it would operate at LOS
E or F during either midday or PM peak hours.
3,4-9
717
641
MF- 716
829
AMa• � RODEO
9
� 1407
ST- 1152
1545
710 1768
863
884
197
171
228
287
827
1 F� 741
O UNSIGNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION "I
• SIGNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION 969 1229
XXX ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 1082
XXX STA FFICONSULTANTPLAN � 1253
XXX PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT PLAN � 1458
XXX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUN
Figure: 3.4 - 4
Project Condition Traffic Volumes
- Midday Peak Hour
717
641
�- 716
828
n RODEO
�
1407
V ST- 1152
772 1"5
710 1768
863
984
197
171
228
287
827
741
fee
841
O UNSIGNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION
• SIGNALIZED STUDY INTERSECTION � 1229
X ()( ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 1082
XXX STAFFlCONSULTANTPLAN � 1253
J()()( PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT PUN p� 1459
XXX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PLAN
Figure: 3.4 - 5
Project Conditions Traffic Volumes
- PM Peak Hour
� p
� � f
� o
;01
a r `"
°� N
V.
� p
Olt
e A 0 C^.
4)
CA
T"040
ic) V co
eel,
C4.
v
a � v�'
Pot
a r^. o �' � v
o T
41of
co
N � Q N d
O �� d y � � � �i �' o
a �,
a, � �o � 3
.� N
PA
ise
POO
=' x
The signalized intersections would operate at LOS C or better in the PM peak hour under all land use
options except that proposed by the General Commercial Plan. In the General Commercial Plan operate
at or beyond capacity(LOS E or F). Similarly, all unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F
under the General Commercial Plan option. In addition, the Parker Avenue intersections with First
Street and Third Street would operate at or beyond capacity under other land use options being
considered as part of the Specific Plan.
Local Circulation and Parking
Circulation patterns in the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan Area will be affected by the
amount of development planned, the location of off-street parking and the number and locations of
driveway access to proposed businesses and residences. Speculation regarding these variables is not
appropriate as part of this traffic analysis. However,the specific plan includes consideration of possible
changes to the local street network and its connection to the regional highway system.
Impacts of CumSkyway Extension
Extension of Cummings Skyway to serve Unocal would have a significant positive effect on traffic
circulation intoe study area. The primary advantage of the Cummings Skyway extension is that -it
providesan alternative and direct route between theUnocal refinery and I-80 or SR 4. The extension will
divert existing employee and truck trips from Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. This diversion
would also relieve some existing and future traffic demand at the Crockett and Willow Avenue
interchanges with I40. This is consistent with the WCCTAC Action Plan for San Pablo Avenue
(WCTAC), 1994). Since this project has not been funded and has not yet been included in travel ---�
forecasts prepared for the County-wide Transportation POlan or Congestion Management Program
(CMP). Therefore, the number of trips that would be diverted from the Specific Plan Area is not
currently known.
Potential Clos=of Pacific Avenge Al PA&Cr Avenue
Existing traffic volumes on Pacific Avenue are low(between 80 and 140 vehicles per hour)throughout
the day. Its intersection with Parker Avenue is at an acute angle and is near the intersection of Parker
Avenue with Third Street. Traffic*demand on Pacific Avenue is t expected to increase to over 400
vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. While this is a significant increase in traffic on Pacific
Avenue, it would be possible to accommodate the traffic at other intersections with Parker Avenue if
Pacific Avenue is closed.
Through traffic on Pacific Avenue would be eliminated(desirable for existing and future residents along
Pacific). Closure would eliminate an acute angle intersection near Third Avenue which is expected to
experience some congestion in the future. Closure of a portion of Pacific Avenue could permit possible
intensification of on street parking or pedestrian amenities in the area.
Pacific Avenue provides a direct route to the Marina area and to the regional park and associated off-
street parking. Access would become slightly more circuitous with the closure of Pacific and could
increase traffic volumes at the intersection of San Pablo and Parker Avenue (if not closed) Closure
3,4-12
could increase traffic on Lake Avenue and Rodeo Avenue outside of the Specific Plan area as vehicles
circulate to find parking or in exiting the area.
Potential Closure of San Pablo Av=e between Pacific and Parker Avenues
Existing traffic levels on San Pablo Avenue between Parker Avenue and Rodeo Avenue are very light
(20 vehicles per hour or less). Closure could permit improved pedestrian and bicycle access to adjacent
businesses and residences as wells as to the regional park and marina area. Closure would eliminate
vehicle access at the intersection of San Pablo and Parker Avenue. Parker Avenue. This existing
intersection is relatively high speed, with horizontal curvature and limited channelization.6 Closure
would permit increased attention to pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area. Closure would reduce
vehicle access to the Regional Park off-street parking area.
Potential Mzffic Diversion through Residential_Nai2hborb s
Through traffic is diverted to local residential streets when congestion creates sufficient delays on the
arterial street system to make a residential "short cut" attractive(if one exists). Without improvements
to Parker Avenue, increased delay will be experienced. However,the discontinuous street system and
probable origins and destinations of the through trips make significant diversion unlikely in Rodeo.
Diversion would be highly unlikely with either of the street closures being considered on the west side
of the Specific Plan Area.
PSI$i11g
Increased land use intensities in the Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan Area will increase the demand
for parking in the area. Therefore, off-street parking should be provided for planned residential
components of the plan.
Maintenance of the storefront architecture in the commercial area is anticipated as part of the Specific
Plan. This will require that more attention be paid to the placement and amount of off-street parking in
the area. The following criteria can be used to reduce the potential impacts of parking demand in the
Specific Plan Area:
• Parking should be provide both west and east of Parker Avenue. Anticipated traffic volumes on
Parker Avenue will make pedestrian crossings from parking to commercial areas undesirable.
• Parking should be clustered to provide larger parking areas. The larger parking lots will
simplify directional signing and will permit mon efficient parking layout design.
• Provisions should be made for employee parking away from the primary commercial areas. On-
street and nearby off-street parking should have time limits of two hours or less to discourage
use by employees.
6 improvements are proposed ip the County-wide Transportation Plan(CCM 1995)
3.4-13
• Diagonal parking should be permitted on Second Street and Third Street if future street widths �
permit. Diagonal parking should be maintained on First Street if possible.
• Provision should be made for convenient handicapped parking consistent with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Transit Service
Increased population and commercial activity in Rodeo will require an increase in transit service. This
could include expansion of the fixed route or dial-aftride service. Transit access should be anticipated in
the urban design within the Specific Plan Area to a level consistent with anticipated service levels. For
elcatnple,if the smaller van-type buses are to be used,provision of full size will not be appropriate.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
It is not possible to evaluate the impacts of the Specific Plan on pedestrian and bicycle access since
detailed development has not been proposed. However,the following are recommended as part of the
Plan to reduce potential impacts:
• The Specific Plan should include a bicycle plan that defines the location and connectivity of
bike routes,lanes and paths. The bicycle plan should provide logical and well defined access to
proposed waterfront,open space and park areas.
• The Specific Plan should consider design criteria that promote walking as a feasible and
attractive mode of travel within the downtown area This could include wider sidewalks (10
foot minimum) that permit addition of street trees and street furniture that are aesthetically
pleasing while not inhibiting mobility.
CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Year 2000 travel forecasts prepared as part of the 1995 CMP in Contra Costa County and forecasts
prepared by the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) were
reviewed to determine what cumulative growth could be anticipated in addition to that estimated under
the Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan project. The following conclusions were reached:
• Traffic demand on strcets within the Specific Plan Area is determined almost entirely by land
uses in Rodeo.
• Higher tiaffc dei and levels are predicted as part of this traffic analysis than predicted by
recent CMP and WCCTAC modelling efforts.
3.4-14
• The analysis of the Specific Plan itself represents a reasonable estimate of cumulative traffic
conditions in Rodeo since virtually all intensification of land uses in the area is reflected in the
Specific Plan.
Based on these findings, a cumulative analysis separate from that described by the analysis of Specific
Plan options was not warranted, I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NIITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The Contra Costa Growth Management Program requires the analysis of all General Plan Amendments,
Specific Plans and individual development applications expected to generate at least 100 peak hour
trips. The analysis requirements are enumerated in the Technical Procedures(OCTA, 1992). Levels of
service are the primary indicator used to evaluate potential traffic impacts of development, especially
when analyzing long range plans such as the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan,
Criteria for determining the significance of project impacts are provided in the Contra Costa Growth
Management Program. A significant impact occurs when established level of service standards are
violated. The established standards for local streets(Basic Routes)in Rodeo require maintaftfing levels
of service at LOS D(Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C 0.85 to 0.89)
The Growth Management Progam recognizes that some facilities are designed to carry higher levels of
through traffic. These Routes of Regional Significance are not necessarily required to meet the
established level of service standards. Willow Avenue,San Pablo Avenue(south of Willow)and Parker
Avenue are all Routes of Regional Significance.
0.42 0
WCCTAC has developed an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance within its Planning Area
(WCCTAC, 1994). This Action Plan has been incorporated into the County-wide Transportation Plan
(CCTA, 1995). Action Plan Objectives that affect the Specific Plan Area include maintaining LOS E
or better at all intersections along San Pablo Avenue (including Parker Avenue) and reducing truck
traffic in Rodeo. The Action Plan establishes and objective to maintain LOS D or better along all
segments of Willow Road.
Freeway level of service standards are established within the Contra Costa CMP. All segments of 11-80
have LOS F standards except the two southbound segments between the Carquinez Bridge and SR-4,
which have LOS E standards. If the level of service standard is violated on these segments an Exclusion
Study would be required. This study would determine if a violation exists after inter-regional and other
OW"
traffic is excluded as permitted within the CM?legislation. If the deficiency persists a Deficiency Plan
must be prepared. In Contra Costa County the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance are
intended to serve as a basis for future Deficiency Plans.
Based on the Significance Criteria Five Potential Impacts have been identified. The associated
mitigations are required unless otherwise noted. For mitigations listing multiple approaches, one or
more of the listed approaches should be selected based on Ift A land use and associated c
generation within the Specific Plan Area.
3.4-15
Impact 3.41 Traffic generated within the Specific Plan area under the General Commercial
Plan will degrade PM peak hour levels of service at the Parker Avenge
intersection with Fourth Street Avenue to LOS F(Table 3.4-8). This is considered
A 5ignt8cxnt impact.
Miti- an Measures
3.4-1(a)The imp is based on maximum land use intensities permitted under the proposed General
Commercial Plan., Selection of another land use option or limiting this option to intensities
below the maximum allowed would mitigate the impact.
3.4.1(b)Separate left turn lanes on Parker Avenue should be added at the intersection northbound and
southbound. A separate eastbound left turn may also be required depending on the land use
intensity in the vicinity of the intersection.
3.4-1(c)The traffic impacts of development proposals responding to the proposed Specific Plan should
be analyzed using methods consistent with the Growth Management Program Technical
Procedures (CCTAjo1992),v Mitigation measures should be developed for significant traffic
impacts identified in this supplemental analysis.
Impact 3.42 Traffic generated within the Specific Plan area under the General Commercial
Plan will degrade PM peak boor levels of service at Parker Avenue intersection
with Willow/Sao Pablo Avenue to LOS E(Table 3.4-8). This is considered a less
than significant impact.
Mitivation Measures
3,94-w2 None Required. However, intersection modifications could be considered to maintain better
access into Rodeo. Improvements may include addition of a third northbound through lane.
The lane should be maintained for at least 250 feet beyond the intersection,, As with Impact
3.4-1, reduction of the land use intensity would eliminate the need for mitigative action at this
intersection.
Impact 3.4w3 The nnsignalized intersection of Parker Avenue with Third Avenue will operate
at LOS F during the PM peek hour under all land use options except the S/C Plan
(Table 3.4-8). This is considered a significant Impact
Mitia on Measure
3.4-3 This intersection should be signalized and the geometries revised to provide separate left turn
lanes on Parker Avenue.
3.4-16
pact 3.4-4 The unsignaliud intersection of Parker Avenue with First Street will
operate at LOS E under the Adopted General Plan and S/C Plan (Table
3.4-8 T6ia is considered a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
3.4-4 None Required, However, signalization of this0
on and provision of separate
000
left turn lanes on Parker Avenue should be considered as specific land use and
development patterns are established,
Impact 3.4m5 Additional traffic generated within the Specific Plan Area will utilize I=80
to access employment or residence locations elsewhere in the Bay Area,
The addition of traffic to segments with LOS E atandards could contribute
to the eventual violation of the standard. This is considered a less than
aignif cant impact.
1-40 is currently a congested corridor. The 1993 Contra Costa County CMP (CCTA, 1993)
gh
identified the existing levels of service as LOS C. Freeway traffic generated within the Specific
Plan Area would not cause degradation to LOS F. In addition,since traffic originating outside of
Contra Costa County(inter-regional)could be excluded from the calculation of freeway levels of
service and a si *ficantportion of the 1-80 traffic is *interregional, it is likely that an acceptable
9M
level of service would be attained following the permitted exclusions.
Mitigation Measures
3.4.,5 None Required. The County should continue to advocate for improvements to I-80 and
should continue to encourage the use of transit and other alternatives to the private
automobile. The Specific Plan should include urban design standards that encourage
walking and bicycling within the area.
Impact 3.4-6 The Specific Plan contemplates the closure of portions of Pacific Avenue
north of Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue west of Parker This will
result in some rerouting of t'fic in the study area. Vehicles(including
those towing trailers)will be required to execute 90 degree turns in
accessing the marina area. This is a significant impact.
Currently, relatively easy northbound left turns and southbound right turns can be made at the
Pacific Avenue intersection with Parker Avenue due to the acute angle of the intersection. If a
segment of Pacific Avenue is closed as part of the Specific Plan,these turning movements would
be diverted to First and Second Streets. Similarly,,vehicles traveling to and from the north that
currently access the marina area via San Pablo Avenue will be diverted to First Street.
3.4-17
The Intersections of Parker Avenue with First and Second Streets were reviewed to determine
the feasibility of riuning movements to and from Parker Avenue. Turning templates for a WB40
design vehicle were used. It was determined that left toms to and from Parker Avenue could be
accommodated with only limited encroachment outside of the turning vehicle's travel lane.
However,right toms to and from Parker Avenue could not be accommodated without significant
encroachment into adjacent travel lanes. Diagonal parking on First Street makes fuming
movements more difficult than at Second Street where parallel parking is provided.
MW- nn Measure
3.4-6 Implementation of the Specific Plan will include significant redevelopment of the area.
Land uses will be changed significantly and existing buildings will be demolished. The
redevelopment plan will include revisions to the circulation system within the project
area The revisions should include provision of at least one access route to serve the
marina area This route must be designed to accommodate required fuming radii for
vehicles towing trailers. Use of a WB40 design vehicle is recommended.
3.4-18
3.5 VISUAL QUALITY AND DESIGN
General Plan Policies
Relevant planning policies pertaining to visual quality are primarily contained in the
Transportation/Circulation and Open Space Elements of the County General Plan. The
Transportation/Circulation Element identifies scenic routes that have natural scenic qualities, and
provides policy direction for protecting the aesthetic character of these routes. The Open Space
Element identifies scenic waterways and provides policy direction for protecting visual quality
for these special places. According to the General Plan, the old Highway 40 corridor (i.e. San
Pablo Avenue/Parker Avenue) is a scenic route; and San Pablo Bay is a scenic waterway.
Consequently, review of the environmental implications of the proposed Specific Play, the
associated GPA and the resultant land development projects must give attention to aesthetic
values,
o
As noted previously, this EIR is not charged with analyzing the environmental implications of
waterfront projects. They are to be reviewed on a case-by,-case basis when applications for land
development projects are being processed. The General Plan goals, policies and implementation
measures most applicable to the Rodeo Specific Plan Area are presented below:
Scenic Routes Goal
5-R. To identify,preserve and enhance scenic routes in the County.
Scenic Routes Policies
5-34. Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural
qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county.
5-35. The planning of scenic corridors shall be coordinated with a maximize access to public
parks, recreation areas, bike trails, cultural attractions, and other related public
developments.
5-36. Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced and protected
to the extent possible.
5,w37. The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoym and
opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major recreational and cultural centers
throughout this and adjacent counties.
5-38. Multiple recreation use, including trails, observation points and picnicking spots,where
appropriate,shall be encouraged along scenic routes.
5-40. Design flexibility shall be encouraged as one of the governing elements for aesthetic
purposes in the construction of roads within the scenic corridor.
5,41. For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall
be encouraged in covenant with land development projects.
3,05-i
5-41. For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall
be encouraged in covenant with land development projects.
5-42. Provide special protection for natural topographic features, aesthetic views, vistas, hill
and prominent ridgelines at "gateway"sections of scenic routes. Such "gateways" are
located at unique transition points in topography or land use, and serve as entrances to
regions of the county.
Scenic Routes Imnleion Measures
5maj. Develop and enforce guidelines for development along scenic routes to maintain the
visual quality of those routes.
5-al. Consider the visual qualities and character of the corridor in reviewing plans for new
roads, road improvements, or other public projects. This should include width,
alignment, grade, slope and curvatures of traffic islands and side paths, drainage
facilities,additional setbacks,and landscaping.
5-am. Attain development project design flexibility within the scenic corridor through
application of the Planned Unit Development District Zoning.
Scenic Resource Goals
9-D. To preserve and protect areas of identified high scenic value, where practical, and in
accordance with the Land Use Element map.
9-F. To preserve the scenic qualities of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River/Delta shoreline.
Scenic Resource Policies
9-12 In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County, developers shall generally be-
required
to restore the natural contours and vegetation of the land after grading and other
land disturbances. Public and private projects shall be designed to minimize damages to
significant trees and other visual landmarks.
9-13. Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use
objective in the County, as a method of promoting high scenic quality, for air quality
maintenance,and to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities of all residents.
9.m23. The involvement of public interest groups shall be encouraged when identifying,
acquiring,and maintaining those areas of unique visual quality in the County.
9-24. The appearance of the County shall be improved by eliminating negative features such as
non-conforming signs and overhead utility lines, and by encouraging aesthetically
designed facilities with adequate setbacks and landscaping.
3.5-2
9-w25. Maintenance of the scenic waterways of the County shall be ensured through public
protection of the marshes and riparian vegetation along the shorelines and delta levees,as
otherwise specified in this plan.
9--27. Physical and visual public access to established scenic routes shall be protected.
A6
Scenic,Resource Implementation Measures
9-c. Develop and enforce guidelines for development along scenic waterways to maintain the
visual quality of these areas.
9-f.
Prepare a corridor study in which an appropriate scenic corridor width will be defined
along all proposed scenic routes.
9-g. Prepare a visual analysis of proposed scenic routes to identify views of significant visual
or cultural value,
9-h. Identify and designate "gateways" within the scenic routes which are located at unique
transition points in topography or land use and serve as entrances to regions of the
County.
Introduction
Visual quality can be defined as the visual significance given to a landscape determined by
cultural values and the landscape's intrinsic physical properties. Visual resources are elements or
combinations of elements in the landscape, such as landform, water, vegetation, and structures,
that may be described without reference to quality. A landscape's visual quality, therefore, is a
value rating of the aesthetic significance of a view or collection of views of the landscape's visual
resources as influenced by the cultural values of the observers. Preserving the landscape's visual
quality and minimizing aesthetic impacts is an important part of State and local government
environmental nmental regulations in California. These factors are also identified as important by various
provisions of federal law, 0
Environmental Enhancement Element
In creating a framework for future growth and development, the Environmental Enhancement
FJL --A- Specific
El ent of the the Rodeo Downtown/Wate k%runt Plan describes a vision for future
development. It also presents design guidelines and transportation goals . The following
discussion is intended to summarize and highlight those aspects of the Specific Plan.
The Vision
Enhancement of the urban and economic environments of Rodeo are primary goals of the
Specific Plan. The Public Review Draft and the alternative land use plans address a range of land
use options in an attempt to achieve these broad goals. All seek to create an image of a
picturesque bayfront town.
The Specific Plan attempts to capitalize on the visual and recreational resources of the bayfront to
create and enhance visitor serving attractions. The Environmental Enhancement Element strives
3,5m3
to integrate public improvements(inIFW"cture and aesthetic improvements),with urban design ......,.
goals and guidelines, and transportation goals. One product of this chapter is a conceptual plan
for a marina green and pedestrian promenade. As proposed,this area would encompass the San
Pablo Avenue right of-way (west of Parker Avenue), along with the adjacent lands of the East
Bay Regional Park District. .
Public Improvements
Planned public improvements include undergrounding of utility lines, upgrading the sewage
collection system; construction of a community center; mad right of way improvements,
including landscaped median islands, and decorative sidewalks. Not specifically mentioned but
also needed are improvements to the local storm drainage system.
Undergrounding of the utility lines is primarily an aesthetic improvement. It reduces visual blight
and improves the view of the bay, as well as cultural features within the Specific Plan area.
Also, it reduces human exposure to induced electro magnetic fields associated with electric
distribution lines.
The sewage collection system is approaching the end of its useful life. Stoi7x water infiltration
into the manholes and mains results in wastewater flows that exceed treatment plant capacity.
This results in release of untreated wastewater into the bay in the aftermath of heavy rain storms.
The redevelopment projects would be expected to pay their fair share of the costs for upgrading
the collection system.
A community center near the waterfront is proposed to be developed as a catalyst project.According to the conceptual sketch in the Specific Plan,it would be in the northwest corner of the
Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue intersection. This would place the community center adjacent
to the main collector street for the downtown area,at the entrance to the(catalyst)redevelopment-
assisted commercial core and marina green parkway.
An integrated landscaping plan would be implemented along the sidewalks and street medians.
The streetscape would include trash receptacles,benches and special street lighting fixtures. The
Regional Shoreline Trail will be extended from Lone Tree Point Park by incorporating the trail
into the marina green parkway design. The trail will have a minimum pavement width of eight
feet.
The Implementation Program(p. 5-5)calls for a general repair and clean-up of the existing berths
at the marina and possible expansion if the market becomes stronger in the future. However,no
Agency funds are allocated to marina-related projects.
'Urban lksign Coals and Quidelines
In order to create the image of a picturesque bayfront town,design guidelines are included in the
Environmental Enhancement Element. These include creation of "streetwalls" (continuous,
uniform storefronts)to provide a compact shopping area that is pedestrian friendly. Landscaped
building frontages are recommended to soften the street's appearance. Awnings are suggested to
protect shoppers from the sun. Building facades are recommended to overcome low building
profiles and create a closed-min feeling. The following.urban design goals are included in the
Specific Plan on P.4-4:
3.5-4
1.1 Create a marina green parkway along the waterfront as a community promenade and an
artistic showplace. Specific components of the marina green should include,but
not be limited to:
• A landmark structure marking the town centmand providing a community focal
point
• A waterfront trail,connecting Lone Tree Point Park and the downtown to the waterfront,
the marina,and points east,and Integrated,compatible commercial uses.
1.2 Enhance the pedestrian-oriented,commercial core of downtown along 1st Street and
Rodeo Street.
1.3 Parker Avenue should provide an entryway or corridor to lead visitors to the
downtown destinations(the Commercial core).
1.4 Pacific Avenue should provide an entryway or corridor to lead visitors to the marina and
Lone Tree Point Park.
1.5 Explore opportunities to recreate a more natural creekside environment for Rodeo
Creek between 2nd Street and the waterfront.
. In addition to the numbered goals above,urban design statements are included that provide policy
direction.
• Street tree plantings are to be tall growing,open-branched deciduous tree that let light
through to the sidewalk and storefront windows.
• Street lighting and traffic signals are to be made of ornamental metalworks typical of old
towns.
• A uniform decorative paving is to be used for sidewalks and crosswalks in the
commercial core area.
• In order to enhance the Artist/Cape Cod/Bungalow architectural style of the community,
the revitalization strategy includes writing into the design standards the inclusion of hip-
and-gable roof lines, wooden siding, and natural coloring. This strategy includes
retaining existing bungalow style homes in the Old Town area.
Tranm=ign Qoals
The downtown area is broken into blocks that are relatively small (1.5 to 2.5 net acres), with
some triangular-shaped blocks less than 0.4 acres. The location of some existing public roads
conflict with implementation of some design guidelines, and some intersections could create
traffic safety/capacity problems when peak hour traffic increases. These and other traffic,
circulation and parking concerns are addressed by the following transportation goals:
3.5-5
#1 Maximize land use values(such as strengthening commercial core areas,creating
superblocks"for significant redevelopment options,or creating pedestrian-oriented
boulevards)through traffic routing and street closures.
• Eliminate excessive roadway areas throughout the Planning Area.
• Route visitor traffic flow to the marina and Lone Tree Point Park along 2nd Street and
Pacific and San Pablo Avenues,allowing for direct access to the marina.
• Coordinate with the East Bay Regional Parks District to develop a parking lot and
pedestrian crossing to serve Lone Tree Point Park,a pedestrian crossing over the
railroad tracks and a pedestrian promenade along the waterfront.
#2 Ensure that residents continue to have efficient access through Old Town Rodeo.
• Enhance Parker Street as the major entrance to the downtown. Specific standards for the
improvement at this street include redeveloping the street section as three(3)lanes with a
center turn lane,streetscape,and parking. The implementation of this guideline shall
generally be contingent upon implementation of Cummings Skyway to accommodate
though truck traffic.
• Improve the pede an safety along the Parker Avenue/San Pablo Road intersection.
Redevelop the Parker Avenue/San Pablo Road intersection to reduce the design speed
curve radius in an effort to slow traffic through Old Town.
• Improve the bridge crossing over the railroad tracks to increase its structural integrity and
enhance pedestrian access to the waterfront. Bridge crossing improvements should be
consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).
• Improve and enhance parking at the marina to provide adequate spaces for boat trailers.
The "Local Road Environment" is discussed on p.4-3 in the Specific Plan. Projects discussed
include repaving, adding curbs and gutters where missing, adding traffic signals where needed,
reducing heavy truck traffic,increasing safety and ease of movement.
Traffic volumes are not considered to be a significant constraint. Most heavy trucks are to be
diverted onto Cummings Skyway once it is extended to San Pablo Avenue. The Specific Plan
notes that there are currently approximately 115 surplus parking spaces,but does not say whether
this would be adequate to meet parking demands if redevelopment is successful. (See Chapter
5.4 for additional details on traffic and parking.)
Curbs and gutters are intermittent adjacent to residential portions of the Specific Plan area. They
will be brought up to modern standards. The bridge extension of Pacific Avenue over the railroad
tracks is the only link to the marina. It needs maintenance and is currently too narrow for
pedean safety. Lone Tree Point Park requires a pedestrian bridge(either new bridge or access
rights across Joseph's Resort property and a pedestrian walkway on the existing bridge)to allow
visitors to reach the shoreline portion of the park.
3.5-6
Design Guidelines(p.4-9)state that increased parking will be achieved by diagonal parking along
Parker Avenue and a shared parking lot at the comer of Parker and San Pablo Avenues between
the Redevelopment Assisted commercial and community buildings. Decorative crosswalks in the
commercial area will be more visible,slow traffic,and improve safety.
MarinaCaen Wd Pedestrian promenade
San Pablo Avenue west of Parker Avenue is to be converted to a pedestrian ptwin'enade. As
proposed, the existing pavement will be resurfaced with brick. Planned amenities include park
benches, trash receptacles, and visitor-serving businesses. Art and specialty stores will be
intermixed with eating and drinking establishments along the south side of San Pablo Avenue.
Along the north side of San Pablo Avenue schematic plans indicate a marina green and shoreline
trail. The trail will be both paved and striped. It will connect Rodeo to its surrounding coastal
communities, and will ARLAU-ild persons desiring to walk, run, bicycle and rollerblade. Sailboard
rentals and restaurants are envisioned where currently a silted-in marina and abandoned fishing
resort stand.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the Specific Plan,as well as providing a map showing the arrangement
of land use categories,provides development standards. The Land Use Maps under consideration
are presented in Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-5. The following discussion is intended to summarize
and highlight selected aspects of the development standards.
Commercial Core Area
Allowable Uses: retail establishments,personal service facilities,office and finance
uses,and residential use as part of a mixed use building,provided
that the residential use is located above ground level.
Building Intensity: maximum FAR 1.0,as long as parking requirements are met.
Height Limit: 35 feet.'
Parking: per zoning ordinance2 diagonal on-street parking or at rear,shared-
parking is recommended.
Setbacks: 5 foot sideyard if adjacent parcel has side entrance,otherwise none.
Design Considerations: new structures to blend with existing structures,maximize first floor
storefront window space,provide detailed design of parapet walls.
The Specific Plan does not indicate how the 35 foot height is measured. As proposed by the
development standards,the entire Specific Plan area would have a 35 foot height limit,which could
unnecessarily hamper creative design.
2 The Parking ordinance(Chapter 82-16)prescribes offost%vt parking requirements,including dimensions
of stalls,landscape and lighting requirements,as well as a formula for calculating the number of spaces.
3.5-7
Mixed Use District
Allowable Uses: retail commercial,personal services,office and financial services,
residential use,and mixed use projects. Commercial uses should
occupy the ground floor only,with street frontage required.
Building Intensity: Residential--allowable residential density increases with lot size
Lot Size Maximum Density
(snuare feed_ (Dwellin¢Units/Acrel
under 12,000 6
12,000-18,000 16
18,000-24,000 20
over 24,000 30
Commercial--maximum FAR 1.0 as long as parking requirements
are met.
Mixed Use--maximum of 300 square feet of commercial use for
every 1,000 square feet of residential use,provided that the parcel is at
least 12,000 square feet in size.
Height Limit: 3 5 feet.
Parking: per zoning ordinance. On-street parking reserved for commercial use.
All off-street parking at the rear or interior of the lot,shielded from
public views.
Setbacks: none for commercial;20 feet front and side, 15 feet rear for residential.
Design Considerations: Mixed Use should have a minimum 100 feet linear frontage on Parker
Avenue. Landscaping and lighting specifications are included on p.3-
11.
MediUM Jk8siWMu1timJEamily Residential District(Townhomes)
Allowable Uses: townhomes or condominiums.
Development Intensity: Lot Size Maximum Density
(Sgu=feet) (dwelfiny units/acre)
under 12,000 6
12,000-18,000 16
over 18,000 21
Height Limit: 35 feet.
Parking: one garage space per unit;other requirements as per zoning ordinance.
3.5-8
Setbacks: 15 feet front and rear; 10 feet side yard.
Design Considerations: Landscaping,lighting are discussed on p.3-12. Structures should have
bungalow architecture: peaked roof lines with dormers;varied building
facade.depth;primary colors should be white,gray,and blue;wood
clapboard facades.
Waterfront Commemial/Recreation District
Allowable Uses: water-oriented commercial/recreation uses such as: restaurants,
boat rentals and sales,repairs,storage,fishing supplies,parks and
marinas.
Development Intensity: maximum FAR 1.0;maximum site coverage 40 percent
Height Limit: 35 feet.
Parking: on a case by case basis as part of design review and use permit
procedures.
Setbacks: not described.
Design Considerations: none described.
Economic Constraints
Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), economists,were retained by the Redevelopment Agency to
provide guidance and identify economic constraints for redevelopment of the Rodeo
downtown/waterfront area. Their recommendations were based largely on analysis of marina-
related residential projects at Benicia, Downtown Vallejo, Glen Cove area of Vallejo, and
Martinez. Although the success of these projects have been mixed,they are s useful context for
making economic evaluations of the Rodeo Specific Plan.
The KMA report prioritizes development in the downtown area, and identifies three phases of
buildout. It also describes catalyst projects and estimates their cost. Catalyst projects would
precede and serve to trigger what are referred to as the near term projects. The development
priorities recommended by KMA are presented in Table 3.5-1. As outlined by the economic
consultant, initial/catalyst development should focus on below-market-rate multi-family for-sale
housing, specialty stores, eating and drinking establishments. Live/work units with unfinished
work space on the ground floor has been a success in other parts of the Bay Area. This type of
unit might work well in the catalyst project.
QMlyst Joya&Quse EWie�
According to KMA the 15 townhouses or loft-style condos might require 1 net acre. This density
could be accommodated on either lands designated "mixed use" (MU) or multiple family--
medium density (MM). Space on the property will be required to comply with setback and
parking standards. The remaining land is available for.development. KMA estimates the cost of
these units to be approximately$100,000 each to produce, but the report does not specify if this
3.5-9
cost includes the expected purchase price of the land;the cost of demolition and clearing the site;
or the cost of building permits and utility connection fees. If construction costs average '�
$66.67/square foot, a 1,500 square foot residential unit would have a direct construction cost of
$100,000. This suggests that the KMA estimate excludes all other development costs. In that
case,the actual cost of this catalyst project would be much higher than$1.5 million,
Table 3.5-1
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY RECOIVIl4ENDED
BY KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
Recommended Catalyst Projects and Costs: total$5.5 million
$1.5 Million 1 5 Townhomes or Loft-style Condos on I acre
$1.0 Million Commercial: 10,000 square feet rehabilitation
5,000 square feet new
$3.05 Million Public Facilities and Improvements
Near Term Projects:
30 Townhomes or Loft-,style Condos on 2 acres
10,000 square feet of Commercial Rehabilitation
5,000 square feet of New Commercial
Mid-Term Projects:
120 housing units(unspecified density) ,,...�
additional 20,000 square feet of commercial(new and/or rehabilitation)
Long Term:
market-rate townhomes and multi-family units(unspecified number or density)
Source: Keyser Marston Associates(1993)
Lata yst Commercial Proiect
The catalyst project also includes 5,000 square feet of new commercial. The General Plan
prescribes 40 percent building Overage for commercial uses,so a one-story commercial building
of 5,000 square feet would require a 0.29 acre site; and the 10,000 square foot rehabilitation of
existing commercial would require 0.57 acres, if it were required to comply with the building
coverage standard. Like the catalyst townhouse project,the underlying assumptions that were the
q -A
basis for the $1.0 million cost presented in Table 3.5-1 is not discussed inthe KMA MPUTIV,
Generally, restoration of an existing building implies bringing all aspects of the structure up to
code(eg. structural components,foundation,wiring,plumbing,drainage,access,restrooms,etc,).
Those costs are substantial and can approach or exceed the cost of new construction.
3 The KMA estimate of S1,000,000 for 15,000 square feet of commercial averages$66.67/square foot.
Depending on the quality of the building,$66.67 could likely translate into direct construction costs,which
exclude the cost of the land,cost of ground improvements to mitigate liquefaction potential,and cost of
building permits and utility connection fees. '�`':
3.5-10
Infrastructure Improvements
With regard to public improvements, KMA allocates $3.05 million to the catalyst project.
Needed improvements include rehabilitation/reconstruction of the sewage collection system;
construction of an adequate local storm drainage system; rehabilitation of public roads
(sidewalks; curbs and gutter work; landscape medians/islands; rem ping; and bridgework); and
construction of a community center,undergrounding of utilities,and construction of a segment of
the shoreline trail,along with aneighborhood/pocket park. The costs allocated to projects of this
type include conceptual planning, design,possible right-of-way acquisition work, permitting and
construction,all of which are components of the budget. With regard to right-of-way acquisition,
the "marina green" is proposed on lands owned by the East Bay Regional Park District. This
work requires negotiating with the District and would likely involve trading land or making other
commitments that would facilitate implementation of the District's plans for the Lone Tree Point
Regional Park and the shoreline trail.
Downtown Buildout Scenario
As outlined by KMA,the short-term and mid-term projects, in combination with catalyst projects,
would yield a total of 165 housing units (chiefly townhouse or loft-style condos) and 50,000 .
square feet of commercial development. Assuming approximately 1/3 of the housing units are in
mixed use projects above commercial uses, and that the 50,000 square feet of commercial
averages 40 percent coverage of the parcel,the land required for this stage of redevelopment can
be estimated. These assumptions yield approximately 7.5 acres for townhouse projects (MM or
. MU),and approximately 3.0 acres for commercial and commercial/residential projects(C,CR,O,
MU). This totals approximately 10.5 net acres. For long term development of the downtown
area (the remaining 16.5+/- net developable acres), KMA recommends market rate residential
units.No further commercial development of the downtown area is recommended by KMA.
Waterfront
With regard to the waterfront, KMA recommends that the marina be converted to sailboard
rentals and a fishing pier, as dredging and repair of marina facilities would cost more than
forseeable revenues generated by a marina on this site. Restaurants and bait shops were not
discussed for the marina area, but the marina site appears appropriate for receiving some of the
new or rehabilitated commercial floor space.
Planning Area Visual Resources,Character and Quality
From Rodeo,the shoreline views of the distant hills of Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties across
San Pablo Bay compete favorably with any of the Fast Bay cities. A few yards inland from the
shoreline, however, these outstanding views are blocked and filtered through a hodgepodge of
signs,utility poles and buildings whose sitings were not planned to respect or preserve the views.
The buildings themselves are a mixture of architectural styles.
Some downtown buildings are brick and have pleasant detailing incorporating corbeling and
arched forn s. Others are stucco and some have wood siding. All are one or two story, and the
nature and amount of ornamentation is variable. The structural requirements have changed since
these buildings were completed, and much stronger ties and reinforcement are now required.
3.5-1 1
Unreinforced or substandard reinforcement is potentially very dangerous in the event of a major ,,....,,
earthquake. The following figures present photographs of buildings in Rodeo, along with a
commentary.
3.5-12
a
Photograph A: Bungalow Style Example
The wood and stucco bungalows in and near the Specific Plan area are charming and quaint
examples of a style from California's past. An outstanding example is the bungalow situated on a
knoll and located on the west side of Pacific Avenue near Second Street. It is framed by two
grand palm trees and contains most of the elements of the bungalow style.
The gable roof form, the veranda (porch) with ballustrade (railing around porch); flat arched
support of the gable tympanum(triangular-shaped area above porch);the straight approach single
run staircase;the paired posts.and angled wood braces supporting the porch roof;and milled trim
with clapboard siding all in wood rendered with white paint make this a very handsome structure,
with a strong historic and residential feel.
General Plan Policy 5.,36 indicates that scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be
conserved, enhanced and protected to the extent possible. Implementation Measure 5aj directs
that guidelines be formulated and enforced to maintain visual quality along scenic routes. In the
Rodeo area, the California Bungalow style, as represented by the residence in Photograph A,
contains some of the most desirable architectural elements in the community. The Specific Plan
speaks to ther need to borrow design elements from the existing community to create the
picturesque bayside community that is the goal of the plan.
3.5-13
,'�\
i
t
_ 1. }r{'F'.'` h Lir''}. '{i�}• .L Y. y}�. �f
'J' ,�•.y {�{ r Vtr krr�{v .tip t
.•h�''} !r'��1', i"{" Y.}¢;'rrf}�{�rS.r} 4'K�L n r•, r. ,� r 'r '•.:•
r •Y., r} ,r '. 'r f�;'�y :'Y�l4r L���Ql.� .r.•.L
.� r }� .ti' r.r�iC" r��C{{•�• fJ.}�`ti' •ti., '{.'�r. {.r?,�ti�ti¢}�pS}C:¢.�,;Lv r• �; �?'�-0. r, .r 4;h'� X.r {,y-,,, 'J J,'.
,fi.t, :ti• r' ��?;Lti}ri �'r''� �},;:�. •?,�:.'r�}r��, ` r, ��A'�r�r} �•�. '� �q-
✓ L" rti• f r. f��Lr ���{L t $���¢ •ti: �¢4 ti h t�r L} {• ,'}{•r ,�►, �3`..
_ [[ma�yy••r?.4�L?:{ 4' �''}y���"���'r���"�iyrryti,. � j r,
':tiL{'rLY•{�r} h.1'rw j� }• •:L r�1.1•,••�^.1;.'.Sl�.,� � •�1 �L r�r f 'f.''�jY{"y"•.ti } .! `�4:JZ`:'' 'Y ��. � ♦
v 4.. '�� fi} •:Lr,•:..:sr ���:�`r}:.•tsQ;jc�: .. �1}}r} ��4'{; •;?}' r.h :r¢ '!r r. u
�!� .r ,.��L,���rL} •:{ ��f�5�: '�:},1}';'}'; -L •�'��� r.��`r ,r G'�i'�{}rrv�:'. �} }rti f'{.•{. �� ��
' ;�L }r5r� l. >> � .},,�y r r'• `Y,�r�}?y,��}{�{�}``2•4 r,�' '�r:
:i� x r .{: '•:vr•r•:.;•rry ':{��vtiyr �:?r}:?�::•:i{•:..h.• ''{�??7 •vrr.� _ r 4.?::`fisL:'., .L•'X. i� �j� •
yr.' r':; {f�:'ir..;r'.y(' .•,;}r, .��.4 r r'.}�'r.}�'fi r. :?�:' ,J' ryr'�1^'.�'�i:f}��,•.•''.`��'L'`.:.,r.K•r.}'�r}'.}.y{.,fi: }•r r' {� J. 1'`� .v r
7 r!.'' ";L� v ?�,�� � •hrrr'{'.{>'h;�ti:'' .y�` '•�r::.�:�?rti.�'v. '';'};�}'`1}"v'�:/y%'�{'.� %('`r'��L K,v�.>.,y- �'.
. '¢'' ?C`;. { •7 .}•'ti{y�; �.••..?\�J. .;�,r�''�r.ti.}�•s{ •'^?L:.}<., }., ,r. fr'�i"4. �jr. "'4`rtii
r 'r •.{? r _ •'{• r.•L,nh x .:4fi9P.'.{` .r,F' r .:�~-'' r �•',,�L r�� ;i:• �..:i.'f" "{. L�}
.}yr y fj�r /� ::•,:,^:`f�4r.,{`. •} r4rG;:;'•:.•:rJ' Yyfrl: :J,'ti..r- },' 4 v ..:X:: elloNw
�..
r.4 1 .. I� IY-/{`� rr.f'',�¢,`Jr ;;r1�1•.Y} �,.�.rrQ:rrjf" tiL YR{ �"}' L,r4f' �� - ,
rP..•-Y. t "'� } I:{r "4 ¢r�'J •:�h'}• ✓,.:�:f;:ti:.-;�r,y•,',,r{;ti:`y' •�' r}�:S }y,.,l ;}.3+, `�"�r .a ...A�
•.rr..'rr:: L:r k• r. ?r•:r '{ 'r •'4ti,,{.!r.. ,¢•q„r,,.ti.,"'�¢::} rr. {C "• h .fir: Ls$k 4` 4..'• ,-Y
:'fL'�•'ii'''`:S; :''{:� ;.r { }.S}}t. � }:.y�{�""'v�'Ss'' *Y,. � hr h'r L �,y�¢ '{ti•
?r•.'i.•. }?r:}r tii 0:{ w'r}{xr.c4',••;. i1}tk{K{:%${rr {TJ f,•( ..',SPC;:•rr •} ..l fx
y }� .< t•rr9o'
r .: •. '�:� ;k{} .,ti1.. �'��..::�{.�..v.}fir} rXL{L r{ir.'�'.}l�:•r 7�'.v L 4.{v1;:h�h�.}f??.' ,�• v{..}:fir., vR�nf"{,�
•.y L. - ;'f; r: v:{Li�{' 'X,�'}�- 'r r.'• .r�; '.;.�?S' �✓,�.,r�•} {'.rrL{'�} �¢}:;ti':•�:
.h.�S:•:.4fy {�:' fi }::•i ",.f,,�;�;}k?:;}:{ti:¢'r•{•'rr:?�r,f}.. .r}'.',y.-{.�.}{:,�f�! r �. j''rr} :y}-.S ti r..,?}i'•::W`:.v{:.i:. �. ,,:}�.}yt`:':
- ;Lt rr,:,?ff.r?.y;I. •:' .•4L r{'' .��•:• �.;{L r r L �:�v.v,•r}.4,,,., r ,�,,.� r r?r¢.,. .{.r�:¢.� rf.
��}} '���,{�rr �` � „�"�fi�{�4:, tiL•:.'
'�?`4;5??:rv; .;f,; { ��' }r .4rj�r`R,¢'}r •�?}•':.�•�:r��R� y�j L• ',w:••:
{}r r.•,: `L r�¢1'nT�.}� !ti•;L r ��L : r r ti {r r k'r L .9` {�•' r 'X•'¢;�'''?�{•�i5 {'w'
v,{��;�¢,.:•> ri;t .v '�.,ir �:��,�Qf:!Xr}t{:y`,irx., ;47C,. `r.{-;{r'y4.i.�.4Y1�}v,��J rf�� {• .'S. .X.'+C+?4'•..:• ���' {+};� "`:C;?�"r 7 Ao �,,���yr.n ' .'!�
�l.r}.:r N.}' 1,f,' 'r.'}R r. ,�'}:'�r- L' r�� y:l..'.. �X '� r:'LL r.}'.� J�L'' j(r y.f,� ^.�}',•^P,'J j'' ..
1S' ,4' Sy rt Y .Ir.` L r?•'rS.{r..p r ti rr ti. rR � r r .k. �}?.l .n'`!'�r. ti�'
,gp h l' L L }4�}•J.Y1}.,{� l' 'V.•.YAY�{.{'-'n'• '�ry,Mq }' l
.. ¢.-�.lr r i t' �. ;yI M1i/r`r f._.`7i �r r ��}J. y'•'. r�f� "'� { Y:•r�'•�r}j}{.�..r r.•L'R, ,y,}:tiY v, .:�'.bY?.':�.}L'� � lc...
j�,y� .v Q;. ,.� h {' }}'r�' L .rr 4¢ }�}:'{�,L�r ,r' �(r,M i'• rC'�rh"�' 'v
�x f� ;� �; l}Z,�fi�L{�Y.v`+�}�•`: ,�4�.. ?`r�',��r."tir'r7S•r J.L,r r}$v�•}${}� ,'.•;{•�{+r�4'y��'t�^}_tr,.'.}tti''r r;{r?Sti}�}r•.¢��r �, r rSr. mar
�:• {;`.� •�• Sy�F� r
OR
/SS$.�. S; �,� SJ;,�-."`}`fi^' N•� M "}4D:•'r,}:L�}y r:; �f�r� �.` ��{C r'r•'r'' {},%:Y4.' Jrf.'aP.`r X•. ��'j
L}SJ,C . rti r r:¢'}r?,:-'� l.�r L f�i{ti? �..}�.�rh.•.?�.{' h.��r}L ,r.:.. �`{'.,,r7,SLfr�_ {.�.r ���4Sy�y':}.�r:
•ori:•.: •>.�r+LQ.}'•'} .rr{$ �},..•'�r��4ff'1.�:}sy;rrr•�'XL� ..44P?4r}{l ti.1�f}r�•1:;;;;... .;hk�?�f,rrQty..•.b. !Y f:{??':y;v�{r��'r.vr.r.�4�v�'r �zy.x..-,•'i•.;.
f•"?rfyVg4rr. fy/j'�4} t rS i�; }; Sh'". '? �} ,p f it k.��l r�r7[�.
r 'S1:.1Y:;:,.',L...1/L��"v`��'�����f{��++'1;: if? r .' r'� �n• r
r}'�L�'rJ,�
Y 'X 'h'}:tiler. yu��..�.,�vy l J ff Jl��•.•W'Y. r.{' �' .r J.},r.'L J h�4•:}�J
'.}r4 .•: j' """t�' ., tir{S.L✓: r ti. � };1},..4:.;:�r '^r. }"L4�'..}�
.?r";frr .}�?"�'4r�,� ,{,r}{{{.ti.} ;`¢:$�?}h� 4�r'!�-.!T r'1�^rS{`}.}�•}'•:v.4�r�r '1 �r';..}ti�,, r�ti xr.}'r�?;. �r'" r �•v� -
.v.r^.¢
•• 1.s" .^?' .•rY LY4}'.r r r,y Ly 4.rP'hS•h' rr' L '}:rt4. '"
,r {�,rti•• r LS}7 s .f ', :.{.Y '{} .k}i,LLr Y� }{}r�� �v�. �• •.r ..
4�.J tr. ��r�'1�` .h, ";''4 zr ..�..i r -0'..ti.:v:�}',,.4�,.,'•.•, ti r.':;.••ti"•-�'.�,':4r} } ,r•rL rev: r
r A �,.r.jy:;n�:•.r;,r'::•rlr}h LL•y,.; r.v.b,r{ .r 1: } }'} }v. {. .:.i.:{L fir'v. }}-
«« ,;� } L Lt,{,,ti� ':xJ 'r.. }v:S rXhtr}r � �},v Y...}'!�":,}•':'}�N r•{ti•.�r^.{.4'r,:y�r.��;�;,. ..}.L' r ;{,}';, 4e.
.......>..:. S y,/."•.4V,r: _r. ::'wr r^ .{;.:.{SY`.},q{::$:'•••;f:'h L "4 .ti. ,
h4:f:{ } } }.:•,{, v:};•i r7}r Stix.4 Y fi'•'. { {.,•.' r.
A r �r} ;.•�`hL ~ �.':1;rL;�:�, `. !'{}M .Y."'4:{�'J'r L'T''{lJll'h'1}/'rX��L"r'h}.'rr�.• �'J.`;• :/�L �:}1��� � M
.:.�..r.;}.t y.,,,rr¢ Y¢}•{� }4}r,•Lr.}.r, ,�¢S'h{}r;Q ;f}}1� ¢}'�'' S`! •�;`?'.t'L'rr?'4'.s,, ^
J'.::{'{'Jy''Sr Y`�' �..'.'1 r'+�7 4G,,�{.L -t�J�`�•}'I lG1v"4,:.•���� !rS?�i��' �'' }yr
.Z r.� v.. x!ti.r v L,b r.r -,�,$. ri rr'4'�.:�-¢..r}^}Sri w:• r S'?'''•K' �
rj t.•.{•j..rt�.Sf'•L..L Lr, Vfr r }} ; .tib{.;•:•:'', {f L r i.L' ,rr{4r ice' .•�
T ..� v+��p��{},,}�r 4' {� h L'l}v {f{r:}{v4,}fi✓✓��,,, v K- � r r Y r}.x' ?;2,.�?4'iyr$.•. }. F
h �' r } r.r.}.'4Y r.' ¢4}'• v Lf,4L�r J:•' ^rte
v.�4'{ '�: r i{�:.}^rY.•ti'}:�;:'} ?.r! •}Z�'':G,L�{{ii'.rrr •{tr"+titi�`ti;r fi Sk. .r• f ..
-
,il"�}}{}}$err
'�{. irnk t {tie 4,f{��r!,�r:ti •.{.' x �:r r r v- f
r ,Av
� r�}`''' .``fix r ti' ,{.� •~-
h''
�«-•-.. Yr.bBW� f 1 r
-Vo
_-_�• I►.+� �.L4'� ,..gyp L Y.�- r r.}
��" !r: ri 1 r��'r � � $,�.`�r,•rI I � r `^ V
Arv'
�,�Q�� �1 h1•r t ](
.r..
�. �,....x•^ {. 1 .YO♦W � �.... \`JY'J� �yy��+rJ�f fir.' � rr�'�}�(,;, S: �1
..�-�"�. - '� x 7TTTr�rrr t4r�- V�4'7��`,7�:`yr Xr L }. ,]7M1J�'�9S S '�•f S(�,�:fr•�4 t
'� •r.. }}�!..L ti,�'�r�-0� �r•� -ti}• t �t,},f��oa�c r
Z ti
v 1 '
s
� � t
i
r
ti
1r
• L 1''r ��.�sr�l .J•L{ •r
• }~,h•. yrs• e
VI
LY Sr ,.r,-ALL•r .�•Y. {` ,-�}m..r.v 4 �^y ••,�"'brY� , « � -0, �♦�y�p
hV{� y'+, ,4 L{. '•'� 'Jr 44:V 'C '. fQCj r. '4 Z � .�, r..'Y'
h{� 1[`F' r -.:k ,y.'r `{..r r:. }:. :' rL� .....C..P'✓
�•rJ�r�:;.SKS,{Pr4c 4 i�}¢,- v.v.,r,'XJ�0�4rr9�� :r..}ti q,p ,r.•.wnv r..�:, �� Q� .: vh,Q?t.¢C r. i.4
L:.
r
�� - 4. � �. Y�''• '•.Q1{` yWWP.Y,,(t 'd.'Q"�.f },�•��!.{'..O�..t: �B�fyYE�� 'C�j��Y�r'� l .S'•.':}�fir'
•.��. ,. A-. L -ti�. � ~^.'r¢.'Ir •f�} `� ,00h ,�•�4 -,r. if'4p,v':'Y 49C•i.�. '' �.• r�rr'�•,
�fF� ';.' mfr- •'� �., �F�r'>, `�oY.�¢ '� ..� } t
�:•. ,'��$ '�' s�c 'a�k�,�p'x'''a^.'u '�•:..� ire.
Photograph B: View Obstruction
This photograph shows the effect of existing land use on views of San Pablo Bay. In the
foreground is the San Pablo Avenue right-of-way. In the middle ground are lands between San
Pablo Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. In the background is San Pablo Bay.
Elements that obstruct the view include the light industrial building, informal parking area to the
right of the building, above ground utility lines, and signage which includes advertisements on
top of the buildings and billboards within the railroad right-of-way. These elements conflict with
General Plan Policies 5-34,5-36, 5,P379 5-42,9-24,9-27 and conflict with the principal objectives
of the Specific Plan. .
Photograph C: Waterfront View
This photograph is taken from the Pacific Avenue railroad bridge, looking northeast toward the
Unoca.lRefinery. In the left foreground is the Bennett's Marina property,which includes a one-
story wood-frame building and large, unstiripedparkingarea. At the time this photo---
taken,
two dump trucks and a quarry truck were parkedonsite. In the middle ground are two
piers. The left pier is on the Bennett's Marina property;the right pier is on the Southern Pacific
property. Note the extent of the mudflat in this photograph. Due to dredging there is a very
shallow channel to the piers. Elsewhere the mudflat is 100 to more than 200 yards wide.
The General Plan contains Scenic Resource Implementation Measures that provide direction on
how visual features along scenic waterways are to be enhanced(see Measures 9-c,9-f,9-g and 9-
h). The measures include identifying guidelines for development,preparation of a corridor study,
preparation of a visual analysis of the scenic corridor, and identification of gateways. The
Specific Plan fails to provide the detailed analysis called for by the General Plan. If such criteria
were provided as part of the Specific Plan,they could serve as planning models for developers of
waterfront projects.
3.5-14
olow,
Nk
da
- .... rr♦?q•}yt-.#4sa�+'�' '°`,a!`r{"":'"-xZrtoo'y'+'^'. ,�.,' '. ,.., - .. � - �.. ..
.tiw•rn.ti..-.1•'. ,„r,, -.,:y'rG'� t r t• y r 4 � }
':r!S?}'`*'•t•L?V+r X w v7'r yot;rc dOt�y"r'orwtiwV+'+" �,yyy r 'r},r. r ,1 r".41 ti� •' .. ... ..
.}',•"84•..,, .....,.v-.: � r.rvL;r: !:wY,•':-,rrtt'4,�.'',': -"i^J .rte.. •ri,,.,,r?t1� �r } �i '' ,.. .. i.•
':L{}... .^rr 4• r.!h{r;-'r^ Yr.?::•Yr,1 �•:-{,4 ;1 .4'. ,. .v:{y; _ .. r ......, .-..
ry4^}: ,r,�.•'. ..{'rr, .Y.•: '•r�'. r.•.r'• 'r .r r
.. 1. ..
r''r
v :r
,v .t
.Yr'•,?rr �,,.}
1 ''r
m }
-v
'.K
,1. •.1S
l'
r
,4
.t. i.
r`
v }
S4^
•r.
�( 4r
r
r n+1r7r/•1'1
r ^r. `v� 1.1'a♦!f* }.ti..•f...:.1'.;,�....}"..r.. r.} -ry
r, .1!'.' .t }' '.t'4`..•.44'h', } ,{".. :-:Y..h .,'S.Y..r4'r.Vxy- .
r .•. "`.`�" -':� L ♦ .r. .4, .},{''-^, {v r:�'n:?': 1Kt•vr'. �, r.tOOaav ..
4 �" r •'?{�4'. rn
',C[✓. Nr.-',. .`l..Y.`� T�' rr;'.'Jtiry� '}:
P r.
••rr 'i ,1 �(yyy�.}!y,.�Zy'{ �• �'� �aAy ��, '•X•ri+�'�-0'.: ;r, M�� :}., .r.x. ''�..,r� .�.•,�•�.r.,. ..4.
.1+:' }. 1 :}' M 1".. �y� Y !} rr,l'rr L',.�:4't. '�, } <4 •��: ',`r.-.'.'�,�..{. ,L•f'.'
.r}.1, r.•�,lr�r��, P•'^:: c 1 ..t" ''.1..,�� ',,L•.y.',":'441"n }`.':.:,'.:• �4'.:. ..L'.4,i 1
.1 :r„'. ,r..-:%"> "`�4',tS�'� ��*jy}� .ye•? - 1-� ,�:r •.+t'�',•r .1 '"r�r'-•? •r•w., v-. ..1 -f
r Y ':r.`,'.•.• "...4 ',',+t- 'YFa�rc:v r1t;JS�'.' � r.,r,,{•'44 .'v' y,,.rr. r,:Xr:.i
„�{.,} r.•Y:'}:••. ,f`:i'.V.S•h' 1' ,.1�r 1 :+11 •':S ''4�{ N., "1, i-0•X ',,{"r.L '•J
}. }r;. .h, } :r. ""��t4-}.};, yt' ;: ,r t•'.{: '5?:"', � .'"Std �'�t•.Y}S}}'{; w '� ,;yti":•' �'r::^(:}:1:ti1 :�
''t',/.• .•ti+��4:•J r 'S":•'•':. .'L y,(,n:, .y`f, :?'�(�`'}`� },�. }{ 'h11,, .}Y !r' {{ f.,y K.-•�[y.,tl y...,.r.{�f.
r ^rr'. r S V "• .'ti ;�:C. k,"+�'}' I • r+� JS R' l ♦ •`'}{ ,.T'S• -�.M1'.`V..VY'{ r'$
'r.1 ,�{:"".,. ':1 5r{.^{:S}��}��iY�.,}^Mh{ak.�! �"y,�.(�� r _jf��(•;tir vn�' y�� ? •:{1.' 1 •,ti' ,�`r'�.i �r{'t4`r'rr:• J�,�.¢. �}r
r . • ,.n.••L":�0'• r+' rte. -,v.1.v. S..Yr., { '4 `tr: �r: } :•r
n 1 .4} •}`�•'v'.' r'w ;Y. .a '�;, `•:{y{ {S'fi/,.' r:•.'' ,.1���• .},,,r..,�} ,,5ti.•}j'
,!. ,S}. ?r :•{.}.r:;{.r}+f,.tTi{r"�.r }�'�sebe�'k4{� r;::rr''r'- ''} �"' r. ^• }4:�x.'Y1:}ri' .•r,';. •,4 '-.•,r r.vr
i'4 r }r..r. 'YC •:r{Y..rr."�',rh''? .:ti r •YSr' y :,'{' _`4:r� }� ,•X. ,,V
�r Nl''.4 ''i• •.4':}t r S X$'.. .'ry'� �M' R. wr•-. .•,•ti4"4. '>h
1 .4{- tin}�"�"��,,n,1��yy,,,5f4ih"!Xtiv' ,}..,r m�'` '�:��• {•.r}:�.tiff'.'.{r.y�+'''r'�•�:ti• .."
,•,r.:^. :^1 .?tr r �r�,,S^r� :+'c S+sBr,�svcv A4+i'.ti�••. - "<r �,�.�a+?44.'''{x'„}`r�X-fix�S• t"{`rrt''LS4 4{!'h':"rrr�'�}2{r.' �,Xr�� - "r*',•vw'-..r
.{rr. 1}. 1 f.^?4\• rrJ�` 1ti r 4:v".�tr��;��r ..r T�','.:: ........ ..;t.-., r,� ...,... ..._.
JS, �rA t • , . J _ .. ,.1 .,.. `a
1(}Y�..'�r,,�,-x,w.r vt+�,>,�gyF;` �:::r>�rY�4?G4�4r�:;,''h�'�"�?,p,,,d.-•..�,'y"'"r"_r:`}r t r?'�r,}''"f4f>rr' 's r,�•;r�,�}'(�S}, ��t'r fit,`.. a '�* 't4 ..., �r _ ...raw _.u�_.rw
L �.•., i•. y: �"'fr r1,�4 t {��t",•�rf {+G"•ti4 '4y ','7�� t• � r c..,.,rwa ..r..r-..'�..�".• +�w+xirc,r•r rwr....,..�.
�, � .L',` •.., r.., ;r r r r ,.! Y i rYlv'�b'o'1-,.•.. 4" oOq.,MM^6'sc'�^lt''�ruirw"► ,
4 Lr..�.'4v. 1 r: �t ', lr, f .. :•9,,1+t,i.t}j,N�,.,''r��rA}r,¢!. .:,'• �y{�L' - .. ..... -
r..';..{' >ZS'4`',,,,y4,� ;{r%{? •}{'-0{r}y tr:^tr 4,{ }rr;�.i;•,h.p:-^.}r 5%r{:trt-`'�':.! m ra rr?��.v {r"'lr{" wv o. •J
'a+.aoC+a�1444rARa•++.c•a..rw , ,}"J{•:4V'..rYr .... r,{.r$w• .. '. �,�r�Y�1,'1 r+}1� 0� r
krJ.{rt••. 'amu.. r. �"a+.•r.:lkst+'triltir44ts'P.,.rK�794t.'.•:'+'.:;aar..•.WLib}51..27.+:f'h,r��
1
.. 1`..:X`,.`,Vv'r"vM0''!.'.;rctw'r,.rL=.'�i-*Y'E'S'" 1 tr..Y„?f}}`+Xe}• �•',Q 4r j,.
opummo
r,.
Y
{y.
{
1
f
� � r .'tr•b.V*6,,,?Y:ak'Sti'YP�:•:•rr..,},,,•.. ` .., rte, +X 1 ` �f��
1, ' 1 'Nr. •'r 5/.y,5'` ,t
,�,_ ,�r't•ecv.r , rrr.Mt. '+9.•:' .. .. .w`v '.vv r.�vt,.. +,X. h", :{;,y,*.tG���� r.r.,-�''�{_.•5M' r yyR
{'"''+'"�QiK4^C•t, i{ po,��yy�y�y,�/y.<,.�.y..« '.�µy�y�}r��yy y�/yy i d..o i.".vn'�Lw.^• ,.... .., _^'
. f`'"../``.'., 1...`✓rYr•+Y4M.^.•Y'+"--r,.'.':h-T.r�QC}VQ.`r'.'.'�(�S',rT'.� JYVy'"rV19Y'�Y'41'J9•r'J: T J.. .iXi'..f.^+"'K�'.4 r..
..•, yn ':.r^{.h4 P.'•rw4.JC r"w`n'pr - RC''Y{"'. M+,^�^O ,•v(�,:•iC''s34'}y'`q;..a�?S:�YSM'"•'$�'rP�Sff�.;6iF{�3��id;S•r$+,rf p
{
:r
;r
L,
v'
:•r,
•!Gr'
rr
r
•Y•
1
r i'...
Y'
y,}.r. .{A' {.. ..,,aa_ .1, •vti,1;,rKht�`}'Y,d47'�704=✓.". � J":f0(fVr.1..�..:u'.v t,,�•i:.vr.-n�'a:Ow•+:+•-
•:1rT'•�•,Y.'1 � Y1k.`. '�"+•}�' Yr r .,r. N V\.4[Ll.J�;`''`. ,".'.. .. - . ... ..
r � '+�`{�t"� n rY•p. -•� 'r„�S ,,�r['�.,.
..,"+Orf�''�,y;+tk'y'{.'-0;K+Scrr.•;iP$:'b'S',r.s�ti'ir,}i.7'i't}}45^rt.^Q6!`:"'k-"."?ih`'S''W,'3b*.:h�i+ '•'•C`: .. r.J}t;{•.{{�,4,,��,. ..
4y� _.?'7Y :,•r`f.{'!.. - - ti:4'•4 ': '': ti'j�:, yi."'.<;fir'' .v.f`*Y,r.^,., J"y.'r.
� �♦ ��'"' ,.•wr.,,.•..,.- - .-:;e'04�•"�•� ti�S1G4'rsR,4ti¢tkf0_Q?. r,'
7Kr { �}� ih1 '.Yt- f :+v'rc'P'TNY�, � t�'.v"yam,•.. .,
M I r'o-J f..,-�.�... ♦ .,.h•1.....� y'�A.'r?• � T',,,f{44,x,
5f-A� 't. ',i1Y'"hY Whf.'Y ����;;�ppgM�'p� ��y,�, r.y .i,. }',p�"�'''"�' � ��W9G'.'.,.y.Ye` /y�yV"y{{, }• R
K tY ..Y �� S^V,. K 4'• ��l r-4y�'Y'..�(L..Xrf'�}1M�.'r7�T.` `R4'•. '.,' `'y{SJ+�Qr`Cy.};% .,iy ; { V 1�,�,n.,
IN
•" 1 Y Y
r •K x r 'C- .J.1-,1 ??:'?4F :r r f. ,'�,.•y.. a ;
�•+ - Yr.":tia-,• 'r" ,,fir w.�]
, '}.r. "�cr��r"+• '+�/r')r•i4 r •:Yr.•. - t"',f '^I"�.•'< ,ti+'. , r: '
•'''� � � ! `{ }:'rYr.�,j�+�x,:•5}��.�.�r�. Q...�.,> ..."r1 v.r}... - �}���'�'i.•y��fi' �, �''r'' ti:. +t�;.•`i? � .
fl
Nov
s � __-_.�,,,rr/► r � l l}.�SGic 11.�' 1,''S(� {,.� � �r�"'•'S ��� �1 tiw rv,t5yy'C 4•:�„�"�,y - �s.�v •_.".ar j{%+er
40
... y +.� .,�X.Lr'W}'r' � , � ,�ti {r -wi�'`r t::+{:r r _.. .,- ..#Tt } ti. w•+.r..
j r Asc 1 r y
r - ; -h•o u.�t ,•Ir
N
•
Photograph D: Railroad&Bay View
This photograph shows another view of the shoreline,looking north from a vantage point near the
Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue intersection. Inahe foreground is the narrow strip of land
between the SPRR and San Pablo Avenue. The edge of the SPRR property is fenced, and the
railroad bed consists of crushed rock that is elevated 2 to 3 feet above the grade of adjacent lands.
The pier in the middle ground is decayed and situated within a mudflat. ('This pier is also shown
in Photograph C.) In the background is San Pablo Bay and mountains on the far side of San
Pablo Bay.
Because the topography in the Specific Plan area is gently sloping,any buildings constructed on
the lands between the railroad property and San Pablo Avenue will obstruct views of the scenic
waterway. Moeover, views from the scenic route (San Pablo Avenue) would have buildings
and/or parking lots in the foreground. Any development of the strip of land south of the railroad
tracks will need to be evaluated in teams of its compatibility with General Plan policies and
. implementation measures.
Photograph E: Bennett's Marina
Close view of tile features shown in the central portion of Photograph C The building on the left
side of the photograph is the one-story wood frame building on the Bennett's Marina property To
the right of the building is a shallow draft channel and pier. Just beyond the end of the pier is a
mud flat(dancer toned area with isolated piers projecting out of the ground). In the background is
San Pablo Bay and the Unocal Refinery.
This photograph illustrates that views of a scenic waterway include cultural features in the view
shed. Structures in the waterfiont area of Rodeo should be clustered,leaving areas around them
open to permit views of the bay;and ordinarily structures in the waterfront should be Iftnited to
one story. To the degree possible,parking areas should be concealed.
3*545
4,
S' Y ti
r •{{:;�" ! r.}, •{r:• �fi: ,�tr' ''• '•7•rRR.�� •;:vr}!�{rY,r-:}'r .-•{Y,., _/�• 'A •r::. r •;:a.
:..•. •:Uy �,�p 'Y •L•y' •'y L. 1: Vf .:�X'i.. .L. .}r}, r. • :LJ:}. .:•;.':J.r ••'.{ :L..
...n: i4,.T^. �y r. �i!l%' 'f t v. v•:•..• ♦•:{ .%.:,;:�:v"♦,;, .4 .,f •t {ti
rr' r.J.'Y''~,•.. T'f•• {yJ�.•:�h: �'{v .�'i.' , J-',i r;{: .1 %'Y+:L.. ..41 J r Y _
JJ,L•. •r fi "<. VJ•. / yy 7•.. •• J
•r :{•
t. ♦ f •:tiL• •N
Y
h
•� 'ti.1.•h.
79.•x% .2 .�'.'•::'
a r
• �y. J Y •:f'
.•'{ '.{•:• �• ''' :S'.•f:.. .'7!•;•:•11,x,:...
:N •1 Y•\• L1 t1•�'•Y
•:ti' •.n: rAt:
gid::fi. .`. :{•
t. .x Y .. tr.• r
P J:
,{ r
J: :.Y''ir .Y.Y'
.Vf: :'f.•1. '• '' !{
•:Y.''I.• ✓,.� :Y : LY•••• L
:.f:v: r: r.... ::,.. v. A r
¢,��• A:: %::kv:i{
:T.' :YJ� .Y
.. .54:•:: f .: 'Yf :U-
.r• r4• f
L �y V:•:. �y L.�
'Y .•P• •i:•. .L� .Y. �'
��f.L -J. .�A 7Y. 1: '-T}. r
}
''•i .•;y r!'-• :Y'•'•:�S{A:. fir.•: {} L.
v. L� ;}
•1 •:♦• Y •%. N: r y�Y•
K. ``__,,.� •:••Wr. iF..
rR• :rC{•.. �S. JS�y�{. .P.•...{{ Y:: .{..L•:• •.{
Y .....:;JR'•.. •!
1 }}.. :'Y...
.TC•�J r! :v,• f....y
..�L .J: .J :f.�•, r•• •�J.•:.L
.r:• •W.' J •� y i•f
I
.?:%:% ;y .:t. 'ice% .�•. r.
.r: :Y.. •L. r4•• ,{�
'4 .1 r v' .4L• •4:4v• '.4.
o-:fi:• i :PI}' .r.{,.:•Y.fi:•:::51v:.•4o-:: .i
'iv r..
.F. .r.X... .s::.t .:{�:•..
JJ: �• rr.. ,
L'''•.:Y:: .:t.. .Y:.• . .J
•yam,. .::S'}::. ,y1K' r'{• r :L..L. r .n {:
rJl:•'• :A•r'�•'•: �•h f••
.J.i V: :.W•:
--.j:. / f 'r... .�c.
4?. .,• 'r .taw
4. .Y.
Y::.
}� ;/L Y
'n .. •L•:.T.•:
•: ..lr�•
?r.:•- } :J•::r::•�• fi: .Jy��J
J r%v.• .v •Y.•' r.
.Y.L �(�
�y�.r :'i' A. J::r:::::.Y:- X.
:v' '•'r• `.� .JC. X::• •.:•.:••:r. •:
.:+� }::• Lam• •'rl/A. .\ rJiS• .v •.•C:ti• N.
Ix
.y {.
v :rr
•'J4•. {•r...vl*'.. rr.:•.. yyL �[
�f% r.Y
:•i' v•.Y
IF w{{{ti -�•.r� •f.a
.L
'�i. fir.. %f:•�.,•.•. =L:'• •�:
:T: :rr:' t cJrc
.r.. :}. ♦.. wry
:: .n: T.L.♦.. .r.{ ♦: •f•..v nrr::Y:•:: t:Y... 4:-:: •L. V
•N..Y A•. y•. .y
! f••
t. Y.
��• ::}!;:.}'.::L'.-::���::fir.'.
J..
:;r... ..J'r f •'TIC
•r::•'r l J� .I•. .Y
•:Y.{
S:Y.•.L
v" .Y:
:.•
%
r:. r. .....�•• �r::rr::;:;;. {:r};' '•'f.• is
:...
:•.t.. v:
j� ♦.
/}.• •. :A
•1•
Y .V:
Y ��•.
.l: •l.
ti
I.
L. ]p
t V ,:
:•xY.. r..a•.• rr.•r:':
•.l. :t.Y:.. }�•_
♦.
.:•.. 'A•...
t.
J.'5::•.Y.:• S.
{„
r..
�-xf .A.
o-::> U�
.T. tiY:... :}:i
:Y.
:.Y• .. .:S. :Y..
'i':r' LL :�L.`. .rir�9A
.L. ..�'f':G:r:.1 .r.
SYN.{.
V•Y{' ry�
.r•r.
/. V.
r{
v '•.v::: v. .fi.
:'r..}'.
r. �,�aL
'}
f... ry�r
'r
:: .<�Sv.
:► :.
.L� .V7Y.'
Jp.
` Y•:J•J:J.J.•;::i: ••,,
��Jtr•� :17L'
JC
},,
Y.. :Y•
J.. {.
.4
r.
.ti. .}
h. }�• A
:Y•.
.;•.;.
:L•..
1 ✓..
.f' `�
•i'
.r•'•
:t
:V.
:1"
•%4.::.•:::... r.. :.
::l Y
•4.
JJ.' A'
:
:•
r.: :4•• `•..
},,
J.. J..
•:. 'rr
f. r
:rl.•4r%
.J::::: r :J'n :•A' r..
ffv
r
:J.
:
•.S•.N:
:'t:-
t}..Y:••• L •Y
',, t. .
:{•
x:•.A':::'•::..
:;:;::
Y -f
:.:. f
r
:-f:: -.•
t I•
.t :f;...S••.
v
1 •':'r'ti��••:•r• .r
a..,. t_--
:r�' v... 'L
.r:: 'is
A:.
r v.. �,,�r
:.
•a'
I..
•yyfJ//���� -30'x'.`:
I
m �i
:Tr
J.'
}:
.:..
}.. fr. •.fir.
.. .'S. •'Lo:.:CY
r.
i :s• :v::•r::l:r�vrr
v r:
••}.: .r.:• :%i;:;::}•r1• jjam�`` .,.�1•-.
J,.. ..
:}:r. :%a r::.. r.
.r
-.,::•:• :•dam..
y -�
{:rA{...
''Y..
'•'r.. Jr ''L.
y:. �r
}Yn J
:•:•::�:::':=:tit:'::•:•:•:•:' .ta-:{ti:'}:': 'A
1Y !•.
v• J4pf
i. v rra�y
i:. } 4Yr.
Y}„
{•.
:r' J..
r� {}
r' .
.%. 'ter :r::•::•`v::}:
n /�C
:t
S:
{
Y •f•
•5
j_ r
a:'' :'J':•\•:
I.
♦ y��� �.
LV.• •:
-r •:• :r• Y
�,{� {.• •{,
:'UW:' jV .fi.
';:; :f:: �rJ
•V• J••
.N::•::�{: .I:
}f]�� .W
.rr !:.• ♦•
.1
�I: .•J:•''. ':x•JS r'•
•.SI •:ti}i ..yy
}}
f.•..
.rI .Y.•..
L �}
{L• .t L ...J.. .A
v f
.• ..'.-
%:
J'•'r r'
:J.. .
ti f
.•T•' r-�C .Y..
.,;..;.1}:• }•ten••�,,
:%i.rr v
-r :ti•
'r'
:k%. :e7JC.
.fi. .r•
y��yy� r.S
•yr •�: 'iiri'•.'K:fi. n% '•:j';:,v,..
F.
]� L
:L• :? 1, r
#,.•: ,y
,• .fir :':'' ;.
~'.y.\•.
wrte.:,%;.-A'i•.•, `e•. .o`..
},-. �r�,�� �':
........•.::{.. .A),.ax•.• "e-ow,I.. •L.J,wrt'.$tP:'n.•:ti+'•` .. :.
1111111 g { K;pt arc}:::
v ;.•{.},J.}{�,yE•-.r"{i•T'e}' oY;.: }fi ♦� {>?9!}ria.•�r r.�ry}, 'X.. •�4:�%i�::
'•.A:T •}•'f, 'i. 4" ;VP:'' • - T.}�{.:A•,,.•1AL•.;'.{.•f"~.''N�.J'.IJ. IA ✓{:54'•. .
•L f:':v'rr r.- :;:}%''t '-f4�•. y. ,:'.: S!::•,:�:;:%:�•' •. ••: JL:..{':' .,Ati{ r{Y.:,y,. •..} .,,o-{{•.:r;Yr:,:
• k.�:•rr:�... {'.'�'r%,r,'.•,:%o-^'y�:-{.}.�•.:,fir .}. a L.;{i.�;.,:t:;�".;{..r.�i...,tiy?{.'}rr-IirL;:•..
r _ Q•:�•. :•.•f.•:}•`{ :}i17C;: :4 v.. SSL:.!:.:r..
'r t. .v. .1.r::':•:%.•.%.::•::v'•::. .r:r}'tiV:':•:.;f�}':};{•r�•:';'•:},:'7:}r�..'•:r..,L:,.;.v.,..
Xr.-r:: •:'CSL..''Ti:?C•:.v •..••:::r.. .tiv.•:ir:f.:'r.{•. •i.•. 1'-:x.%{:�.
J: :is ..•.. ..Y:r::.;:.� •;l'''::•:•:•.� !.f.. :{:r• :N:.
'?":�::�:;:.:�:{':�:;.:. •::.. .ads•:::;.. -.}� .,r,.�:• ,
•:4r•.:r:'•.
r.
'•: Y:'SIS,:.;'`• �y•!' •r. a T .''{ r t ..
r,{. ,� •:,a:•;%W}~•.T'�'�•:4 {:.r::.:• .tiff•
.,ryi;:.•,fir:. ?N'•{:A.v}:{:_;?n�• fn
.Y ff.•.L.F'' tYrJr ra , h v.}1 r
rGJ {?' .. }•.ON
"!'f}' :.?r}::t�'•.}�y}{p`rYKr}....:N:::
i 4{h':♦f.Y•' -•-JJ.,T�.{►�3Py., .;4� ,l ••{{' i'-�Y-.•... .}1}ry L
h ::•. -v.; ."-t;}'•"'.74:};:if-::�.Jap r'tii• ''•{:{•''.--.-:-%;-'.-%%..6.V 'ti}J
;-,'{.;r%:v.;.•r.''} *W I.--•:?;'J:.''frr:� ".,v.:I J.•ii%'%. rv:;.•.}
{• :
fi' :r.:•r..:S:•''
.YA
r.
•L} J
t
,•. ...
:I.
•l.Y.
f:. :V.
{:.
T:'
7'• .Y.
V: t{:
r..
:-A
:% 4•
V.
f
�.}''f Y.
.{,'�.frr};{:'y:.4•.;.SL r. L f r .
ti {v;•T. s r f ..
.l. .•lI-t r ,, IL.L. A, Yt r .
If ..
. S
. . 66...��-490 -I.,= –... - __ i" - --- —mommommed
r :-:4Y :%.v:}i:• =+u:' Orr rA..f;}.•T:'vYw kDQ!rF!.':•}:''.'''' MONLmm
�v,{.• q l:ti.r..�tS''..-'. :D.; .{11}; I. '�:? Y}Z{%'rte�ff :',:?•k.:..n r,..;iL•:..•,•.
N.. :1:.. .•f�.• ��y yM�p'y'�A •;h .Y.4' :YI�.ti•�'f.5(L'
ai•'
�f !.
{. 131k .. ......M,• :A;„�� 'n :•}.}fig' .l•:
... 1p f {.?. r.:�-:;::yr,t..:n,,.a-.......err •.•-T^'?..
.fir. % '':t'fa+f� r ,.,5•}Yl Lr
,Y• r l• yt...
r . . 1�
••.••• .. ti r -'::• . .•Jr.W♦•.• 9^r7F•JULY{..r!.•I.plt.
•,•♦•r,;.♦. •r� r'•.•'{'f'�i. •: Jt;X.y r: {. rf 1 it
X. n 1\
W.r. -'a} ? YK y.
R� :..
{- .:.:.
Figure 3.5 - 3:
Photographs D & E - -
. __
__
___ - I- ....
Photograph F: Bungalow Photograph G: Bungalow
This house contains many of the details of the Repitition of significant Bungalow style
California Bungalow style,including a raised design features,including the painted,narrow,
porch with straight approach stair flanked by horizontal wood-siding(clapboard);wood
stucco pedestals;supporting,paired wooden trim;expressed roof structure(i.e.the massive
gable roof posts. The narrow-exposure, horizontal roof support,identical to the
painted clapboard siding and broad trim horizontal roof beam support in Photographs
around doors and windows is common to the A and F),and awainscot-like pedestal on the
style. The exposed roof beams and diagonal "--t porch.
braces are also part of the style.
Photograph H: Mission Style Photograph I: Bungalow
A California Mission style residence in the Bungalow style showing similar details to
Specific Plan area. It is characterized by a Photographs A,F and G. It is the repetition of
barrel the roof,stucco_walls and arched, features in this style from house-to-house that
openings. The decorated wrought iron makes a defining statement. This photograph
handrail on the balcony is also a part of the shows strong pillars,but the shape and ornate
style. Note the small arched window on the features are expressed differently than the
second floor. It mimics the fust floor arches. pillars in Photographs A,F and G. Compare
In this design the verticality of the veranda the similarity in the pitch of the roofline
door replaces the vertical pillars of the between Photographs A,F,G and I. Note the
bungalow. porch roof in Photograph F and its relation to
the roofline of the main residence. The
offset/repetition is repeated in the rooflines in
Photograph I.
1546
.t •- �+s'4: _ .. r' �t SQA.,'.
♦ ?�-�` r r Y � r 'L� }> rti., :r S.. r.J�'v'`!
it k.A.,r,` N•+{r' of+,,. _ J .� .'} Z? k- .
."'�'N+ti•>• _. .. a. --7r. 5, 7'1 4 t•�! r < r •h f o K
+P': }• -. is t l r i{ t>.Y�'Y, T,. h'r,' '
..� � � ` � . -' rLl r lv .}J- Tt•J f�lJr -'�'�pU T
t, 1 .. • >�S ) ti k, ri'}? }, : :1`} }h ?i r ry?1 8- .y k,�y}Z••,fv '•
y, Y'� J y •. � t
v T y
•�• � � .. -,.,. �'.r t )"..' :.:r ..v; rt kr. .� t X} ,`f'�Y:`�,,•.ti v.r {�� r..,x�rr�Y Yr ti
�!-• • o♦ __ t{:} > >-}r} >.y�}},>}> e,-.-
'" • .. ✓ t k•8 i'•K'. t v '.t ``, r'> k.�tom,'k!Y`.{"_` x ti J4r ti{-'•l��''r.k r r' rf J�{t�r^"f{r r}K:}}- ��"��YY
� ♦ .,;:�... :' , :•' f{:, k kV•::rJ - ?tt�!'rr:t t v• � r:- �V ti v.•}k i.;r:v '.hk.Y. ror�`�'^
... � .. - .. '✓rte ' ,1..,rrVl.:YW-.... n • '
+�rw►
Tl
Q r1C tt ti4.9{'•ti Y.k{4 ti' ltri-�,r�}•.'.• A���M��d� 3 �� �f.�'Jtl: } ''}.� !''.i
��,� yr tY k.kky�• rxvr} } S 4 /
♦♦..•w` ♦ k r i t r.. r 0 .�Qf}� � R.(a�lo�4F
♦�' kQf.,♦? Yn+r•• - e r c rf � � .. `, t >..5'ti �''tSY,.
�'�gQyI.AOC,orr ,S ,l *^WAS t
.P" }Yv ti > �. 'fir Nr. Y•• '�"�' 1i!Q♦V♦�' 4-,P' {`4 + r
y ".•♦�� .. ♦*SAW
4pp"M
am vw
v . _ V
r pow 4§mp-- r
#ff lrTp''+,y$.:MwMfr.' � �►',¢�.��°`. YA, "' r•+�',, :}�{ '�?� {{ e,y�j...'�f¢ y t.>`uQ$'{``•r: �' k', ' .+`!•.
w.t,>.a,.�oov�Tcooc•r r 3 + r R;b'L a' ,yy'f v ,.. 4' f k Y`;a •t .•rt r
r 'frMMM' •�",d♦F.'e♦ 5r.4{.,Kr7yv w:..w.vs;j;?•?. ,w '.t. - r:•} - 7.: {• .fit .. 4(
lk Y.. .. A..1l' L.l.!�(�r'�r• YY.'{: ?'),'.>J(�.•h:'k. .l�t Yti..''� !!(.X.4♦ '' r 1}:rpt `` y(� , S .,
\-.''M.i Y Qqom. 'y}•J� rk r.'.• 7L•
r.. t.. ...r ./Xf..>•0,., Ott .4'.'.v'.' .'!:v}C-:4.Yr.r 46C4..r.., d �0
.y.Y,t'. .. �yY" -♦ac4[r. .! '?�.'rr�GS(f0�?o4,�; "-•?{`; � S':'fir.'' -~t`Jfl� 1 � ti .. ♦ �,��
•'.r;V'; :._{.�{{r. -rr{',�kla{,rte'{i•.'''KY',t"ti{+,s,Jrk f b...k��rr. i}�r..''yX,.C• r.y f 1{ f
•rr��r•�'.ti9GS' ! r: � �r h{�rT'r! rt Y Xr2'�'`j14}r .$' r>.}r,}�'rT r t'}r rl l't r.�fy ?'rr�.4 r ry '.;?:'r•:
•'}•:1/ lr.•.� k�r�};,, ti. .�.vtiGiLt{�'+"'v}.'�;�:?iYT+k�:f `��rr vn'�'r{�'�}C'�,v..�:)}Sf{r r�}Mr,j,h.r l! ti, r.6
v Y ,� �''d {{..r t } }'f,{'r�•:}"'}t• { f'. {n,.. r'J..•� l� >. 8{�.
{r �,.v�.�.,.�.. rSV�J�l[
�4n ,.f yr{}r X Yti.'',.
�1r•'Y'j�'r¢ .,{•}'•:}i�{v"'r:fi'r{f�r{��r+r,v.. .ti.
+; S a. J ''yG:•}f;;r•,�7i' .fK•'• r.'.' {y.r's''�'Y!.
r ♦ .y}�
�C>
{
r '. -0`x^{YJX IZC'•:h, r Z'.1 r''}.ha'/}C',f>..� •. k...trJ ti�J�� '•t h hfW.`-,th t�..:n nt 4 tk,{;..
' .)r fi• ,>=♦'rr,.r.4M6ar•:tii[..Ct?..! �,r Y h��}
,1rh' �1L
rY}r K>
' 1�4-�v.y'!r xnM a..•r.r�,.. ..,.��s sv,e,IC+�' i
a;
+./"'
fir
44
lop
♦ ,r k w ¢•'.'.:,�.�r t amu'{ .. 'vi r A ' - f
JIV
��� rr�+ '4►S{'"-"�u-� ''tv 4 R `'� N>lt4vt��trrti '�{t.-.•�,brbr..,.f ti l`� t�
t �1 1
f s
• A
Photograph J: Downtown View/Scenic Corridor
View of land uses and structures along Parker Avenue. The overhead utility lines clutter the
view,and the atreetscape is sparsely vegetated. The buildings do not make a unified architectural
statement,and are not included in any official listing of historic structures. The downtown area is
relatively flat and considered to be underlain by sands possessing a high liquefaction potential,
which bring into question the prudence of the seismic retrofitting of buildings, unless ground
improvement
and foundation work is also performed. In many cases the original use that the
structure was intended has been replaced by other uses. (The building in the left foreground has
is three existing uses.) Some commercial space vacant. The Stu-MI shows evidence of repeated
cracking and has been resealed with coldopatch.*
The Safety Element in the General Plan contains policies for areas of high liquefaction potential
and areas susceptible to severe groundshaking (see policies 10-5 through 10-10 and 10-18
through-10-21). Basically,the General Plan recommends that urban and suburban development
be directed away from such areas unless the structures are sited, designed and constructed to
mitigate the seismic hazards.
Photograph K: 1st Street Buildings
View looking westfromParker Avent}e at buildings on south side of First Street. Utility lines
N- trees.0
clutter the view, and there are no Str%Mea. The buildings do not make a consistent
-
architectural statement They are not significant struCtrures from the standpoint of design or
construction, nor are buildings from block to block- significant as an architectureal district
(ordinary buildings that that are old are still ordinary). There are some architectural details on
First Street buildings which may reflect an image of Rodeo and which could be incorporated into
-.Au=t----
design guidelines. Note the lack of commercial activity on this zi , which is a result of a
5 lus, of commercial space. Photographs L, M,N and 0 present closeup views of some First
Street buildings.
The Specific Plan encourages retaining the existing inventory of downtown buildings. The EIR
analysis was unable to confirm that the downtown buildings are architectural specimens. As an
alternative to redevelopment on a building-bybuilding basis, the EIR ends a
a
com-- ive plan for the entire Specific Plan area.
3.5-17
rx`.• :e
r
Mo
Ow
41
o•••,:n•."r.rwVvr'Nc'+r-lcvr Yr+n-r.••vr,":..�
-.... .�.-,..._......ow..r....
� � a♦ ( 'rte R� � R .
�* ! W "`_ +7^. yarn/• +f O.�k ���
p y v
o.-.. .r....
.............
«�.fAM► j ; 4 ,.. ' a•... r Y,,,, �q-.�,.rv'.:?{r(' +6'S { r }
a•-n-.�_.J4 `` f� r � �' - ,fir ro.1v.... S fir'~ �{ � }A r
- it r.v :' 4.' .. � •6•)MP{,'r.' :rSC x rfr' r,.v J :-. - r. •rr,r 4.d►r!rr:,ie'c gum,,.__•�
�'�'�...n,...1•r:99�' .... �_-.-n,,...... .M1.rr ..._ rNVi '- ,� v }''•'!: �Y`'t74^?�i$✓Y.y'kYG4 } .. ....
40
It
... r.,......_... .,r.,W,....-- rr .X� .�� � .x;.K... ,�,\..r'' {•✓. r..r4✓t•Y�1C h:.<r�:' �\v ti rr,}v� ':'�"o"'r,y'^�- ,..,.,.,...� v.
}v{rr_ '11l # J .} r {r 1 .N'•�''?"rir.. -y'ax•.�-.y�r.
^h' ... .-. .. -... ..
..'Y`'. ., ~ ti '•r.' 4y..\� 7* ..�.'{}pr ;�n. r Y�'rkr ...��}+.ryic.J - lrr. <.�r:--• s .,.,.,
\ i .. r r' J [" ,. <.}'n0•,:J. h'�'•}f:-. .. �h r'•}7•,{vrr., ,»-r..•. ,.r.r,
awe'"'-'."'._ y] � , .'0'X' ,rf. :G`: ?.\ .,� v•,r ,.'. � Y -.... n.'w. v o 1 i. .. .. -.,.,..Y•-..
' v '�1 J:� Y�'�S t�Yr r r •'�¢�d��. ,\'^'eaNS?�C.Y�'ti-Y�v{r
''�'� v.. ,.. c Y '� v,r:4 t .^?{'i •�{ �.,'n\�r�jpq�."" •M1- {'t y..�
�,,,S.rR., �,,v000c,o,.'..-..>-+ ,+h,�gpvpC�'r'b, ��'h r{` r � tir ^!4...✓11}'G 1 f� vn 7F , •. _ .... .. ..
r.
p .•6,,,•.c.rr ..:rr. .• ALv�, !s r.: � r.?{#i•{r '` 'G i
« ':}%' r•i,..4,{t'r:r,r.{.rr;{:f�. rr,.•r '�r�wR 1r'V' } �• �4✓}
r :
� "���'Sr?�4P�h'r�Mi•Trr,�ti'�'\rSf 1 •✓.�:h : 7v,,r;r ••y y _
• 4o•x". jy<.4:-.,I. 6 r r frJ, r
f<.y },r s:
'•.��r�rX'�.�VJ 'l'{i 1y/'V'N\?477�„}✓ J f J 4 Yf L }
4..--{y!r l•S f -fy�{X...,'..SSP Y :j'-y,
r�rw -'^h'S b'...ti•.S�•:... ''i'hh rj '}5iv�h'{�y\1�r;77:;tv r_.',t n r.J:4,�.. •r
..... tip-..._.., ....•.. ....yt.. .-... .... ...-.�..'-t.,....,. ................•. .,...- - �,.. �' .r<� ._.{rGl-^ti.r
... .. �-..., .... -.J...,•-..,.._.,yx.... ._ ,Y, .. r?a:m, i►..{ys,•r r......,...v+l�n.'�r. ,.. � '' .. ����q�6'l-•al+'
.� �• r, t'i•.~sem
-rr.
�;;titi}i •r
r }.
f }
4�
Y r
1
.ate. �' ":•'�• \',..
•'4 v} 'f
l
f
`}'S �! ti'Y f. .r.': .'✓.'.".' 'r�:V�'' rYt'• •f�lr r
.v. .. N. r:'✓ 'r•'.' try ..}Q{{ ,.r.Y. rfr
�,,y` rk-::.t•:� ,{{;'::fir': t✓�. rr.� f f {
.r < ::},}1� } .1{r.�ih..,�;.-�:•.k: •.'�S{� �}{,r{rrr}f 'r .t4•. �y� '..f.' �,!.•' :•}}`�, ,{r:?4r,'•'.tk<r,f,��ti�.'r,`,]} "r,.{.,,•
��,,�yr��q''• ,r.,:.ti:} rf\ .fX:;'''r '??4'r`�,- { .'.+4{' .^�•X„. :..�r,`r+St.} .t.}'•,'•}:''tirr. '
..?" '{{r. }}Ly.<Y �.}.ri..r'. { •'.,��r,�• .{. �':' �'r }• ti..rr'
- ry•:;. �."� r '•r•r.f.Y,✓;r.t�....:•}r �;y�'� r,. t f.}, .' n�!$�� ': \r.jar �{•.,:ti h, ti .
�,�` ..rp.. �<r.✓:.•,4.4 �.pq�, ;}jrt. :'y'.r(:''}r\,�•{ �'r Wfi ..ti;:�, �' y�{,� rSt��,['`t 1{C•r.,'r}�}�. fir'
�"�•r:iti•�,� .}t{r}i}':r1fr}".tiY'r`�1}�� r}N.•'r�}}.•xn'Q:' •{{r...4 r.v}:r/' �:}- r}<'%,�} .r.ti' �'}4q N[•✓:�r.{v'Y':
Y' rro a h, r f p"F r
Y.,'V,9r ✓4'�4{ ?, {'..}':r';�{,. ^^ r{d'f ?P ��,. V •.r"rSC,..
•1t .J�✓s•`'!f 4a '"` }`{Lr�,/r r}`{Y;`{fi ,:�'' :{KI 's,,•:�+}-ir }:{ �•��/
r4
1
tib' � �•, o.,, �; -,..
NIB, pow
vin
��►rMn�d r
`t . -41
...•♦« .,r..,iay A•q�M ... ,.:r.,piy�wR�'lraa•r --+�v?r ♦��r> _ f.f y ,
��.,�yl ._',.6f} C { ..-°M••H'n"�io..o'w w*�7t♦/.•••Se+'M+s��,._r_
'-}"/IN►.[�r ,h � - •...� T � r. � nh'.�". "i'.V.Yv•. -M�,y�W,f.1l��w-r.•
t r �}�{r^h?'}"v}'K+'??y,t,k'1 v�.'�`f2+}Sc'VQRQQf4' .: � .:�:4}. � ..-.. .,..-..... •Z��. » r-
rwwa0p-
,i }1-r{ 1V r <.'},•Cf~'..: - ,ti, vr,}.. J.a ..vw•�wv
Photographs L&M: Yellow Brick Commercial Building
This building, on the corner of First Street and Rodeo Avenue, was probably once a bank. (A
long range view of this building is provided by Photograph K.) The arched brick windows and
corbeled cornices are attractive details,but the brick is a different color than other brick buildings
along the First Street frontage. The pillars at the front door make a formal architectural statement,
but one that is not repeated elsewhere in the Specific Plan area. This raises into question whether
the colors and style of this building are part of the dominant architectural vocabulary for Rodeo.
The narrow door and arched window in Photograph M does recur in the Specific Plan area. This
building now has a use other than that for which it was originally intended. This is a common
occurrence throughout the downtown area. It is a result of the oversized commercial area in
Rodeo. When the downtown area is redeveloped, the gross floor area of commercial uses must
be kept in balance with demand, or vacancies/conversions will result. Inevitably, conversions
result in ineffficient use of space, and other design problems (eg. inadequate electrical outlets,
lighting,plumbing,access for the new use).
Photograph N: Stucco Commercial Building
This building is larger and of a different style,color,material and scale than other buildings along
First Street between Rodeo Avenue and Parker Avenue. (A long range view of this building is
provided by Photograph K.) The horizontal cornice between the first and second floors cuts the
building in half visually. The larger window openings (perhaps a product of a remodel) on the
lower floor further this appearance that the top story does not belong with the first. It looks like a
set for a western gunfight movie.
San Pablo Avenue - Parker Avenue is identified as a scenic corridor by the General Plan.
Implementation Measure 5-am suggests the application of a Planned Unit District as a mechanism
I to guide development in the scenic corridor. It would
to provide specific standards and
ensure the correct ratio of open space to buildings,provide a comprehensive approach to parking,
and place constraints on architectural elements.
1548
.. .. .. .:. �.. .-:-'_. .............• ::.;...• ..'{....: i.r }-.T'r r,�+,}.is''ku .R .,,nirr,._:'• ::ilrr ,�:xti.•• ti 1N rrr rn�
�.�pY�l
,K.: h :.V•' 'rr.', -t.V.,`l.'J ,l.'Y.. ,Y.': �Q¢Q{r �`. .♦ f
l..�l rt. } 1 •7
h 1'y!!: Y r•.'.'r. J Y' r
r
1Y Y-r
r :r• r�}}
h •r
'rr r 'v.. 1C• 4r
{fir,
h .'r•`
Y n
v.
.r.r
••,r
-----------------
J..' I Y }J' 1. •lL l 1 I �•n•''7�•.`.V.�,f},• :a',}yQ.,'�.
,x
.J.. r h' 1 :'}. V".f'.�':�'r�•}. n.•}i.y`.1,,r ..•f r. ..i. ....
.tiff•r..}.• .r'{'....:�. t r' ti r. t ,r;: t .�.{ -�.;1. .r.•{4 '�{ r1:.ti� .�..,,.�r.0:',• "yon'X`.-`i�:-r:`-"�S iDC^"�p'X�r" �t
•f•.�{?ry;r. ,v: r:' r C., ff r r ,•:1. }ra i$ L{_ �,o„pp ,._,.�"6� ,.t
:��`k'.t.}':,}?t � •.'. Y,�.I .r� �Y r �r�r.-. �v.,.-.ri.•�$•'�,r.r ��.....�� .r♦.,c. � �� i
Y '.YrJ
.. ;14�,vrr�. {; t t r :r r 1 ;: r 'M1C 'f. 1 .'1 .,.?}•T,y �' � r .,. � .�{4�.
r�� 'U r f.r a'C}�iti5•'r"'ti•.- � �f y"_• rx y r J:..�Y"fxr't ...... r
{ T1 f l l♦ r r. 'L'r r ti r t a ..
{
Y_, •.} fir' .. ... - '.r�ryprypyyY�p�Vr"'r•
40
r. .. .1-•rl, f
k
7
l
{
f
} q r
}
.f f_ rft Y, si
gyp? r t•.
{
t '
rti .v
ti
'^'• ^1{:lM .fJ{ AM v. ;/Y?r'�,Y�.f".1r.'.•fv.. .$.
f'
�• .. 1 ' .Y Ylr..1'r.1Y r,
.'-
.>y.
.,:.. .'1C+' r•,5 X'.':,}k t r•.:�(.,.r.,iw '.�..,tik+M1w". i6oA25sa
.b't rw„r,rrr...-PGn•:">P::4V:.•x y•:'%r�i ::n w'M[<,.',L"1 4bAN,.
{'.'. ,. .. ......i..4'....:X' ....:.prr- ..,, .Yt^'r .. .•4S:r.•.,7M'fr,;4}Sgr�oot4.ar.y,.r 4:.
... :r1':)4r•}xN.. .. �' .'r•.;r:yuyc•.K^[ky,h11
� � ... ,� .. r,. � r r,M1'.rr.r .. o.M1 ...rti,'ht•:>roW+fr.,�Y.•-, '
..,r..,.'r.W'... .... .r...t.. .. ._ ..WS'.r,..Y.V?:4,yyy.",.''8957??v>•:+cy 0 eb'.:t.,. ..
.tw.Yr ..a,YJ.• r, ..^J.o 2 f'9C.?�T'�O�r.'44C:'Y.': .,:2+KJ' .
A5:J.`a 4:r.r riI�•.o Yr rf.Yr J.tisKti}'qr-rX. r,•'Y_
}<..♦ .... J!..T�. ....-.•wa,^'MC`?O a..r, ..:rr.,n v:
V ar1-.'.,,- � ?Y.• ..- .. .. .r.. f.O6!+7?r'r. ,,.v TS`OC•. 4T:M'M Vy.'tr.•.", {��� ��_..--�'^`
- c.♦.. 'ri.,..{.V, .. . ... ,.X,f>.1.. 4G.•A�>0�4�-Ar.Tti.,. .•.'. T •�Y' ���,._ .
t ♦ 4..-.-.t�,•. rN., .. ..'T ,•. ��� Y" `>{'a•K1� S�JM1'rJ41
� .. ., � }Z:M"'7f'trC7'�Sbr�4S}t'k 1 9Y r. .'r:'. •� �.,47Mr n.: YE; � � r� r: � .K
.. ... .. #-:;ti}.,1.,"�r''SS � ,Sctee�Nv.n'.'s.. j Yrt{•:Y ..:?r,OC IiGC } ."t '� ':<
Y •..
t21L ....n 'r' .y`bdrA •.4..;.nr4'''....-`�'.rrn..r.. .. ,..r.,,.
Wl
i* t 5
a tr.�-. +f.}".}¢M'r 1 •J1�►iI"f rlro`o.�o.. N^t •- ,14
40
• dft
Photograph O: Downtown Stucco Building �► �
This building, on the corner of First Street and Rodeo Avenue, is rather stark. (A longer range
view of this building is presented in Photograph K.) The white stucco and the window shape and
proportions on the second story represent an expression of California Mission architecture. The
window size and shape on the lower floor does not match the residential scale and pattern of the
upper windows. The horizontal awning accents this division. Note the small,undivided third
story window. This is repeated in other buildings. The second and some first story windows are
divided horizontally,and this is an architectural statement
This structure could be considered a variation on the California Mission style of architecture.
Elements from this style,along with the California Bungalow style,could be incorporated into the
"architectural vocabulary"for redevelopment of the downtown. These design elements should be
developed in response to Implementation Measure 5aj.
Photograph P: Downtown Red Brick Building
The building has the same double hung residential-shaped windows as seen in Photograph O. \
The Mission Tile and the wood lattice on the balcony are common to California Mission
architecture. Like the other unreinforced masonry buildings in the Specific Plan area, a
remodeling would require seismic retrofitting and would be expensive. The interior of the
building could be gutted and reconstructed to modern standards,using the brick only as a facade.
However,all or portions of the brick facade could collapse during earthquake shaking,unless it is
reinforced. There are measures to strengthen the brick facade,but these measures assume that the
ground is stable. Seismic induced settlement or liquefaction would result in an unacceptable
Po Addressing all deficiences of the existing inventory of buildings and bringing them
up to current standards may not be cost effective or result in a picturesque bayfront town.
Comparison of Photographs L,M N,O and P show the broad range of architectural styles,colors,
textures and detailing. In the redeveloped downtown,use of design elements from the California
Bungalow and California Mission styles should be emphasized. Use of brick should be
discouraged.
3349
}
1
' ti rr
r
yr
t
t
r'V
.. �r.
'^`,,,.,r;xl:�.•.. "' "ti.?(�i,�.r .�,, i, 'y,. r, ,}rf,-,S�o;,�;,tr ,�r�. ,.... '""f°''-f!0"VP'''.
. .. v -"" 7, Sir �?. i�{.�:ytr#Vtr •:r sr�_4.{'++`C�'+7r .r:�?.,Cr.:'�rr,. }5$,,i�.yr•4K-,ir✓'.`.;�r.�.r:
.-�. .+� ... - � IN 'wJ'•v,,h.h"t.7YM.t>„�, , `^b' J r 'Qr_..h.:r ..�1.J'r'A'y+ f r ,
.."'�'�SCa.,,.. nr��56+�Kti''1Q3..�rrrr.��y .. �yt� r� '.�r"�'rti}}f.�-'`�'"p'..;.�,�,�,,�,, ....e.,..-. � _.."►g119/a• �
�•� �+ ¢' `J'� d�' .,.y."r� 'yf�"..�.� v ,... �`•� r.K+NG;'G"�o'•`a'�r�•,' Yvq•.''�"
ti{•+yry> �_.n.. .. �J'. � d } „��_..'.Y.�`W.!,y,�.vV4�r,"rVor.'r�r'!r. r..
.r;�+a.,x �� ..ti x.'`"" ♦ "' ,� o••�`OOed .�.. x y;;�r,a,a.>.. ,�� ,�..rsr-4a-�o�'t+cie.',',�'.�:,.h^..
•� 4 i � r. �5'^'.v-.t.�'�t�'r t�_..Y .�.5"t..�:YX!{*i� .rr..,r?'X _.._...<n..r-..
j
1 �r'
9�K1.6�ra'r.^.'5�.,.'�•,r��earrys'ts+ss2Gat+AtiDor.,.....�yy�;� -}.tir.i...:., ........ .. �h ... ...
..� ... . fad ...
s �
\t
r
4s ... r t
r
P
^� Y f
' 79 Cvr.;'s'r"•`�'Tt:'?St �'r`..v-w {', 'f'
{ t $iitir:x 4�5}x,irjy, �A.A.A�Sd+'•"� w �r 4 !{�
x x0 its
Nl-
� , u
•.ti
♦e.
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Impacts and mitigation measures related to visual and aesthetic effects focus on the impacts for
both on-site and off-site viewers. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (1992) indicate that a project
will normally have a significant adverse effect on the environment if it has a substantial,
.
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. A first step in analyzing the visual impact of a project is
to identify important views, in this case views from the project to San Pablo Bay; views of the
project from the scenic corridor,and views of the project from the surrounding communities. The
visual quality effects of a Specific Plan relate to the ability of planning criteria and standards
provided therein to ensure that land development projects are sensitive to and/or enhance scenic
qualities. Specifically,what is the effect of the Specific Plan on the following:
• For travelers on a scenic mute,is the site in view for a substantial period of time?
What is the proximity of the project site to the scenic mute(short-range view versus long-
range
view)? Are amenities included in project design to enhance views? Will the
project obstruct views of a scenic waterway?
• Will the project reinforce and enhance the aesthetic character and images of Rodeo?
• Is the arrangement of land uses such that construction projects in the Specific Plan area
will be able to take advantage of views of the scenic waterway?
• Will the project have a significant negative aesthetic effect when viewed from the
surrounding community? What portion of the lands outside the Specific Plan area will
have views of the site? Is the site part of a larger distant view, or does the project
constitute the entire view area?
Impact 3.5-1 Development that is not sensitive to the visual qualities of both the natural
and man-made landscapes has the potential to conflict with adopted General
Plan goand policies.
General Plan Goals and Policies are not rigid standards. They are intended to be flexible to
interpretation. Nevertheless,they are a context for reviews of the proposed Specific Plan/General
Plan land use maps, as well as future development projects. These policies dictate that
development within the planning area reinforce the aesthetic character and images of Rodeo, and
enhancement of scenic qualities.
The approach to redevelopment taken by the Specific Plan is an example of a pl.anning technique
known as "incremental boutiquing". It is abuilding-by-building approach whereby each existing
structure and property is an entity by itself. This concept works well within an area of quality
buildings,, In the case of the Specific Plan area,there are many old buildings,but few,, if any,are
architectural specimens. They were not especially well designed or well constructed, and
extraordinary measures to preserve them do not appear to be warranted. Some buildings and
bungalow residences in the Specific Plan area have design elements that speak to the issue of
3.5-20
Rodeo's architectural image. It is these design elements, and not the inventory of old buildings,
that are significant.
Most of the buildings no longer house the original functions for which they were designed.
Reconstruction of buildings to accommodate the new use could further invalidate the original
design. Some of the buildings are brick and are attractive by virtue of the texture and color of the
material; some have incorporated pleasant detailing (see photographs M and N). However, the
visual effect of the range of existing styles in the downtown area is a hodgepodge.
The structural requirements for reinforced brick have changed since these buildings were
completed and much stronger ties and reinforcement are now required. Unreinforced or
substandard reinforcement that exists in many of these buildings is potentially very dangerous in
the event of a major earthquake.
Commercial and residential uses need to be successfully integrated within a downtown area.
Mixing the two uses is appropriate, but in the absence of strong architectural controls there is
potential for land use and design conflicts. Moreover, the initial stage of development will
constrain design opportunities for subsequent projects. Additionally, limiting buildings to two
stories(35 feet height limit)severely limits architectural creativity.
Mitigation Measures
3.5-1(a) Provide a comprehensive plan for the entire Specific Plan area, with strong
architectural controls to ensure land use compatibility and maximize views of the bay.
Consider the downtown areas as a unit, irrespective of property lines and road rights-
of-way. Currently a major collector street bisects the downtown.. Relocating this street
to the east within the Specific Plan area would have design advantages for the
redevelopment of the downtown.
3.5-1(b) Develop an architectural "vocabulary" for the Specific Plan Area before any projects
are constructed. This vocabulary should borrow from the most desirable architectural
elements in the community. The Mixed Use Alternative, presented in Section 5-.0 of
this EIR, provides icons that are an example of some of the finest design elements in
Rodeo. Not every structure will have all or most of these elements, but they would
serve as a unifying context. The Mixed Use Alternative suggests that the bungalow
style could be integrated with the California Mission style of architecture.
3.5-1(c) Avoid use of brick due to the inherent seismic risks to Rodeo posed by the Hayward
fault.
3.5-1(d) Limit commercial space to that which can be absorbed by the community, and
concentrate commercial uses on the first floor in a commercial core, with residential
uses above the commercial core. Consider one level parking garages under commercial
buildings.
3.5-1(e) Palms could be used in a major street tree planting program to create a pleasant
historical theme that would complement residential/commercial development, The
palm's natural open trunk area near the ground allow the trees to frame, rather than
block,bay views.
3.5-21
Impact 3.5-2 Unless properly designed and sited,waterfront land development projects
have potential for a substantial.negative aesthetic impact on Bay views.
Structures and facilities that do not take advantage of or visually complement the Bay, are not
appropriate for the waterfront. They should be located and designed so as not to visually impact
the shoreline. In particular, parking areas should be located away from the shoreline or sited in
areas that are not highly exposed. Similarly,enclosed garbage areas may be a necessary part of a
restaurant or other commercial enterprise, but they can compromise views of the Bay as seen
from the scenic route and shoreline trail,as well as from vantage points in the downtown Rodeo
area.
Mitivation Measures
3.5s,2(a) Waterfront projects should be clustered, leaving open areas around them to permit
views of the Bay. To the degree possible, the hill just north of the Pacific Avenue
bridge should be used to screen views of structures, including parking lots, at the
waterfront.
3.5-2(b) Structures at the waterfront should ordinarily be limited to one story or one story and a
mezzanine.
3.5-2(c) Structures should be designed to enhance the pleasure of the user or viewer of the Bay.
To this end,structures should be designed so that no side appears to be the rear of the
building.
3.5.22
3.6 BIOTIC RESOURCES
SETTING
General Plan
The Conservation Element of the County General Plan contains a number of policies that are
directed to protection of biotic resources. Those most applicable to lands along the shoreline of
San Pablo Bay are as follows:
Wetlands Areas 1
8-k. A setback from the edge of any wetland area may be required for any structure. The
breadth of any such setback shall be determined by the County after environmental review
examining a) the size and habitat value of the potentially affected wetland, and b)
potential impacts on the wetland, and adjacent uplands arising out of the development and
operation of the new structure. Unless environmental review indicates that greater or lesser
protection is necessary or adequate, setbacks generally will be between 50 and 100 feet in
breadth. Parcels which would be rendered unbuildable by application of this standard shall
also be exempt.
8-l. Permit minor landfill (less than one acre)or other land reclamation for water-oriented uses
only if a finding has been adopted by the planning body that verifies no alternative site is
available, and if public benefits clearly exceed public detriments from the loss of open
water or tidelands areas.
8•m The County shall require avoidance, minimization and/or compensatory mitigation
techniques to be employed with respect to specific development projects having a potential
to affect a wetland. . .
8,-n Urge the appropriate state and federal agencies to implement a rigid and frequent inspection
system of all industrial facilities along the shoreline which have the potential of creating
hazardous spills.
8-0. Adopt an emergency response plan which outlines how to ensure the swift construction of
floating oil slick barriers at the mouths of all slough and creek channel inlets. . .
Other Rro- —S2
80q. Cooperate with,encourage and support the plans of appropriate public agencies to acquire
0
pnvately-owned lands in order to provide habitat protection for the maintenance of rare,
threatened or endangered plant and animal species.
8-s. Encourage, where appropriate, the revegetation of native grass species on lands which
have been modified for agriculture.
1 General Plan page 8.32
Z General Plan page 8-33
3.6-1
Jurisdictional Authority
The only portion of the Specific Plan area that is not urbanized is Lone Tree Point Regional Park
and portions of the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. Many agencies have possible jurisdiction on the
shoreline. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. has jurisdiction over wetlands and navigable
waterways. U.S. and California Envental, Protection agencies have general environmental
protection authority. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission is charged by the
State with ensuring public access to the bayshore and reviewing proposals to dredge or fill the
bay. Their regulatory authority extends to lands within 100 feet of the shoreline at high tide. The
California Coastal Commission has authority over development along the coast. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game have oversight(generally permit-
granting authority)over projects that pose significant biological impacts. The East Bay Regional
Park District owns Lone Tree Point Regional Park and is currently considering expansion of the
park boundaries,
With regard to future land development projects along the shoreline, other potentially involved
State departments include: Boating and Waterways, Conservation, Parks and Recreation,, State
Lands Commission, State Water Resources Control Board,Water Resources,and Health Services
(beach sanitation, water pollution, solid waste and mosquito control). The Local Agency
Formation Commission oversees changes in the jurisdictional or service boundaries of local
governments,public utilities and service districts.
Historic Perspective
The Specific Plan area is on the flank of San Pablo Bay,at the mouth of Rodeo Creek. Terrain
----
features and vegetation developed naturally in pre-development time influenced by seasonal
overbank deposits of silt,clay and sand(Rodeo Creek floodplain)and the natural silting in of San
Pablo Bay with clays and peaty deposits(prehistoric and historic esturine deposits).
The activities of man have removed much of the original vegetation and wildlife habitat. Stands
of native species such as willows and cottonwoods; and communities of relatively natural
composition, such as brackish marsh and riparian, are inferred to have existed prior to
urbanization. However, bay fill projects and creek channelization, along with grading,
landscaping and building, have removed and/or degraded wildlife habitat. The activities of man
have led to the introduction of exotic landscape plants in the downtown business district of
Rodeo,and the proliferation ofnon-native vegetation near the shoreline.
Lone Tree Point Regional Park is the most undisturbed portion of the planning area, and as such
has the best wildlife habitat,at present, in the Specific Plan area(see Figure 3.1-2 for location of
the park). The primary plant community-that exists at Lone Tree Point is coastal grassland,
occurring on both the upland and shoreline portions of the park property. Within the grassland
area are remnant populations of native, coastal-prairie bunch grasses. mixed with weedy, non-
native herbs and grasses. The grassy slope of the upland parcel(i.e.area southeast of the railroad
tracks)has been used as horse pasture. This portion of the property is drained by an intermittent
stream, and contains a seasonal pond. Originally, willow thickets lined the channel in great
numbers but were removed by the former owner. A grove of eucalyptus trees, pampas and turf
grasses, along with several cultivated fruit trees and grape vines, represent the exotic plant
species 'Introduced into this site. A single large eucalyptus tree, growing on the shoreline edge, ..�.,
3.6-2
provides the name for this park.3 The shoreline of the park is characterized by rocky bluffs,
approximately 10 to 20 feet high,separated by pocket beaches.
Bennett's Marina and Joseph's Resort are areas that have been disturbed by previous grading and
development. (see Figure 3.1-2 for location map). The vegetation in this area is characteristic of
0 is an urban site. There are no Marshes along this portion of the bay. The manna choked with
sediment and is a mud flat at low tide.
Much of the coastal area belonging to the South Pacific Railroad (SPRR), just northeast of
Bennett's Marina, is a mud-flat whose sediment deposits are carried to it by Rodeo Creek. Some
reedy vegetation is present. Assuming favorable circumstances for this habitat to remain and
mature,a brackish marsh may eventually become established in this area.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Contra Costa County prepared a vegetation map of the County, based on interpretation of black
and white, as well as color infrared photography. The mapping was done by qualified biologists
using photographs at a scale of 1"=1,000'. According to this map, which is retained in the
County's Environmental Overlay Map Set, two types of vegetation occur in the planning area;
9
Lone Tree Regional Park is classified as "grassland", and the remainder of the planning area is
classified as "urban". The grasslands in the Regional Park are chiefly non-native and weedy.
Grasslands are typically habitat areas for California ground squirrel, pocket gopher, hare,
opossum, raccoon and striped skunk, as well as birds that are not sensitive to nearby human
presence.Western fence lizards and gopher snakes are also characteristic of grassland habitat,
Tidal portions of the Planning Area include pocket beaches,rocky shores and mud flats. There
is no established marsh habitat in the Specific Plan area. Shorebirds,both wintering and resident,
use the mudflats for foraging. Brown Pelicans feed here occasionally. Migrating Canadian
Geese stop here during the winter to feed. Clapper rails may occasionally feed here,but have not
been reported.Rats may inhabit the rip-rap,area. Brewer's blackbird is known to forage in rip-rap
areas along the County shores.
Protected Species
I2srf3IIitiQII
Special status species have either been formally listed by government agencies as species whose
population status is of concern to conservation organizations or other entities, due to naturally
limited occurrence and/or loss of habitat. Formally listed species are classified by the state and
federal government as "threatened or endangered." These species are afforded legal protection
through state and federal legislation.
The California Endangered Species Act of 1970 prohibits the importation,taking,possession and
sale of endangered and threatened species. The Federal Endangered Species Act extends federal
authority over all migratory, resident, and foreign species of plants and animals declared
threatened or endangered, with the exception of harmful insects. Species of "special concern"
3 EBRPD Lone Tree Point San Pablo Regional Shoreline Land Evaluation for Interim Use June 2, 1992
3.6-3
lack specific legal status. In some cases, these may include species being considered for listing
by a government agency,such as"candidate"federal endangered species.
MethodoloQv
To evaluate the potential for protected species in the,,Planning Area, the following sources were
researched: The County possesses an Environmental Overlay Map showing pre-1975 sightings
of rare,endangered or depleted species. It listed sightings of sensitive species near the mouth of
Pinole Creek(about 2.3 miles to the southwest of Rodeo). No species were sighted in or adjacent
to the planning area. The species reported in the Pinole area included the Ornate shrew(S�
Qom, a locally depleted species; and Samuel's song spatt'ow(Meloanim melodia maxillaris),
an endangered species; near the mouth of Pinole Creek (about 2.3 miles to the southwest of
Rodeo).
The California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base lists sightings of
protected species. On the Mare Island 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, the only sightings in Contra
Costa County were at Point Pinole Regional Park and at the mouth of Pinole Creek. These
localities are approximately 5.3 and 2.3 miles respectively southwest of the Specific Plan area.
The protected species that were sighted are listed in Table 3.6-1.
TABLE 3.6-1
SIGHITNGS OF PROTECTED SPECIES
MARE ISLAND QUADRANGLE,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
n
SPECIE CATEGORY
point Pinole Regional Park
California Black Rail 2
California Clapper Rail endangered
Saltmarsh Wandering Shrew 1
San Pablo Vole 2
Monarch Butterfly none
Soft Bird's-Beak 1
Mouth of Pinole Creek
California Black Rail 2
St�cial Status Plants
urrence of sensitive plant species in the Specific Plan
The Initial Study indicated the possible occ
area. A literature review indicates that habitat for Dwarf Dawnigia and Marin Western Flax occur
along San Pablo Bay. Although the study area may have historically provided suitable habitat for .�
special status plants, modern disturbances have all but eliminated appropriate habitats. Even
3.6-4
though conditions are present which appear to provide some suitable natural habitat,the degree of
disturbance is such that most, if not all of the target sensitive species would not be expected to
grow in the area.
Special Status Animals
No animals with legally protected status are known to occur in the Specific Plan area. Sightings
"6 --
of protected species of animals have been reported along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay, but
these sightings are in habitats that do not currently exist in the planning area. In time, habitat
values can change. For example, a mud flat may evolve to a brackish marsh which would be
habitat for rails and other shorebirds. Herons and egrets forage for fish, small mammals and
amphibians inhabit the upper zones of tidal marshes. The rocky shoreline supports many
shellfish,but is not home or critical habitat for any protected species.
Comparison of Alternatives
Various land use scenarios are being considered for the Rodeo Specific Plan. However, these
alternatives have nearly identical land use designations for the shoreline parcels. Each alternative
recognizes the existing land uses, by designating Lone Tree Point Park as "Parks & Recreation"
(PR). Proposed redevelopment plans do not change the land use designations for shoreline
parcels. With the exception of parklands, parcels along the shoreline would be designagted
"Commercial Recreation"(CR),or"Public and Semipublic"(PS).
Commercial Recreation(CR) is a General Plan land use designation that allows for a broad range
of privately operated recreational uses of commercial character, including marinas and similar
facilities,campgrounds,golf courses,outdoor sports and athletic complexes. Restaurants are also
identified as an allowable use in the Rodeo waterfront In lands designated (CR). The following
standards apply to these areas:
• maximum site coverage: 40%
• maximum building height: 35 feet
• maximum floor area ratio: 100
• average employees per gross acre: 15 4
According to the County General Plan,lands designated PR include publicly-owned city, district,
county and regional parks facilities, as well as all golf courses, whether publicly or privately
owned. Appropriate uses in the designation are passive and active recreation-oriented activities,
and ancillary uses such as snack bars, and restaurants. The construction of new privately owned
residences or commercial uses,and the subdivision of land, is inconsistent with this General Plan
designations
The General Commemial Alternative would allow two restaurants in CR designated lands near
the bridge across the SPRR, with the remainder of the shoreline retained for open forms of land
use.
4 County General Plan p3m.32
County General Plan p3-41
396-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND]MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA Guidelines,Appendix G)identifies potentially
significant impacts of biotic resources to include the following:
• Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the
species;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species;
• Substantially diminish habitat for fish,wildlife or plants;
• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community;
• Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of
materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area
affected.
Unless otherwise noted, all identified impacts are considered significant adverse impacts. The
corresponding mitigation measures would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Wildlife Habitat
Impact 3.6-1 Important biological values,particularly along the shoreline,could
be compromised by development which is not sensitive to protection of
wildlife habitat. This is considered to be a significant impact.
Wildlife habitat along the shoreline portion of the Planning Area has been compromised by
historic land uses. Several of these uses are obsolete and the area is in transition. The proposed
Specific Plan would directly impact future shoreline projects in the Planning Area.
Redevelopment of residential, commercial or recreational uses may have varying impacts on the
wildlife habitat values,depending on the footprint of future structures and measures incorporated
into the design of projects to enhance habitat values. With regard to the proposed Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment,the General Plan has adopted policies to protect wetlands habitat.
Nevertheless,individual land development projects along the shoreline may present potential
impacts to wetlands habitat. These potential impacts can only be evaluated in detail when
specific projects are evaluated by the County.
Wetlands (i.e. the intertidal zone) and other valuable biological resources in the Planning Area
have been altered from their pristine state, facilitating invasion by non-native species. The
disturbance has included altering drainage (e.g. channeling Rodeo Creek), grading which
involved filling the bay margin,and removal of vegetation.
3.6-6
Mitivatinn Measure
3.6-1 The most appropriate areas for restoration and enhancement are the Joseph's Resort
property,Bennett's Marina property,and adjacent SPRR shoreline lands. Approaches
which might be selected are as follows: .
3
3.6-1(a)Require a design level habitat restoration study in conjunction with each, shoreline
project.
3.6-1(b)Encourage clustering of any shoreline projects to provide more space for natural areas.
3.6=1(OConsolidate habitats and create suitable transitions from one habitat to another.
3.6-1(d)Encourage clean-up of toxic or hazardous materials which compromise habitat values.
3.6-1(e)Encourage modifications to the sewage collection/treatment system aimed at eliminating
flows which exceed plant capacity.
3.&1(f)Dredging the connection between the marina basin and the bay shall occur during the time
of least impact to aquatic resources, and shall not occur during high flow periods of
Rodeo Creek. Best management practices to minimize sediment generation shall be
used. The dredge spoils shall be dumped in an approved location.
3.6-1(g)Locating a specific area for the repair of engines of boats within the marina would lessen
impacts from pollution from engine oils and gasoline.
Protected Species
Impact 3.6-2 Although no special status plants or animals were identified in the Planning
Area,it is possible that such resources may exist. This is considered a
significant impact.
The biologic study for this EIR was sufficient to document on-site habitat types and assess the
likelihood for protected species to occur in the Planning Area. However, it is not a substitute for
studies that may be required for future specific development proposals. Moreover, sensitive
species could colonize the area,if shoreline habitat values are restored.
Mitigation Measures
3.6-2(a)When shoreline development projects are proposed, site specific surveys for sensitive
species shall be required. For some species, it is critical that the survey be performed at
the appropriate season.
3.6-2(b) Development of shoreline projects shall include restoration of habitat for sensitive
species.
3,96-7
3.7 GEOLOGY/SEISNIICITY
SETTING
General Plan
The Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990-2005 contains a number of
policies that restrict development in geologically and seismically hazardous areas. Those most
applicable to the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan are presented below.
Seismic Hazard Goals
10-A. To protect human life and reduce the potential for serious injuries from earthquakes;and
to reduce the risks of property losses from seismic disturbances which could have severe
economic and social consequences for the County as a whole.
10-B. To reduce to a practical minimum injuries and health risks resulting from the effects of
earthquake ground shaking on structures,facilities and utilities.
10,-D. To reduce to a practical minimum the potential for life loss,injury,and economic loss
due to liquefaction-induced ground failure,levee failure,large lateral land movements
toward bodies of water,and consequent flooding;and to mitigate the lesser consequences
of liquefaction.
Seismic Hazard Policies
10-1. Contra Costa County,as part of an area with high seismicity, shall recognize that a severe
earthquake ha"—rd- exists and shall reflect this recognition in its development review and
other programs.
10-2. Significant land use decisions(General Plan amendment,rezoning,etc.)shall be based on
a thorough evaluation of geologic-seismic and soils conditions and risk.
10.,3. Because the region is seismically active,structures for human occupancy shall be
designed to perform satisfactorily under earthquake conditions.
10-4. In areas prone to severe levels of damage from ground shaking(i.e.,Zone IV on Map 10-
4),where the risks to life and investments are sufficiently high,geologic-seismic and
soils studies shall be required as a precondition for authorizing public or private
construction.,
10--5. Staff review of applications for development permits and other entitlements,and review
of applications to other agencies which are referred to the County,shall include seismic
design criteria.
10-6. Structures for human occupancy,and structures and facilities whose loss would
substantially affect the public safety or the provision of needed services,shall not be
erected in areas where there is a high risk of severe damage in the event of an earthquake.
3.7-1
Ground Shaking,Policies
10-8. Ground conditions shall be a primary consideration in the selection of land use and in the
design of development projects.
10-9 In areas susceptible to high damage from ground shaking(i.e.,Zone TV on Map 10-4),
geologic-seismic and soils studies shall be required prior to the authorization of major
land developments and significant structures(public or private).
10-10. Policies regarding liquefaction shall apply to other ground failures which might result
from groundshaking but which are not subject to such well-defined field and laboratory
analysis.
J,iguefactign Policies
10-18 This General Plan shall discourage urban or suburban development in areas susceptible to
high liquefaction dangers and where appropriate subject to policies in 10-20 below,
unless satisfactory mitigation measures can be provided,while recognizing that there are
low intensity uses such as water-related recreation and agricultural uses that are
appropriate in such areas. (For the Bethel Island Area,the adopted specific plan policies
will apply.)
10-19. To the extent practicable,the construction of critical facilities,structures involving high
occupancies,and public facilities shall not be sited in areas identified as having a high
liquefaction potential,or in areas underlain by deposits classified as having a high
liquefaction potential.
10-20. Any structure permitted in areas of high liquefaction danger shall be sited,designed and
constructed to minimize the dangers from damage due to earthquake-induced
liquefaction.
10-21. Approvals to allow the construction of public and private development projects in areas
of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies
which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions,
recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions;and on proper implementation
of the mitigation measures.
Seismic Hazard Implementation Measures
10-c. Require comprehensive geologic and engineering studies for any critical structure,
whether or not it is located within a Special Studies Zone(Earthquake Fault Zone).
10-d. Through the environmental review process,require geologic,seismic,and/or soils studies
as necessary to evaluate proposed development in areas subject to groundshaking,fault
displacement,or liquefaction.
10-e. Evaluate and,where necessary,upgrade water distribution,sewage disposal,gas and
electricity,communications and other service facilities in areas subject to seismic
hazards.
3.7-2
10-f. Evaluate and upgrade hospitals,bridges,major roads,and other essential structures to be
able to withstand seismic hazard.
10-i. Adopt ordinance code provisions related to the repair or replacement of unreinforced
masonry structures.
10-j. Prepare an inventory ofpost-disaster public facilities to be used for emergency shelter
and gathering places.
10-1. Develop ordinances incorporating existing Board of Supervisors policy on administering
the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act.
U reinforced Masonry Ordinances
None adopted.
Regional Geologic Setting
The planning area is located in western Contra Costa County near the northern end of the East
Bay Hills within the California Coast Ranges geomorphic province(see Figure 3.7-1). The Coast
is Ranges province characterized by a series of northwest-trending ridges and valleys that are
structurally controlled. The East Bay Hills were formed by tectonic deformation that has
occurred episodically in the region since the late Cretaceous. Deformation was largely
compressional until the Miocene Epoch,when large strike-slip faults developed in the region. A
�``--
number of these strike-slip faults, including the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras faults,
remain active as the region continues to be tectonically deformed. Similarly, compression is one-
going, and even rocks that are of Late Pliocene age are tightly folded in many parts of the
County.
Basement rocks of the region are generally composed of highly deformed rocks of the Cretaceous
Great Valley Sequence and the Late Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Assemblage. The Great
Valley Sequence generally consists of massive beds of feldspathic sandstone with interbedded
shale. The Franciscan Assemblage consists of graywacke sandstone, greenstone, shale, chert,
blueschist,and ultramafic rock.
The youngest strata in the East Bay Hills are Pliocene none-marine sedimentary and volcanic
P
rocks. In the Rodeo area they overlie Miocene m e Strata. These rock units have been
uplifted,folded and subject to erosion.
0
The low-lying region along the margins of San Pablo Bay are underlain by unconsolidated
surficial deposits of Quaternary age, including alluvium,Bay Mud and Bay Sand. These deposits
are geologically much younger than the bedrock in the hillside areas. In addition, significant
quantities of fill have been placed near the Bay margin.
Figure 3,7a.2 shows the general geology of the project vicinity, and Table 3.7-1 summarizes the
names,relative ages,and the general lithology of the geologic units found within the Rodeo Area.
3-97,,3
40
:'•:'• , ,:- AAwwwAAAwAw % �•� � � �,% ���,%' •�•`0•0•-•0
• • :9:0,•�:� ,: , :: S.0 iA • • ::•:0 •0-•9•-.- - •f-•-f�-•••�-•-f --.-0• 0:• ':
•,•,:' , : - - ::- �0 : s': • •: � � : : :�,: - . : : . :�-: :-::�. - 0 � •: 0 . �: :-:`: :�:0: : : : 1: . : � 0 0 . f , ,= 0 ,: :
v
00
-•:�-
• •`.:,s••,•0,•• -••,•0,, 0
.,. � � �' • - ' - 9 ' '-:'0 9-0000
••'
• :• .:- • ; ' '0:0.0.90 10:0.0 , 0 '- -:- • - -:f�
•:
,: , ,•: 0.,;. : :- s • ` ' ' `:-.`;':-•-.-•,`.•.•f• 0 •-•-•900. 0•0•0 0•000•0.0•,•,009• , ,
0 • -� w-.`.-0•0`0• •0 - •0' •.`
,•:••�•• 0`..•wf
0-,0"f• , 0•:0•:0 •0- 6 0 e.g. •w• .
•
- , - - - - •••s`s-0�`.•`•-••-•-- s••-s•., ,,,•,•• 0•0., • • • • . .`f • s . ,, - - • • • -•••,•0, •
, , , . ,•, • • • ' ' f • • -`.•-•
. -
:, we we
0 �wOwO�@.`', :,:•:,•: : • .0.0 -0-0- � 9 0�.
0 •
i•0
't • • • •�• • :• : :•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:,,:,. , , � � . • - ' -, • 0 , . A A A •• s• - ` ` • • ` -:•
si `0` • f • • • . • • • .•. ••• •
, wow ow Wowowowewowowow*wow ow Ow
f • • • • . • • • • • f • •• •• • •
0 00 So• A
• A ' • ' '
• • - s - ` - • ' - - s90
• 90 0 • - • • • • • - A A A A . • . . • 0 . •`••. 0 • • - 90•
. • , 0000 , 00000 000 . •
.,.: : , , , •0 �• ` ' ' • '0' • • � •0 , ,0 �•�. .. • f - •, , '- i • A A A A A 0 - � � 0ss • - 0 sI , . � �0:0�-�•;•
ff • ce0 ; ;�. .
00 00 00� • : :: :
go so a
00
• ••- ,,f, , • • , . 0 s ,• A �ww• • ` `• • A AA A AA A AA A A A AA A A s ` -•- ` •x• f •0 : • ssis0ss • � 0s -••s•s-•-s• ••f •0•9:
0••
-0 :• :- � • i - - -. . • • -
i , • A . • . . . s • • • • f-. • . . . f
0
:•
, , , , . - : • . • • . . • - • • . . •• • ., , , , , , ,
• if - • • • 0 0 f • • •0.0 , , , , , , , 0 , ,
, , • • , , , , 0 ,�, 0 sss
., , , f • f 0 ff , -0- ' s • ssssss ' '
, :f . . f • - • - • , i -:• , , , , , , A , ; . �, : : : : ; : `. : :• : •
: : 04 0 so so so :. : :: : so
. • -
: : : •�` ` •�•�•�� 00 0� : �; :: :: :, :� � *.*wow
`-•��`�.f�. `. �'�- - -�.'�`�.•� :���: : � .�.•so 0: - A:, , .��� . : .ssssss • •
, • : � :� ,: • - 9sss:: � A 0 • • • • • • • • -i- - -
- • • 0 - 0 - - ' -
- 0000, ,,�, • i . f • -�00,-000',.,s . 000,f,-,., •0f,•s•• .•f•••.• . • f • • •0•
f • f , •�-, , , •0.'• •-• • , ••.90 '.•.` `.-•-.'•••••`--•• • . , . , , ,
s•'ss•sf sf 0sssss - ss• • f - •. • , , . , s s,sss
, i • - ` • • - - •• • - , , - f••-f-.••`•`.-•-•s•.s•s,•,•• • i A A A •, , ,10,, , , , , , , . . . •w's •' ' ':, • , ' ' ' :• s ' • '• • A - - .,000,.,.,. , , , • -
0 00of :s : :`:• • : •:-0
, , • f • •. • f - f 0• •,-, •• • •f ••-••••• .0•• 49•,•, f:•f-•-f f • 0 .,,,00000 . -, 0• s• 0•f A •• - t -: -we , 0 0 • • -., ss*ssos • • •f 0 •: A A A A A :':' :'0ss�4,�•0 ss • � : a: 0:s : , w 1W00 . • •0 0 -
s - � :i i :
' ss '
i9 90 •' ' 00 s' • ' •,- , , , , , , 0000,-
� • - 0 0 . a0 A ,•, ,s-.,••• • ' , ,• .: si• • •
, , •, �• �•�ii • i•i••f ' • • - ••- • - •.'.• -
M
••• i•,••• , so-
• . ••9'
- •,• • 0•,f,•0-,-, • ,•,f f-f - • •• -'•ff-•-••-f •0•-,-0f••f••• ••,•,• , ,• ,-•,,,,,,0 • • •0•00, , • • 0 • . , 0 , ,, ,,,, , , , , •,• • • • • • • -,-,• •
•
, , ,-,`,•,•, ,:,•, ,•, , , , , 0 , 00 , 0 . f 0•0. .0 , :, 0 , , ,,,,, • 0 •,•0.0•0•0. • •0 • 0,.0 '• • • • • • • .
000 ,, , , , '0 • •- ' • ' ' ' • •:•:
ssss,s••• • ' Dw s • s 00- '• • • '`••••'•'a'�' s'••s'
•0• • • �0 -i • • ' ' •••`• • .0-
•
••,•,. . , . 0 f
• i • •• ••••••-•-• ••• -• -•-0- • - • • • •• •••
.,. •,f• •• - -• ,•.-.-
• ,•,•••• • • •w•0 A•••••.f•,.:•�':••.•,•,•••0..•'.•,..--•-•-s••'••'.••••,•:••,•.•,f-••,•.. •AAA• •AA•A,•
•A, AA•••,
•-:,,..
• • •, f,, , ••••i •• • i • • • •,.,01'•-,.,,•,••••,.,•••,.,•',,•'•.,'.••-••-
••.0.•'•••..•. -s• 0•••.`•
••••.0.••.•0•.•
•.,.f•.
•0..0
f.•..••.•
•
-,
,A
A,
.•
, ,f,f , • • •• ,f 0. 0 ,•f•0 , 0 . •
,• • 0.• , , , , . , , , , , . , ,, • • • • • • 0—low Ow
• •
•
••••
..
,
f
.•
•
• f • • •• ••
•••••••••••f• ••• •
•••- • . .••••.-••s - - - - - - • ••• • • ,
• • f f • . • 0 0••'f •• • • •,•,•••• f •
. 0• • • •,•••••• •••••,• ,- f• ,•,•,•,•,.,f ••••- ••••• f
, 0 , , , 0 . 0. , ,0,0 •, , 00
. • • • . . -,•, • , 0 . ,• , • • , , • • • • •
f• . ••. . f • • • 0 •,• . 0 - • • • • •• • . f • •
• ••••.••••f• • •.••.• .•••.•s•••••.•••f••••-•••••• • • • i0 49
oo , , , , 0-0 o a
, 0 , , , , • - . •
., s , , , • . , .
• , , •
• • • . • . • • • • • • •
We• f 0 9 '. f 0• 0• 0-0.,•,f,f ,.0.0•000f••s•.AF • f • . . , • • ••• • • • 0•,••••f•••••,• • -• . . •,.,-,•,•,•. ,•f •9• •-• •-.-. -� • •.s• • _o-� �
0..,s : : f �• : • f •, : s . . :: :,:, ; � ww :: :
:
ID
,
PF -. 0-0,- ... . .00 :0 ..:::: .. ., . ,...00: .: - ss. . : . .•
,00 . ..•. • 6% .. .. 0 .. : : : . :•:.00 000
:0 f : ssss :�:: : s �•..',- .:�. =, .,�• 0;0..�0..a0• 00 *;0•.. 0.00
•, . : w. 0
:, , , ,-,:: : : 0 :
00:0:, : 0 •:• 0 • •
-0-0 s 0 a0A A � O 0 O 0 •
000 6 00.a*06•00. A A �00:000te 0-0 10-9.
• f • •we • • . 0• we A
- •0 • • - .
0 ,,, ,0,0.,0.,0., , .
.. .•f f •
. .. ..0, Pablo . ,f. f .f •
0 ., 0•,•0•0. .- f0.0
00,,, .,.0.. -.•. f,
- . '. f- • •
.. . ,
.-.. .. . • . . .
....... . . . .
• - ; .. . . . . ..:.:-:.:.:..:•.•.
•• .•.•.-.•.•.•.•.• •
. .. • . 0`• . . . . . . . .•.•.• .Bay .... . w . . .•.-.•. .•.•.•.•.•. ..'••
. • • -•.
-.• '.0. • .0•0•••
• 0 ..•.• . - • - - - - -
i .
00
Wol. ..• ff .......•
. - •....
O 0 SO 0 0 a
00
:00 .:.. : . . 0 0.0, :: .: 000 : - :- .00 • A f0000so':. 0 .:. -: • :
. • :: - • .
0 • 00 •:• 0 - i . ,-,.0.0
,- ,0, .0., , 0 , -0-00 0 a we, A
00,. • 0 • • s • A A A w . . •
, ,-, . . ,•,0 0
• . • • o • • • A •.,.., ,,.0Do :, .,. 0.0 , :
s . . :
- `.f • • ssss� s ' 00 , , . • - • ` 0 Soo� • f . i •SO$0 0 a 00 see SO so 00 so Sol 00• .
Goo 000
00 00 00 00 0 0' AAA
•'• s'iss � : :':•:-
000is - AAAA
0090 •• . ,0
00 00 00 00 00A 'to lie AA
's�: : ��f ` :�•00 psps • ps : • • s
00 00 , • - 0 : 4^ 4%
� � � ,
00 - • . - • • • . .,-.�•, 0009 - . • f .:000 . , AA
000 , , , , , 0 , 0
00 o .-�'. . .- � ' � 0s : . 0.��•-f 0 ` 00•-0 so.-o-: A , 0 0s,f - , . •
0 0s ss, '. .`.o a•• • f
•'i-. - •., ,0 , , •of
fsPacific0
. � s
' •0f � `�•• _ •• .ss. • . :
' ,9
' , :
ss0, A A . 00 0 •
00 0. 0, �•: �0 .16.:: • : , • 0 • s •
••• •• rancisco ••.0• •:0'00000 -•••.-
'
so 0
..
•
.'ti •• • •• •• •• 0 . • • •
0
Ocean
•0•
0
0:-0:-0 6% A 0 0 0 0 go 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 0 Bay 0 0 0 0 0 16:.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 e
00,100 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 4% Oft 000 0 00 0 0 0 0
0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 00 0
66068 0 so*a 00 0 0 0 a 0 so
. s 0• • • • . •0 0 0 0 0 :.00
0 0 0 a 00 00 0 0 0 •• • s •
0 0
0
0
on 0
0
-:0
0
•
•,• , , • ,•..., , , .
s•0.,•,. , , •,•0•,00 •0-•••0 • • f • • • • • . 0• • •• • - • • . •.••00 s . • • . • f s -
oo
ol 000
00 0
00 00 00 00 0 00 so
w
•••0•
•0
•• • • ;r
`
.•••.s,.•0s•0 s•.,••,,•••••,•i.•,•f••
••••.•
•••••.• f• ••-•s • •.0
•• •
•
•• • • • •
.,,.,., ••.•.•••.•f ••••
, , •,-.•,.,•,. •0•0
•• s•••.••••s• ••••
, s , - , , ,
• • • 0 0• s ' 90
9
-•,•,,.,.,.,. ,.,•, 0, • • • • f . • ••.•,•••f•. •s• a 0•,•,0,s,. 0, - , ,,
...0.•0.s•0.f f••.s••0•.f.0 ••0
• • •
00 0
•
. • • •
•
Legend:
:0:000
00
9 00 Goo*@
00 0—41, Cenozoic
Bedrock Units
w Great Valley Sequence
FraanAssemblage
Salinian Block(Granitic Basement)
Fault(dotted where concealed)
Figure: 3.7-1 Graphic Scale
Regional Geolo is MaPo 12 ml
i •
H
A
ed
IN 2,1
w id
dw1..Vim? 't.t ` (f1�+�\� r �4"'r,✓� \*� �r s i f . �{-�T". +�•..
f+ _ R• <' CJ�S 1�111�` j/�`�f11i "�`'��\�I....��t � fJf/// /�///��1+ A�l ♦ . ..
.f'+, t'y t �"./ 'a "'..//r•1/ t, "�..�I-..r..`�'�`.� .,�ff'^♦I"//"// Jam.^/'41 .w.i i"'
�� �.N•..,r ."' ..q.,y 1 /•'.••, „�..a"A+VON-
41
- rY.�� � ♦t� /I./��4 `T_ ♦ 1iy:��?.
2 - +��tii • r �
+.� f/' 1r r VA�~ "�
' i i ` ♦,r1 rf r'1 •T � +� fl f/'f/nI �! 'r i►1 1 L J)�/r�"� s
(\(/' l�• Y �
• • � � y��,.�-.,1�� ,','"`•'•e»a`♦r,'Y 1►}�� �,`(\ * //j,f Y��F�"`r�'fit � `�`�,\..2+''►,a�',t+
Z t `,� } i+• y�• .I" � r"I i" � � -._,j /!�- �/'/�.'�+�,yam">„r 1.1,#•'+„/• "'f ���" ����� '�_
;.•�,.�;', . '71. '-+�t^4 �`� � � ,...�� rf�'��'' '"I ',�l,i" � � \��,,it :� `1
i♦Y,i}►J� � p •;,",, l\, ����' -'+�/'ice" / �� "' •,� _ ,�,-.�♦.,/���� �� {.r,\`�''''1�`'�;�
� • � r � "'�z i.'1 � r Y t' .►. , �'�'�"f�� �„ *t► �i""''�t w..-y 1$,t .��•�.,'/•1... ,!'''�'"""„{*`�r �� ,�
Y•4+
jo
w14l . C / f4L « i' it t /~ ♦. _�:1�. .i 1, c
777l�l
r' ♦.h yj4-t,ry. a "j,� I I ... �.,,.. i yY- , T• ,'�• .. �/.7'�r�f rl
t ,r�=t �L ,1.,,\•• s�,{',r• •+a, ,S,l'�"'�'•' '`` Y `F �, � '��.�...1''�+``+' _�' 1.4, i w��K♦,v
Jr
•1' Y�l, racy l yc, +• 1t 1r�• t\,�.' ►,v/ 3.r / JJJ/'
ti aa�yy� q• /• -, • _ .. ' ' ♦j j 1 4�1 j m f j i+
Noe
Al
\�_."'.moi jQ4 Ja 1^�' �� 4 � }' ♦� /� `�......,,,_
17T�
Ae
1 �y 1 T. �,, �� �ii«s .y^�vJ.�{ 1'"�,,,.. 1� .. + • • �I'R... �T'r ,� ��`I'i� `yA�' ♦ ♦f!~�'.�y�' •tom`_
) • � 'i � *�. �♦ .►�'ice ��'r.� I J�,./1�4r� � � a• �• � � ��r"-ti�,•-
'�i .� ,i:1yT S �+r +� ♦ 1 vr•J�. fro, "j j' a 1 Rn
a.,err. e( ►►,'T,i jjrr \''►
{ 1. 1.
l�S;♦` , �tI ' -'A\7 is t+`r-"s`w rASwF+ ,IS �',.t}<""'♦. -�..'�*2
1—4rk.
s t � /� '�11 �;�' t�•�� �141L
Tri.
/t ;t tP o • t a ti '�1�ri��f+� i 2''� �"� `j '• r'r � � t
�r •� •�•• � 1{,� ���•� � ,�' �� \'�1�� L•1''x'1„4���.1� _ \a�,�t4t �E� /i��i�j
r,.l yJ .. �. •�� L. '' _ '1 \`l "'L�j{♦`zZ(< {11.z'�
�'��•,�`, � 3' �� ,ell I����N�`„�' -��.•� r"�,'�=s • �����-"-'� � �,Y''s\ti' �,r
-,y...aa� .�t�� � � ,t .���• "y�`r� ��j �- ./ `�'�i�' __+F� •�1�� ta!►Z;� �� �/�I'
.`tiM���t•,S .,1, t .��'� �'► w/''� � �`� ` "t ,,�'y�,�' •.�, _ �.,����`i��l/�/�,w �"� .i”"�i -f' '1 • ������ '����_4 �/�I
-vow
1r+'�r. `�" /ih +�y• �,t , r''� `•' �•+1��"}���'�,���,[
t�+�' _i l+. f � � •�. / �f�J� Il� }'�,� �r.�� >,�Y�•�...,� M��«t\, ♦���'y�'�yry,���il*T��� �`-'*�
�'�' � r f[j j •• � �.,r*1�+•l� ./�,,,, Hyl." t •r "�+""'r_ ./.rj�
�r� �r ��: s• � � �' -�w.:�� •• /����1`!�T��1'♦���1����,y"' -''1��"+.'-"y" �� -��t� .r�•'��.�"r�f'f",r T'•�,�
�rV, �
a a � ♦ /l NN .i a •. �� .ter',�•k � i l:. ��•.t►t�,
�,,,#jy+.,�yY'l' { � T/,� - � +t"i �I,�l� ,jtt'��'`}../,j!��* - '�'�j����'.'T`\+,r���, ` '"X.,�_...�'•��f J„,��,`�r�•..,f�•� 1(/��r
r`J'/ f fit +y1� w�"_'"'/I-r,.,..C� ,►' �"� /,,`�,4 •Lr w J,l.(i. I/''•`", +.'`"1 S ��:
�f 4m" r r ora • -�` 7•+ " __.^r.N
or
•
s • •
• w
F
r
TABLE 3.7-1
GENERALIZED STRATIGIBAPHIC SECTION
RODEO AND VIC HTY,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GEOLOGIC AGE FORMATION NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF UNIT
(Absolute Age) (Symbol for Unit in Figure 3.7-2)
Holocene (<1 0,000 yrs.) Bay Mud(Qbm). Unconsolidated,water-saturated,dark,plastic
clay and silty clay. Locally contains lenses and stringers of peat,
well sorted silt and sand. Found generally below 8 feet above
mean sea level. Interfingers with Holocene alluvial deposits along
margin of the bay.
Holocene and Pleistocene Alluvium(Qa). Unconsolidated to weakly consolidated,
(<70,000 yrs.) moderately sorted,moderately permeable fine sand,silt and clayey
silt with occasional thin beds of coarse sand. Consists of stream
channel and flood plain deposits.
Pleistocene Older Alluvium(Qoa). Irregularly stratified alluvial deposits of
(<2 million yrs.) clay,silt,sand and gravel that underlie horizontal±surfaces that are
above the modern streambeds or valley floors;older levels of
stream deposition.
Pliocene(5.2 million yrs.) Pinole Tuff(Tpt). Along shore of San Pablo Bay this unit consists
of a thin andestic tuff beds with pumice shards and andestic rock
fragments. These beds are overlain by reworked,cross-bedded ash
and normal clastic sandstone and siltstone.
Plio-Miocene (6-24 million Miocene(?)Marine Formations(Tmsu,Tmss,Tmsl,Tmsh).
yrs.) This sequence of marine sedimentary rocks unconformably under-
lies the Pinole Tuff. The outcrop belt of the Tmsu unit occurs on
each limb of the Rodeo syncline(see Figure 3.7-2). It underlies the
specific plan area and consists of a gray to blue,medium-grained,
well-to-poorly sorted lithic sandstone. Fossiliferous,lime-
. cemented beds,along with massive sandstone beds,are locally
present. Tmss consists of moderately well sorted,fine-grained
feldspathic sandstone;Tmsl consists predominately of siltstones
that are brittle and highly fractured. The Tmsh unit consists of
shale beds that range from clay shale to diatomite.
3.7-4
Regional Seismicity
Seismic Sources and Historic Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Region is located in a which seismically active region has
I I experienced a
number of strong earthquakes during historic tunes. Most but not all active faults in the region
have been the source of earthquakes during the past 200-+years.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Act) of 1972 (revised 1994), "Earthquake Fault Zones" were established by the CDMG
along "active faults" (i.e. faults which have experienced surface rupture during the last 119000
years). In the Bay Area, these include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Rodgers Creek-
Healdsburg, West Napa, Green Valley-Concord, Greenville, and the Seal Cove/San Gregorio
faults(Hart, 1992)0
Table 3.7-2 lists the estimated max including imum eters,, maximum credible earthquakes,
for known faults which may affect the planning area. The closest active fault is the Hayward
fault which passes approximately five miles to the southwest. The Hayward fault zone apparently
steps eastward to the Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault zone underneath San Pablo Bay. The
estimated maximum credible earthquake on the Hayward fault is Richter magnitude 7.25
(Slemmons and Chung, 1982). The Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault zone,, located approximately
13 miles northwest of the planning area, is estimated to be capable of generating a maximum
credible earthquake of magnitude 7.0(Buddisg,et al. 1991).
The Concord-Green Valley fault is located jwpru mately 9.5 miles east of the planning area.
APPIFU
Like the Hayward fault, the Concord faultapparently steps eastward to the Green Valley fault
beneath Suisun Bay. The estimated maxim= credible earthquakes for the Concord and Green
Valley faults are magnitude 6.5 and magnitude 6.7,,respectively(Geomatrix Consultants,, 1992).
The West Napa fault is located approximately 10 miles north of the planning area, and is
estimated to be capable of generating a araximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.5
(Wesnousky, 1986). The Calaveras fault, loafed approximately 23 miles southeast, is estimated
to be capable of generating a maximum creole earthquake of magnitude 7.25 (Slemmons and
Chung, 1982). The San Andreas fault zone 'a.located approximately 24 miles southwest of the
planning area and is estimated to be capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of
magnitude 8.3. The Greenville-Marsh Creek fault, located approximately 27 miles southeast of
the planning area is estimated to be capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of
magnitude 6.5 (Wright,et al, 1982).
The most intense historic earthquake ground slaking in Rodeo may have been associated with the
31 March 1898 "Mare Island" earthquake ar the 21 October 1868 earthquake of estimated
magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault (Toppanda and others, 1981). The duration of the Mare
Island earthquake was approximately 40 sewnds and produced ground shaking of Modified
Mercalli Intensity VII I (Toppozada and othes, 1981). Recent work(Toppozada, 1992)suggests
the Mare Island earthquake was centered on the Rodgers Creek fault,and had a magnitude of 6.6.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale,presentedm Table 3.7o,3,is an earthquake intensity scale on ,....,,,
0
local effects experienced by people,structures,andurth m (see Glossary).
17-5
The 1868 earthquake on the Hayward fault generated ground shaking in Rodeo estimated at
Modified Mercalli Intensity VII(Toppozada and others, 198 1).
TABLE 3.7-2
ES D IMAXMKM PARAM[ETERS FOR KNOWN FAULTS
IN THE GENERAL VICEN OF RODEO
ESTIMATED PEAK
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE HORIZONTAL
DISTANCE EATHQUAKE ACCELERATION
FAULT (Miles) (Richter Magnitude) (Seed and Idris,1982)
Active
Hayward S 7.251 0.47 g
Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg 13 7.02 0.32 g
Concord 9.5 6.53 0.32 g
• Gran Valley 9.5 6.73- 0.35 g
West Tim 10 6.54 0.31 g
Calaveras 23 7.251 0.21 g
San Andreas 24 8.3 0.30 g
Greenville-Marsh Geek 27 6.55 0.12 g
Inactive/Potentially Active
Franklin 2 6.53 -
Southampwn 4.5 6.253
Pinole 4.5 - -
2 Slemmons and Gong,1982
Budding,et al,1941
3 Geomatrix Cons- 91992
4 Wesnousky,1986
S Wright,et al,1982
3.7-6
Other historic large-magnitude earthquakes in the region, which probably resulted in strong "�``-
ground shaking in the planning area, include the 10 June 1836 earthquake of estimated
magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault, and the 18 April 1906 estimated M8.3 San Francisco
earthquake on the San Andreas fault (Toppozada and others, 1981). Most recorded earthquake
epicenters in the surrounding region are concentrated along the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers
Creek-Healdsburg,Calaveras,Concord-Green Valley,and Greenville faults.
The most recent strong earthquake to occur in the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta earthquake of
17 October 1989. The event registered magnitude 7.1, and the epicenter was located near Loma
Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately 68 miles south of Rodeo. The CDMG strong
motion accelerometers were activated throughout the Bay Area. An accelerometer at Corralitos,
approximately three miles from the epicenter, recorded the maximum acceleration of 0.64g
(gravity),with strong ground motion lasting approximately 10 seconds. An accelerometer
grounded on alluvium in Richmond, approximately six miles southwest of the Rodeo recorded
maximum ground acceleration of 0.13g(Shakal, 1989).
Other smaller faults in the region, classified as inactive or potentially active by the CDMG
include the Franklin,the Southampton,and the Pinole fault.
The Franklin fault, located approximately two miles northeast of the planning area is a high-angle
reverse fault that extends from southwest of the Walnut Creek area to the Carquinez Strait. There
is no evidence that the Franklin fault has experienced surface fault rupture in historic time,and no
evidence of fault rupture involving Holocene deposits is recognized. Consequently, it is not in an
official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Contra Costa County Safety Element(1991) .--.,
indicates that Late Pleistocene displacement has been reported for the northern portion of the
Franklin fault. The southern portion of the Franklin fault is *inferred by the County Safety
Element to be active on the basis of a tectonic model. Specifically, the Franklin fault can be
traced to the Alamo area where it converges with the Calaveras, fault. In this scenario, the
Franklin fault is thought to represent a branch of the Calaveras fault in Northern Contra Costa
County.
During a fault investigation of the northern Franklin fault, Earth Science Associates (1983)
excavated a trench across a minor trace of the fault and reported some recurrent offset of
colluvium estimated to be on the order of as young as 8,000 or 12,000 to as old as approximately
20,000 years. However, the CDMG does not consider the Franklin fault to be active, nor is it
zoned as an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1992). The maximum credible earthquake for the
Franklin fault is estimated to be magnitude 6.5(Geomatrix Consultants, 1992).
The Southampton fault, located approximately four and one-half miles east of Rodeo is a
northwest-trending fault whose extent and degree of activity is uncertain. During a fault
investigation of the Southampton fault, Earth Sciences Associates (1983) excavated a series of
trenches across the mapped trace of the fault and found no evidence of late Quaternary activity,,
However,because the Southampton fault is situated between two other active faults(the Concord
and Franklin), and along the projected trace of the Calaveras, Earth Sciences Associates (1983)
c *dered that it did have some potential for seismic activity. The County Safety Element
considered
(1991) indicates that the Southampton fault is inferred to be active on the basis of a tectonic
model. However,the CDMG is does not consider the Southampton fault to be active,nor is it
3.7-7
zoned as an Alquist-mPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The maximum credible earthquake for the
Southampton fault is estimated to be magnitude 6.25(Geomatrix Consultants, 1992).
The Pinole fault, located approximately two and one-half miles southwest of Rodeo may be the
southeastern most, onshore continuation of the Rodgers Creek fault (Williams, 1993). Recent
geologic studies(seismic reflection profiling)in San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Strait suggest
that the offshore portion of the Pinole fault has been active during Holocene time,producing three
major earthquakes(Williams, 1993). Based on the available data, the CDMG has not zoned the
Pinole fault as an Earthquake Fault Zone.
Egabguake Foregag"
It is likely that a pattern of seismicity similar to the historic pattern described above will persist
into the foreseeable future. The probability of a large (magnitude 7.0 or greater) earthquake on
the San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andrea's fault zone is about 23 percent over a
30-,year period (USGS Working Group, 1990). The probability of a large earthquake on the
northern segment of the Hayward fault zone,which extends from approximately Mills College in
Oakland to Point Pinole in Contra Costa County, is about 28 percent for the same period,and 22
percent for the Rodgers Creek fault(USGS Working Group, 1990).
The probability of a magnitude 6.0 earthquake occurring along the northern Calaveras fault is
estimated to be approximately 5 0 percent in the next 3 0 years,and 10 percent for a magnitude 7.0
event(Lindh and Oppenheimer, 1992). Overall,the total probability that one or more large .
earthquakes will occur in a 30-year period in the San Francisco Bay region is estimated to be 67
percent(USGS Working Group, 1990).
The most likely seismic sources to affect the Rodeo area are the Hayward,Green Valley,Rodgers
Creek-Healdsburg,Concord,West Napa,and San Andreas fault zones. The estimated maximum
credible earthquakes along these faults could result in peak horizontal accelerations in bedrock
and stiff soils of approximately 0.47g, 0.35g, 0.328, 0.328, 0.31g, and 0.30g, respectively (see
Table 3.7-2).
Geo-Seismic Hazards
Ground Response
The ground motion characteristics at a particular site in the planning area, resulting from a
particular earthquake, will depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the
energy source,the magnitude of the event, and the site-specific geologic conditions. In general,
bedrock areas will experience ground shaking of higher frequency, shorter period, and lower
amplitude. Structural damage resulting from shaking tends to be worse for structures located on
unconsolidated deposits, such as the area underlain by. Bay Mud. As discussed below,
earthquake ground shaking may have secondary effects on certain foundation materials,including
liquefaction,seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading.
In April 1995, the Association of Bay Area Governments released maps showing estimated
Modified Mercalli intensities for communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Region. Figure
3.7-3 shows earthquake intensity forecasts at Rodeo for a magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the
Hayward fault. The ABAG map is digitized, with a grid cell size of approximately five acres.
3.7-8
�,,:• • • ''.qk•\.�►v� :!Y-A'7! via-v.•.
ay.„L ~., � •A,{; :rli�:V.w,.•�•M-ar;Vi V�•�.
;.}'','�r'?J,+,�',;;:•�-i-_'. ,,ypOK��M�'�, •i�j''���.!Y'�•Kit 1 icy
Ask
•Y '•
r :i ♦�'f J..?.4v
w •H'
is .J: 3\•.R ir�.b
r•• Y ♦'+"!
•.'r•'s AV6 w f•r.x='a
* A:I !�Jrv' E.� w v a•w', /r r,•Y'.{
'>. Y< !•ilk A ••t a J•I i�r••`4'r:i'V+C!t.4•I•>- r. \' ,}<r'
! .yy �� J I-Y ♦��. [.'I'N'r.'A11.i,>.'..�•Y Q'�•J 'I a ♦, :
•\;.� :S},.w.'.Y- 'a .Y�: Y Y Y Y A t a' ,.
'• •i lr • r J�.Sy,`.}'4.1►.sir i`. r t•-d.-f.i;'A M a.•}V..r ! '...
r:.yF X•'< {� a a •'L•y L A`.,.i7•a•i.a'!.a.'r a v,;t,} r t r i. •a a a
r�" Aa;:% w! ••' i•>fttY arY7\yM,. ` _ ` •Y i
rij ?•C 4 /•Y w.•.y r'.Y.r.a•I. t
v -r..• L� / - v Y. .}, �', ., i It+.x •r >_ t r•v{. .• ♦ tf
,y Y }:¢ •'Y>,?,Y<EJ► •v`ic w r r i•-v`w v�t r i.r•w.• 's! w';�r,�►
w X• �a.ti t•' t J► 4•�R C•7+ v nu.ra4 rr'> i♦4 4:v♦ i•}.i.i{.• i a v.v LY.✓1•x'C: L!t
San Py r. w� a �s yait '�►'Y - '•. •i r aF':�Y.K �.4: .ar,.,v-a`:♦�,a x •'••» L,: •
!' 4 A v•i y: r w x a Y Y4M!stir A:♦.e-. 4r;7if tip s♦ a•r�j r'1'a r•�`•'L t Y" ~
• '�� X '•Mw•>r'>L x y►Y♦a:>i" :J A'X'E x• 4-•• ,y / i r ♦ .•
• <{�}• Y A'K.L'.'t Y�4'r'�-N Y 'Y ?-•'a•s. � +'A•{♦� y Y •r
• '?+:^�.,t.,, •{ a♦ ,Ey, r•.•.Y .. *,a,•.r •J.r a L•ti• /•J • <••♦
ablo Bay
<�4.+'f •� A.Y'�t. Y�•.• .7f•� '•1 w A f..r'•'<•Y•;,>>rY<s'.•i 4's't w
•'3► ♦x{4 • }1 J►�1a.i t + r• 4 y t .. .�. •...'!•'•♦ >:..,••/ a .., ;.
4.«,.. /'�. .♦A Y.�' t I' A.'- •�,<•:1i- Y::.I •},ti.::r l'.,,n y�,.,,,.'-.r'. ♦w L-y o.
w' A w 4y \•J.r':r ♦A r,w•[a.a a'�f•r n :>: v r..a•♦ ♦ r
t✓ .Y,'�'' w•Y•' `�'M• A r.\'it Y' v'K'Y l.:J.Y••.'M•.\}V.I�.\'rM". J�a.. ..�+y
x•a .•4:`` •.V-';F 4 }••Y .•Y. •'J.Y Y. -A'..,-• r . .M- y
•'>�•-/ A,} .a.L V\'V• 'J'�•V w•J V)..Y!. :Y'M Y.\J'i•t f''a
wjw
y,.L •'r•.i ti' r. C•X.i ii)',•.S►O♦ .t>•' t}Y Y t''y.:Yt.'Y!r?.'a.... :Y♦.•t
<•r•<' 4 St•.y jr t v t,tiY• y:v' ♦r y.L v♦-A Y••J'•[ Y ti L- ♦!x••
jt`!7.;ir J am' a•t.A ->% r a ti a r Y'-0k�.J'• ;"A,.30' •s '[.. i ✓. i.
ti v r Y,
w 1}.{r.E.:�'n A�>ar' ''1t+ ri• f•w� •}•' .,� 4 r�► v%• f r r ♦' •
y J�:rV.,a..•y .J:r. A'," }' r }?Y:,t- V J r••a /a a!r•`a►:•• r•• ,«
'.Ia r•w V;�\t }r> :� •}�,Y �.',�•' • r r Y.r r•? a.• w .}• r
• • ;}.• Yf.Y:1(' ��Y X'A\ Y'w•:.•` •Y.'J; `. r.• 'r.Y
»`w.J vf?L Y.4 r.i4•a•+%'r~a Ad'�I•' w "< i'f►/t• Y.' .+F i•
•.a w••,''A.•yY. I�V I I. "'•.Sr k J•r•.x •'"II' +•M' Y �w,L, /••A �i .• • .V M.•: 'yL'.I'i'•{C MY Y e'
46
Y ra 30 E••\a
A� Aw
/
.•
•• r Y♦w.♦r• r Y• V Y-V •v.•r �• : at♦r}Y.- ,•i+y•i t.• I:
r ♦ r •J [ w a',� y J •a a; J{••11 < �..i w.• •r ti.aa 7l•r Y r.. �. �.
•M-:fr.'.i.: r r • .♦. r•r•.�`: C
•A-�a bi' •.r:Y •• w y,'•.• i a• �.+ r
i Y Y♦Y i
..J {yam�`,;•.. r .�•'r • w Y ? r a v f•'i a 4i �'<-1/ ♦1. �i r a' +� i r� ��•
v i�Y.t !;�!!��!t! / L• a!A ` ^'•Yr } "•a. w a
S•! i[a�►"1:'�r0••Yk v i'A' Y'�• M• w s'I.i r X• r .. r i•.'w
I• r a'-'/♦ri It.r:v w r a ♦ Y r • A •q}_ �Y• .♦Y r:•.•.J;•A•'a i •� •
• L Y r. .1 .Y >•-• L' r .Y a I•i*r.a.t�.i\•r�.'.K r''A Y V •r .*{. Y•T i�h•.
•I � • J r S+ L•.. �' �• 'Y•a i•.• , -s w -A Y :.•.J•'a. } V I • f
•..t• .•I.. :.•..r A.r t*. t
A•• '.Y • Y . A .. ,r• .. r.
"• / • !'a•- •Y h k v,.\ t w Y w�� .Y w''+i• 'w••r'r•. r♦'r Y<•�v i ,./y• .. i a
a V
L a•!:• a. AV Y \ r r a
♦ Y a•r iY!•> t tA :.r...}: J ♦�i vJa•w ti • V�iv • � .r J
10
'a M">t, I.�`. A a Y♦•'r •Y♦ .,! A IfIV
'\ J a • ,.x 4 /-A * » a•,
'• • •w•.r ra`r
It
a:a A• J •'. .w •}. -At L':y:'Yf J• Y \ i• ♦ . ..w 'i r► �.n; r: .'♦!
�• ••JL •Arf aJ, a i • • . A•aA \Y•1: . r�A' .'1►ri a�• 'a � ' \ .. . •
a , • ,1. .. , , it.�•�w♦ !•.«Y''►>V• '.r a i a v
r r.. ♦ .Y. r• .� `.. a r • ••- ,.a
v ra Y� r a r r r� j,,I a«, • A
Y .. ! ♦ ... y t .. i.`r f a•i.► w .a 7a r w r •• • ,. +..
r i r. •v r • • r >1b
^► AIw v r l .v
Y:Y�♦, ♦ a - r.': •A- .a L'J •r' warvw•• •1
,.J.'. •., ♦ A••• Y•• . • ' w•A 'a•' a: t• Y '•f• .•.' s ♦•.�• •t•s
r.w ..
< • • ♦ Lr• r• •L
a M.'r r♦ I i.n•r r A• r•.{J.4 ♦Jl♦. •• • . V • : •J' •-
r �•• i 't' I .a a•.a I'a•'
10
Ak
.•I^ ; a /. •.Y,: '. � ' Y.•.�• .�... r r . • r'•J• a •-♦ `'•'Yip�� •
J ! A r i •. r a a' .a. w
�»!Y r ♦ a• A.'\..'. ..• •a :J A•L L y.• . w.• r a•I• •♦ `t w' ••r v '�
w • Y •Y•:} • •'i 'r `rr . A :. •Z a • • w . r• J . ,
.a M » h r♦ •r �• t J\''♦'a 1 1 s i , a . w
r a r.:`•1!Cr. •.w • A�.'J !. /,•� E. r r :.•, ♦
31
16
'w r A .••'.�(. I a ti/� !� . a • •!�A Y '..L� `• 'a I''IF 'a r J
w i + r r♦ t '.• •.L.•.'/. '�: •.♦ 1•`r r .\ •r.r J'Y • ! (• L j..a.a'.•,. •• .-
�.y''.a '•.a V A: '4•'}•A•f f��•- ,/r A�� 1 ♦.♦ ♦. y• L r L .` l - ..• •.
• • [•r aY v» J • �••�" �•. t a •♦ .a e• Y ':•y t x•7 A 1 i 7a Y a J Y•♦ ♦,. ♦•. •'h 11.
.\. a• : "• �•'• ` Y' r..• a s r. I -i`fi r'.!i.�1 A Y 4 Y
•-..4/`.w v r -"• } •• •La- •• A,Lir ,`, ;,i•� :.,
�w•,• ,.. a :�• •Y �a `w..I i I ` A v� •r•. Y J a• • Y A x •Y r.J �,Y! ..Y i a«
r . .r •f.t .. •h••V .•,Y•..• i•..•r..I•.• Y' • •I♦. a'♦I�r 7 J L ♦ • ,
• J. r�r.J'..•• a•r.•♦•• ♦a./• r'♦r': \�•�. r..♦r y a Y•'\ .. i I': ..
•i..I•..•}. ..`r♦w v �.t`.•.•r. / [= v r r'r a• a� r r f••a r• •. �'•• 1 E•r r
4, r• r � i . .,..• ♦♦.•' •a•♦... ! ♦♦ �.a r L �:.r'r Jl'> •J w.v a r a . I'.'. -` «♦
a i i s•,Y i J J.♦A Y a r L r ♦ a•' L•
w a I _ i a •r •. a•;.•.♦E' ♦ w r e a l i *• -•
• � �I .r r • ,. � r J\• a r '• '.-r♦ •I A a I a••A Y A• ••r
•I~ J•L r r y•�, • a .• A •i • •/a"•'••I I• ♦•.••.,• `J •J r.. I i.'.• • «
•�Y Y A r l••A`t ♦.'t � . s y ••• » ./•r Y i •♦ / L• Y .r •• • • •
44
01
•••'••i.b v r`i 4 .. w 'r♦- • r •rA '.•Y..'w Y a•r♦ ♦ � ♦',. .X♦J '•Y ,'it a+Y x ti a Y a s r••a
.} •r.Y• •. A J '• •\. ♦ 1 A ♦ ♦ .r ✓ ..r , • r.. ., w a\. a .•a♦ L
•i w•Y Y ♦A J y . ../ r / •J •y !♦ . •. .�• J.•A•••.�1►w I ''' <, t a '/• a
•♦ • ♦a r / •!.V •J.y •!.>. Y Y a I ay' •.t+i•t a. :-...•'J !
•,i\ ..'•: '• 4'a..,'a•. • .• L I••., .I,a•}• *''• • ' •'I.. • •',.••, •. �1 w /•:.► ,ti 1 A r• ♦•• .• , •
• a'I I r`t
Ir'. ..• y a♦ • a•r• '. ',• r 'I r '. • r • • •• r. a r• r'�/ ♦ •,• � r�»' I : .• • ••'' •r.• ••• ••� r y r a
• • L A a '1 4 r t y ;>� M
J. ,• •• '��.• • J• •r•• •Y r. •r•,`:•i ,i r♦r •+�• � ,• ••.•-w 4 » • I�� J` .• • ti• • •♦'» '`••�
J•.a� ..�. ..,`� •/'.' ...• L f �+♦ •• .i J f w•.{ a• r. • a.a��• y r'i ,r a +.'.r ,-
Legend;
San Pablo Bay
IX-Heavy
VIII-Moderate
VII-Nonstructural
Figure:31-3
Modified MercalleIntensityMa nic cage
10
Source;ABAG (1995) '"m o socr 1OW 2OW
.may�,,\•
W
w
The boundary of the Specific Plan area is indicated with a thin black line. The predicted
intensities vary with geologic materials, with amplification of ground shaking forecasts on soft,
-water saturated Bay Mud;and superior forecasts for solid bedrock.
TABLE 3.7-3
MODIFIED MERCALLI IIN'FENSITY SCALE
I. Not felt Marginal and long period effects of large earthquakes.
II. Felt by persons at rest,on upper floors,or favorably placed.
III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be
recognized as an earthquake.
N. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks,or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking
the walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows,dishes,doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the
upper range of N wooden walls and frames creak.
V. Felt outdoor,direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed,some spilled. Small unstable objects
displaced or upset Doors swing,close,open. Shutters,pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop,start,change rate.
VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows,dishes,glassware broken.
Knickknacks,books,etc.,off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and
masonry D cracked. Small bells ring(church,school). Trees,bushes shaken(visibly,or heard to nestle).
VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to
masonry D,including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster,loose bricks,stones,tiles,
cornices(also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds;
water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete
irrigation ditches damaged.
VIII Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to Masonry C;partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B;none
to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting,fall of chimneys,factory stacks,monu-
ments,towers,elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down;loose panel walls
thrown out Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of
springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes.
IX. General panic. Masonry D destroyed;masonry C heavily damaged,sometimes with complete collapse;
masonry B seriously damaged. (General damage to foundations.) Frame structures,if not bolted,shifted off
foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks
in ground. In alluvial areas sand and mud ejected,earthquake fountains,sand craters.
X. Most masonry and flame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and
bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams,dikes,embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of
canals,rivers,lakes,etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.
XI. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service.
XII. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air.
Masonry A: Good workmanship,mortar,and design;reinforced,especially laterally,and bound together by
using steel,concrete,etc.;designed to resist lateral forces.
Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar;reinforced,but not designed in detail to resist lateral forces.
Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and moartar;no exmme weaknesses like failing to tic in at corners,but
neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces.
Masonry D: Weak materials,such as adobe,poor mortar;low standards of workmanship;weak horizontally.
3.7-9
According to Figure 3.7-3, Modified Mercalli intensities east of Parker Avenue and south of
Second Street are forcast to be IX(NIlVIIX). For the remainder of the Specific Plan area,MM VII
intensities are forecast. The maps are not intended to depict risk to individual structures, because
ABAG does not have site specific information on geplogic conditions, nor have they reviewed
0
building plans of specific structures. Nevertheless,the map is used for depicting the general risk
within neighborhoods. By comparing ABAG's inventory of nonreinforced masonry structures
(Figure 3.74)with the Modified Mercalli Intensity Map (Figure 3.7-3), it 0possible is to make a
preliminary estimate of damage potential. Masonry structures subject to shaking at Modified
Mercalli Intensity IX or X are subject to heavy damage or collapse. Table 3.7-3 provides a
description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
The County General Plan contains a map which is titled "Estimated.Seismic Ground Response".
It divides the County into four damage susceptibility categories, ranging from Zone 1: Lowest
Damage Susceptibility, to Zone 4: Highest Damage Susceptibility. The General Plan places the
planning area in Zone 4,which is defined as follows:
Areas mantled by modem sediments of the San Francisco Bay Estuary
and Delta lowlands. These weak,water-saturated deposits possess many
adverse engineering characteristics. Earthquake stability poor.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a specialized form of ground failure caused by earthquake ground motion. It is a
condition occurring in water saturated, unconsolidated, relatively clay-free sands and silts
triggered by hydraulic pressure. Soil particles are forced apart and into quicksand-like liquid
suspension. In the process, normally firm but wet ground materials are transformed into semi-
liquid mixtures.
The loss of strength by a liquefied soil can trigger foundation failure of man-made structures,
instability of slopes and lateral spreading of level ground. The increase in pore water pressure
within the soil results in the upward flow of water. Evidence of liquefaction observed during past
ftwo. tanks;earthquakes include the floating of embedded structures such as .10e; as well as the tilting and
settlement of buildings. As the pore water pressures dissipate,the sand densifies,causing ground
surface and structural settlements. If he soil deposit is dry and cannot liquefy, vibratory shaking
from earthquakes may still produce compaction and accompanying structure settlement.
Historically, ground failure in its various forms, including liquefaction, has been a problem in
areas of continually wet,unconsolidated geologic units. In Contra Costa County,the areas which
are most susceptible to seismically triggered ground failure include the geologically young
sediments of the San Francisco Bay and the lowlands adjoining San Pablo Bay,as well as recent
stream channel deposits. Liquefaction cannot occur in deposits of dense sand or clays. Soils
prone to liquefaction include loose to medium dense sands and silts occurring below the
watertable. Liquefaction of coarse gravels is because they am highly permeable and
*Is's
dissipate excess pore water pressures rapialy.
In the late 1980's, Contra Costa County retained Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC), a ,,..�
geotechnical firm, to analyze available borehole and published data, and develop a liquefaction
3.7-10
+ ►
M 1
v •.
1.0 WI,.
IL
A
�-� •�t tri'- '`�--.�.i�1'�'''��1-•�t�
/ I Com,'',,,1 .S. a,, t.���,.. l'�L ►�/ -OR
_ .
-w -- r
_ 00,
!' �1
4 TP
♦ �� \ •�. , ( 1. I 'sS C �. .•
ZA
lipw/
bLet`►,t' `� a,�.� 1 G. � � t r r+rte i•. � \ ��
'♦♦ �+�5. ,tom ;-..,.
-Ap-, •'r -:s, `t,�.;,,� rl > r '',�
.L„15�'T���• t 1 • 1t • 1", �.•��R_`\ �J/~/ ��r" `.. �i SLI �rr---^ �T��,i` �� •
AVI
� .�;,+-•� �,�f''•� f�
d Nis IV
lift
4,1
10
01
Ok
01
Ij
AWI
I 0,
or
' i • j
AA
'�,,,{..tom +~i •J � pp� } �-� ���?�T.� T ' •A 1�' ♦•rte �
1 ''.''yr.r,•�. ../ /. - --.Ir f• 7 fir« w At'
1\�/4, 1
4'01,
0 to
57- N�
Ff '`
4 f1,14111,
,�/ �, �/ ,. �r, ./��t Imo'•''i�bf''� i�r►f�"�•�!-1`'/.`.� 'i'
♦ '.� `.A, `` `•E rff, yt w•�I'
dv
� 1/ 111 111
4
41
f P3h h • •. !.
rfAv. t t •
�QI► !
•t,� f San Pablo...
vre.
'LVF .r •M.«wM.www.r►.wrr.ar.+�..w�.a..� 401 •
.!�'• f
•a• !!• � • •MN•MMM•r►M�wwaAwMl �.y•••....•y•�•.•.••.,s-...,'.••.•.•:.-
• ,,tltr• r:h
lip rt t J t• .a.a...,....... . ..•a................................ ''
f r•' .!!
2
405
r+ .:l r .tit• t!••f 40 ♦•
•�'♦y` .It Jlr . tt. ... •h�•••h.••••.•.. •.y•y••-.•...•h.a w..,•-.....-.,.a.............
• �� •Qom• . :• '
IL
221
406
41
y J h. •o.••• ..•.•.•••.s•• ••• ••. ♦y.•.••.•.• ......• ..
t' ........
'a+ 1 . ..••. •......... •. •l f..•y 40W7
. .........210
.......•...• .....
• •w• t
•. �` .. - ....... ....... ....•.. ,......•.... •.,..•....,..,.. ..,......
.21 09 41
4 • •'h .. '•• t••.•.•. •. •• w••
16. .
41'2
•' 41
20 '` . ... ......... ....•..}..e..•... : •Jam•.•
41409
! r•
1
206
�. 4.1
31
• 2316%
...� '-
•.. . 02
2
321
�~ 03 i
2 y
1'
2
204102
220
104'...*.. a 1133
•4
t,
s LOW-
00011.
i Scale
API Aft
�r�ph
AM a
uce•�•
F�9
a
k
B
census .........
profile of the overall Specific Plan area.) Table 3.11-1 summarizes the population and housing
unit growth in this census tract as well as for West County and Contra Costa County. Census
data indicate that the population of Tract 3580 decreased slightly between 1980 and 1990, while
West County grew by 16.6 percent and the County as a whole grew at 22.4 percent. According to
the 1990 Census, the Specific Plan area constitutes only 5.5 percent of the population of Tract
3580.
TABLE 3.11-1
GROWTH RATES FOR HOUSING AND POPULATION
Cercus Tract 3580 West County Contra Costa Co.
Population % Population % Population
1980 4,508 182,845 656,380
1990 4,476 -0.7 213,268 16.6 803,732 22.4
Cercus Tract 3580 West County Contra Costa Co.
How Units% Housing Units% HouSinaUnits%'r
1980 1,805 71,495
1990 1,884 4.4 83,329 16.6 3161,170
Source: 1990 Census
According to the 1990 Census, there were 1,813 households in Tract 3580. Of those, 1,247 were
considered families. The occupancy factor for dwelling units was 2.47 persons/household and
2.91 persons/family. The previous EIR estimated 87 housing units within the Specific Plan Area.
The 1990 Census Block information estimates 142 housing units in the blocks entirely within the
Specific Plan area. Additionally,half of Blocks 201 and 416 are in the PIanning Area. There are
no residences in the portion of Block 201 that is in the Specific Plan area. Four older residences,
a montesori school (formerly a single family residence)and a mobile home park(approximately
27 trailers/mobile homes) are located in the portion of Block 416 that is within the planning
area. The discrepancy between the 1990 EIR and the Census are not reconciled by the available
data.
The median household income of Census Tract 3580 in 1989 was 529,604. This was 34 percent
lower than the County-wide median of$45,087. Median income for renter households in Rodeo
in 1994 was $25,700.2 In 1990, approximately 23 percent of Cercus Tract 3580 households
earned less than 50 percent of the 1994 median renter income for Rodeo and thus could afford
rents of no more than X235 per month. Average rents for Rodeo in 1994 were estimated at$4593
The 1990 Census
Ma 2,804 housing units and 2,702 households in Rodeo. Table 3.11-2
provides housing and population characteristics of Rodeo and other west county communities. In
1993, Urban Decision Systems estimated the number of households in Rodeo had increased by
25, since the Census. By 1998 the consultant projected that the number of households in Rodeo
will decrease to approximately 1 percent below the 1990 housing unit figure.
I drivaby count,Darwin Myers Associates July 1, 1995
2 CCC AB 1290 Implementation Plan p.40
3 CCC AB 1290 Implementation Plan p.41
3.1 1-6
TABLE 3.11-2
COMPARATIVE CENSUS SUNIMARY
Rodeo Crockett Hercules Pinole West Total
County County
Housing 2,9804 19552 59652 6,496 83,329 3169170
Units
Households 2,702 19418 5v308 6,1259 79,228 3009288
Population 7,589 3t228 169829 179,460 2139268 8039732
Persons per 2.81 2.25 3.17 2.79 2967 2.64
household
median 1819692 185,9036 227,1756 202t671 191s796 2549100
value
owner
occupied
housing
median rent 459 459 880 655 549 613
%vacant 3.6 8.6 6.1 3.6 4o9 500
housing
%owner- 63.6 58.2 87.2 77.2 61o4 67.6
occupied
% 293 19.,4 30.1 25.1 25.7 25.1
population
under 18
% 10,9 16.2 4,5 908 1109 1009 -r
population
over 65
median age 33.3 37.5 32,4 35.2 33,8 34,2
median 38,919 38,750 569098 459820 369637 45,087
household
income
% 93 4,9 2.1 3.7 11.8 73
population
below
Poverty
Source: 1990 Census
The Census found 84 vacant housing units in Tract 3580 (4.5% vacancy factor). Of these, 15
dwelling units (17.9 percent)were for rent, none were for sale; 31 dwelling units (36.9 percent)
were for seasonal or recreational use,and 38 dwelling units(45-.2 percent)were otherwise vacant.
Of the County's housing stock, 5.0 percent was vacant at the time of the 1990 Census (43.6
percent for rent, 21.4 percent for sale, 8-.1 percent for recreational or seasonal use., and 26.9
percent otherwise vacant).
Of the owner occupied households in Tract 3580 reporting their length of tenancy to the 1990
Census, 24.3 percent had moved in between 1985 and March 1990; and 39.0 percent had been
living in the house since before 1970. Data on owner-occupied units, on a County-wide basis
indicate that 41.1 percent moved in between 1985 and March 1990; and 20.6 percent moved in
3.11-7
before before 1970. Tennants in rental units typically change their place of residency more often
than home owners. Residents of Tract 3580 who rent their housing unit were more likely than
most of the renters County-wide to have lived in their rental unit for over five years; only 65.2
percent of renters in Tract 3580 had moved in between 1985 and March 1990 compared to the
County-,wide average of 82.2 percent.
In 1990 there were 87 residential units in the Specific Plan Area.4The text of the Specific Plan,in
discussing the dwelling unit yield of the S/C Plan and PRD Plan,forecasts 220 to 265 townhomes
and multi-family units. That estimate does not including a senior housing project. The only
redevelopment project on the horizon is a 50 unit senior housing project,which is in the pl.anning
stft ages. The lot yield and even the site have not yet been established. If it were approved and
developed,the Specific Plan area could conceivably yield up to 315 dwelling units.
The adopted General Plan designates some of the land in the planning area for residential uses.
Table 3.2-5 presents estimated residential holding capacity of the planning area based on the net
acreages of each residential land use category. The allowable densities in each residential land
use category are presented in Table 3.11-3.
TABLE 3.11-3
ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
IN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CATEGORIES
Density
S=bgl Description (Units/net acre)
SH Single Family Residential,High Density 5.0-7.2
ML Multiple Family Residential,Low Density 7.3-11.9
MM Multiple Family Residential,Medium Density 12,0.,21,9
MH Multiple Family Residential,High Density 22,0,-29o9
Residential Lot Yield
Although the text of the Specific Plan estimates lot yield for the PRD and S/C plans, the
assumptions used to generate lot yield are not presented. To provide insight into the Specific
Plan's estimate,residential holding capacity can be determined by multiplying the net acreage of
each land use category by the high and low end of each density range. Using this approach,the
adopted General Plan yields 105 to 161 dwelling units. The Public Review Draft plan yields 1 1 1
to 425 dwelling units. The StafflConsultant plan yields 139 to 468 dwelling units. The General
Commercial plan yields 30 to 176 dwelling units. The wide range is due primarily to uncertainty
on the dwelling unit yield of land designated Mixed Use(MU)5,.
4 Extrapolated from the Rodeo Area Redevelopment Plan EIR: Housing and Jobs by Analysis Zones p.44-
45.
s Properties designated Mixed Use(MU)are to be considered residential if the parcel lacks 100 feet
frontage along the street. Parcels with 100 or more feet of street frontage may be utilized for a commercial
or office use. In the MU category,residential densities are limited to six dwelling units per net acre if the
parcel is less than 12,000 square feet. Allowable density increases with lot size to a maximum of 30
DU/net acre if the parcel is greater than 24,000 square feet. MU may be developed with first floor
commercial or office,and residential uses above.
3.1 1-8
DenniV Bonus
01
Adopted General Plan policy (Housing Element Program 2.6, page 6-110) allows for an
additional 25 percent residential density if 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower.-income
households;or 10 percent of the dwelling units are affordable to very-low income households;or
if 50 percent of the units are for senior citizens. Applying the density bonus to the upper density
limit for each land use category would allow a maximum unit yield under the adopted General
Plan of 198 dwelling units; the Public Review Draft plan would allow a maximum of 542
dwelling units;the Staff/Consultant plan would allow a maximum of 597 dwelling units; and the
General Commercial plan would allow a maximum of 220 dwelling units.
Affordable HQusina .
State law requires ABAG to determine housing needs for all income levels so that each
jurisdiction can provide for its "fair share" of housing for each income group. As defined by
ABAG, the "very low" income category corresponds to household incomes up to 50 percent of
median income for the region as determined by the Census Bureau. The "low" income category
corresponds to household incomes of 51 to 80 percent of median income. The "moderate"
income category corresponds to household incomes of 81 to I20 percent of median income; and
"above moderate" corresponds to household incomes greater than 120 percent of the median
income.6
For determining Fair-Share Housing Affordability, ABAG averages 9-county Bay Area, county �
and city median incomes from the most recent census to determine the median income applicable
for de0 termining the.Fair-Share affordability. In the case of an unincorporated community like
Rodeo,ABAG has the option of using the median incomes from the unincorporated area county-
wide or Rodeo could be treateUAm
d as if it were a city. Specifically,Rodeo is a"Census Designated
Place"and could be treated as if it were a city for the purpose of determining Fair-Share Housing.
The Bay Area had a median income of$41,591. Contra Costa County had a median income of
$45,087. Rodeo had a median income of$39,120. The average of these three median income
figures is$41,933.
If median income is assumed to be X41,933, "very low" income corresponds to households
earning less than $20,967 per year; low income households are those with annual incomes
between$20,96'7 and$33,546. Low income households will legally be considered overburdened
by rents exceeding 28%of their income. A household earning less than$20,967 per year will be
considered overburdened by monthly rent of 5524. A household with an annual income of less
than X33,546 will be overburdened by a monthly rent of X839. Median rent in Cercus Tract 3580
was$468. In general,renters in Census Tract 3580 are not over-burdened by rent.
AB 1290 (1993) amended to the California Redevelopment Law to require 15 percent of all
housing developed or substantially rehabilitated by a Redevelopment Agency be affordable to
low and moderate income households and an additional 15 percent be affordable to very low
income households. When housing is developed or substantially rehabilitated in a project area by
public or private entities other than the agency,including entities receiving agency assistance and
6 general plan p.6-21
3.1 1-9
housing built without any agency assistance, 15 percent of the total number of units must be
affordable to low and moderate income households. Of those units, 40 percent must be
affordable to very low income households. This requirement translates to 6 percent of the total
units developed/substantially rehabilitated7 by private development projects must be affordable to
"very low"income households(i.e. 40'/o X 15%=6%).
Between 1990 and 1994 a total of 29 housing units were built in the Rodeo Redeveopment Area,.8
Fourteen of the units were multifamily and were built between fifth and seventh street, along the
north side of Parker Avenue. The other 15 units were single family residences built on scattered
parcels throughout the Redevelopment Area. All of the units were market rate and were built
without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. Thus the Agency has an affordable
housing debt of two very low income housing units and three units of "very low", "low", or
"moderate" income housing. This debt is intended to be met along with its 15 percent affordable
housing production requirement for any new housing on an aggregate level during the 10 year
compliance period 1995-2004.9
As mentioned previously,the Redevelopment Agency is considering development of a 50 unit+/-
senior housing project within the Specific Plan area. It is not clear how much Agency funding
would be involved in subsidizing this project, and the rents for'these units have not been
established. Depending on how much development occurs in the Specific Plan area, the senior
housing project could meet some or all of the affordable housing requirements.
Population Estimates
During the five year period, 1990-1995, there have been four demographic studies which
included the Rodeo area. The 1990 U.S.Census and the Rodeo Area Redevelopment EIR(1990)
included surveys with some demographic information for individual blocks, while most
information is available only for a group of blocks or larger area. ABAG and Urban Decision
Systems (UDS) prepared population and economic projections for Rodeo. Both sets of
projections used 1990 Census data. The UDS projections were for 1998 and were used by the
County's consultants in drafting the Specific Plan. Population infonzation presented in this EIR
is discussed at the block level of detail where available.
HguSehold Size and J!onulation
The 1990 Census determined the average household size for Rodeo (2.82) and for the 9-county
Bay Region (2.61). Urban Decision SystemsIO projected 1998 average household sizes for
Rodeo (2.79) and for the Bay Region (2.65). Linda Moulton, Demographer, estimates the
average household size for Rodeo will be 2.75 in 2010,since existing buildings will be older and
it is anticipated that senior housing will be developed by that date.
7 Substantial rehabilitation is defined by law as that rehabilitation which involves either three or mon
multifamily rental units,or,one or two rental or owner-occupied single family units which have received
agency assistance and which constitutes at least 25 percent of the after-rehabilitation value of the dwelling,
inclusive of land value.
8 None of these units is within the Specific Plan area.
9 CCC AB 1290 Implementation Plan p.39
10 Los Angeles demographic consultant to Redevelopment Agency
3.1 1-10
It is anticipated that the population of the Specific Plan area will dramatically increase as �`
redevelopment projects are constructed. The 1990 Census *indicates the-Specific Plan area had a
population of 245 persons. At that time,there were 97 dwelling units in the planning area. Table
3.11-4 provides the estimated population at buildout of the Specific Plan. For purposes of the
calculation we have assumed an average household size of 2.75 persons/dwelling unit. The total
number of units is based on estimates provided in Table 3.2-5,
Jobs
Employment data shows a greater percentage of persons age 16 or above not participating in the
labor force (41 percent not participating and 6.1 percent unemployment) in Tract 3580 than the -
county average (31 percent not in labor force and 5.0 percent unemployment). This may in part
be attributable to the larger percentage of people of retirement age (15.9 percent of residents of
Tract 3580 are age 65+; 10.9 percent of the County residents are of this age)(See Table 3.11-5).
Of those who responded to Census questions on employment, Tract 3580 had significantly fewer
managerial and professional specialty jobs(19.2 percent of employed workforce)than the County
as a whole (34.3 percent). This portion of the local workforce was filled primarily with skilled
craftspeople and laborers.
The 1990 Census also indicates that over 80 percent of workers in Tract 3580 drove alone to
work while nearly 10 percent carpooled and less than three percent used public transit. County
workers on the whole were less likely to drive alone(72 percent)and more likely to carpool (14
percent)or use mass transit(eight percent)than the residents of Tract 3580. Of those reporting,
70.2 percent of workers living in Tract 3580 worked within the County compared with only 60.1 --�
percent County-wide. Table 3.11.6 provides selected emvlovment,characteristics.
In 19941 ABAG projected growth for the RodeaCrockett subregion based on demographic
models and adopted land use maps. The employment forcasts of ABAG are presented in Table
3.11-7. This data indicates that the RodeaCrockett area experienced a significant loss of jobs
during the 1980-1990 period. Moreover, ABAG forcasts that the decline will continue through
the year 2000. Beyond the year 2000 employment is expected to increase, but the estimated
employment in 2010 will be less than that which existed in 1980. Table 3.11-7 forcasts that of
640 jobs will be created in the Rodeo-Crockett area during the period 2000-2010.
Implementation of redevelopment plans could,at least in part,explain the revival of employment
in the RodeaCrockett area that is forcasted to take place between 2000 and 2010. Theoretically,
the General Commercial alternative could result in a higher total employment in the Rodeo-
Crockett area because it provides proportionately higher net acreages for job producing land uses
than the other land use options being considered. However, available acreage alone will not
produce employment. There must be an economic incentive to locate in Rodeo. Furthermore,the
type of business is important. A corporation yard or warehouse use, for example, will require
considerable acreage/floor space but employ relatively few persons.
County General Plan provides factors for estimating the number of employees per gross acre for
commercial land uses. For the purpose of determination of employment generation, net acreage
and gross acreage may be considered equivalent. General Commercial(CO)is estimated to yield
160 employees per gross acre; Commercial Recreation (CR) is estimated to yield 15 employees .�
per gross acre; Office(OF) is estimated to yield 100 employees per gross acre. Mixed Use may
3.11-11
be considered CO for the purposes of estimating employment generation, although it cannot
simultaneously yield high density multi-afamily residential and commercial use. Table 3.11-08
presents a comparison of the acreages devoted to commercial uses and relative employment
capability of the land use plans being analyzed. According to this table, buildout of the Specific
Plan according to any of the four scenarios would be able to account for the total growth in
employment forcasted by ABAG for the Rodeo-Crockett area.
TABLE 3.11-4
PROJECTED POPULATION OF PLANNING AREA AT BUILDOUT
Housing Units Population
Gen.Plan 145 399
PRD Plan 292 803
S/C Plan 351 965
GC Plan 105 289,
TABLE 3.11-5
SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Tract 3580 Contra Costa County
Total Population: 49473 803,732
Total Households: 1,9813 301,1087
Total Families: 1,9247 214,677
Total Housing Units: 2,1804 316,170
Persons Per Household: 2,47 2e27
Median Age: 34,1 34,2
Age Distribution
0-17 1,158 25.9% 2019430 25.0%
18-64 29605 58.2% 5149843 64.1%
65+ 710 15,9% 87s459 1009%
Household Income,
Mean $34,424 $55,1033
Median $299604 $459087
Bas& IN,
White 80,4% 76,1%
Black 9.1°/a 9.2%
American Indian,Eskimo or Aleut 100% 0.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander 5.6% 9,6%
Other Race 3.8% 4.4%
Hispanic Origin 14.4% 11.2%
Source: 1990 Census
3.11-12
TABLE 3.11-6
SELECTED EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Tract 3580 Contra Costa CQUnri
Persons age 16+: 3,411+ 622,157
Not in Labor Force: 1,407 191,411
In Labor Force: 2,004 430,746
In Armed Forces: 0 2,9844
Employed Civilian: 1,881 406,507
Unemployed Civilian: 123 21,395
Civilian Unemployment Rate: 6.1% 5.0'/0
Occulla.lion
Managerial and Professional Specialty 19.2% 343%
Technical,Sales,Administrative Support 32.5% 34.7%
Service Ocupations 13.1% 10.5%
Fanning 2.4% 1.3%
Precision Production,Craft,Repair 18.3% 10.3%
Operators,Fabricators,Laborers 14.5% 8.8%
Place of EmnigMent
Works of Place of Residence: 14.7% 21.2%
Works in County: 70-92% 60.1%
Works Outside County: 29.8% 39.9%
Mode of Transportation jo Work
Work at Home 2.4% 3.4%
Walked 2.1% 1.8%
Drove Alone 80.8% 71.5%
Carpooled 9.8% 13.8%
Public Transit 2.6% 7.8%
Source: 1990 Census
r�
3.11-13
TABLE 3.11-7
ABAG EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS, 1980 THROUGH 2010
1980 -1920 1995 2000 2005 2010
Rodeos- 39161 29730 2t480 . 2,280 2t770 2t920
Crockett
%Growth 416 -9.2 10801 21.5 5.4
Hercules 610 29370 2,910 4,390 5t460 6,980
%Growth 288.5 2208 50,9 24,4 27.8
Pinole 39448 51020 59110 69,070 69300 69,460
%Growth 45.6 1.8 1808 3.8 2.5
Contra 2019237 305,2140 2969700 342,160 3899960 430,120
Costa
%Growth 52,1 -3,1 153 14,0 103
Source: ABAG,Projections'94
TABLE 3.11-8
EMPLOYMENT CAPABILITY OF SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVES
BASED ON GENERAL PLAN EMPLOYMENT FACTORS
Estimated Acreage
Land Use Adopted S/C PRD GC
Designation Gen.Plan Plan Plan Plan
. 241 (SCIEsI (acre
co 14.2 1.9 6.0 16,5
CR 21.4 1908 19.1 3.4
MU 0 7.7 8.3 43
OF 1.0 0 0 0
Total 36,6 29,4 33.4 24.2
Estimated Employment
Land Use Adopted S/C PRD GC
Designation Gen.Plan Plan Plan Plan
SYmlo1 (Jobs) LIObj) (i411�.1 (Jobs)
CO 2272 304 960 2640
CR 321 297 287 51
MCT 0 04232 0-1328 0-v688
OF 100 0 0 0
Total 2693 601-1833 1247,.2575 2691-3379
3.11-14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Significance criteria used in this section are taken directly from Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines,which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment
if it will:
• conflict with-adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is
located or
• induce substantial growth or concentration of population,
Section 15131 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "economic or social effects of a project
shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." Socioeconomic impacts must be
impact discussed only when the socioeconomic indirectly causes a physical impact, or the
severity of a socioeconomic impact is used to decide the significance of the physical impact.
Secondary physical impacts, such as increased u--anic, air pollution, and impacts on existing
public services and facilities caused by increases in population and housing, are discussed in
report.
R
vpU
detail in the appropriate chapters of thistrt.
Increased Housing Units
Impact 3.11-1 A yield of 361 dwelling units is expected if the Staff/Consnitant Plan is
adopted,assuming mid-range density for each residential land use category.
A theoretical mazimnm of 587 dwelling units is conceivable for the S/C Plan
assuming maximum density for residential and mixed use land use categories, and
assuming a 25 percent density bonus applied to all residential projects if 20
percent of the units are affordable housing. This is considered a less than significant
impscto
The increase in the number of housing units under the other plans would be smaller. New
housing units are part of the revitalization of this deteriorated downtown. New residential
construction will serve as a catalyst for local-serving businesses to be formed or expanded. New
housing units in already urbanized areas reduces pressure to develop in rural areas of the county
thus reducing the pressure to expand urban services beyond their current limits.
Miti¢ation Measure
3.11-1 None required.
Population Increase
Impact 3.11-2 A population of 993 residents is foreseeable if the S/C Plan is adopted.
This is based on a total of 361 units at buildout and an occupancy factor of
2.75 people per housing unit The population could grow even larger if -�.
parcels are developed at mazimum housing unit density,or if unforeseen
3.11-15
demographic changes result in a larger number of residents per dwelling
unit This is considered a less than significant impact
As discussed above, with regard to housing units, the other plans would result in a lower
population than the S/C Plan in proportion to their number of housing units. A concentration of
population in the planning area is important in providing a steady customer base for downtown
businesses.
Mitivation Measure
3.11-2 None required.
Jobs
Impact 3.11-3 Redevelopment and buildout of the adopted General Plan or any of the
Specific Plan alternatives will result in significant new employment,perhaps
raising the number of jobs in the planning area to more than 600,if
employment achieves the rates estimated by General Plan employment
factors. This is considered a less than significant impact,.
With regard to jobs-housing balance,Contra Costa County has a jobs deficit. Many workers who
live in this county commute to work in other counties. Redevelopment in Rodeo may reduce this
deficit. ABAG projects that between 1980 and 2000,the Rodeo-Crockett area will lose 881 jobs.
Redevelopment has the potential to assist in reversing this trend. A local-hiring policy may
reduce traffic on State Route 4 and Interstate 80 as well as have other benefits.
Mitivation Measure
3.11-3 None required. Increased jobs and commercial investment in the old town/waterfront
areas of Rodeo is considered a goal of the Specific Plan.
3.11-16
''�`��,
��'�'�a,
,�
4.0 UWPACT OVERVIEW
4.1 Effects Not Found to be Significant
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency determined that, beyond the issues addressed
in this report, the project would not have significant potential for additional environmental
impacts. See Appendix A,Initial Study,for information on items not found to be significant
4.Z Significant Impacts That Cannot be Mitigated
All significant impacts identified in Section 3.0 of the report can be mitigated to an acceptable
level. There are no significant unmitigable impacts.
43 Benefic Impacts
Specific Plan
The Land Use Element of the County General Plan provides policy direction intended to guide
the future development of the Rodeo downtown and waterfront areas. The proposed Specific
Plan, in combination with the adopted Redevelopment Plan for Rodeo, serves as a vehicle for
implementing General Plan goals and policies.
Gen=1 Plan Amendment
The General Plan Amendment is limited to modification/refinements to the Land Use Map for the
planning arca. No text changes are proposed.
Revitalization of the Rodeo downtown/waterfront area is a difficult task. Infrastructure and
buildings are nearing the end of their useful life, the marina area is chocked with sediment, the
site is sufficiently far from the freeway that it does not attract shoppers from nearby cities. Much
of the planning area is subject to flooding and hazard maps issued by ABAG indicate the
planning area would be subject to violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on the
Hayward fault. The Safety Element indicates much of the planning area is classified as having a
high liquefaction potential,and there is a large inventory of old buildings that represent a collapse
hazard. The Redevelopment Agency does not have sufficient funds to underwrite redevelopment
cost. It will serve as a facilitator and will fund various infrastructure improvements in support of
private redevelopment. Consequently, it is vital to the success of redevelopment that the mix of
land uses and development guidelines be such that they encourage private inve ent in
redevelopment projects. That is the purpose of the land use changes that are proposed.
I-and D 'ects
The overall goal of the Specific Plan is to attract private investment to the Rodeo area.
Redevelopment projects will provide jobs,assist in meeting housing goals,and will economically
benefit the community.
0 4.0-1
4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Introduction
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (1992) Section 15130 require the discussion of significant
cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts of the three components of the project are discussed
in the following sections of this DEM
A normal component of a cumulative impact analysis is a list of expected projects. For the
Specific Plan Area there are no known projects on the horizon. What is known is the net acreage
of the various uses. For the Specific Plan land use alternatives, these acreages are presented in
Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-5.
With regard to cumulative projects in the broader area, the 1990 Draft EIR identified the
following forseeable projects in the vicinity of Rodeo by the year 20050
Unincorporated area in the northeast quadrant of the I-80/State Route 4
interchange: a total of 202 new jobs.
• City of Hercules,in the southeast quadrant of the I-80/Willow Avenue
interchange: a total of 188 new dwelling units.
0 City of Hercules,west of 1.,80: a total of 6,678 new jobs*
The preceding assumptions represent buildout of the County General Plan and Hercules General �;
Plan. No significant new job growth is forecast for the Unocal refinery. Following construction
of the Clean Fuels project, Unocal will increase permanent employment at the refinery by nine
full-tune jobs. The Sequoia Oil Company's Pacific Refinery is scheduled to close during 1995.
The ultimate use of this property is unresolved at present.
Short Term and L.ony Term Develornnent Scs*±�r�os
The only development project currently under consideration is a senior housing facillity. It is
expected to be approximately 50 units,but its location has not yet been decided. Redevelopment
money is expected to be used to assist withetaystprojects including ed housing,
MW
rehabilitation of old commercial buildings, production of new commercial and community
buildings, infrastructure and landscaping improvements. The land use map ultimately ,adopted
will provide a range for development density, but the success of the initial projects will have a
strong impact on the success of the entire redevelopment process.
Poten ial Env'mr�mental ImM=
1. Land Use
Implementation of the Specific Plan would add significant pressure for conversion of the existing
downtown and waterfront areas to more intense residential and commercial uses. The conversion
of land uses would trigger a variety of impacts some insignificant, but cumulatively they would
increase the potential for conflicts between adjacent residential lands and Specific Plan
properties. There may also be conflicts between
existing business owners and developers of
4.0,m2
projects in the planning area. Construction activities can interfere with on-going business
operations. Some existing businesses in the redevelopment area may be forced to relocate
outside the Specific Plan area. Similarly,some existing tenants/residents may be displaced.
2. Municipal Services _
Specific Plan projects would add incrementally to the demand for public utility services (water,
electricity and gas, telephone service, solid waste, sewage collection and treatment). Similarly,
the increased population and increased inve ent requires a variety of community services
(police, fire, schools, recreation facilities). The developers of Specific Plan projects will be
required to pay a variety of fees to fund infrastructure improvements. Should ongoing project,-
Anerated.
tax revenues be insufficient to meet increasing costs to utilities and government
agencies,then the project could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts on these agencies.
3. Hydrology and Water
Specific Plan projects involve construction in a floodplain. Although buildings can be
floodproofed, roads and pipelines, as well as foundations of buildings will be subject to
inundation. Although damage and personal injury potential can be controlled though
conservative design and quality construction,there is a residual risk that can never be completely
eliminated. As more and more development occurs on the floodplain, the increased population
and increased investment adds to the cumulative damage potential.
The intensified land uses result in additional nutrients and contaminants in urban runoff. This
could incrementally degrade water quality in the lower reach of Rodeo Creek and the adjacent
portion of San Pablo Bay. This effect is also controlled by the magnitude of natural flushing
flows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,and the quality of those waters.
4. Traffic and Circulation
Although the traffic and circulation related effects of the project do not result in unacceptable
levels of service within the community, the increase in local traffic when combined with the
regional growth in traffic, results in cumulative traffic impacts. Chapter 3.4 of this Draft EIR
contains tables which indicate bow levels of service within the community will be impacted.
Increased population in the Rodeo area also has a cumulative impact on traffic on I40 and State
Route 4.
S. Visual Quality
Specific Plan projects will contribute significantly to the change in visual quality of the greater
Rodeo area. Currently the downtown area has a historic, old-town character. It consists of
relatively-small, human-scale buildings that vary in age, architectural style and height. The .
downtown area developed during a period of time when there were few planning controls and has
a decided non-urban character. The rather pastoral visual qualities of the area would be
diminished by redevelopment and urban qualities would be enhanced.
6. Biotic Resources
4.0-3
The downtown area was developed during the first half of the 20th Century. It has "urban
vegetation" and severely limited biotic resource value. Its redevelopment poses no cumulative
biotic impacts. The redevelopment of the waterfront could add to the cumulative loss of mudflat
habitat/shoreline habitat. Combined with other shoreline projects on the perimeter of San
Francisco Bay-San Pablo Bay, this could pose.a significant impact on wetland habitat. These
impacts are best evaluated on aproject-specific basis, when proposed waterfront projects are
reviewed by regulatory agencies. The Conservation Element contains policies aimed at
protecting wetland resource values.
7. Geology/Seismicity
The Specific Plan project would add to cumulative exposure of population in Contra Costa
County to seismic hazards, including ground shaking and liquefaction. Recent California
earthquakes have confirmed that nonconforming older buildings, especially non-reinforced
masonry,are a substantial part of the earthquake hazard in the urban environment. In the case of
Rodeo,the Hayward fault passes just over two miles to the southwest,and much of the downtown
area is in an area having a high liquefaction potential.
Earthquakes present a challenging geologic hazard because their mitigation raises a complex
range of issues that extend well beyond the purview of the earth sciences. In broad outline,
redevelopment offers the opportunity to reduce the life loss and damage potential by providing
economic incentives to remove collapse-hazard older buildings; and/or incentives to strengthen
those buildings that because of their historic or architectural value,must be retained. Preservation
of existing buildings generally involves'balancing economic and architectural factors against
safety. The result is that safety issues are compromized. Additionally, seismic retrofitting is
generally not cost effective for property owners or perspective developers. In summary,
redevelopment of the planning area may have a cumulative impact on emergency response
organizations,but the safety of the public would be substantially improved.
8. Noise
The cumulative impacts of the project would be limited to the Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue
corridor. This corridor is identified by the Noise Element as a significant source of traffic-related
noise (see Figure 3.8-1). With the additional traffic generated by Specific Plan projects, noise
levels will incrementally increase. For example,if the 5 5 DNL contour extends 100 feet from the
curb under prevailing conditions, it may extend 125 feet from the curb after buildout. The noise
increase may only be 2 or 3 dB,which is not a significant impact,but it is a cumulative impact.
Additionally,the project will result in intensified land uses near the AT&SF railroad track. This
corridor experiences noise levels in excess of 60 DNL (see shaded area in Figure 3.8-2).
Redevelopment will increase the number of persons exposed to 60 dB (or greater) noise levels
along the AT&SF railroad.right-of-way.
4.0-4
9. Air Quality
The project would add incrementally to emissions in the Bay Area Air Basin. While not a
&significant impact, it will make it more difficult to comply with all federal and state aw quality
standards.
10. Cultural Resources
Implementation of development plans could potentially add to the regional degradation and loss
F1&.-
of cultural resources important to the understanding ding of the Costanoan people.
11. Jobs,housing,Population
The Specific Plan area has the potential to increase the diversity of housing types in the planning
area and affect the jobs/housing balance. At buildout the Specific Plan area has the potential to
increase the population by up to 700 persons+/-,and employ up to 3,379.
4.5 Growth Inducing Impacts
CEQA requires an EIR to discuss how a project could directly or indirectly lead to economic,
• population, or housing growth. A project may be growth inducing if it removes obstacles to
growth (which would tax community service facilities) or encourages other activities causing
significant environmental effects. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily
beneficial,detrimental,or of little significance to the environment.
The Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan would induce growth within the plan area
because it would provide a new framework for development. Specifically,, it would provide
development guidelines, infrastructure and take other' actions to attract private investment in land
development projects within the planning area. The project is also expected to induce economic
growth in the 600 acre +/- redevelopment area. However, land use designation will not change
outside the Specific Plan area. Consequently,economic growth in the redevelopment area should
consist of implementation of existing General Plan policies.
0
Outside of the redevelopment area,no growth inducing impact is expected. The City of Hercules
is approaching buildout of its General Plan and there is no liklihood that redevelopment of the
core area of Rodeo will cause re-evaluation of the land use map or development policies of the
City. Lands to the northeast and east of Rodeo are rugged hillside areas that are currently outside
the service area of the Rodeo Sanitary District,and development of these lands could not proceed
without approval of general plan amendments and 0 gs. There am *
UP =�wnin numerous general plan
policies that might conflict with al of such applications, including the ULL 65/35 land
preservation standard. Briefly outlined, this adopted policy prescribes that the maximum
potential urban land in Contra Costa County is 35 percent. The urban land in the County includes
all land in cities, as well as built out areas within the unincorporated area. The Rodeo Specific
Plan area is existing urban land. Its redevelopment would not conflict with this policy. This is
not the case for open land areas in the hills northeast and east of the unincorporated community of
4.0-5
Rodeo. Their development potential would need to be evaluated in relation to other vacant lands
within the Urban Limit Lined.
4.6 Short-term Uses Verses Long Term Proguetiv.ity
The land development projects that would be expectod*to follow adoption of the Specific Plan
would gradually be developed over a period of many years. The time Same is not known, but
most of the construction is exported to take place over the next decade. The Specific Plan area
consists of 69.4 net acres. Excluding lands designated"public and semi-public"(PS)and"parks
and recreation"(PR),the remaining area available for more intense development is approatitnately
45 net acres. Implementation of land development projects would result in the following shorts-
use
hort-
use versus long-term productivity considerations.
• The project will not directly result in the loss of any agricultural or natural resource
potentials.
• In the short team,the planning area is accommodating a population of 245 persons(1990
Census). With regard to employment generating ivities.there is an existing vacancy
rate on the order-of 30 to 40 percent for commercial and retail spaces, and the economy
is stagnant. Redevelopment has the potential to increase housing and employment in the
Specific Plan area.
• The Specific Plan and GPA are consistent with General Plan Goals and Policies.
• In the short-term(i.e.during project buildout)residents within/adjacent to work sites will
be disrupted. There may be diversions of traffic,possible tracking of mud and rocks onto
roads,noise intrusion,and alteration of the visual character. Some construction projects
may adversely effect on-going businesses adjacent to work areas. Over the long-term,
some existing businesses and existing residents of the Specific Plan area may be forced
out of the planning area because of economic or other factors.
4.7 Irreversible Environmental Change
Approval of the Specific Plan and GPA,and construction of associated land development projects
implies committment of land,energy,materials and finances.
The environmental alterations which would accompany development include increased
population, additional vehicular traffic, alteration of views, and increased demand for municipal
services. These effects must be balanced against the provision of additional housing and
recreational opportunities, construction of infrastructure improvements, creation of short-term
construction jobs,and long-term revitalization of the downtown and waterfront commercial areas.
� The Urban Limit Line is'a boundary beyond which general plan amendments,rezonings and residential
subdivision will not be considered. Within the ULL there is the right to request development-related
approvals.
4.0-6
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
This chapter discusses'eight alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines 15126(d)
state that"a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project"should
be described. "T'he range of alternatives . . . is goveined by `rule of reason' that require the EIR
to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice" The following
discussion will provide decision makers with adequate information to make an informed decision.
The eight alternatives discussed are: 1)No Project(no development); 2)No Project(buildout of
the adopted General Plan); 3)Public Review Draft Alternative(PRD Plan); 4) Staff/Consultant
Alternative(S/C Plan); S)General Commercial Alternative(GC Plan); 6)Mixed Use Alternative
(MUPlan); 7)Mitigated Alternative; 8)Off-site Alternative.
Table 5.0-1 provides a comparison of the residential lot yield and population of the planning area
for the alternatives considered. There is a nearly infinite range of possibilities for lot yield and
project design. The alternatives selected for analysis are intended to be representative of this
broad spectrum. Table 5.0-2 provides a summary of the net acreage by land use category for the
Adopted GP, PRD Plan, S/C Plan and GC Plan. The information presented in this table was
compiled from Figures 2.3-2,2.3-3,2.3-4 and 2.3-5.
The net acreage of the planning area is 69.4 acres for the Adopted General Plan, PRD Plan and
GC Plan. Because of road closures,the S/C Plan consists of 71.0 net acres. This total excludes
public roads and lands inundated by San Pablo Bay. Of this net acreage, some lands are not
developable. They include the Southern Pacific Railroad corridor (9.7 net acres +/-), Rodeo
Creek right-of-way(1.0 net acre+/-), and lands of the Fast Bay Regional Park District(11.6 net
acres +/-) and Rodeo Sanitary District treatment plant (3.0 net acres +/-). Subtracting.those
undevelopable lands from the total yields approximately 44.1 net developable acres. Of this total,
approximately 17.1 acres are north of San Pablo Avenue, and another 2.5 acres are west of the
downtown,overlook Lone Tree Point
TABLE 5.0-1
COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
Dwelling Estimated
DescripliUnits Egpulatign
Existing(1990) 871 245
Alt. 1,-No Project(No Change) 87 245
Alt.2=No Project(Buildout of Adopted G.P.) 1452 3993
Alt.3-PRD Plan 292 803
Alt.4-S/C Plan 351 965
Alt. 5mGC Plan 105 289
Alt.b Mixed Use Plan 492 1,353
Alt 6 Mitigated Plan 379 1,042
Alt.7-0ff-Site Alternative - -
� Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Rodeo Area Redevelopment Plan(1990);the field
survey for this EIR counted 163 units.
2 See Table 3.2-5 and related text for methodology
3 See Table 3.11.2 and related text for methodology
5.0-1
To
�.7.t-:-1! 1 I��S�JI�1�- 1-1 � r1/�•LI_�I��.J. 1! .`/�1�1 1 � /�
--__— 111]MOM MM mlm�l—
•
1-��1■ /1 /'-.r/t ..�1 1 1 1 1�Tt.T.711� 'rC K-�1 1 1/ /1 1/ !1 1
• • 1 1 • .t 1 1 .f 1• 1
• . Elf_ C
�7.L-_,T, .���/—�•_Z11�] ` T•��__.�IJ�..1_,;1••!���T`LJ�
W-1 X"1—�.1 ••• .'��11 1��i 1 •!
— ��11•
• .K 1 1 1 1 1!� .'1 f 1 1 •/, :.r•1 1 1�1 1,' 1!
• •
is
�•1.— .=C:1 1 1•�_'1•)�C�1• T t'J i1�1 UE K 1 1
• 1f/ / 11 1.l1 11 11 1 If :C 11 •/� f/ Ii!
• • f 1 1 d 1 1 /1 1
Elm) im" MOM
c 4•• c c I MiL-IA IL
'I rli) `1�`Tf/�.�.i•/]E.I•�C f/�i]
—Mai 11 11!�C• t1 :,It 111—
_ -( WK✓
• • 1 1 • 1 X .U-711 •1 t! t
C • , C 7r�
ET
all
IDA
WIVIN
�� <:11:rJ� � •1] ��
sli
-, ® 1/ 1 1 1 1 {!!til • / 1/ 1
Regional Park,and are designated"single family residential-high density". The remaining 27 net
acres+/-constitute the downtown area.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE a
CEQA requires that EIR's analyze the no-project alternative, and case law directs that this
alternative must describe maintenance of existing environmental conditions as a baseline for
comparing the impacts of alternatives [Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency(1986) 173 Cal.App.3d
1029]. For a project such as a general plan amendment, it is appropriate to analyze two no-
project scenarios: maintenance of existing environmental conditions and future buildout under
the adopted general plan.4
Alternative l: No Change
Under the existing General Plan, if successful redevelopment does not take place,conditions can
be expected to remain blighted in the short-term and would be expected to slowly deteriorate.
Without redevelopment,undergrounding of electrical lines, improvement of roads,curbs,gutters,
sidewalks and the local drainage system would not occur. Similarly,needed improvements to the
wastewater collection system would not be expected to take place. According to the previous
EIR,the deficiencies of the existing infrastructure serve as blighting influences that makes private
investment unlikely to occur. Land values would decrease as unreinforced masonry structures
and excess commercial space remains vacant and falls into dis,' The condition of poorly
maintained properties will discourage neighboring property owners from performing needed
maintenance on their properties.
Deteriorating conditions would likely increase the need for police services and fire protection.
Flood hazards would remain unabated,and earthquakes would continue to pose a life loss hazard
to non-reinforced structures that require seismic retrofitting. Heavy storms would continue to
result in release of untreated wastewater into San Pablo Bay.
Alternative 21.* Buildout under the Adopted General Plan
Without the adoption of a Specific Plan, the existing General Plan land use map will remain in
effect, as would the 1990 Redevelopment Plan and the AB 1290 Implementation Plan (1994).
The Redevelopment and Implementation Plans call for the funding of needed improvements to
relieve blighting conditions and the funding of low income housing as required by California
Redevelopment Law, but land development projects must conform with the provisions of the
General Plan. Mixed Use(MU)projects would not be allowed because no MU designated land
occurs in the downtown/waterfront area. The flexibility inherent in a Planned Unit District(P-1
zoning) would be lost. *Approximately thirty-five acres of land would remain designated
commercial (C), commercial recreation (CR)or office (0),which_is more commercial land than
could be supported-5 Businesses would remain scattered throughout the oversized commercial
district.
4 Successful CEQA Compliance: A Step-by-Step Approach, Bass and Herron, 1994,po 73
s Keyser Marston Associates,economists,consider 3 acres of locally serving commercial development to be
viable.
5.0-3
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 39. PRD Plan
Principal Characteristics
The PRD Plan is intended to achieve all or nearly all of the existing community's priorities for the
area. The number of residential units and projected population is essentially twice that which
would be allowed under buildout of the Adopted General Plan(see Table 5.0.1). This alternative
provides 25.1 net acres of land for"commercial"(C)and"Comm recreation"(CR); and 8.3
net acres of Mixed Use(MU),at least some of which would have commercial on the first floor. If
R Pq m
30 percentOf the mixed use projects had first floor commcommercial, the total commercial-related
acreage at buildout would be 27.6 net acres. This is a 25 percent reduction from the 36.6 net
acres of commercial,commercial recreation and office designations in the adopted General Plan.
With.regard to open space, the existing Lone Tree Point Regional Park, along with the Joseph's
Resort property and the Rodeo Sanitary District's Treatment Plant are classified "Parks &
recreation" (PR). Lands designated PR amount to 16.2 net acres. The adopted General Plan
designates only 13.9 net acres PR.
Adv crac
The downtown area consists of a collection of picturesque but collapse-hazard older buildings, '�`'
most of which are on shallow foundations within an area of high liquefaction potential and
subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. Redevelopment involves upgrading of the
wastewater collection system, along with improvement to roads and the local drainage system.
Replacing the existing inventory of commercial buildings with modem construction will increase
safety, provide short-term and long-term jobs and assist in meeting affordable housing goals. It
will result in more efficient use of the Specific Plan area, and reduce pressures to develop open
space areas elsewhere in the County.
Disadvantages
A disadvantage of this plan is that it providesapproximately 25.1 net acres of commercial(C)and
commercial recreation (CR) land. Assuming commercial (C) uses are first floor only and
characterized by a FARE of 40'/0, the gross floor area of commercial (C) uses in the downtown
area would amount to just over 100,000 square feet. This is twice the total commercial floor area
that can be supported by residents of Rodeo, To state this another way, KMA estimates that the
residents of Rodeo can support 50,000 square feet of locally-oriented retail. At buildout of the
PRD Plan the population of the Rodeo Redevelopment Area will be 5,000 persons+/-, and the
location of the downtown area relative to the nearby communities makes it difficult to attract
shoppers to Rodeo. A population of this size cannot support 100,000 square feet of locally
oriented retail,
6 FAR is the ratio of gross floor area of the building to the area of the parcel. Fora 40,000 square foot parcel,
`r``-
an FAR of 4d'/o implies the gross floor area of the commercial building would be 16,000 square feet. The
remainder of the property(60'/0)would be used for parking,landscaping and external walkways.1
5.0-4
There are 19.1 acres of land designated CR. Assuming an FAR of 20%, the Rodeo waterfront
area would yield a gross floor area of more than 160,000 square feet of commercial recreation
uses. The KMA report indicates that dredging the marina would not be cost effective.
Consequently, marina-related uses(dry dock,.bait shop/tackle shop)would not be feasible. It is
not clear what uses would be feasible, except for restaurants, and the floor area required for
restaurants is far less than 160,000 square feet. Finally, the Specific Plan indicates that
development in Rodeo should be oriented to take advantage of the Bay views. Because the
downtown is nearly flat and only slightly above sea level,vigorous commercial development at
the waterfront could obstruct views or create medium to short range views that conflict with
aesthetic values (i.e. view of a corporation yard, parking lot, enclosed garbage area behind a
restaurant,etc.).
Alternative 4: StaWConsultant Plan
Principal Characteristics
The S/C Plan is intended to increase residential units in the Specific Plan area and deemphasize
commercial uses. In effect, this alternative responds to the KMA economic study which
recommended only 50,000 square feet of gross floor area for all commercial uses in the
downtown area.
The S/C Plan yields a population of 965 at buildout,which is 240'/o higher than buildout of the
adopted General Plan. With regard to dwelling units,the S/C Plan yields 351 residential units. In
contrast, the adopted General Plan has an estimated holding capacity of 145 dwelling units, and
the PRD Plan has an estimated holding capacity of 292 dwelling units(see Table 5.0-1).
With regard to "commercial" (C) and "commercial recreation" (CR) designations, the S/C plan
provides 22.5 net acres , and it provides 8.4 acres of mixed use (MU). If 30% of the MU lands
have first floor commercial uses,the total commercial acreage at buildout would be 25 acres. In
COD trast,the adopted General Plan and PRD Plan provide 36.6 and 27.6 net acres of commercial,
respectively(see Table 5.0-2).
With regard to open space,the S/C Plan provides 15.5 net acres of"parks and recreation " (PR).
Lands designated PR include Lone Tree Point Regional Park, Joseph's Resort, and the Rodeo
Sanitary District Treatment Plant (see Figure 2.3-4 and Table 5.0-2). This is 0.7 acres less PR
land than is provided by the PRD Plan. The difference in these plans is a small parcel in the
northeast corner of the Pacific Avenue/San Pablo Avenue intersection. This parcel is owned by
the East Bay Regional Park District,and is used as a parking lot. It is designated PR by the PRD
Plan and CR by the S/C Plan.
Adyanta
The S/C Plan has the same advantages as those of the PRD Flan (see discussion on page 5.0-4).
Moreover,the S/C plan provides more land allocated to residential uses and less land allocated to
commercial uses. The economic study of KMA suggests that from a purely economic
perspective, emphasis should be placed on residential development and with sufficient
commercial uses to meet local demand. Thus,the S/C plan also has an economic advantage over
both the adopted General Plan and the proposed PRD Plan.
5.0-5
Disadvantages
The S/C Plan has the same disadvantages as those of the PRD Plan. However, the yield of
commercial and commercial recreation floor space is dil-laran
t from the PRD Plan. Specifically,
in the downtown area the S/C Plan provides 1.9 acres-bf commercial and 7.7 acres of mixed use.
Assuming that 30'/0 of mixed use lands have first floor commercial,the total commercial lands *n
the downtown amount to approximately 4.4 net acres. If commercial projects have an FAR of
40'/0,the yield is approximately 70,000 gross square feet of floor area. This is slightly above the
estimate of KMA,but is generally in line with the economic forecast. The S/C Plan provides 19.8
net acres of lands designated commercial recreation. This includes a strip of land between the
SPRR and San Pablo Avenue(approximately 5.8 net acres),along with 14 acres at the waterfront.
If these lands average an FAR of 20%,they would yield a gross floor area of 170,000 square feet.
This is comparable to the floor area of the PRD Plan, and these CR uses would have the same
disadvantages as posed by CR uses in the PRD Plan.
Alternative 5.e General Commercial Alternative
Principal Characteristics
The GC Plan is based on the realization that the downtown area is fragmented into many small
parcels,the infrastructure is near the end of its useful life,most buildings are not up to code,and
the area has thus far been unable to attract investment. The population of Rodeo is too small to
support a 36 acre downtown retail district,and the infrastructure and private investment needed to ---�
accommodate several hundred multiple-family residential units may not be warranted from a
cost/benefit perspective or be functionally out of character with the surrounding single family
residential area. The GC alternative offers a much less intense land use plan. It proposes to
allow/encourage businesses which are attracted to the area because of the presence of refineries.
If the cost of land can be kept low by limiting redevelopment costs,the area could be attractive to
uses such as warehouses, lumber yards, contractors yard, and other businesses of this type. The
commercial district would also contain the existing mix of neighborhood businesses (eg. cafe,
antique shops,cleaners,professional offices and the like).
With regard to open space,the GC alternative provides 29 net acres of lands designated"parks&
recreation"(PR). Lands in this category include the Lone Tree Point Regional Park;nearly all of
the Joseph's Resort and Bennett's Marina properties except for approximately 3.4 net acres
adjacent to the SPRR bridge crossing; all lands north of San Pablo Avenue , except the SPRR
tracks and the RSD treatment plant.
Advantages
The advantage of this plan is that it would facilitate the natural evolution of the
downtown/waterfront area. Redevelopment under the PRD Plan and S/C Plan could be disruptive
to existing residents of the planning area,as well as existing businesses. The GC Plan appears to
suggest slower-keyed, less aggressive approach to redevelopment. There may be satellite firms
that desire to locate near refineries, and other commercial operations may desire to establish
operations in Rodeo if costs are kept to an absolute minimum. In this scenario the improvements
to the wastewater collection system would be made, but other infrastructure items would be
deleted unless absolutely required for public health and safety. There would be no catalyst
projects, nor would there be near-term, mid-term or long-term projects. Instead of phasing
5.0-6
development, an effort would be made toward marketing the general commercial land in Rodeo
to the business community, and the role of the Redevelopment Agency would be to encourage
and assist firms that expressed interest in this commercial district.
Di-"dvan�es
The parcel sins in the downtown area are exceedingly small. The process of consolidating
parcels, demolishing existing structures and clearing land to prepare it for a relatively low
intensity commercial use is not likely to be cost effective, and would certainly be a lengthy
process. Most firms would be unwilling to commit to such a process, unless the geographic
location and economic factors were attractive. For these reasons, the GC Plan is unlikely to
trigger any short term changes in the downtown/waterfiaont area. One disadvantage of this option
is the seismic hazard posed by the existing wireinforcod commercial buildings. Downtown
Rodeo was reportedly destroyed by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The Hayward fault is
much nearer to the Rodeo area than the San Andreas fault and poses an even greaterSeismic
hazard. Moreover,the northern segment of the Hayward fault has the highest probability of being
the source of a high magnitude earthquake among all active San Francisco Bay Region faults. A
1990 report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey forecasts a 28%* probability of a magnitude 7
earthquake on the Contra Costa County segment of the Hayward fault during the 30 year period
1990-2020. At present there are insufficient economic incentives for property owners to
undertake seismic retrofitting. In the GC Plan the major redevelopment efforts would likely
occur in the aftermath of the next major earthquake on the Hayward fault. A Loma Prietarsized
earthquake originating five miles from Rodeo would result in collapse or red tagging of the
majority (if not all) URM buildings, and many older wood frame buildings in the Specific Plan
area would be red tagged or yellow tagged.7
This alternative provides a park and recreation (PR) designation for lands between San Pablo
Avenue and the railroad,and it designates the potential site for expansion of the sewage treatment
plant (PR). It also designates major portions of Joseph's Resort and Bennett's Marina (PR).
Currently,these lands are not being considered for acquisition of neighborhood or regional parks.
Another disadvantage of the GC Plan is that it would not result in the economic revitalization
sought by the Specific Plan or implementation of the various design goals included in the
Environmental Enhancement Element.
Alternative 6: Mizell Use Plan
Figures 5.0-1 and 5.0-w2 present a concept for a mixed use project in the Specific Plan area. They
show a land use plan and a site plan, respectively. This alternative is based on the assumption
that property lines and road rights-of-way in the downtown area can be disregarded, and it
promotes an innovative concept to implement the goals and policies of the Specific Plan.
The explanation for Figure 5.0-1 provides an acreage summary for the land uses that are proposed
in the downtown/waterfront area, as well as an estimate of the percent of the total Specific Plan
area devoted to each land use. Note the "V-shaped" downtown area, bounded by Pacific and
Parker Avenues. Development in the downtown consists of mixed use(MU)and multiple family
7 Red tagged buildings are those which have sustained so much structural damage that they must be
demolished. Yellow tagged buildings are unsafe and cannot be occupied until damage is repaired.
5.0-7
.e
fL
:102.700'
147. 00 a 00 00 a
of 00
090
San P�p�p Avis.
470.000
172.100
a
163000
300
1
100
9900
1st�°°M1
388,200 gyp_ep�M� 1
4990029900 �
w
w w
49 35900
w w w
24 17�'
SY- � 11�900
� int
t
Wd
87 500
0 1`
330400
t
1 �
Note: Small arabic numbers on plan an aPProximatf rot=►aaa(in square teat)of the various uses shown.
Legend:
III&& ails
1.7% " " � " Single Family Residential-High Density-1.4 A. 0•�% Office-0.0 A.
w w w w
w w w w
00010/0 Multiple Family Residential-Low Density•0.0 A. 15.1% Public/Semi-Public-12.0 A.
�g,s�/, � Multlple Family Residential-Med.Density-14.8 A. 46.9% � Parks&Recreation-37.3 A.
0010
0.0% � Multiple Family Residential-High Density-0.0 A. 3.0% Commercial Recreation•2.4 A.
14.8% - Mixed Use-11.7 A. 0.0°k :;:;:;:;: Commercial•0.0 A.
Figure:5,.0- 1 .�
One Graphic Scale
Mixed Use Alternatives, Land Use Map Acre 0 300600
residential-medium density (MM) uses. Within the MiJ category, anticipated
uses include first
floor commercial with residences above, live-work loft style units and multiple family medium
density projects, In this scenario, it is not necessary to isolate retail, office and residential uses.
Instead, the uses are integrated. The design of the project would have strong architectural
controls to achieve design compatibility and retainv outstanding architectural elements that are
typical of the existing community.
The interior portion of the V-shaped downtown is utilized for open forms of land use, as is the
arrow belt of land just south of the railroad corridor. This allows views of the bay from most
downtown buildings. Figure 5.0-2 is a Site Plan which shows a development concept for the
downtown/waterfront that is based on the land use map presented in Figure 5.0-l. The
characteristics of the Site Plan will now be described.
T'ADd Use,Plan:Downtown
This map borrows ideas from the Land Use Maps analyzed by the Draft EIR. Objectives of this
plan are to allow up to 50,000 gross square feet of first floor retail in the downtown area, along
with two restaurants and limited commercial and residential uses on the Bennett's Marina
e---A.
UHL
property at the waterfront. Offices would be allowed on the first floor in the downtown area,
especially for sites not well suited for retail use. The Mixed Use Alternative assumes that the
Rodeo Fire Department would have a ladder truck, and that three story buildings over a.garage
are feasible. In this alternative,Parker Avenue has beenlelocated over a segment of the concrete
lined channel of Rodeo Creek; the rights-of-way of minor streets within the downtown have been
abandoned;and Pacific Avenue has been realigned. As a result,the net acreage of the downtown
area is substantially increased, and is not bisected by a major road. Pacific and Parker Avenues
are improved as needed to efficiently move traffic to and from the Specific Plan area. The
downtown area consists of lands bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad(on the north),Pacific
Avenue(on the west)and Parker Avenue(on the cast). The acreage of the downtown(excluding
the realigned Pacific and Parker Avenue rights-of-way) totals 25.2 acres. In Figure 5.0-2,
downtown buildings (excluding the garage) cover 4.6 acres (18 percent). Private roadways
linking the garage with public roads, and any surface parking areas, would not exceed 4.6 acres
(18 percent). Open space and decks in the downtown total 16 acres(64 percent).
With regard to Figure 5.0-2, the lowest level is to be a parking garage. Above the concrete
garage will be two story wood frame construction, and with the possibility of some three story
woodframe construction. The garage floor will be at an elevation of 0-4.5 feet (mean sea level
datum). It is anticipated that parking will be covered and uncovered (some surface parking may
be one-half level higher than the garage level). The parking garage will be the first level of the
structure and would serve as a platform for retail and residential development in the downtown.
The garage would include service connections and utilities for all functions above, as well as
provide parking for approximately 550 cars. Construction of the garage could be phased to
accommodate growth in the Specific Plan area.
The lowest structural element of the first woodframe story will be at elevation+nine feet(mean
sea level datum)or higher.Thus,all retail and residential space will be safely elevated above the
peak water surface of the 100-year flood. Additionally, ground improvement measures will be
taken to mitigate the liquefaction potential prior to any construction. A large proportion of the
buildings will have views of the bay and/or of the Rodeo waterfront. Also, note the setback of
buildings in the downtown from Pacific and Parker Avenues. The setbacks shown range from 20
5.0-8
to 100 feet, and average 40 to 50 feet. The EBRPD Shoreline Trail is shown meandering along
the northernmost portion of the downtown area. Palm trees would be used as accent trees.
Within the downtown area Figure 5-0w2 shows approximately 200,000 gross square feet of floor
area on the first story level. Of this area, 50,000 sq m'* re feet is available for retail and offices.
The remainder of the first story level could be used for residences or livo-work style units.
The second story and any third story space would be used exclusively for residences. The second
awry would have a floor elevation of approximately +21 feet and would have an estimated
200,000 gross square feet. The third story would have a floor elevation of+ 31 feet and could
have approximately 100,000 gross square feet. With regard to residential holding capacity, the
first story could accommodate 135 residential units 4F
(includinga livawork units), second and
third stories could accommodateapproximately 200 and 100 residential units,respectively.8 The
in
total yield of residences n the downtown is approximately 435 dwelling units. This translates
into a residential density in the downtown area of 17.25 dwelling units/net acre. If the third storyis eliminated from the concept, residential density of the downtown would be 13.3 dwelling
units/het acre. The arrangement of buildings in the downtown area is intended to maximize views
of the bay. The second and third story units
are sufficiently elevated to ensure that views from the project are unobstructed.
Land Use Plan: Waterfront
The marina would not be opened by dredging because of economic considerations. Most
waterfront land would be designated for open forms of land use. The Mixed Use Alternative Plan
shows an extension of the development pattern that characterizes the downtown area. Moreover,
the waterfront will be linked to the downtown by a pedestrian bridge over the railroad track. First
floor uses could *include two restaurants and limited commercial uses. Approximately 36,000
gross square feet of first floor commercial are shown in the three larger buildings in Figure.5.0-2.
These buildings would be one story over a parking garage which could be sized to accommodate
approximately 170 vehicles. Uses encouraged would be those taking advantage of the bay or
serving needs of persons using the shoreline trail and regional park. Figure 5.0,w2 also illustrates
the possibility of residential units at the waterfront. It shows 32,000 square feet of first floor
residential and 25,000 square feet of second story residential. The number,height and location of
these units could be adjusted to respond to the concerns of regulatory agencies and designed such
that views from the downtown toward the bay would not be compromised. Any residential units
allowed would be clustered,with substantial open space between clusters.
The waterfront development area shown for Mixed Use in Figure 5.0-1 totals 3.95 acres.
Assuming an average dwelling unit size of approximately 1,000 square feet, the residential lot
yield is 57 units(density: 14.4 units/net acre).
Development Standardcli_csign Guidelines
The exterior elevations, along with the shape and mass of buildings, will be the elements most
people will react to positively or negatively. They will be the elements considered when judging
8 This estimated unit yield assumes that first story residential units av �`
erage 1,100 square feet;second and third
story residential units average 1,000 square feet each. Obviously the density could be adjusted upward or
downward by modifying the assumed average size of the units.
5.0-9
N
H
•
I I
.g
Y
v
D
a
c
.: : •. • 'Ole 0
�. .- db
,.
lie•
a• RASP *
• rrr..
.A
• - , I
-•� -•
deck.....
b�tIdgeslowest
ing.sr `_'it - v_S _ ''• writ
-1'.. j -r _ • -:ria_.
promenade deck ?.. ._..
r. R on deck level _
91 AMSL
Vx*0
1k 1 t
f ` -'nlessF': . . - .}•ice-s
/� �� -•z ori:-'-'-• - - _ . 1/pw••i'
Ile
upper 3rd&4th
flevel residential
,10 wl gabled roofs ---
. .' � j �i„� _.s --fix z•
4.7 i r• f.
aBoundary
.: .
2nd Street
Leas••
dary Q .�. ,.r.
CoVe
db
4..
. b.•
bow
I
Figure: 5.0-2
One Graphic Scale
Mixed Use ASite Pian Acre
0 300
the success of the design in creating the picturesque bay front town that is the goal of the Specific
Plan, '"`--
Buildings surrounding the Specific Plan area are generally small and a maximum of two stories.
However, the downtown area is a proper location for concentrated development. In this
alternative, it is envisioned that building heights, zoof pitches and design details will vary.
ma
Buil la**% I generally be two and perhaps in some cases three stories over a parking garage.
Conceivably, the design might include a bell or clock tower that would be elevated somewhat
higher. If the third floor is set back four to eight feet, it would create a general impression from
the vantage point of pedestrians at the first floor level of a two story building. By varying the
facade terrupted walls,the downtown will take on the appearance of a
ground level to avoid iin-A
apparent &0
village. The bulk of a building will be visually reduced by varying setbacks and exterior
vi
elevations.
To reinforce and enhance the aesthetic character and images of Rodeo,design elements from the
California Bungalow Style and California Mission Style can be selected as icons for use in the
Specific Plan area. Additionally,elements from the Seaside Harbor Village Style can be selected
to reinforce the waterfront character of Rodeo. Table 5.0-m3 lists these design elements. Some of
the eltments listed in this table would be found in all buildings. However,no individual building
would be expected to include most or all of these elements.
For larger buildings, alternating use of two styles (e.g. California Bungalow and Mission styles)
street-
along with varying setbacks from the and varying colors can be used to break up the
building and%armic a village character.
TABLE 5.O-3
SUGGESTED ELES TO BE USED WITHIN
T SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
California Bungalow Style California Mission Style Seaside Harbor Village Style
1. Low pitch gable roofs. 1. Stucco walls, 1. Docks,boardwalks.
2. Narrow exposure,painted wood 2. Barrel tile roofs. 2. Nautical theme,blue awn*
siding. 3. Wrought iron railings. natural weathered wood.
3. Front Porch. 4. Arched open"
4. Wide trim at openings.
S. Exposed roof 0 elements.
S. Heavy Pedestals of o and wood
at Front Porch.
6. Doubled wood supports at gable
roofs.
7. Grand palm trees that the
style rather than block the views.
This alternative is intended to relate well to the adjacent development outside the Specific Plan
area. The design would strive to provide interesting and useful open spaces,with good pedestrian
&4*%aOV
continuity. It offers a better chance for retail vitality than rehabilitating the exia&;",a , over-sized
commercial The inclusion of one-level parking structures below all new btflictures, inthe �-
5X40
.aossv v jewed Aq ue!�.a uvqjn
CD
c t� o
v� c —
ww •- O
0
C O w
C C `
0 0 ,tm
a � .— c
� cc
m E o .� cc
c � t
0
N mcc
O N ,e Q,
of _ cc
m o o
.0 0 0 �
_
all vJ �. •
_ 3 -v
.� O w ca .c
� c •� o 00
CL
� � c Q o •
� •c O � = cn
C Q
L)
� C •
o00�
m cc a� p
3:CL : *now .
U c�J9
CO
H cU o. >
ss� 0 Q o a z4)
to 3 C = o a�0 > LU
•i 13 .c, O —
4� a) o-in v
v
00o 3
v •c� � �0)as o � cc
i- M -D .- c ■
♦.. E
c -v CL
a�
s o —
.r •"- -
N 0 CD
O!- U U '
O O O � Q �+ O
CM � '`'
U ?+ U 0
E 0 0 cc$
RS ... ..
CL.5 0 1 cts
E Ca X (D 0
O ` C c L
cc 0 a)
ch A
.o c C cts
CO
0 •.. � .�
z ._ sow
�' • • • "C > > '� h�'
� _ E
. . m •- �
X ,� RS cc 's b h W a N
LLJ cc UJ IL
s
CL 3 o
� m
Lli 4�
• p • X
o. > •• ._.
c :10%
•
CD . .
downtown reduces the visual impact of this element and provides the potential for a good ^`
relationship between the parking and commercial uses,and a good opportunity for shared parking
with residential uses.
Figure 5.0-3 is an elevation of a building that strives Jo implement the design elements proposed
herein for the Specific Plan area. The building is varied, interesting, and offers the promise of a
lively human-scale environment. The elevation suggests landscape mounds and plantings to
conceal or partially screen the parking garage. The mounds would be interrupted at the
entrance/exit to the garage. The first floor retail is characterized by narrow, relatively high
windows. Along the face of the building, the setback from the edge of the deck varies, as do
colors and textures. Arched openings are provided and the left half of the illustration shows
wooden clapboard siding and massive pedestals. The height of the building varies from two to
three levels, breaking up what could otherwise be a massive appearance. The third story is set
back four to eight feet from the front of the elevation,creating a veranda. From the perspective of
persons on the deck, the structure will appear to be two stories. The pitch of the gabled roof
mimics roof gradients elsewhere in the community. The posts, connected by rope or chain, and
light fixtures are intended to illustrate a nautical theme.
circulation Elements
In this alternative,Parker Avenue is relocated to the east so that it does not divide the downtown.
The segment of San Pablo Avenue west of Parker Avenue is eliminated,as are all minor streets in
the downtown, with the exception of Pacific Avenue. Its southern terminus is modified to
provide a 90 degree intersection with Parker Avenue,which would be signalized. The Mixed Use
Alternative Plan shows 60 feet of right-of-way for both Pacific Avenue and Parker Avenue. This
width could be increased to provide a landscaped median and turning lanes. Vehicular access to
the waterfront would continue to be the Pacific Avenue bridge.
With regard to pedestrian circulation, Pacific and Parker Avenues would have sidewalks on both
sides of the street. Within the downtown area, pedestrian circulation would be provided by the
deck over the garage, which could be designed to be accessible to fire fighting equipment.
Elevators and stairs would provide for vertical circulation in the downtown area. The plan shows
an 80 foot wide pedestrian bridge to the waterfront,along with the EBRPD shoreline trail.
Other Parcels
Outside of the downtown, single family residential-high density is shown for the parcel in the
northwest corner of the Harris Avenue/2nd. Street intersection;CR for the parcel that is southeast
of the RSD treatment plant (see Figure 5.0-1). Lands fronting on' Parker Avenue south of its
intersection with Pacific Avenue are envisioned as an MM project, which would assist the
commercial uses in the downtown by expanding the population. Conceivably, this area might
accommodate a senior housing project or a portion of the community center.
5.0-11
TABLE 5.0-4
CONSTRAINTS TO REDEVELOPMENT OF
TEE DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT AREA
1. The bay view is obstructed by signs,fences and buildings.
2. The downtown area lacks a coherent architectural theme. This has resulted in
U=Lfacades that are unrelated in style,human scale,color,signage
d materials.
3. Store front remodels have added large merchandising-type windows that do not match
the design details of the original building facade,
4. In several *instances the uses of buildings have changed,and as a result they no longer
provide adequate utility service,structural safety or functionally adequate layouts.
S. The blighted condition of the area will discourage improvement of individual properties.
6. The downtown area lacks open spaces and off-street parking.
7. The waterfront,while potentially attractive,has a scruffy appearance because of car and
truck parking,storage areas,and poorly maintained buildings.
8. The population of Rodeo can support only 50,000 square feet*retail services and
convenience shopping.
9. Small,old buildings are expensive to remodel,which discourages private investment.
10. Existing businesses have been attracted to the area by low rents,rather than business
opportunities.
11. Small existing parcel sizes inhibit development for functions requiring larger areas.
12. Existing streets divide the area into relatively small blocks,resulting in more circulation
for cars(and less for pedestrians)than is required.
13. The downtown area is divided by a major collector,and the road configuration interferes
with maximizing the opportunity for bay views.
14. Much of the downtown area is subject to inundation by flood waters.
15. Much of the downtown and waterfront area is underlain by soft,compressible Bay Mud
and by sands possessing a"high" liquefaction potential.
5.0-12
Alternative 7: Mitigated Plan
The Mitigated Plan responds to the various environmental impacts and design problems identified
during preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. These constraints are summarized in
Table 5.0-4. a
In addressing the limitations and opportunities provided by the Specific Plan area, a broad
spectrum of land use designations, design options and circulation details are possible. The
Mitigated Alternative shows only one approach to redevelopment of this area. It is flexible in the
sense that should one or more buildings have historic value, those structures could be
incorporated into the design. The Mitigated Alternative Plan is presented in Figure 5.0-4. This
figure shows the internal circulation elements within the Specific Plan area, proposed land use,
and the number of net square feet of the various land uses shown. Table 5.0-2 allows comparison
of the Mitigated Plan with the Adopted General Plan, as well as the three alternative Specific
Plans analyzed by this EIR: S/C Plan,PRD Plan and GC Plan. The following narrative describes
the Mitigated Alternative Plan.
Waterfront Land Uses
The land uses selected for the waterfront include parks and recreation (PR), public and semi-
public(PS) and mixed use (MU). The waters of San Pablo Bay are designated water(VV). The
land uses in the waterfront and their acreages are identical to those shown on the Mixed Use
Alternative. Approximately four acres of the Joseph's Resort/Bennetfs Marina property are
designated Mixed Use. Cluster development is envisioned for this area, which responds to the
mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3.5(Visual Quality). Potential uses include restaurants,
water-oriented commercial uses,and possibly residential uses. Any contaminated soils and other
environmental problems should be analyzed and properly mitigated,and annexation to the Rodeo
Sanitary District would be part of the development requirements. The project review process
would ensure that seismic and geologic hazards along with flood hazards were analyzed and
mitigated.
This project would require strong architectural controls and waterfront design guidelines. Prior to
approval of any individual building, the concept for parking, circulation and design of the four-
acre site would be determined. With regard to the PR designation of the remaining lands of the
Joseph's Resort/Bennett's Marina parcels,these are environmentally sensitive lands that should be
retained in open forms of land use. They could be dedicated to a public agency, such as a park
district,or retained as private open space.
With regard to the East Bay Regional Park District, all of their lands would be designated PR.
Additionally, a narrow rim of PR is proposed along the Bay margins of the treatment plant
property. The remainder of the treatment plant property would be designated PS. There is a
102,700 square foot parcel the southeast of the treatment plant which is designated commercial
recreation (CR). The long,-tern use of this parcel is probably for expansion of the sewage
treatment plant.
Railroad and Conthzugus-Lands to the South
The railroad corridor is shown as PS. Lands on the south side of the railroad, between Parker
Avenue and Railroad Avenue are shown as PR. They would need to be acquired by the public
5.0-13
rr..
• a
��i •s
i
Slow-mew han 1994 ••.•
100 0
• i ;
see.0•i0
00.00.
•hall OdWW
!
00
•
Pian neap
F
vo.
(4769000
slton tiny►flag adapW 12,100 s�` '41,500
PW"op. ww .
175o
400 500
4 ,000 t to
421 �IL,...L.—
A
Ir..w..M..l..1111.. 0* ! 14 900
900
w w �
. ! . to
500 w w w w tL 122 700 -- ...
1 �r18,700 400
388 20,300 1 �
309900
w w 1Iw
w •w,►w
590800 t *1
w w ► w c���
znd Toa � �
w w w 7.300 � �►
w �
17,100
S.
��� "t^•ent St
III
Street �
x 400 t
ac
1318.000
� ath
e 1
a. ■ t
■
S.P.
1 �
Legend: We: Smaa arabic numbers on plan are approximate net areas tin square feet)of the various uses shown.
52% w"w"w"w dingle Family Residen ai-High Densit - 3.?A. 0.0'X. �e-0.0 A.
www y
0.0'X. Multiple FamilyResidential-Low Density- 0.0 A. 182% Public - -
t'y �!Terni Public 13.01 A.
1297% Multiple Family Residential-Med.Density- 9.0 A. 38!4% Parks&Recreation-27.3 A.
0.0% Multiple Family Residential-High Density- 0.0 A. 3,o^ ::w:;�:=;�::�: Commercial Recreation- 2.4 A.
,•.•...•
�IIIMII
IIIIIII
0% Commercial-0 0 A
22.0°1. Mixed Use-15.6 A. .;.;.;.; A.
Figure:50.0•4
Mate Graphic kale
1Igated ALand Use Plan
Acre
0 309 600
for use as a neighborhood park, or a mechanism would be needed to transfer their development
potential to another site in the downtown area. The remaining lands on the south side of the
railroad have been acquired by public agencies for openforms of land use(e.g. Trust for Public
Lands and EBRPD;see Figure 3.1-2).
Downtown
The land uses selected for the downtown in this alternative are very similar to the S/C Plan
(compare Figure 5.0-4 with Figure 2.3different).-4The only between these plans is increased
use of the mixed use (MU) designation for some parcels in the northwest portion of the
downtown area. Lands fronting on the east side of Pacific Avenue are desa+ied mixed use, as
is the block in the northwest comer of the Parker Avenue/Ist. Street intersection. Table 5.01m5
contrasts the proposed land uses for the 20.7 net acre downtown shown in the S/C and Mitigated
Plans.
TABLE 5.0-5
COMPARISON OF DOWNTOWN LAND USE
SHOWN IN THE S/C AND MITIGATED PLANS
S/C Plan Mitigated Plan
Land Use Symbol (net ac.) (net ac.)
Multiple Family,-Medium Density(MM) 10.1 9.0
Commercial(C) 2.2 0.0
Mixed Use(MU) 8.4 11.7
In the Mitigated Alternative retail uses in the downtown area would be focused on the two blocks
of MU that are north of 1 st.Street. These blocks have views of the Bay, and would have chiefly
retail and perhaps office uses on the first floor,with residential uses above. However,the intent
of the plan is to integrate(not separate)retail and residential uses. Thus the Mitigated Plan does
not prelude first floor residential uses within the areas designated MU, and it provides linkage of
land uses designated MU along the entire west flank of the downtown. The residential projects in
the MLT category could include live-work style lofts, senior housing, apartments and townhouse
style units.
The objective of the plan.is to allow 50,000 square feet of downtown retail uses, along with
residences and office uses. It is envisioned that the downtown should be developed block-by-
block as independent projects, but with strong architectural standards that would yield the
picturesque seaside village envisioned by the Specific Plan. Upon adoption of the Specific Plan,
work would commence on a Preliminary Development Plan that would provide specific criteria
and standards to guide the redevelopment process. Subsequently,each block would be developed
as a planning unit. No construction pert its should be issued until a Final Development Plan is �
approved for that block. That plan would show landscaped areas,parking,footprint of buildings,
elevations and other design details required by the Ordinance Code. Some existing structures
5.0-14
could be retained, but retaining existing buildings is not a priority of this alternative. Any
buildings that are retained should be brought up to the standards of the 1995 Uniform Building
Code. This requires analysis of old buildings by a structural engineer, and concurrence of the
Building Inspection Department on the nature and extent of the seismic retrofitting and other
improvements. Each blockWbuld be subject to geetechnical investigation requirements, and
mitigation of potential seismic and geologic hazards,as well as floor hazards, would be required.
With regard to dwelling unit yield, assuming 15 units/ net acre in the MU category and 20
units/net acre in the MM category, the Mitigated Alternative yields 356 units in the downtown,
along with 23 single family residential lots(total 379 dwelling units).
Alternative Be. Off-site Alternative
The off-site development would leave the Rodeo downtown/waterfront area in its existing
condition,as in the no project alternatives described above. It would involve a land use scenario
with the same major characteristics as the proposed project. This alternative would
hypothetically relocate the land uses proposed in the Rodeo Specific Plan area to another area. At
buildout the Rodeo Specific Plan area would yield approximately 250 to 350 residential units
(chiefly multiple-family units and loft units over commercial,along with a downtown commercial
area and waterfront development. A possible alternative site is the community of Crockett. Its
downtown area is similar to the Rodeo Specific Plan area in terms of the timing of development,
small parcel size and the condition of the existing inventory of buildings. It is different in the
sense that it is relatively steep and consequently is not subject to flooding. Moreover, it is not
underlain by liquefiable soils, and it is approximately 8 miles from the Hayward fault(Rodeo is
five miles from the active Hayward fault).
The commercial area of Crockett is much smaller than Rodeo and the number of dwelling units in
Crockett is on the order of 1,500 versus 2,800 in Rodeo. Crockett has an active marina,with bait
shop/tackle shop, boat slips and a restaurant. The major water-oriented industry is C&H Sugar.
Like Rodeo, the SPRR tracks are located along the shore, and there are at-grade crossings.
Theoretically, the potential exists for comprehensive planning and Redevelopment Agency
activities to facilitate the modernization and revitalization of the downtown/waterfront area of
Crockett.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that the environmentally superior alternative be identified. Two alternatives have
been considered: the Mixed Use Alternative and the Mitigated Alternative.
The Mixed Use Alternative has a unified site plan and is essentially one large project, which
could be phased. It ignores lot lines and assumes road rights-of-way could be relinquished or
relocated. Nearly the entire project would be built on a concrete pad,with parking below the first
floor units. This approach appears workable because most of the Specific Plan area is within the
area that is subject to inundation by the 100-year storm. This necessitates that the lowest
structural member of the fust floor be elevated above the maximum water surface elevation
during peak runoff from the 100 year flood. BCDC standards prescribe a+9 foot elevation for
structures under their jurisdiction,and this appears to be workable for downtown Rodeo. It might
5.0-15
be advisable to elevate the first floor to+10 to+12 feet above mean sea level because of possible
groundwater problems in the garage and uncertainty about the magnitude of a rise in sea level
during the 21st.Century.
The mitigated plan is based on the premise that the County would develop strict architectural
guidelines and prepare a Preliminary Development Plan that shows road improvements, open
areas,parking facilities,as well as providing specific criteria for building coverage, landscaping,
and other site plan elements on a block by block basis. Prior to issuance of construction permits
for private projects, a Final Development Plan would be required for the entire city block. That
plan would provide the context within which the building permit application would be reviewed.
Conceivably, some existing buildings could be retained,but they would need to be brought up to
the standards of the 1995 UBC. The existing road network would be retained,except for closure
of San Pablo Avenue west of Parker Avenue,and closure of Pacific Avenue south of 2nd. Street.
5.0-16
AV
6.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARATION
6.1 References
3.1 Land Use
Contra Costa County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Kennedy,James
Redevelopment Agency,Contra Costa County, 1990,"Rodeo Area Racdevelopment EIR"
Schaefer,Nancy, 1995,Consultant,Trust for Public Lands,Personal Communication, 10 July
1995.
3.2 Municipal Services
California Public Utilities Commission, 1994, "Electromagnetic Fields: The Facts and the
Future",March.
Guanill,Ray, 1995,District Manager,Rodeo Sanitary District,Personal Communication,26 June
1995.
Jeminez, 1995,Fire Chief,Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District,Personal Communication, 19
July 1995.
Lindenmeyer, Thomas, Environmental Coordinator, East Bay Regional Park District, Personal
Communication, 13 June 1995.
McGowan, Bill, 1995, Water Service Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Personal
communication, 12 and 27 June 1995.
Salmi, Dennis, 1995, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, Personal Communication, 16 and
26 June 1995.
Snell, John, 1995, Sargeant, Sheriffs Department Administration, Personal Communication, 19
June 1995.
Superintendent's Office, John Swett Unified School District, Personal Communication, 18 July
1995.
6.0-1
3.3 Flood HazardsMminage/Water Quality
Bodhaine, G.L., 1968, "Measurement of Peak Discharge at Culverts by Indirect Methods. U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-,Resources Investigations, Book 3 (Applicationsof
Hydraulics),Chapter A3,60 pp.
Contra Costa County Flood Control District,"1977,Hydrologic Standards;Mean Seasonal
Isohyets Map and Five Precipitation Duration-Frequency-Depth Curves,Martinez.
Department of WaterResources 1980,"Ground ter Basins in California,A Report to the
Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924",Bulletin 1 18-80.
Rantz,S.E., 1971,"Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm-Drainage Facilities in
the San Francisco Bay Region,California",United States Department of the Interior,Geological
Survey,Menlo Park.
Ritter,J.R.,and W.R.Dupre, 1972,"Map showing areas of potential inundation by tsunamis in
the San Francisco Bay Region,California: U.S.Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies
Map MF-480, 1:125,000.
San Francisco Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute, 199 1,"Status and Trends Report on Pollutants
in the San Francisco Estuary,Final Draft".
Shaeffer,J.R.,et a1, 1982,"Urban Storm Drainage Management",Marcel Decker,New York.
Stahre,P.,and B. Urbonas, 1990,"Stormwater Detention for Drainage,Water Quality and CSO
Management",Prentice-Hall,New Jersey.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 1962,"Detailed Project Report,Local Flood Protection Project,
Rodeo Creek,Contra Costa County,California".
U.S.FEMA, 1987,"Flood Insurance Study,Contra Costa County(Unincorporated Areas)". Two
Volumes.
U.S.FEMA, 1987, Flood Insurance Rate Maps,Panels 060025-w0050.
U.S.Geological Survey, 1987,"Rainfall and runoff quantity and quality characteristics of four
urban land use catchments in Fresno,California,October 1981 to April 198211,Open File Report
84-7 1 0.
3.4 Tmffic/Circulation
3.5 Visual Quality/Aesthetics
6.0-2
3.6 Biotic Resources
Contra Costa County General Plan and Environmental Overlay Maps,Community Development
Department.
East Bay Regional Park District, 1992,"Lone Tree Point San Pablo Regional Shoreline Laad
Evaluation for Interim Use",2 June
Lindenmeyer,Thomas, 1995,Environmental Coordinator,East Bay Regional Park District,
Personal Communication, 13 June.
3.7 Geology/Seismicity
ABAG, 1995,Inventory of URM Buildings in Rodeo(unpublished data).
Budding, K.E., Schwartz, D.P., and Oppenheimer, D.H., 1991, Slip rate, earthquake recwrence,
and seismlogical potential of the Rodgers Creek fault zone,Northam California- Initial Results:
Geophysical Research Letters,Volume 18,No.3,pp.447-450.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, State of California Special Studies Zones
(Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act),Mare Island 7.5"quadrangle: CDMG 1:24,000.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986, Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate
Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area: CDMG Special Report 146,parts 1 and 2.
9
Contra Costa County, 199 1,Safety Element,Section 10 of the Contra Costa County General Plan
1990-2005,prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department,dated January 1991.
Dibblee, T.W.,Jr., 1980, Preliminary geologic map of the Benicia quadrangle, Contra Costa and
Solaro Counties,California: USGS Open File Report 80-400, 1:24,000.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1981, Preliminary geologic' map of the Mare Island quadrangle, Solaro and
Contra Costa Counties,California: USGS Open File Report 8 1-234, 1:24,000.
Earth Sciences Associates, 1983, Seismotectonic Study of the Martinez Dam and Vicinity,
prepared for the United States Bureau of Reclamation-Engineering and Research Center, dated
April, 1983.
Frizzell, Jr., V.A. S ims, J.D.,Nilsen, T.H. and Bartow,J.A., 1974,Preliminary photointerpretive
map of landslide and other surficial deposits of the Mare Island and Carquinez Strait 15-Minute
quadrangles, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solaro, and Sonoma Counties, California: U.S.
Department of HUD, San Francisco Bay Region Environmental and Resources Planning Study,
Basic Data Contribution No.67. 1:62,500.
Geomatrix Consultants, 1992,Seismic Ground Motion Study for West San Francisco Bay Bridge,
San Franciso,California: prepared for CalTranswDivision of Structures,dated December 1992.
6.0-3
. rti
Helley, E.J. and K.R. LaJoie, et al., 1979. "Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region,
California - their geology and engineering F 1 and their importance to comprehensive
planning". U.S.Geological Survey,Professional Paper 943.
Nichols, D.R., and N.A. Wright, 1971, Preliminary map of historic margins of marshland, San
Francisco Bay,California: U.S.Geological Survey Open File Report OFR 7 1-216, 1:125,000.
Nilsen, T.H., 1975, "Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial
Deposits of Part of the Mare Island 7.5" Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California". U.S.
Geological Survey,Open File Map 75-277-w27.
Perkins, J.B. and J. Boatwright 1995, "On Shaky Ground - City Maps, Hercules". ABAG
Publication#P95002EQK-C8.
Shekel, A.G., et al., CSM1P Strong-Motion Records from the Santa Cruz Mountains (Loma
Prieta), California Earthquake of 17 October 1989: California Division of Mines and Geology -
Office of Strong Motion Studies,Report OSMS 89.06, 1989, 196 pages.
Slemmons, D.B. and D.H. Chung, 1982, Maximum credible earthquake magnitudes for the
Calaveras and Hayward fault zones, California; in Hart, E.W., and others, eds., Proceedings
Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area,pp. 115-124.
Toppozada, T.R., 1992, Location and magnitude of the 1898 "Mare Island" earthquake, in
Gatehouse,J.S., 1992,Program and Abstracts, Second Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the
Frastern San Francisco Bay Area,p..74.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Soil survey of Contra Costa County, California: Soil
Conservation Service, 122 p.
U.S. Geological Survey Working Group, 1990, Probabilities of large earthquakes in the San
Francisco Bay region,California: U.S.Geological Survey Circular 1053,51 p.
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes Quaternary Faults and Seismic Hazard in California:
Journal of Geophysical Research.,Vol.9 1,No.B 12,pp. 12,5 87-12,63 1.
Williams,P.L. et al, 1993,Fault Activity, Geometry and Recurrence Behavior at the.Junction of
the Rodgers Creek and Pinole Faults, California; in EOS, October 26, 1993, Program and
Abstracts, 1993 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union,p.411.
Wright, R.H., . D.H. Hamilton, D.H. Hunt, M.L. Traubenik, and R.J. Shlemon, 1982, Character
and Activity of the Greenville Structural Trend; in Hart, E.W. and others, eds., Proceedings,
Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: California Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 62,pp. 187-196.
3.8 Noise
Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element
6.0-4
Illingworth,Rich, 1995,Principal,Illingworth and Rodkin,Inc.,Personal Communication,26
June.
Redevelopment Agency,Contra Costa County, 1990,"Rodeo Area Redevelopment EIR"
3.9 Air Quality
ABAG,BAAQMD,and MTC, 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan,December 1982.
BAAQMD,Radius Search of Violation Notices(Regulation 1,Section 301),provided August
1995.
BAAQMD,Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Containment, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
and 1994.
BAAQMD,Air Quality Handbook 1989-1990.
Contra Costa County, 1994,"Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Unocal Corporation
Reformulated Gasoline Project";LUP 2038-93 (Chapter 8,Air Quality).
3.10 Cultural Resources
California Archaeology Inventory, 1995a,Letter report of recourse review presented to Jim
Kennedy by Miley Holman,3 May 1995.
California Archaeology Inventory, 1995b,Updated literature review conducted by Miley
Holman,June 1995.
Contra Costa County, 1976, "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory of Contra Costa County.
Hohnan,Miley Paul, 1990,"Archaeological Subsurface Angering in Reputed Location of
Archaeological Site CCO-258,Lone Tree Point,Contra Costa County,CA.
Holman,Miley Paul, 1993,"Archival Research and Field Inspection of the Proposed Wilson
Point to Lone Tree Point Trail Route,Contra Costa County,California".
McMahon,T.A.and M.T.Compton,Surveyors, 1891, "Map of Rodeo for Contra Costa County
of Union Stockyard. On file,Map Room,Bancroft Library,U.C.Berkeley,Berkeley,CA.
Sanborn Ferris Fire Insurance Map of 1899. On file,Map Room,Bancroft Library,U.C.
Berkeley,Berkeley,CA.
3.11 Jobs/Housing/population
Contra Costa County,"AB 1290 Implementation Plan".
Contra Costa County General Plan:1990-2005. Adopted in January 1991.
Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 1994,"Growth Trends".
Redevelopment Agency,Contra Costa County, 1990,"Rodeo Area Redevelopment EIR".
1990 U.S.Census.
6.0-5
Urban Decision Systems,Specific Plan Appendix A
4.0 Impact Overview
5.0 Alternatives
Bass and Hereon, 1994, "Successful Compliance: A Step-By-Step Approach", Solano Press
Books.
6.2 Mitigation Monitoring
The mitigation measures identified in this EIR would be subject to effective monitoring through
the County's normal processing of applications for planning approvals and construction permits.
However,to satisfy the California Public Resources Code,Section 21081.6,a documented record
of implementation is required. The purpose of the mitigation monitoring plan is to identify each
mitigation; the department (section, or staff position)responsible for enforcement; and the point
in.the planning/building process where enforcement should occur.
As mitigation measures are implemented, the individual/agency charged with determining
compliance, signs and dates the monitoring plan. This record of enforcement of the mitigations
would be retained in the project file.
6.3 EIR Authors
This EIR was prepared by Darwin Myers Associates under the direction of the Contra Costa
County Redevelopment Agency and the Community Development Department.
Darwin Myers, Ph.D.., had overall responsibility for project management and primary
responsibility for data analysis and report writing. Others who contributed to the report include
Aaron Wishnuff,Project Planner and Virginia Bacon,Office Manager,Darwin Myers Associates..
Mr. Wishnuff performed environmental research and prepared drafts of several chapters. Mrs.
Bacon had responsibility for editing and report production. The traffic analysis was performed by
Larry Patterson, P.E., Patterson Associates. The cultural resources analysis was provided by
Miley Holman, Holman & Associates. Analysis of site planning and design issues, along with
preparation of EIR graphics was performed by Dan Parker,AIA,Parker&Associates.
6.0-6
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION/
INITIAL STUDY
�•",�
r�,wir,�
of Preparation Supph"nenw Document 0
Office of Planning and Research
Gtr)
1400 Tenth Street
A Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject:Notice of Preparation of a Drag Environmental impact Report
Lad Agency: naufting Firm (if applicable):
Contriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1pa CorE1111111111111111sta County .
Agency Name Fum Name
11
�z 11 StTLTTP
SMdAddmss 4th Floor., North Wing S Addmss
chy/s� Martinez, CA 94553 CJq/SW'
C_M-M Jim Kemedy nnt
Contra Costa County
wll be the Irad Agmq and will p: as mvuomKntal Snpact iepott for the
roj=idmti6edbelow.We nadmlmowtheviewsofyrnasgeneyaswthescapeaodeonrcncoftdeenvimnnxntaliafa�mationwhich
0 i�to your�Y�S Y�sponabilioes in connaaon with die P�P�P�1�Youragency will nad to uu theEIIt
W�M'��6�Y 8 Y�Pau or oche appsuval for the proiat.
aLe PWJP.tdaaiPtiam.laadao.and the peta�ual enva�meatsl effear encoatain__edin du aoacded m�tci�ls.A copy ofswdy(fflis Epsnot) auached.
Doeto tLe mnelimitsmandaaedby Stara law.Yomresponse mns[be smtatthe arliattpom'ble date but not laur d=30 days after
mceipt of this mdce.
pleasemmd yo��esponae a� Jim Kermedy u the add�ea shown above.Wcwm oad
the mme
for s 000oct person in yow sgmc�.
pfoj Tkie's Rodeo Waterfront Specific Plan
Project Locatlon• TR o d e-O Contra Costa
QY(in
'W__--- I SO
PW1�C! InIflon:ftiafl Throush�uawn adians.(Cmwnd Plan AmaW�wmm odoPtion of a Specific Plan and
RvLi* �t b N 1.Plmned Unit Developm�t,far the Specific Plan ani).the Roxico waLLt6nnUDu%w�own SP=Mc Plan xeka to
mw the thewmwfiwu and doWnkm�rommunin of R*lw. ks intent is to%iauolh•con- two areas through the tion
of a Co owl axe as a cxnter of axWxxnic activiR through major urban d�4p adi%iti�. The Initial Staly the
Pdauid arvirumn�ml inq+octg Ihot may result Fran the adoption adcx+uon mid awuwctian-rcletai prc�=Lx Gom the impIC-111maltation of the
Rodco Wa-erfronWo�mtown %ptxi�lc Plan. 13*nddreBing bah 1�adoption and impkmcnmtion activities of the propoiocd
spprl. pq P mview is mrant to be canWe mei cvwuytiae in its mnsi eratiaa of the cuunula' impoaa dint might
be alined ifenhip the abp6on wen diea:u�ed Should it be�xopo�xi for onpI�xnrn iim,the Mo ' a� i e subject w n xpy�ate
emronmenml review. March 14, 1995 $i
a++ue �lialte
,rte0
D714uti Director tedeve JAIen
Td 510-646-4 6
Refoo�oc:Ca�ifaaia Code of Re6ulauont,ride 14.(CSQA Guidelines)S I50E2(a)o 15103.13375. 0aW10W 19A9
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(INITIAL STUDY)
X
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent: Contra Costa County
RWC3TJ00JL1='&&Q=
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: b51 Pine S=,North Mag
Mutinez CA 94553
3. Date Chcklist SubmiGed: January 9. 1995
4. Name of Proposal: Rodeo Waterfront Swific Plan
ii. Project Description
Mw Rodeo Watm*ant/Downtown Specific Plan sacs to revitalize the waterfront and
downtown community of Rodeo. Its intent is to visually ceaoxt thane two areas
t4
hrough the aeffiiou of a canm�ceial care as a nater of economic activity and through
major urban design activities. This revitalization effort is to be accomplished by
building an the fimmdation of the existing downtown area which is A & A by
dwmingUOLLA11,� Arm,__%
Tnis adds W the human scale and pedestrian�iented feel
of this area of Rodeo.
There are three versus of the Specific Plan proposals: the Public Hearing Draft,a
Redevelopment Agency Staff/Caisultaot altuaative and a Workshop alternative. The
Public Hu- Mg vasim retains the Conunercial des between Parker and Rodeo
Avenues,then places a Mixed Use designtion on either side of the Commercial and
puts housing on Parka Avenue,between 3rd and 4th S several blocks away fr�n
the Marina and water uses. The Mixed Use category allows commercial uses on the
bottom floor while retaining top Boors for residential uses.
The StaWConm alternative designates a small sxtion of _mnEwcial and Mixed
Use adjacent to the Marina mea,bounded by Lake, Sm Pablo and Parker Avenues,
places Housing along Parker fromAvenue Rodeo W Investment Avenues and creates
a Mbwd Use mea from loud to Fourth Shays along Parloer. The Mixed Use category
allows commacisl uses on the bottom floor while retaining top floors far residential
ages. In either case,it is proposed that a maximum of 165 new residential emits and
20,000 square fat of new commercial span would be neared. Approximately.
30,000 square feet of commacisl span waild be nhabilitatcd.
°—"'-�ificant I=Insignificant
Environmental Checklist-Page l of 28
an saaiaom�akanstive pmvift s al emphasis on non-retail uses nas been
identified and sLould be examined. ,
Mmugh the layott of the proposals is different�the int�t is the same:W revitalize the
oa�nmity of Rodeo.LJpm public review cod comment of this proposed Specific Plaq
one version will be slated as tLe way to jumpstart the commimiry of Rodeo.
The1�tqpof the proposSre w
ed pxafic Plan a :
•Capitalize on Rodeds b lu tion
•F.oha�e and create visitor serving a0
ttractiaos
•Rcstorc downtown and refocus commercial uses an First Street
• Create a catalyst cmnmunity anter and commercial
development on the watafroot
• Create opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the
downtown by incxeasing idicntial opportunities nearby
•Fmbance the artist/bungalow character of Rodeo
•Improve Parker Avenue as the coaummity entryway
Provide public improvements to stimulau private invesmxat
Tbat me five subareas ofthe Old Town itali on plan: the Commercial Core,the
Waterfront Pads, Residential Townhomes, Waterfront Marina and a Mixed Use
uea.
The regulatory actions W imp --t theproposed Spccitic Plan are:
•
General Plan Am--' cp
•Adoption of a Specific Plan
Rezoning to P-1,Pi Unit Development,for tLe Specific Plan
area
Adoption and implementat*&%ri of the F11roposod Specific Plan would comply with the
accent policies for the Rodeo Area as desrn'bed within the Land Use Element of the
General Plan:
3-162: Direct the major portion of new residential developmeat toward infilling and
redevelopment of Rodeo pmper.
3-163: Encourage rpue of existing buildings.
3-1.64: Establish the waterfront arra as a focal point for the community by the
development of a mixture of multiple family park land, retail and �ma�c;al
rccreation+J land uses.
S=Significant I=:nsigniScant Environmental Checklist-Page 2 of 28
3-165: Focus water Mt development aro�md a siAorelioe park and prowenade.
3-167: Mpublic accessto the bay.
3-169: Emomp puticularly tLe novation of Rodeo's notable uchitaturai
3-170: The policies set forth below ere intended w guide the reviWiratim of Old
R-odeo:
(a) A mixhue of land uses, residential eod ccmma%�ial, must be
established.
(b)A copq mmunit9 p03P8 Plan must be devised and implemented to
provide a sensible meworlc for development in Old Rodeo.
(c)Wben an-site parkM"
ing is provided,it s6rnild be established at the
rear of commercial properties so that a unified commercial frontage
is p to the sidewalk.
(d) Zero building setback (as provided for in the CwB zee or by
variance
procedures) are teary far cantimiiry with existing
buildings.
(e)Lo aocauiyuds,atriums and strafside planting sLould
dscaped be
included in development plans to provide visual an physical relief
from the hard surfaces of the urban landscape.
(fSitting planes fo restng,soaalizing err popple watching should be
incorporated into project design.
(B) Developers are ouraged to preserve and rwse Rodeo's
arehitechval specimens.
(h) Provide for Wgration of development in Old Rodeo with the
wata�ait uea.
3-174: Retail business aid saviorsdirxktlly err indirectly related to*aneation uses of
the shore area are compatible with the Commaeial Reaeadm desion&fi�.0 �8
restauaots,e6andlas,Mets or motels,and bait noel tackle slops.
Mis Initial Sh*discusinfs ntial enviroomeatal Pacts that may result from
the adoption and c�stn: im-nlaud projects from the impl n i e of the Rodeo
Waterfront/Downtown :,pacific Plan. By addressing both the adoption and
tal ChecklistPage 3 of 28�SigniScant I=lnsigniuc:cEnvironm
implementation activities of the proposed S. %01 Plan, this review is meant to be
ooe ive and exhmutive m its oauidaation ofthe a�ulative impacts that might
be alighted if only the adoption were discussed. 'ShMAW it be pit fa
implementation,tLe Marina will be subject to a separate ---n=tal review.
See Exhibit A- Existing General Plan, Pkbfic Hearing Draft
Proposal and StafflConsultant Afternadve
III.
Environ &M.1 Impacts
Quad Shat Mare Island
Parcel!t Various
Date of Site VisitaJuary 5, 1995
Note: Pud mica below refer W 7.5 minirte USES q,, KNE12-maP sLcets located in the Community
Devel,opment Deparm�ent offices at 651 Pine Suwt 2nd floor,North Wing,Martinez,California 94553.
� 1
1.
Earth. Could the prop-4 osal result in:
a. Unstable earth caiditi�s a in changes in geologic substruchves? �L _
There is a low-to-moderate possibility of Hq111uefaction that parallels
Parker Avenue to the west and east. The possibility for liquefaction
maeases to moderau-to-Ligh at the northan end of Parker towards
the Marina area. The proposed new development along
First Street and residential development alaog Parker Avenue is
within this area. While the adoption of the proposed Specific Plau
may not cauu my w%stable c�diti�s to be orated,such changes
d through the impl tation and caostruction projects as
proposed within the Plan. ThiS could be %walificant andhd be
studied.
b. Disruptions, displa-- or of the
TU Mwina,area is n-posed of three maja mos: Jowph!s Resort,
the
Bhffs Area and Bmoeu's Marinao JUNGUILt.Resort historically
had
been used ss e dumping grand fa sludge from the oil refioay
prooWes. Prior to the mastru�ion of my official projects ift this
area, studies should be conducted wdeteimioe how this ares can be
iemediated.
i
-
S=S1*jMFM;Scant I=Insignificant Environmental Checklist-Page 4 of 28
t�
1=�
r'I 1
rxY'�
F 1Y
',AX11
f T�
VIP
Ilk
x=
t'7r
s
tttl • �, -
t
if
IN
oil
ilt
opt
Aim-
r s r' j'M•s✓ ti A�M y 1 t
fit
- I"Is
_
iA&o
e AL
♦ x
,VA.cu. l . .+...
osof
JAB
ON A
ok
14
Ir IN
woos
less
SOMA-
110011000,
5 r}
.'
%i. ,..�.�...�- �' - ;
NN-Ill -
.
vim
ISOM soon
.VMS
��Ijp A 111100000 mom
WOW,— 1111411
arm
j^10a
WOW Mow
low
•
.�� '�► '� 'art
•�°' - - _ -�,► �+.. �► ''sir
,.,�• `
i
soma
Pati tr • _ .1!! ••�`'1 •..1 1• . .. •J i ..+ MO
�+�•
- i
!II r►rw � i ui
x xx=
x'rrr�)r
=iiYl i
xXx'
YTijr
It c 2
r�x
x
rxrr Y �„
x
r
•
oil 1 �x� _•
1x
'=xx
xi x*!x
x'1�9 xXilt A 3
XX
Y'x'r'
jlr
A
Owx
---,�,X,�
.,...,,.,,, ...-.�..
x � r�j '-�-I-.w-�•= .. -_-"`�---':=ice �� � � I►.
r x
1
� .._.�.�.- _ j IIIi
rx!x i'1 � 1�rerr *
x,x � � > a,.fr..'... '"���rtti..r-x►'..Ittx�ll�► - tf"'s•-.w�lt/i ..f`�
do 4w
k�tRMIT�l Y�ni" a Mto A
A f xtsaw
`► v], sas iMi 1'j•"..r01- aph
ill �""jrxr[
'� n �-
�x�^,� VK TV X
r;a�Y Y*J�.,{, ..�■�•••� 1 + ; ♦ sem.,
got
N t I ...
.rr.I -pow move"-
~'`1 f�.1,i i""�� _ __.rr•r+ ..rte w ■t;
soma
46 AMM
F71
sow "Nox
Rw
VOM rips- 7
�dv 1
;,,� ► r f"
+.► �,.r soon ,�� ..•rte•^"-' •• t
.y Saofir
•.�
r.. a
Uri
man
own
woo
dX
-- .sem-�- _ �► ��; �`",�
-., �,, ►
�- - _ ''""c.� � �� � •.►•`f � ...�*1 S •� �.�• �.rte�`.`1� � ; file b ! !
�•�
SKLAWL
AJORL-Wi 1� IMS►
« .rw.'t ..•►•1• ,��� 11•M ..��.,�� t•"�• } •�� •r 1� • •
JEW Jm1Ljw_W:m
vivo•
1
K
��� ■I I ■ a r�r
11■a ItAN :
v IF
I a XX'.
:■r� ``IN
~
swift
Ir
A4
79 x
1 7�
"Ia�I ■� ��a, ` ��� .� - a ••� •� fill
I r
&AL1, IBM Ing
i
IL
x lip
�►7► �, J
r rt .;}
Nk awn
r
t l�
OL
Pr
SIP
1C lot
Mama
-
v P
_ NIL
AWNit
amwm
ft 17
am powMEL-_ WMEb
�-
...-�
�-�• .�
wow
S� -- I�x- IBM%
wow Akio-
SOL
,�.. "�►
�- •.,,.*r' - ,�, � !'` Irl,.
Iowa- 4
Wme WOO
Vffw
ex 19 1 v
a .,�• `�
�! t
y,. ,I,
4l�}ti 1�"7 1 1 • saki
e.1� •��• f • . •�� Crf rYYlraxi�Ya■i�i
r x■x�.■�I >t
t
_&Bo .�� •.��1• �� Int �.• '�
� �i� .rte � t • �
Additi(xial]y it is cipatod that Mansion of activities -old occ�v
A Bennett's Marina,inclidinB the Wtvmate buildout W 230 berths,up
from its u¢reat capacity of 108 berths,a two lace boat lwomch 0'
a
new fuel dock,and ito the ciarwt tatamant,bait shop
clieodlay.
Withinmmient Land Use Elemena of the ail,a to ral Plan, pofiq 3-
171 for the Rodeo arca states that,"large scale development in tLe
Cxmunercial Recreation area must be plicated a tharou h
study of the "am front C-amprehensive devel ;Olicies
mcapaatod mto a asp .c plan a wata6aot development plan and
kmrntati� air-aM must be in place before such development
can P��ceed". The develop-----a►t of the Marion could have a
significant impact upon the wvironment due to the possible toxic
sue at Joseph's Raort. Equally,swdyin8 devebPment impacts in
the Marina area complies with the dirocbve as stated within the
Coal Play Primarily due to proposed developouat at 1Le Marion,
adoption and implemrntatim of the commercial projocts stand
within the proposed Specific Plan caild have a significant impact
ups the and should be studied.
See Exhibit B•Rodeo Marina area
C. b a m P!m* topography orgwnd surface relief feaduas7 _ JL
It is not anticipated that arty ground surface relief features would be
altered through the adoption or implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan.
d The truction,covering or modi5cation of any unique geologic or
physical feanuu? _ �L
Same as LC
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,alba oil or off the
site? J - -
Sam as Lb
f.
Changes m dcpositi� a aosi� of beach aaods, a changes in
siltatio ,depositian or erosion which may modify the channel of a
m er or su+eam or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or lake? g -
S=Si cant I=Insignificant Environmental Checkrist-Page 5 n 28
a
RoagodOop
�13 .
I I 10 0-0.1�W�00
04
goo
•
•
t
•
*F• to •�
•
err• •
•
L
fema-
Ap
. .-
00
M lop•
a �
•
• �.
i
WeA
N
••
1 '
ed
OVO
• �- oso
� ee
A�
p'0
1
L
�,�,r�
Y
L
Y y
= J rte z 1
[
j t.
f•1
J
t [
k:.
t l
laav
ablO.
is L^rr+''��•4Y{ •
t It
Lr ,
y {y
f
to
qw
40
do-
+ •. .,t J1 L
" j+w� r•i:hBPr� f�'
r�;�� ♦t a
ry .,L...tiX,�.}t�r r}.Y� •
�jr(�r�:�'�''t'h4{,��.Ki.jropa(i •
��t7•�L �rrt
►'y.r}��a
t
t
i
ii
i
i
M
•
•
potential map of the entire County. A reduced scale version of the WCC map
is presented in the
County General Plan. The General Plan includes policies directed to the hazard posed by �.
liquefaction which are presented at the beginning of this chapter(see goals 10-A, I 10-D and
Policies 10-18 through 10-21.
The County recognizes the problem posed by liquefaction, and General Plan policies toward
liquefaction deal with development on a projectmbys-project basis. It has been determined that
information on liquefaction potential is not sufficient to designate aeras of "generally high"
liquefaction for open space land uses. The reason being that information on the occurrence of
liquefiable soils varies in quality from place to place, Many lands classified as "generally high"
potential lack silty sands, or the sands are too well consolidated or too clayey to liquefy, or they
are above the watertable. Instead,the liquefaction potential map is used as a"'red flag"to identify
sites which may be susceptible to liquefaction. Geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the
hazard, based on site-specific borehole and laboratory data. If liquefiable sands are present, the
geotechnical report must identify means to mitigate this hazard,
During the review of land development applications,the planning staff examines full-scale copies
of the liquefaction potential maps (scale 111=2000'). For properties in the area rated "generally
high" detailed studies are required to make a sitemspecific evaluation of the hazard; for properties
rated "moderate" to "low", soil reports submitted with subdivision applications are routinely
required to include a preliminary assessment of the hazard, Commonly,the scope of liquefaction
studies are more rigorous in areas of "generally high" potential. Figure 3.7-5 presents the
County's liquefaction potential map of the Rodeo Area. The Specific Plan area is shaded dark
gray. The white line is the boundary separating areas of co- ing liquefaction potential. This
figure indicates that the channel deposits on the valley floor of Rodeo Creek are rated as having a -�--�
"moderate" liquefaction potential. Downstream from the 1,80 culvert, the deposits of Rodeo
Creek occur in a corridor that is approximately 400 feet wide. Just downstream from the 4th
Street culvert, the valley floor is underlain by the historic deposits of the San Pablo Bay estuary
which are interbedded with channel deposits. These Bay Mud/channel deposits are rated as
having a "high" liquefaction potential. The flanking upland portions of the Rodeo
Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan area (above an elevation of approximately 10 feet) are
considered to possess a"low" liquefaction potential.
SgUlement
Settlement typically occurs over time in unconsolidated deposits, such as artificial fill and Bay
Mud, as a result of increased foundation loads from overlying structures. Natural settlement can
also result in differential settlement if subsurface conditions beneath a building vary (e.g. if one
comer of the building is underlain by bedrock and another comer underlain by 10 feet of Bay
Mud). Natural settlement can affect foundations, slabs, and pavements. In the Rodeo area there
have been essentially no foundation investigations, so accurate information on the lateral and
vertical extent of Bay Mud in the planning area is sketchy and inconclusive. The mason is that
most buildings in the area were constructed prior to modem requirements for soil engineering
reports. Consequently, when Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepared the liquefaction potential
map, they used USGS maps which show the historic margins of San Francisco Bay(Nichols and
Wright, 1971), and USGS maps which show the distribution of surficial deposits (Nilsen, 1975;
Helley and LaJoie, 1979).
3.7-11
f ! • . •!
♦
� M
r
_a
PRI
{ t
{ 1 /J/,)
74,
oil
.♦H� r / «'-'may.../1*� � + . �"` ' rr• i r 1 #{+!l♦ a I►
4 1i...�t.�'r''� `*'��,"y`ti��r" � ,/ j r J 1� '� �•-+-�s
mow- '� �1�� � �L � ,`y/, �~r,`�;jyj. //f r� �I"��/�Y ♦.� +�.+�
` � II "L ��i.t+[/I''..�~ •`/IYi ti� ���II(,r_� 1 ,f � � s _-i+� �Ir
3 r //. ».'•"' ..w� .`,\i +.�Y Y/ rr' 'f + \ ,?� .t-ay=e•' 0"A
•�'' � � � (�`'`�/f✓+'v`'�:�-.. .r_-,J,,'� ;<`.,.ry.`r- �'./ 9
-,,.r�,,•�y j/��,Y .../IIIy` `' �:`�L T f''�'�.•f` � `
�; ',Y. `��\`S \ ` �•:^Z ��,t.`tom/'-••3f �I A
4v 1ANK
zY' J t' IYF,i\�+ r,rT f. I!,/f ►l�.,i r i ,�. j� rf�' .' \,.�• t. •
..
�i'�}'St 4 �.'3'� �`•♦\\� 1'� "fir' 'S ,+�l��.r� �t, •• ,• '�-�...1� •/ .��l
><L4 j •-L,lt1, s y r 1+r+ .,`..,�`r..� r „y,
#'f ap
ti... '� �� V , - �'�.♦ y \ ...
1
i�poorv' ''1� Y?""
♦ r � tj f ��� J
`j{ • * 10-
+ Z.r Imo. 6- �
t�.� s �� ♦. ♦ t 11
s,' • /"r'J jj�►l• ^- •� s` .l�L»mss' � � �'��!�t�J
rIF ` • '#4,,Y9
It I
4 W4
' •�► ;1 �. .i t rte ,����
�" 'I► lei,^ ,, ` • , '""� , , '•.�.1• 1 N"',
a4clAt :fit
17
l '4--
�� `
�* 7 w �•t '��,. 1 � �'\ • :#j'1 i �►'�;l':i' � '�"!f�,,yy��\ �j"Y,[Itl
Y J r f I � y• •.w.a > �'1►""..;M ice^- J� -�'-fix\' '•a \` {f` ..��''��
1 `'�y ` '�'i K 'APKC-
* �•" '��,,w�.'yam+f./;., �.. 1,. 1'",: t c'...\ ��i+r =�',,t`;�--t\
464
0 kl�
oor
'`.I�41�l' yu,1� � ! i > 4�l•�.'.�ti I4. `� �~ "�'a.`'�;�\\��'�_�11.,♦(�2��' �'/
1 ,1 vv,.�. Y A. }Ri Al R r•��I'" ///ff//
S`�f .(u `Y!! � r 1�1! � ,�, T-i f yY•�a 7+'t ( i ..yY��j`) ♦�11\;-7'3
46. 40
16.
� JJ
��' {"4�•",,.s� r+/ i w r 'S.r/.r+� 1 ,++t x.+1 .� !L' ~.;,1 t••. 'f`t` •
It
.�7 ti *♦ // /"r 7 .,,,./ *il�rllyt ^y i ++ .�'/ * •}� . r`>,..
;,� S /r ■ J► `� -.+. J l+i}� j yam.47 L1~ 1-
/ f
�jr � t, a �t,fV'"�_ ti, v � y'��1' �•(�#.�" .r ,/,�� 44fow
meq. ..,,�. ! --.,"+« .,Yr++R•�,'�y�Y+t r��� Z,.��r 1....
all d-V-
•L # i • ` • !
i
� �� iii !�•
ENVIRONMENTAL IWACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines(Appendix G, 1992 revised)definea significant impact on the geologic or soil
environment as " a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project". The guidelines also stipulate that the EIR
analyze significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development or
people into the area affected by geologic or soil hazards. Conflicts of the proposed development
with General Plan policies are also significant impacts.
All impacts are considered significant adverse impacts unless identified otherwise. The
corresponding mitigation measure(s) unless otherwise noted would be sufficient to reduce
impacts to aless-than-significant level. Although not required by CEQA, some less-than-
significant impacts have been discussed because they are issues of local concern. While no
mitigation measures are required by CEQA for less-than-significant impacts, in some cases
mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce the level of impact.
General Plan Compliance
General Plan policies do not provide objective design standards, but do provide policy direction.
The data presented in this chapter of the DEIR indicate that the planning area is a high risk area
where seismic hazard, ground shaking and liquefaction policies are operative. These policies
demand that in high risk areas, such as the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Area, seismic stability
shall be a primary consideration on the suitability of the land to be developed or designated for
urban uses. Other policies indicate that in high risk areas the design of projects shall be sensitive
to geologic and seismic constraints, and where hazards cannot be adequately mitigated, the land
shall remain undeveloped.
It is difficult to accurately assess the geologic and seismic hazards to specific lots and blocks on
the basis of reconnaissance-level data. Preliminary opinions and conceptual development
concepts must be confirmed/refined by subsurface data and engineering analysis. During the
processing of future land development projects, geologic/geotechnical reports are required at
different stages of the land development progress. Consequently,this EIR can evaluate only the
relative suitability of the planning area for the types of land uses prescribed by the Specific Plan:
working at a scale of 1"=600',and with only USGS topography(five foot contour intervals in the
planning area).
In summary,the General Plan provides sufficient policy direction to ensure compatibility of land
uses with geologic hazards, and it provides mapping -which identifies high risk areas. The
Specific Plan has the opportunity to prescribe implementation measures necessary to ensure that
site conditions are fully evaluated prior to final approval of land development projects.
3.7-12
Safety of Bay Mud
Impact 3.7-1 The proposed project involves construction within areas underlain by
Younger Bay Mud which presents stability problems. This impact is
considered significant. .
To reduce risk of damage to property, injuries and life loss, special consideration must be given
to construction on lands underlain by Bay Mud. Typically,there is a layer of Younger Bay Mud
overlying Older Bay Mud. In older communities such as Rodeo there may also be non-
engineered fills. The Younger Bay Mud is very weak and presents foundation problems. Old,
undocumented fills may be extremely variable in their engineering properties and pose special
problems. The selection of foundation systems and grading design depends in part on the
stability of the existing subsurface materials. If fills are required for individual land development
projects, safety also depends on the manner in which the filling is done and the material used for
the fill. Ultimately,the safety of a structure on Younger Bay Mud depends on the design of the
structure, materials used, and quality of the construction. The building of a structure that
provides adequate safety requires the following:
• Recognition and investigation of potential hazards, including a) total and differential
settlement, and b) ground failure caused by the manner of construction, or by shaking
during a major earthquake.
• Construction done in a manner specifically designed to minimize these hazards.
While construction of buildings on Bay deposits involves a greater number of potential hazards
than construction on bedrock or on firm,dry alluvium,adequate design measures can be taken to
reduce the hazards to acceptable levels. There are no minimum codes regulating construction on
Bay deposits because hazards vary with different geologic and foundation conditions, uses of the
structure,and type of construction.
Developing specific standards and criteria for construction projects will require comprehensive
geologic/geotechnical studies. The County Ordinance Code (Title 9, Article 94-2.204(A); 94-:
2.206(2A); 94-4.224; 94-4.420)makes provision for iniating geologic, seismic and geotechnical
reports during the subdivision review process. Specifically, they enable the County to trigger
investigations to evaluate potential geologic, seismic and geotechnical hazards. Typically,
reports prepared in the planning stages of a project provide an overview of geologic and seismic
hazards,present iunformation on subsurface conditions,and provide a professional opinion on the
suitability of the site for the proposed project. They may also provide general recommendations
and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design. The County Grading Ordinance
also makes provisions for requiring additional geologic and geotechnical studies during the
processing of grading and buihEng permits (Building Regulations, Division 716, Articles 716-
4.802 through -4.806). The issues to be resolves by the pending Specific Plan are chiefly land
use and density, along with design guidelines. Construction details are not needed for this
purpose. However,the Specific Plan is the proper vehicle to establish the scope and direction of
the investigations which are a routine part of the project approval process for land development
projects. The Specific Plan cold also provide guidance for the timing of required reports. For
example, it may be inappropriaw to condition project approval on the favorable outcome of a
geologic/geotechnical investig-anan because the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan area
is identified as a high risk area by the General Plan.
3.7-13
Mitivation Measures
3.7-1(a) The design guidelines for the Specific Plan should be expanded to give consideration to
geologic and seismic hazards. Specifically,applications for land development projects
shall not be deemed to be complete withoutageologic/geotechnical investigation that
includes adequate borings, laboratory testing and engineering analysis to characterize
subsurface conditions and evaluate geologic and seismic hazards on the subject
property. The report should provide at least preliminary recommendations for site
grading, drainage and foundation design, and it shall be well documented and
consistent with the guidelines for engineering geology reports issued by the Board of
Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists.
3.7-1(b) The conditions of approval for land development projects shall require a foundation
report that references the approved project plans, and provides specific criteria and
standards to guide site grading,drainage and foundation design.
In some cases, the initial report required with submittal of an application may provide
sufficient detail to ensure that the project approved at public hearings is sensitive to
geologic and seismic constraints. In that circumstance, the foundation report can be
deferred until application is made for construction permits.
3.7.1(c) Geologic/geotechnical and foundation reports prepared for land development in the
Specific Plan area should be subject to peer review by an engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer acting in behalf of the County.
Ground Response
Impact 3.7-2 During the useful life of structures,the Rodeo area is likely to be subjected
to at least one severe earthquake that will cause strong ground shaking and
may result in loss of life,and structural collapse or partial failure of
buildings. This impact is considered significant.
The potential for strong ground shaking from earthquakes generated on active faults in the region
is a significant seismic hazard to the Rodeo area. The severity of ground shaking at a particular
site depends on seismic factors (e.g. generating fault, distance to energy source, earthquake
magnitude,duration of shaking,horizontal and vertical accelerations).
The ground shaking accompanying large earthquakes has primary and secondary effects.
Primary effects of shaking are those that directly affect improvements. Secondary effects of
shaking are indirect effects on improvements resulting from the effects of shaking on earth
materials. Secondary effects are of special concern to the project planning area due to the
presence of unconsolidated materials such as loose channel sands and silts, Bay Mud and
artificial fill. Facilities located on unconsolidated materials may experience secondary effects
including liquefaction,lateral spreading,and differential settlement
In 1990,the USGS issued a report that assesses the probabilities of large earthquakes in the San
Francisco Bay region. Based on such factors as geologic slip rate, rates of historical creep and ,.-.,.
other factors, it was concluded that the northern segment of the Hayward fault (the segment in
3.7-14
Contra Costa County) has the highest probability of being a source of a high magnitude
earthquake. The expected magnitude is 7, and this event was rated as having a 28% probability
of occurrence during the 30-year period 1990-2020,
According to a map issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG,Perkins 1995),
it can be anticipated that structures built in the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront area would
experience Modified Mercalli intensities as high as IX(heavy damage)and X(extreme damage)
in the event of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the Hayward fault, High magnitude earthquakes
originating elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Region would also be capable of producing
earthquake damage in the Rodeo area,although it would be less severe.
At Modified Mercalli Intensity IX, even well-designed structwes meeting the current
requirements of the Uniform Building Code could experience damage,and the exist inventoryAb
of Unreinforced Masonry(URM)buildings are vulnerable to collapse. Table 3.7,,3 indicates that
at Modified Mercalli Intensity IX,masonry D and C are subject to collapse. Masonry B is subject
to serious damage and may sustain sufficient damage to be red tagged or yellow tagged in the
aftermath of the earthquake. At Intensity X,the damage is even more severe.
In summary,the existing URM buildings in the planning area pose a life loss potential as well as
a potential for heavy damage.,
Miti¢ation Measures
3.7-2(a) Amend the Specific Plan to make demolition or seismic retrofitting of URM buildings a
priority of the plan, and develop implementation measures to accomplish that goal.
The highest priority for abatement of the hazard should be given to buildings with the
highest occupancy, and buildings in the area of high liquefaction potential (see Figure
3.7-5). The owners should be required to post warnings of the collapse hazard at the
entrances to the building. If owners do not undertake action to abate the hazard posed
by URM buildings within a reasonable amount of time (~5 years), the building
inspection department should undertake condemnation proceedings,
3.7-2(b) Modem seismic design shall be used in construction for resistance to lateral forces.
in
Construction done accordance with the latest Uniform Building Code and Contra
Costa County Code requirements would significantly reduce the potential for
earthquake-related damage,
Collapse Hazard Buildings
Impact 3.7-3 The existing inventory of unreinforced masonry(URM)buildings poses a
substantial life loss and injury potential. This is considered a significant
impact.
There are various inventories of non-,reinforced buildings. Most are based on windshield surveys
and lack official status. Figure 3.7-4 presents the list developed by the Association of Bay Area
Governments. Although such lists may not be complete, they indicate that a substantial number
of URM buildings are present. Additionally, many woodfime buildings -are not on proper
foundations, or they are not bolted to their foundations. These buildings may have other
structural deficiencies,and they are located in an area of high liquefaction potential. These issues
3.7-1 S
point out the need to have both an aggressive correction program and interim measures to control .,,..�
land uses and occupancy.
Mitivation Measures
3.7.,3(a)Require owners of downtown buildings to submit a structural engineer's analysis that
identifies the structural deficiences of their buildings. To be most useful,the format for
reports should be outlined by the County Building official. Ideally,the study should be
submitted within one year,or actions should be taken to restrict occupancy/use.
3.7-3(b)Require the owner to post warning signs on the fronts of those buildings deemed to be a
collapse hazard.
3.7-3(c)Within the Specific Plan,develop economic incentives for owners of substandard
buildings to opt for retrofitting or for demolition and replacement.
Expansive Soils and/or Bedrock
Impact 3.7-4 Expansive soils sad/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant
damage to foundations,slabs and pavements.
Expansive soils(those with a high shrink-swell potential)are described and mapped in the project
area by the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(Welch, 1977). Conceivably,weathered bedrock
may also be expansive.
Damage from expansive soils and/or bedrock is one of the most widespread and costly problems
in the San Francisco region. The significant effects of expansive soils and/or bedrock can be
mitigated by recognition of the condition and appropriate design. Mitigation measures involving
the use of adjustable foundation systems are not generally effective against the effects of regional
wet/drought cycles, and are considered undesirable because the systems require periodic
maintenance. Subsurface drainage alone is also not generally effective against the effects of
regional wet/drought cycles,and are considered undesirable because the systems require periodic
maintenance. Subsurface drainage alone is also not generally effective against the effects of
regional wet/drought cycles. Highly expansive soils have severe limitations for use in engineered
fill.. This is considered a significant impact, but one which must be mitigated on a site specific
basis.
Mitivation Measures
To reduce the impact to ales-than-significant level,the following mitigation measures must be
adopted.
3.7-4(a) A design level geotechnical investigation shall be required for new construction and
major renovations. The required report shall provide criteria for foundation of
pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and
County Code requirements on the basis of subsurface exploration and laboratory
testing. The constraints on the use of expansive soil near finish grade shall be
evaluated in the design-level geotechnical investigation report. -...
3.7-16
7.7-3(b) Foundation design shall include drilled pier and grade beam foundations,, reinforced
slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-
level geotechnical investigation.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Impact 3.7m5 The proposed project involves cuts and fills on a narrow valley floor with
a potential to cause sedimentation both on and offmsite.
There are multiple facets to the subject of erosion and sedimentation. Erosion control requires
implementation of measures after major earth moving activities are completed. Sediment control
inrequires working n a situation where the soil is continually being disturbed. Erosion control
requires use of techniques which prevent displacement of soil particles by raindrops, moving
water or wind. These techniques include erosion control blankets, mulching and establishing
vegetation. Sediment control requires the removal of particles which are suspended in moving
water, along with having a knowledge of drainage control. Neither of these potential impacts is
easily mitigated, and both require an understanding of the limitations of "Best Management
Practices" (BM's). Erosion and sedimentation are natural geologic processes which do not
conflict with protection of resource values. The problem arises when grading activities result in
increased sediment yields that exceed historic conditions. Techniques to reduce sediment from
runoff waters include the following:
0 restrict the amount of land disturbance;
0 keep graded slopes as flat as possible;
0 restrict grading to the dry summer season;
0 implement BMPs to control erosion and minimize the amount of sediment that is
discharged into creek channels.
There is a mistaken belief that placement of barriers (silt fences, straw bales) are an efficient
method to control sediment from exiting the graded area and entering a natural drainage channel.
These barriers are ineffective when runoff waters overtop, tunnel under or flow around the
barriers, which is an all too often occurrence. This is considered a significant impact because
erosion can result in traffic safety,nuisance and water quality effects.
Mitivation Measures
3.7-5(a) Since the proposed project would involve relatively minor grading of gently sloping
land,mitigation measures are required only for construction-related, short-term erosion
and sedimentation. The project proponent shall provide an erosion control plan prior to
approval of the grading plan. The following interim control measures shall be
employed based on site-specific needs in the project area:
a
•
grading to minimize areas of exposed,erodible material,
• the erosion plan shall include water bars,temporary culverts and swales,mulch and
jute netting blankets on exposed slopes, hydroseeding, silt fences, and sediment
traps/basins;
3.7-17
• because the biggest problem with effective sediment control is lack of
maintenance, the erosion control plan must have a comprehensive program for
inspection and maintenance during the winter rainy season, including provisions
for documenting maintenance activities.
1
3.7-18
3.8 NOISE
SETTING
General Plan
The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990-2005 contains a number of
policies that restrict development of particularly noisy sites. Those most applicable to Rodeo are
presented below.
Policies
1 1-1. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as
established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines(see General Plan Figure
11-6). These guidelines,along with the future noise levels shown in the future noise
contour maps,should be used by the County as a guide for evaluating the compatibility
of"noise-sensitive"projects in potentially noisy areas.
11-2. The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However,a
DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or
aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multi-family
housing. In this case,second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the
goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative.
11-3. If the primary noise source is in passbys,then the standard for outdoor noise levels in
residential areas is a DNL of 70 dB. A higher DNL is allowable since the DNL is
controlled by a relatively few number of in passbys that are disruptive outdoors only
for short periods. Even though the DNL may be high,during the majority of the time the
noise level will be acceptable.
11-4. Title 24,Part 2,of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple-family
housing projects,hotels,and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a
detailed acoustical analysis describing bow the project will provide an interior DNL of 45
dB or less. The County shall also require new single-family housing projects to provide
for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less.
1 1-5. In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess,of 65 dB due to single events
such as airport,helicopter,or in operations,indoor noise levels due to these single
events shall not exceed a maximum Amweighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55
dB in other habitable rooms.
11-9. Sensitive land use shall be encouraged to be located away from noise areas,or the
impacts of noise on these uses shall be mitigated. If residential areas are planned
adjacent to industrial noise sources,then a noise study shall be performed to determine
the extent of any noise impacts and recommend appropriate noise mitigation measures.
3.8-1
jmnlementation Measures
11-a. Continue to require a review and analysis of noise-related impacts as part of the existing
project development review procedures of the County.
11-b. Evaluate the noise impacts of a proposed project upon existing land uses in terms of the
applicable Federal,State,and local codes,and the potential for adverse community
response,based on a significant increase in existing noise levels,
Local Noise Sources
A
The primary source of noise in the Downtown/Waterfront area is vehicular traffic along Parker
Avenue/San Pablo Avenue, which is the major collector street for the Rodeo Area; and train-
related noise on the Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks.
Terminology
Environmental noise concepts and definitions are fundamental to understanding the noise setting
of the study area and impacts of noise on the planning area and surrounding neighborhood.
The basic issue in dealing with the community and environmental noise is its effects,and the way
it is perceived by most persons. Therefore, the noise must be measured, described, and then
compared to guidelines, regulations, and known effects. For these purposes, the decibel is used
with an A-Weighting function, meaning only that the lower and higher frequencies are dem
emphasized similar to human hearing, rather than basing measurements on "flat" frequency
response,which the stereo industry considers standard. Unless otherwise stated,all references to
decibels relative to human effects and community noise are "A-weighted" decibels, or dBA, in
the usual abbreviated form. These weighted decibel values are then referred to as noise levels,or
sound levels. The equipment used to measure noise levels is called a Sound Level Meter.
in The most characteristic feature of noise that people experience their urban communities Wits
extreme variability. For example, the average level may be accompanied by the maximum or
highest noise level, and also the minimum noise level occurring during a particular.time period.
In some cases,it is more important to know,for example,that the minimum noise level is 45 dBA
and the maximum noise level is 90 dBA,than that the average noise level is 55 dBA.
There are literally dozens of different types of noise descriptors, each developed to give
information on the effects of specific types of noise under certain conditions (e.g. for aircraft
noise, for speech intelligibility, or for activity interference),. In recent years, most governmental
agencies in the U.S.have been recommending the use of either Ln,Leq,or Ldn. Ln,where n is
a number expressed as a percentage, refers to the noise level in dBA which is exceeded n
percent of the time. For example,traffic noise may be generated along a freeway such that 100
feet from the roadway, 70 dBA is exceeded ten percent of the time (and ninety percent of the
time,the noise is 70 dBA or less). The L 1 0 noise level for the location is then 70 dBA. The L50
or median noise Leq is the energy equivalent noise level, otherwise defined as the single, steady
noise level which has the same sound energy as the actual widely-varying noise level being
described. The Ldn or(DNL) is essentially the same as the Leq,except that during the nighttime
period from 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.,a 10 dB "Penalty" is added to account for the expectation of
3.8-2
b
�A
s
d
-- 5
PPW-
5
Ate.
P•
A
S.P.9O
1113
55 55
s p,Bow
it
St
38'd
Atli" 45 $�' 45 '
—mow"
Legend:
-45- DNL Noise Levels (dB)
(Projected for 2005)
Figure: 3-,8- 1
Graphic Scale
General Plan Noise Contour MapCXW mmmmm=Acre I me
Source: Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005 0 wo
a more quiet environment at night. In other words,a location with a 55 dBA daytime Leq would
only have a DNL of 55 if the noise level during the night dropped at least 10 dBA. California's
CNEL is basically equal to Ldn, and it is the CNEL noise descriptor that is used in the Noise
Element.
Noise Element �,
Contour Mans
The noise level at a given location is a combination of many factors, including local traffic
volumes and speeds, and other noise sources and their distances. The noise contour maps in the
Noise Element of the County Plan, 1990=2005, forecast noise levels for the year 2005. To
estimate the increase in noise, the acoustical engineer takes into account land use changes and
associated traffic volumes. Figure 3.8-1,Noise Contour Map, shows those areas of the planning
area exposed to noise in excess of 55 DNL. This map does not reflect the influence of
*oft
topography or buildings in shielding specific sites from vehicular traffic-,generated noise.
Fwthermore,it does not attempt to characterize indoor noise levels,
The 1990 Draft EIR prepared for the establishment of the Redevelopment Area included an
acoustical study which took into account both vehicular traffic and train traffic. The text of the
1990 EIR (p. 107) indicates that the railroad line carried about 20 trains per day. Thirteen of
these pass between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10m:00 p.m., and seven pass between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The trains travel at a speed of about 45 mph through Rodeol:
According to Southern Pacific, the current train operations through Rodeo may be characterized
as follows2 .----_
Figure 3.8-2,Noise Factors Map is presented in the 1990 EIR. It identifies five noise sources in
the Rodeo area. They include the Sequoia Refinery, Unocal Refinery,traffic on I-80 and on the
Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue corridor, and train noise. The shaded area in Figure 3.8-,2
identifies areas exposed to noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL(and greater). According to this map,
only traffic on Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue and train noise impacts the planning area.
Refinery noise and traffic noise generated by I-80 are sufficiently removed from the Specific Plan
area that they do not generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.
According to Figure 3.8-2, the noise corridor along Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue extends
approximately 200 to 225 feett beyond the road right-of-way. The noise corridor along the
Southern Pacific Railroad property extends approximately 250 feet on either side of the tracks.
Like Figure 3..8,,1,the Noise Factors Map does not take into account the effect of topography Or
buildings in shielding specific sites.
0
Figure 3.8,,2 shows the location of Noise Monitoring Station A. It was located 67 feet from the
centerline of the westbound lane of San Pablo Avenue (i.e. the nearest travel lane) and 65 feet
from the nearest set of railroad tracks. Twenty-four hours of measurements yielded a noise level
The only railroad crossing in the planning area is a grade separated crossing. There is no railroad station
or switching operation in Rodeo. Consequently,noise that would be associated with braking,at-grade
crossings,switching,or a station are avoided. The chief sources of noise are due to friction between the
track and wheels,and engine noise. ,,,.�,
2 Awaiting information from Southern Pacific.
3.8-3
f
I •
all
Sri,, •.�i
1111111,
�irr�itt�t
got till,#
fI _
,.�006fill �.
.• '��
�ww I so
�1�11 111.
1wow
1,.low aft MAN
ON. � zm Inrail
I`s SSW .... �� . �Il► •� ,,/ tlj j1 111111ima
-� •� — • • �•. oft ..j11 111– ..
.1sow
Now t��._..- �_ • •ter �� "��. i� � .
wo qm'�MAP lei
0 Ago
100 so Ov AMR
sop %gle soon
s 100 LA
r� r
Soo •� lll� . ..m.. M�Sm Um m
wow ISO • ^", /' �• wwm m� �.a "'
'� =11t�
*so_ amle 000- ift
02,
AV
LIV
goo- v
SSW-
06
as 71M
ip— ,
` ,tea•�' 00%Iowa 4-ft
' •t` `�1r 4�'
log=
10 �� �� mwrs
.low ��t11
1000.. t�
•• t1 �.�
00 am SR
as imam L
v Ile
Imp-
or A goo
40 OR
Explanation:
♦ ♦ � � ♦0 Noise Measurement Location
♦
` • ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ �I
man
■a
Five
Acres
of 76 dBA CNEL. Railroad noise alone yielded a noise level of 74 dBA CNEL; traffic-related
noise along yielded a noise level of 70 dBA CNEL.
In summary,noise levels forecast by the General Plan Noise Contour Map are approximately 5 to
7 dB lower than noise levels shown in Figure 3.8-2. This difference may be due at least in part to
the fact that the 1990 EIR was measuring existing noise levels and the General Plan was
predicting noise levels in the year 2005. Currently,Parker Avenue carries truck traffic generated
by the Unocal Refinery and the Wickland Oil Company. However, prior to the year 2005 the
Cummings Skyway3 will be extended to San Pablo Avenue. When that extension is completed,
much truck traffic carried by Parker Avenue is expected to be diverted to the Cummings Skyway.
At that time,noise levels on Parker Avenue will decrease.
Comnatibility Standards and Policies
The Noise Element contains policies and implementation measures to control the overall noise
environment in the County. To this end,the Noise Element provides standards for outdoor noise
as a function of land use type. Table 3.8-1 presents the noise compatibility standards for the uses
proposed within the Specific Plan area.
TABLE 3.8-1
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR
COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Normally Conditionally Normally
Land Use Acceptable4 Acceptable Unacceptable
Residential5 50-60 55-70 70-75
Residential6 50-65 60-70 70-75
Commercials SO-70 67-77 75-85
Indu a18 SO-75 70-80 75-85
Parks9 50-70 67-75 72-85
Source: Contra Costa County General Plan
(Figure 11-6;pp. 11-43)
3 The location of the Cummings Skyway is shown in Figure 2.2-2. Currently the west terminus of
Cummings Skyway is at Intestate 80. When extended it will intersect San Pablo Avenue near Tormey.
4 DIJI,or CNEL,dB
5 Single family,Duplex,Mobile Home
6 Multiple Family
7 Includes retail business,offices and professional uses
8 Manufacturing �
9 Neighborhood packs and playgrounds
3.8-4
The General Plan Noise Element contains policies that indicate outdoor noise levels should
normally be less than 60 DNL for residential uses,but that 60 to 70 are conditionally acceptable.
For non-residential uses, including retail business, offices and commercial, noise levels of 50 to
70 DNL are generally acceptable and noise levels up to 77 DNL are conditionally acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NUTIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (1992), Section (p) indicate that a project will normally have a
significant noise impact if it increases substantially the ambient noise_levels for adjoining areas.
Conflicts with community goals are also identified as a significant impact,and in this regard the
County General Plan, 1990-2005 provides land use compatibility standards for community noise
levels.
Residential Uses
Impact 3.8=1 Multiple family projects, as well as single family projects are considered
sensitive receptors. Such uses may not be suitable on sites when ambient
noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL. This is considered a significant impact.
The acoustical engineer for the 1990 EIR established the extent of areas exposed to noise levels
of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. Such areas are only conditionally acceptable for residential uses.
The County's recommended noise standard for outdoor use areas of residential projects is 60
DNL or less(equivalent to 60 dBA CNEL or less).
This impact cannot be accurately analyzed (and mitigated) until specific development plans are
proposed. At that time, the Cummings Skyway extension may be completed and the noise
environment changed.
Mitivation Measures
3.8-1 The Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, and the General Plan requires a
detailed acoustical analysis forresidential projects in noise arias(see Policy 11-4 and 11-
9). These studies are normally required as Conditions of Approval for residential areas in
cases where noise levels are 60 DNL. For the purpose of enforcing this policy, Figure
3.8.2 shall be used.
3.8-5
Commercial Uses '``-
3.114 Some non-residential uses may not be compatible with noise levels along the Parker
Avenue/San Pablo Avenue corridor. This is considered a significant impact.
Retail businesses, offices and other commercial uses, like residential projects, must comply with
General Plan standards. The acoustical engineers analysis presented in the 1990 Draft EIR
suggests that projects fronting on Parker Avenue and San Pablo Avenue may be exposed to noise
levels of 70 DNL or greater. This impact cannot be accurately analyzed (and mitigated) until
specific development plans are proposed. At that time,the Cummings Skyway extension may be
constructed and the noise environment changed.
Miti¢ation Measures
3.8-2 According to Table 3.8-1,some non-residential uses are conditionally acceptable
between 70 and 75 DNL. For noisy sites,such as those fronting on Parker Avenue and
San Pablo Avenue(east of Parker Avenue),the County normally requires an acoustical
study to accurately measure outdoor noise levels and calculate indoor noise levels,and
then analyze the data to ensure indoor noise levels will be appropriate for the proposed
use. This study is normally made a condition of approval when the siting and design of
the building is established. This routine procedure is sufficient.
Noise Due to Land Use Changes
Impact 3.8-3 Successful redevelopment of the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront area could
slightly increase noise levels on the perimeter of the planning area and
along the Parker Avenue corridor. This is not considered a significant
impact
Except for carefully controlled laboratory experiments, an increase of I dB or less Is not
perceivable,and an increase of 3 dB is considered a barely perceivable difference. A change of 5
dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected; or an
increase along residential frontages which causes the noise level to rise above the 60 DNL
threshold is considered a significant impact. Persons living along the Parker an Pablo Avenue
corridor have adapted to the noise generated by businesses and residences in Rodeo, along with
truck noise associated with Unocal and other refineries. In time, the noise generated by heavy
trucks may be replaced by traffic associated with revitalization of the downtown area.
Empirically, the traffic study performed by Patterson and Associates indicates that the volume
changes are modest.
Miti-ation Measures
None required.
3.8-6
Construction Noise
Impact 3.8-4 Short-term noise impacts can be anticipated on adjacent residential areas.
This is considered a significant impact.
'4
Noise would be generated during project-assisted construction activities. The impacts of
construction noise on existing land uses would depend upon the types of equipment used and
distances from existing residential development. Typical noise levels resulting from use of
various typical construction equipment are listed in Table 3.8-2.
The highest construction-period noise levels would be generated by new residential, commercial,
roadway,and infrastructure(storm drainage,etc.)construction which involves use of excavation,
grading and paving equipment. The highest construction period noise levels occur during any use
of motorized air compressors and jack hammers (street and i cture construction). During
construction and building renovation, noise would be generated by trucks delivering and
removing materials from the construction sites, foundation laying and framing. Noise is
generated by both power equipment and hammers,saws,etc.
Significant short-term noise impacts on adjacent residential areas could be expected during the
entire construction period for most building and infta a s tructure improvements. Typical average
daily noise levels within 50 feet of a typical building construction or renovation project, or a
typical road construction project, could be as high as 75 to 80 dBA. In addition, there could be
potential noise impacts along various residential street frontages due to construction-related
traffic. During the day and early evening hours (i.e. 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), these intermittent
truck-generated noise increases would probably be unnoticeable. However, during weekend,
holiday, and weekday early morning and nighttime hours (i.e. 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.),
construction-related truck traffic noise would be more noticeable and could adversely impact
residences adjacent to the truck access routes.
Mitigation Measures
3.8-4(a) To minimize construction period noise impacts, restrict construction activity to 7:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m:Monday through Friday,and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday. No Sunday or holiday work allowed.
3.8-4(b) Noise-related performance standards should be included as part of any
Redevelopment Agency agreements for commercial development activities adjacent
to existing residential areas.
3.8-4(c) Construction documents should include provisions to ensure that all construction
equipment is adequately muffled and maintained.
3.8-7
TABLE 3-,8-w2
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
AGSIYitXPeak Noise Range
(dB at 50 feet)
Earth Moving Equipment
Compactors 72_88
Front Loaders 72w97
Backhces 72a,94
Bulldozers 73-w95
Scrapers,Graders 76-95
Pavers 82-w93
Trucks 70,-95
Stationary Equipment
Pumps 70w80
Generators 7042
Compressors 68-86
Impact Equipment
Pneumatic Wrenches 82.88
Jackhammers 76m.98
Pile Drivers 89-105
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72,-88
Concrete Pumps 7445
Cranes(Moveable) 75-96
Cranes(Derrick) 86-89
Source: Harris(1979)
3.8-8
3.9 AER QUALITY
SETTING
General Plan
The Conservation Element of the County General Plan contains goals, policies and
implementation measures awned at protection of air resources. Those most applicable to the
Rodeo Specific Plan are presented below.
GWs
8-AA. To meet federal air quality standards for all air pollutants.
8-AB. To continue to support federal,State and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order
to protect human and environmental health.
8-AC. To restore air quality in the area to a more healthful level.
8-AD. To reduce the percentage of Average Daily Traffic(ADT)trips occurring at peak hours.
201i ies
8-98. Development and roadway improvements shall be phased to avoid congestion.
8-99. The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials.
8-100. Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County.
8-101. A safe,convenient and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained
to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving.
8-102. A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to
encourage walking as an alternative to driving.
8-103. When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air quality,
appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed.
8-104. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate hazardous air
pollutants.
8-105. Land uses which are sensitive to air pollution shall be separated from sources of air
pollution.
8-106. Air quality planning efforts shall be coordinated with other local,regional and State
agencies.
8-107. New housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing residential
development shall be encouraged.
3.9-1
DayeloMent Review Process
S-dm. Review major development applications for consistency with regional air quality plan
assumptions.
8-dn. Review major development applications to ensure that buffer zones are provided between
major air pollution sources(freeways, *industry,etc.)or sources of hazardous pollutants
and sensitive receptors such as hospitals,convalescent homes and residences.
8-do. Consistent with the uses and ranges of density specified in this plan,particularly those in
the Land Use Element and the Growth Management Element,encourage development
that would reduce long distance commuting,positively affect the desired jobs/housing
balance orpromote alternative forms of transportation.
8-dp. In addition to improving the jobs/housing balance,an effort to fill Jobs M* the County with
County residents through"local hire"policies could be encouraged. Job training
programs for County residents should be tailored to local jobs.
8-dq. Review proposed development to encourage maximum use of bicycle,pedestrian and
.&---sit modes of transportation.
Air Quality Standards and Regulations
AuthQri�X
FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT,, Adopted in 1967 and periodically amended, the Federal Clean
Air Act established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the Federal
Clean Air Act set a deadline for the attainment of these federal standards. That deadline has
passed. In 1988,the state passed the State Clean Air Acti,which established more stringent state
ambient air quality standards,and set forth a program for their achievement.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (GARB). GARB implements state ambient air
quality standards, as established in the State Clean Air Act, cooperates with the federal
government in implementing pertinent sections of the Federal Clean Air Act, and has
responsibility for controlling stationary and mobile source air pollutant emissions throughout the
state,, The Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan area is in the state-designated San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. State air basins are established by the California Air Resources
Board.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD). BAAQNID is the
regional agency authorized by the GARB to regulate air pollutant emissions from nonvehicular
sources within the Bay Area A90 Basin, The BAAQNID has responsibility for monitoring air
quality and setting, and enforcing limits for stationary source emissions. The closest BAAQIVID
,air monitoring stations are in Richmond, located approximately eight miles south of the site, and
in Vallejo approximately five miles northeast of the site.
1 in The state Clean Air Act was adopted n 1989(state 1988 statutes,Chapter 1 568)
3.9-2
Based on the provisions of a 1977 Federal Clean Air Act amendment, the Bay Area has been
designated as aNon-Attainment Area for three pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulates. In 1995,the Bay Area was removed from the Federal Non-Attainment Area list for
ozone. The 1988 State Clean Air Act requires each non-attainment district to reduce pertinent air
contaminants by at least 5 percent per year until the new, more stringent, state air quality
standards are met. 0
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY PLAN (BAAQP). The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), in conduction with BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
prepared and adopted the 1979 Bay Area Air Quality Plan (BAAQP) in response to the non-
attainment plan requirements of the Clean Air Act. In 1982, the BAAQP was updated and
revised to meet federal ozone and carbon monoxide standards2 In 1982 BAAQP included both
stationary (industrial) source and mobile source controls to meet ozone, carbon monoxide, and
suspended particulate standards throughout the Bay Area.
Regional Standards
Federal and State of California ambient air quality standards have been established for the
following five critical pollutants: nitrogen dioxide,sulfur dioxide,particulates,carbon monoxide
and ozone. Ozone pollution is the most conspicuous type of air pollution, and is often
characterized by visibility-reducing haze, eye irritation, and high oxidant concentrations, i.e.,
"smog". Ozone is not an emission contaminant. Rather,the phenomenon results from reactions
in the atmosphere of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Smog levels
are affected by various factors,including the quantity of gases present,the volume of air available
for dilution, and the temperature and amount of sunshine. Motor vehicles are usually the
principal contributors to photochemical reactants (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) in urban
areas. Table 3,9-1 lists applicable air quality standards in effect in the Bay Area for the pollutant
categories.
It should be noted that the EPA used to consider total suspended particulates (TSP) a criteria
pollutant. The EPA has recently set standards for inhalable suspended particulates(PM 10)3,and
use of TSP as a criteria pollutant has been discontinued. Eventually, all of the District air
monitoring stations will be equipped to record PM 10 levels. In general, the TSP readings are
estimated to be twice the PM 10 concentration readings.
&eional Air Pollution Sources
The three major sources of air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area are motor vehicles, industrial
plants,and construction activities. Motor vehicles account for a significant portion of gaseous air
pollutant emissions. The BAAQMD has estimated that 78 percent of the Bay Area's carbon
monoxide and over one-half of the region's nitrogen oxides are produced by motor vehicles.4
The second major source of gaseous air pollutant emissions are industrial plants. In particular,
2 Association of Bay Area Governments,Bay Area Air Quality Management District,and Metropolitan
Transportion Commission, 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan DecembCr 1982.
3 Particulates considered inhalable are 10 microns or less in diameter,which may be inhaled and possibly
lodge in and/or irritate the lungs.
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Air Quality Handbook, 1989-1990.
3.9a,3
the beating and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. coal and oil) emit quantities of sulfur oxides and
organic compounds.5 'r``
Motor vehicles and industrial production activities also produce significant quantities of
particulate matter. Particulate matter consists of.dust, ash, smoke, and other suspended liquid or
solid particles. Additionally, construction activities..especially grading operations, cause large
amounts of airborne dust.6
TABLE 3.9-1
APPLICABLE BAY AREA
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Applicable Standard
(not to be equaled
Pollutant Ave Time or Exceededl7
Ozone One Hour 0.09(state)
0.12(federal)
Carbon Monoxide Eight Hour 98(federal/state)
'�-
One Hour 20 (state)
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05(federal)
One Hour 0.24(state)
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03(federal)
Twenty Four Hour 0.05(state)
Particulates(PM 1 0) Annual Mean 309 (state)
Twenty Four Hour 501 0 (state)
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
5 Ibid..
6 Ibid.
7 Units are parts per million,except where noted
8 Not to be exceeded more than once per year
9 Micrograms per cubic meter 100"44k10 Mi416111amsfuscubic meter
3.9-4
Local Conditions
Introduction
Episodes of poor air quality in the area of the Rodeo Specific Plan usually involve a combination
of adverse conditions compounding one another. Loyal sources of pollutants include traffic on
Interstate 80, nearby heavy industry (RSD troatrnent plant, Unocal Refinery, Sequoia Oil
Company's Pacific Refinery) and more distant industrial and commercial operations along the
shoreline of San Pablo Bay between the site and the City of Richmond. If one or more of these
frons has a "mishap" in combination with a temperature inversion, air quality standards can be
exceeded or odor problems may be experienced in the vicinity.
chma�g
The East Bay is classified as a Mediterranean climate, characterized by warm, dry summers and
cool wet winters. Temperatures typically range from the 80's and 90's Fahrenheit in summer to
the 30's Fahrenheit during winter. Precipitation occurs primarily from November through
February. The closest rain gauges are at the Unocal Refinery, located immediately northeast of
the Specific Plan area. Precipitation data collected at the plant between 1951 and 1980 show an
average annual rainfall to be 21.83 inches. During the recent drought (1987 through 1989),
annual precipitation ranged from 12.7 to 17.0 inches.
The semi-permanent high pressure area is responsible for the occasional subsidence inversions
which occur throughout the Bay Area Air Basin. The high pressure area creates a layering of
sinking warm air over cool, marine-influenced air. Because the warm air is less dense than the
cool air, the layers are resistant to vertical mixing. Consequently, the volume of air into which
pollutants can be dispersed is limited. When wind speeds are low, horizontal dilution is also
limited,causing an increase in the concentration of air contaminants.
Temperature inversions can also be caused by surface cooling. On clear winter nights, the
ground loses heat at a rapid rate and causes the air in contact to cool. Once formed,this radiation
inversion is similar to a subsidence inversion in its effect on pollutant dilution.
Winds are chiefly out of the southwest and west. Consequently,mishaps at industries southwest
of the site are more likely to affect the Specific Plan area than operations at the Unocal or
Wickland refineries. The Sequoia Oil Company's Pacific Refinery is just up wind from the
Specific Plan area. In June, 1995, Sequoia announced its intent to close the refinery during
summer or fall, 1995,unless a new operator can be found.
Ambient Air QUality
A five year summary of data collected by BAAQMD at the Richmond and Vallejo Stations
(1990-1994) are presented in Table 3.9-2. These data indicate air quality for all contaminants
monitored by the District, except for PM 10 at the Vallejo Station. Currently that station is not
able to monitor for this criteria pollutant. The data at both stations indicate that concentrations of
ozone and carbon monoxide were within the thresholds prescribed by federal standards,and both
stations were within the state standards for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The Richmond
Station recorded 23 days when the federal standard for PM 10 was exceeded (approximately 4.6
days/year).
3.9-5
TABLE 3.9-2
AIR POLLUTION SUNIIVIARY
RICHMONDi l AND VALLEJ012 STATIONS
1990-1994
Pollutant Standard I"o 1991 1992 1993 1994
RICHMOND STATION
Ozone(OZ)
highest hourly avgJpphm 12/a/ 6 5 9 12 9
days.standard exceeded 40 0 0 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide(CO)
9 hour avgjppm 9/a/ 4.0 4.6 4.0 3.4 2.9
days standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2)
highest hourly avgJpphm 25/b/ 8 8 8 8 8
days standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)
highest 24-hr.avg.ppb SO/b/ 12 16 8 10 10
days standard exceeded 40 0 0 0 0 0
SU-0,--1
M], 01-
1%ml a Particulate
Matter(PM10)
24-hour mew(pg/m3) 50/b/ 22.9 24.4 23.4 22.5 22.0
days standard exceeded 40 5 9 3 3 3
VALLEJO STATION
Ozone(OZ)
highest hourly avgJpphm 12/a/ I I I 1 10 11 10
days standard exceeded ft 0 0 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide(CO) 9/a/ 9.0 9.4 6.4 7.9 6.5
days standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2)
hourly avgJpplun 25/b/ 8 9 7 7 7
days standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)
highest 24-hour avgJppb 50/b/ 9 7 8 9 7
days standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Suspended Particulate
Matter(PM 10)
24-pont nw4w(µ8 m3) 50/b/ 40 -
days standard exceeA&A 4w 40 4w
/a/ Fedenil Standard /b/ State Standard Source: BAAQMD
�� 1144 13th Street,Richmond
12 304 Tuolumne Street,Vallejo
3.9-6
Local Industrial Pollution Sources
Although air quality is generally a regional concern and sources of air contaminants are located
throughout the Bay Area, local pollutant sources also have a direct effect on air quality. For the
Rodeo area, primary sources of local air pollutant emissions are mobile sources, i.e., internal
combustion-powered vehicles. Emission contributions from industrial production activities are
also significant. In addition, construction activities can sometimes create localized air quality
problems. In the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, dozens of firms operate that emit pollutants.
Cumulatively, these industries can create air quality or odor problems. However, the 1982
BAAQP established stringent emission controls on industrial pollutant sources which are now
implemented through mandatory BAAQMD permit issuance and monitoring procedures.
In addition to establishing mandatory peri itting procedures, BAAQMD has defined a "public
nuisance"13 and developed enforcement sanctions to insure that firms conform with permit
provisions. According to BAAQMD, five complaints in a day are sufficient to characterize the
problem as a"public nuisance". To resolve problems, a first approach taken by the district is to
contact the firm that is the source of the pollutant or odor; advise them to take effective and
prompt action to eliminate the problem;and advise them of potential fines and other penalties for
failure to comply. Typically fuses are set in relation to the nature and severity of the violation.
Recently, BAAQMD and the Contra Costa County District Attorney reached an agreement with
Unocal regarding a Catacarb leak that occurred between 22 August and 6 September, 1994. The
agreement called for Unocal to pay civil penalties and cost reimbursement in the amount of$1.05
million to BAAQMD and$1.0 million to Contra Costa County.
As previously mentioned, the Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) operates a treatment plant in the
northeast comer of the planning area; the Unocal Refinery is immediately northeast of the
planning area, and other petrochemical firms are located near the planning area, including the
Wickland Oil Company refinery and the Sequoia Oil Company's Pacific Refinery. Table 3.9-3
lists violations to the permits of these four operations during the 32 month period 1 January 1993
through I I August 1995. In each case the violation was confirmed by the Enforcement Division
of BAAQMD while investigating nuisance complaints received by the District. During the period
1993 through August 1995, Pacific Refinery was cited for 14 violations, including one fire; and
Unocal was cited for 6 violations, including the Catacarb leak and a fire involving Tank 288.
Additional details on the violations are presented in Appendix D.
The most recent air quality mishap in the Rodeo area was a small,but noxious,spill of naphtha at
the Pacific Refinery on 27 September 1995. A spokesperson for BAAQMD stated that a
workman for the Pacific Refinery hit a flange too hard, breaking it and allowing about two
gallons of naphtha to leak, which contained mercaptan, a foul smelling sulfur product that is
13 public Nuisance: Noshallpdischarge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury ,det�rriment,nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public: or which endangers the comfort,repose,health or safety of any such
persons or the public,or which causes,or has a natural tendency to cause,injury or damage to business
property. For purposes of this section,three or mon violation notices validly issued in a 30 day period to a
facility for public nuisance shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the violations resulted from
negligent conduct. (Regulation 1,Section 30 1: Adopted March 17, 198 1,Amended May 2, 1990)
3.9-7
TABLE 3.9-3
VIOLATION NOTICES: RESOLUTION 1/SECTION 301
I JANUARY 1993 THROUGH I I AUGUST 1995
RODEO AREA,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BAAQMD
VIOLATION
OPERATOR N.Q33CE.# RATE COMMENTS
Sequoia Oil 21045 19 Feb.'93 07 odor complaints
C0.14
22183 20 Apr.'93 08 confvmed complaints
20265 10 May'93 10 odor complaints
20963 30 June'93 24 odor complaints
20966 10 July'93 11 odor complaints
20965 12 July'93 08 complaints
20273 08 Dec.'93 14 complaints
20272 10 Dec.'93 steam from drains
20971 04 Feb.'94 tank seal fire
20973 10 Feb.'94 08 odor complaints
25080 25 May 194 09 odor complaints
25081 12 July'.94 08 odor complaints
25752 07 Sep.'94 22 complaints
25758 27 Jan.'95 complaints
Unocal Corp.15 20264 12 Apr.'93 20 smoke complaints
25357 OS Sept.'94 23 fallout complaints
25751 15 Sep.'94 15 odor complaints
25360 28 Mar.'95 OS confirmed odor complaints
25363 24 Apr.'95 24 confirmed complaints
25365 16 Jan.95 13 complaints,tank fire
Wickland Oil 16 no violations
RSD17 no violations
14 Pacific Refinery,4901 San Pablo Avenue,Hercules,California
IS San Francisco Refinery, 13 80 San Pablo Avenue,Rodeo,California
16 Wickland Operations,90 San Pablo Avenue,Crockett,California
17 Rodeo Sanitary District,800 San Pablo Avenue,Rodeo,California
194
commonly added to natural gas to yield an odor18. The spill occurred in a part of the refinery that
is being decommissioned. BAAQNID issued a public nuisance violation against the refinery,and
is continuing to investigate.
The Pacific Refinery property is upwind from the downtown Rodeo area under nearly all climatic
conditions. On 27 September,light breezes brought the odors to the Spectrum Center, a private
school located on the old Garretson Middle School property. The school, which has an
enrollment of 70 handicapped students, was forced to close. Over a threewhour period, nine
children and 29 adults from the school were taken to hospitals for examination and treatrnent.
Summary
The nearby point sources of emissions contribute to the ambient air quality in the Rodeo area,but
they do not substantially change background air pollution levels. Nevertheless, these point
source pollutants are occasionally noticed as objectionable odors primarily associated with sulfur
dioxide (SO2)or hydrogen sulfide (H2S)emissions from nearby refineries 19. The Sequoia Oil
Company announced earlier this summer that the 132-acre Pacific Refinery has stopped
production and is seeking a new operator to eitherutilizethe site as a refinery,or as a terminal for
oil shipping. To date no buyers have been found,20 One obstacle to operating a refinery on the
site is the capital investment needed to produce the cleaner burning fuels that are required by the
California Clean Air Act. If the site is not operated as a refinery in the future,the frequency of air
quality complaints in Rodeo would be substantially reduced. The Unocal Refinery is downwind
of Rodeo under nearly all climatic conditions,so mishaps at that facility rarely affect air quality in
the Specific Plan Area. It does affect air quality in Crockett.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (1992) Section (x) define a significant impact on the air quality
environment as a violation of any ambient air quality standard, contributing substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation or exposing sensitive receptors to substantial air
pollutant concentrations.
Ambient Air Quality
Impact 3.9-1 Redevelopment of the planning area will-result in an intensification
in residential and commercial land uses. In the future,the area may be
more sensitive to types of emissions that produce odors or have poten-
tial0 health effects. This impact is considered to be less than significant.
IS San Francisco Chronicle,28 September iber 1995,pp.A 13-14.
19 The Unocal refinery is located immediately northeast of the Specific Plan area. The Sequoia Oil
Company's Pacific Refinery is located immediately south of the project area(Figure 3.8-,2 shows the
location of the refineries).
20 Don Sanders,Manager of Engineering,Pacific Refinery. Personal communication,22 August 1995.
19-w9
Redevelopment, in combination with the existing residential and non-residential uses in the
vicinity,may,result in an increase in local concerns and registered complaints in the future with
respect to objectionable odor. However, possible technological advances in emission controls,
may offset any increases in local sensitivity to odor. The mix of cars in service gradually changes
over the years, with fewer old cars in service.which do not meet modern emission standards.
Moreover,clean fuels projects at refineries in California will yield a beneficial impact on human
health because of a net reduction of criteria pollutant emissions. On a County-wide basis, the
consumption of reformulated gasoline will reduce emissions from motor vehicles by 365
tons/year for nitrogen dioxide,volatile organic compounds and sulfur dioxide. Carbon monoxide
emissions are expected to be reduced by approximately 6,000 tons/year between 1996 and 2010.
This net reduction will further support federal, state and regional efforts to reeduce air pollution
and restore air quality in the area to a more healthful level.
Iditivation Measure,
3.9-1 None required.
Project Generated Pollutants
Impact 3.9-2 The intensified residential and non-residential use of the Specific Plan area
would result in some increases in air pollutants. This impact is considered
less than significant.
Land development projects have the potential to generate contaminants both during the short term
and long term. During construction, projects generate dust (chiefly associated with grading �
operations and with vehicles driving on unpaved surfaces). Additionally, emissions of carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides are associated with the operation of internal combustion engines.
Over the long term,emissions associated with residential uses are those related to the operation of
private vehicles. Wood burning fire places, lawn mowing and painting are examples of other
activities associated with residential uses that generate pollutants. For commercial uses, the
nature and amount of contaminants released to the atmosphere are dependent on the specific
operation. Those operations that release pollutants into the air are regulated by BAAQMD. A
properly operated business that complies with BAAQMD requirements is not expected to pose a
substantial air quality problem in the Specific Plan area.
Miticratign Measure
3.9-2 None required.
3.9-10
3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
SETTING
General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990,w2005 contains policy provisions in the Open Space
Element which identify protection of historic and cultural resources as a priority of the General
Plan. Pertinent policies are listed below:
Goals
9-G' To identify and preserve important archaeologic and historic resources within the County.
policies
9-28 Areas which have identifiable and important archaeologic or historic significance shall be
preserved for such uses,preferably in public ownership.
9,w29 Buildings or structures that have visual merit and historic value shall be protected.
9-3 0 Development surrounding areas of historic significance shall have compatible and high
quality design in order to protect and enhance the historic quality of the area.
Implementation Measures
9J As a condition of approval of discretionary permits,include a procedure to be followed
in the event that archaeological resouces are encountered during development or
construction.
Ethnographic Content
The Rodeo area is situated in what was, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans, the northern
extreme of the territory occupied by the Costanoan people. Comparatively little is known about
the Costanoans, so named after the Spanish derivative for "coastal people". In 1770, the
Costanoans numbered at most 10,000 people. By 18 10 much of the aboriginal population and
most of its traditional culture had completely disappeared.
The term "Costanoan" implies a linguistic affiliation encompassing seven or eight distinct
language branches. These derive from Penutian Stock, which may have its origins in the
northwestern Great Basin. Penutian peoples presumably migrated into central California,perhaps
as early as 2500 B.C. By 300-500 A.D.,their descendants were in the San Francisco Bay Region.
Over time languages evolved, split, recombined, borrowed, paraphrased, and invented until the
seven or eight distinctive Costanoan languages were formed, each mutually unintelligible but
derived from a common ancestor.
The Costanoans were primarily collectors of floral resources and hunters of fish and game. As
with most aboriginal groups in California, plant foods probably contributed the majority of
3.10.1
calories to the diet. The staple was acorn,pounded by stone mortar and pestle for form a mush,a ,,..,,
gruel, or bread,following the complex technique of leaching tannic acids. Controlled burning of
the land was practiced in order to renew the succession of plant communities, Molluscs (clams,
mussels and oysters) and fish were major sources of protein. Sources of meat included a wide
variety of both land and water fowl and mammals.
In addition to food, flora and fauna provided the remainder of life's necessities. Tules provided
building materials for structures and for balsa canoes used in fishing, hunting, navagation of the
"Iola
salt marshes and transportation across the bay. Plant fibers were used for net and cord
manufacture and basket making. Baskets were used as cooking containers and utensils, storage
containers, seed beaters,water Jugs, cradles, fish traps,trays for leaching and drying acorn meal,
and for burden. Animal bone,was used to make tools. Pelts and feathers provided clothing and
bedding. Sinew was used for bow support and bow strings. Feather,bone, and especially shells
V for items were usea of ornamentation. Local rock and mineral sources provided materials for tool
manufacture.
The largest social unit for the Costanoans was the tribelet,a group of interrelated villages led by a,
single headman. Each tribelet consisted of around 200 people and served as an autonomous
political unit, presumably for enforcing equal access to resources for its members and for
protection from hostile neighbors. There may have been several tribelets for each of the eight
linguistic branches.
Archaeologic Resources
Existin¢Environment --�
Nearly the entire Specific Plan area was developed by approximately 1910 and earliest use of this
area by non-native peoples occurred in the 19th Century. The shoreline has been modified by
bay fill projects; the channel of Rodeo Creek is a man-made feature; and the downtown area is
covered by buildings and paved surfaces. There are relatively few areas where natural soils can
be observed. Moreover, the lands within the Specific Plan area are privately owned, which
complicates obtaining access for the purpose of making an assessment of prehistoric resources.
ARR�h
Holman & Associates,was retained to evaluate the archaeologic sensitivity of the planning area
and to micro-zone the area of possible historic value. Their scope of work included consultation
with the staff of the California Archaeologic Inventory and review information on recorded
archaeologic sites in the Rodeo area, The consultant also reviewed data and reports in their
offices to assess the potential for discovery of additional archaeologic materials within the Rodeo
Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan area. No new field *inspections for prehistoric resources
were performed.
Site Cco-258
Only one prehistoric resource, Cco-258, has been recorded to date inside the project area.
Originally recorded by N.C.Nelson sometime during his historic inspection of the bay margins
around 1907, the site was originally plotted in the vicinity of Lone Tree Point upon the ,..�,
observations of neighbors. Apparently the site was altered, which precluded field inspection by
3.10-2
Nelson. The Southern Pacific railroad tracks were laid before the bay margin survey,of 1907.
The rail line though this area was in place at least by 1873,as it is plotted on maps issued by the
State Geological Survey',of California at that time. In 1990 Holman & Associates attempted to
locate the site by hand augering at its reputed location and in the general vicinity of the boatyard
and other facilities located on Lone Tree Point(Holman, 1990).
The California Archaeological Inventory (1995a) lists no additional prehistoric resources inside
the Rodeo Downtown/Wateru'u-n Specific Plan study area. This lack of recording is not a
reflection of the archaeological sensitivity of the area. It can be attributed to the early and
thorough disturbance of the entire Specific Plan area. The construction of the railroad,the Union
Stockyard,and the subsequent construction of housing and commercial buildings prior to the first
systematic survey of the area by N.C. Nelson in 1907, accounts for the lack of recorded
prehistoric sites.
Alteration of the prehistoric landscape is one of the reasons that the archaeological sensitivity of
the planning area is considered to be relatively high. Similar environmental settings at Hercules
and Pinole supported prehistoric settlements ranging from small campsites to much larger
permanent or semi-permanent villages. Characteristics of the planning area that would have
attracted prehistoric man include easy access to the bay margin through a salt marsh,the presence
of a fresh water source(Rodeo Creek),and the proximity of shelter from prevailing winds(Lone
Tree Point). It is unlikely the site of Cco-258 would represent the only occurrence of prehistoric
resources in the Rodeo area. It is apparent from the Pinole and Hercules areas that the tribelets
inhabiting these drainages and bay margins moved on a seasonal basis from one village to
another, creating archaeological deposits (midden) in the process. Additional midden deposits
could be located anywhere inside the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront Specific Plan study area,
concealed by fill,landscaping and/or buildings.,
Historic Resources
Apprp,sch
Information about standing historic resources was obtained from the following sources:
• California Archaeologic Inventory
• Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory(1976)
issued by Contra Costa County
• Resources at the Bancroft Library Map Room,
UC Berkeley
• Field inventory of buildings performed by
Holman&Associates.
Recorded Sites
Within Rodeo,no sites are listed on the federal.register of historic places. Similarly,there are no
recognized state historic sites. The 1976 Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory,compiled by
Contra Costa County,lists locally significant sites. It was developed after consultation with local
historic groups throughout the County. The list includes sites of historic events, historic
structures and architectural specimens. Only one site is listed in the planning area. That site is
3.1 0-3
the Union Stockyards, which was situated near 4th Street between Parker Avenue and Vaqueros
Street. Facilities included corrals,a meat processing plant and boiler rooms.
In 1891 the Pinole Packing Company built a hotel, post office and school on the site. These
improvements and much of the adjacent development was destroyed by the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake. A
The California Archaeological Inventory identifies two historic sites in the general vicinity of the
planning area:
• Selby Smelter. Selby. This property is one mile northeast of Rodeo.. In 1885,
Thomas Selby, a San Francisco hardware merchant, constructed a large smelter on
the shore of San Pablo Bay, between Davis Point and the Community of Crockett.
Ores from throughout the world were brought to the smelter, which was a notable
landmark in the area. The plant closed in 1971 and was subsequently demolished,
•
LeftGomez Field. This athletic field is on the Garrettson School property, just
south of the Specific Plan area. Lefty Gomez is a baseball Hall of Fame pitcher who
was born in Rodeo. He pitched for the New York Yankees from 1930 through the
mid-1940's,compiling a record of 189 wins and 102 losses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND]MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria ---.,,
Under the State CEQA Guidelines, a project's effect on a cultural resource is a significant
environmental impact if the project may cause damage to an important cultural resource. For the
purposes of CEQA,a cultural resource is considered important if it:
• is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or
American history,or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory
• provides information that is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable, or archeological research
questions;
• has a special or particular quality, such as oldest, abest example, largest, or last
surviving example;
• is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity,or
• is able to address important research questions that historical research has shown can
be answered only through archeological methods(State CEQA Guidelines,Appendix
K)
3.10-4
Archaeologic Resources
Impstct 3.10-1 Cultural resources of prehistoric age or character may be encountered
within the project site daring subsurface construction or other
earthmoving activities. This impilct is considered significant
The archaeologic sensitivity-of the entire Specific Plan area is regarded as relatively "high", due
to the fact that little of the planning area has been systematically surveyed in the past, and the
environmental setting of the area,which contains the characteristics valued by the Costanoans in
selection of camp and village sites. In the absence of archaeologic evaluation of sites proposed
for land development projects, prehistoric resource areas may be damaged by development
activities. It would probably be ineffective and inefficient to require archaeologic studies of small
parcels. However, block-by-block investigations may offer both the economy of scale and
sufficiently large areas to effectively test for such resources by either visual inspections or by
subsurface exploration.
Mitigation Measures
3.1 0-1(a) The Specific Plan should be amended to include a prehistoric resource policy requiring
a program of field testing for prehistoric resources, initiated prior to issuance of
building permits. If field testing proves to be unfeasible prior to building permits for
some sites, due to the presence of buildings, the archaeologist's field testing could be
performed following demolition and prior to foundation laying.
3.10-1(b) County representatives performing mitigation monitoring should be trained to identify
the types of prehistoric materials likely to be exposed during earthmoving and
foundation laying activities.
3.10-1(c) Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-
site excavation(s),earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA)and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology(SOPA)has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
Historic Resources
Impact 3.10-2 The Specific Plan arena contain historic resources. The preservation of
buildings confirmed to have historic value offers a unique opportunity for
future residents of Rodeo to learn about the history of their community.
The buildings that are retained also provide an architectural framework
for redevelopment projects.
The planning area contains two types of historical resources: standing structures and materials
and architectural remains presently buried or obscured, either associated with existing buildings
or earlier development of the area, such as the Union Stockyard. These resource types will be
discussed separately below:
3.10-5
Historic Structures. The archaeologic consultant for the EIR identified 96 structures that have ,...,,
potential resource value (see Figure 3.10-1 for location of buildings and Appendix C for an
inventory of those buildings which list addresses). According to state law, structures that are 45
or more years old require evaluation and documentation by a qualified historian. While this
evaluation can be done on a building by building basis,a scale of economy would be achieved if
the evaluation was done at the same time for all structures which are potentially significant. Such
an approach would not only aid the permit application process in the future, but would allow
consideration of all historic buildings in the project areas in terms of their significance as a
district in which the whole takes on more historical significance that any one individual building.
This type of evaluation would allow the planning process to better understand just which
individual buildings may be more desirable to retain or redevelop than others, thus allowing a
culling of those structures which do not contribute demonstrably to the historic architectural
character of the project area as a whole. Such research would help the community articulate the
discussion of historic qualities of the area and their potential uses implicit in the 1994 Draft
Specific Plan.
Historic Archaeological Resources. These resources are defined as the material remains of any
historic occupation of the area,associated with existing or former structures. They would include
architectural features such as building remnants, foundations, earthworks, and other signs of
physical historical alteration of the landscape. Filled in basements,wells,dumps and privy pits in
particular are important,since they function as repositories of historical materials and other forms
of information about the former inhabitants of the area which is currently not available from
archival sources.
The potential exists for new development within the Specific Plan area to uncover buried �
historical archaeologic deposits associated with current or former building locations. Similar to
the problem of searching for prehistoric archaeological remains,piecemeal development may lead
to the discovery of discrete historical.deposits which could be identified during construction by
the grading contractor, or by County representatives monitoring compliance with mitigation
measures. ConverselyJarger projects requiring demolition or inift-10ucture14 trwork could uncover
larger areas of historic deposits. In either case,evaluation of the resource potential by a qualified
archaeologist is needed to determine if some form of mitigation is warranted.
Mitisratign Measures
3.10-2(a) The Specific Plan should be amended to include a prehistoric resource policy requiring
a program of evaluating historic resources in the planning area through one
comprehensive survey. Alternately, the survey should be performed on a block-by-
block basis.
3.10-2(b) County representatives performing mitigation monitoring should be trained to identify
the types of historic archaeological materials likely to be exposed during earth moving
and foundation laying activity
3.10.,2(c) Mitigation Measures 3.9-1(a) should be expanded to include consideration of historic
archaeological resources.
3.10-2(d) If any significant historic archaeological materials are encountered during construction
operations,the procedures prescribed by 3.10-1(c)should be followed.
3.10-6
g
tie
C9
PAPA
lot.Str
� ,�,�y A
�est t
S.P.feat �
r
gr
0
a � � , Ott►
S.P.
4ih 1
Legend:
Parcels which may contain buildings more than 45 years old-
Applicants must provide information confirming age prior to demolition
or retrofitting.Those structures more than 45 years old will require
photographic documentation and evaluation by a qualified historian.
_ Parcels known to contain buildings more than 45 years old.
Historical assessment required prior to demolition or retrofitting.
Figure: 3.10- 1
Cme Graphic Scale
Historic Resources Map ,ire
Source: Holman&Associates 0 s°°
3.11 HOUSING,POPULATION AND JOBS .,.....,..
SETTING
General Plan
State Law requires the General Plan Housing Element to be updated at least every five years.
The 1985-1990 Housing Element was updated during adoption of the General Plan in J4%
anuary
1991. At that time, the 1990 Census was not available and statistics were based on the 1980
Census or more recent estimates by other agencies. In 1992,with 1990 Census data,the Housing
Element was revised, adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and published separately. Those
Housing Element goals, policies and implementation measures most applicable to the Specific
Plan area are presented below. Some of the policies and implementation measures are
paraphrased.
Goals
1. Housing Production
To provide housing to meet the present and future needs of residents in the County of Contra
Costa,and to aim at providing a fair share of the market area housing needs,within identified
governmental,market,economic and natural constraints.
2. Housing Affordability
To provide housing to meet the needs of all income groups in the County, and to provide the
fair share allocations by income category .within the identified governmental, market,
economic and environmental constraints.
3. Housing Conservation and Rehabilitation
To promote adequate maintenance and, where needed, the improvement of the county's
housing stock,and conserve affordable housing.
4. Special Housing Needs
To address the housing needs of senior citizens,physically disabled,homeless,large families,
farmworkers and female-headed households.
5. Redevelopment
To adhere to or exceed the housing requirements of the State Redevelopment Law.
6. Fair Share Housing
To ensure decent,safe living environments for the county's residents regardless of age,sex,
family composition,race,ethnicity,religion,physical or mental disability,or income.
3.11-1
Policies
2.1 The County shall implement programs to increase affordable housing opportunities, preserve
the existing stock of affordable rental housing, including the 105 units of subsidized rental
housing subject to conversion to market rate housing,and promote alternative housing types.
3.1 Rehabilitation goals to improve existing housing and preserve neighborhood quality.
Conservation goals for affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate. Section 8
vouchers and certificates and 250 units occupied by very-low and low-income households in
need of minor weatherization improvements.
3.2 The County shall promote energy conservation by encouraging the use of solar design
systems,retrofitting of existing homes,and clustering of residential development.
5.1 The County,through the Redevelopment Agency, shall make available suitable replacement
housing at affordable prices to households displaced by actions of the County or its
Redevelopment Agency.
5. The County shall support private and public efforts to ensure non-discrimination in the sale or
rental of housing.
7. Implementation and Revision: On a regular basis,the County shall review its ordinances and
programs regulating residential uses and construction to ensure consistency with the General
Plan and to identify and correct any provisions that unnecessarily increase the cost of
housing,extend the time required for processing applications or preclude provision of
housing to meet special needs.
ImFlementation Proms
1.1 Developer Outreach
Meet with the local development community,key lenders and local civic and community
groUPS to promote the County's interest in working cooperatively to increase housing
development activity. Promote the utilization of the County's pre-development application
conference.
1.2 Expedited Review for Subdivisions with Under 100 Units
Allow development application review to be completed by zoning administrator for all
projects in conforming zoning with less than 100 units. Applies to 95 percent of all projects.
1.3 Second Units
Publicize the revised Secondary Unit Program to increase public awareness. 1991
0
ammendments include priority processing and potential for parking variances.
3.11-2
1.4 Change All Residential Zoning Categories to Planned Unit Development(P-1)in
Conformance with General Plan.
County will initiate zone changes for residential sites,and streamline entitlement process for
development applications. 14
1.5 Encourage Use of Planned Unit Development(P-1)Zoning
Publicize P-1 program parameters.
1.6 Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing
Continue to approve these housing types on permanent foundations in residential
neighborhoods subject to design review,
2.0 New Construction
promote TO or facilitate the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing in Contra
Costa County. To provide partial funding for an average of 15 new affordable units annually
with a priority on family housing.
2.2 Funding For Housing Trust Fund
Convene Housing Trust Fund Task Force to consider revenue-generating options for ^.
affordable housing. Evaluate recommendations for inclusionary zoning ordinance and in-lieu
fee and issuance of general obligation bond.
2.3 Non,-profit and Affordable Housing Developer Outreach
Meet with local non-profit and private developers to promote the affordable housing
programs outlined in the Housing Element. Provide interested developers with the inventory
of vacant sites,and explain procedures for utilizing the programs. Further,allocate minimum
of 15 percent of HOME funds($240,000 for 1992-1993)to community housing development
organizations. Develop standards for the issuance of 501(cx3)non-profit bonds.
2.4 Fee and Permit Waiver
Discretionary waiving of all or a portion of planning fees for non-profit developers of projects
affordable to very low and low-income households.
2.5 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program(MCC)
Undertake County MCC Program to enhance the affordability of both new and existing
homes for first time low-to moderate-income homebuyers. Implement lender training
program and widely publicize program in local newspapers.
3.11-3
2.6 Density Bonus
Promote the utilization of the County's density bonus policy. The ordinance specifies that a
developer shall be granted a bonus of at least 25 percent,and an additional incentive,for the
provision of 20 percent of the units for lower-income households,or 10 percent for very low-
income households,or 50 percent of the units for senior citizens.
2.7 Consider Refunding Tax Exempt Bonds to Extend Period of Affordability
2.8 Condominium Conversion
Preserve the existing stock of rental units and mitigate impacts,by enforcing the restrictive
conversion ordinance.
2.10 Facilitate the Development of Affordable Housing on Surplus Public Sites
Support the development of affordable single-family and multifamily units on surplus
County,-owned sites. Provide land use/development information to developers.
2.11 First-Time Homebuyer Program
Issue single-family bonds and Mortgage Credit Certificates(MCCS). Establish an equity
sharing first-time homebuyer program to increase access to home ownership for lower-
income households.
2.12 Negotiate Affordable Housing as Part of Development Agreements
Large-scale residential projects requesting a Vesting Development Agreement should
provide a minimum of 25 percent of the units for moderate income households,or 10 percent
for low income. If revisions to existing development agreement are sought,specify that a
portion of the units be reserved for very-low and low-income housing or a contribution be
made to the County's Housing Trust Fund. Negotiate comparable affordable housing
component with other Development Agreements.
2.14 Solicit Affordable Housing Contributions from High-End Residential Developers
Achieve an average of$1,000 per unit contribution to the County's Housing Trust Fund for
high-end residential projects(priced over$350,000 per unit).
3.1 Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program
Market County Housing Rehabilitation Program. This program is designed to assist low-or
very-low income homeowners in rehabilitating their residences. Eligible applicants receive
low-interest and zero interest loans for up to 20 years.
3.11-4
3.2 Rental Rehabilitation Program
Continue to utilize CDBG funds for rental rehab. Utilize 50 percent of HOME funds for the
,0
acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily rental units for very low and low-income renters.
3.5 Weatherization Program
Provide education on energy conservation,minor weatherization improvements and utility
payment assistance to lower-income households,
4.1 Require that all new multifamily developments comply with handicapped provisions
included in the Uniform Building Code.
.4.2 Design Flexibility for Elderly Projects
Allow techniques such as smaller unit sizes,parking reduction,common dining facilities and
fewer required amenities for senior projects.
4.3 Expedite approvals for affordable housing for larger family households,particularly those
developed for female-headed households.
5.1 Replacement Housing
Within four years of the removal of low-and moderate-income housing units in the
---
Redevelopment Area,the Agency will provide corresponding replacement housing. Where
economically and physically feasible,provide replacement housing prior to the demolition of
existing units. Where replacement units occur after demolition,provide a rental subsidy to
displaced residents.
5.3 Housing Set-Aside Fund
Is
Target a minimum of the 20 percent Housing Set-Aside funds to be derived from tax
increment to very-low,low and moderate-income housing.
7.1 Citizen Participation
Hold public meetings to receive public iwnput ant to inform residents and developers
about the housing needs,resources and pmgram options.
Housing
The planning area is located within Census Tract 3580. Figure 3.11-1 shows the location of this
census tract on a topographic base map. It is bounded on the southeast by Interstate 80, on the
southwest by the corporate limits of Hercules. Note that it excludes nearly all development in
Crockett,so data from this tract is representative of the Rodeo area. Figure 3.11.,2 shows Census
blocks in the Specific Plan area. Note that some blocks are only partially within the Specific Plan
area. This complicates the problem of characterizing the housing or population of the planning
area. (i.e. It is not possible to simply add information individual blocks to generate a '�
3.11-5
Currently,there at 108 bulbs;55 covered and 53 it the
12.9 acre C, site lmown as Beanett's Marina. Tocapitalize on the
comm0 -UV 04 thata] and iris;ual qualities Of the Marina,it ism
hedginW to Atean&A-Affiflowmal122 baths,for a total
"100,
of 230 buthg. The addition of 122 baths more than doubles tl�e
al 1.1 0 the 1.�J* b The
111,046,-MMI&-M CA__ cromon SM
location
existing i o n-M& 14W Se Of
of the 122 baths is not bwm and S_h CRU u b e shaied.
ri tMe01MwArmy Coqx ofEn =S -A a Depm of Fish and111FOF
Game and the Son Francisco Bay Caose+vuian and Development
Commission should all have chanes to to my
caostructiono or -no at__Marina.
Again, policy 3-171 which addresses need for sive
developmentent policies and anprogram Domes into
pay. While itis A _!_ated tlat&Vion Of aCfiViteS JA 0C_ Aat Muirm,including a two lane.boat launch,a DeW f=1 ^^U 811aAansiolis todie UMMAIII, ----
I "LU bait shop P eryt
cemaknshould
F
tsregarding-, type of developmant soucit0d
5�amM0 110ft-11 thLsuch as At C -ra DepAx otbafir, ment
M0 waitof Fish and --- the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
UUMU
Development CAmmissi~% and the San Francisco Bay Regional
WateOualiv Contol Board apart of * MI ] p A tCView
INruvwDso Should it be proposed for implem�tatim,the M40will
be subject to a separate environmental review.
9- Exposure of people or property to geologic ha as
earthquakes, landslides,, mudslides, VMd
failure, or similar
hazards?
Since some of the new residential acommercial development is
proposed to be at die nartliem cad of Parker Avenue nm
the Marina where the potential for arhqualm related 0 acts.such
as liquefaction,is hithe possibility for harmw ...Wk
W. people or
of
pmperry based upon the developmental and
residential projaxs.
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay System No.
2, Air. Could the proposal result in:
ON
a, Substantial"air emissiaos or deuriaetion of ambient air qusliry? IIIIIIIIIIIIIINIO �L
hisproposoA that a of 165 new housing units be crea
ud,
. 0
30,000 commercial fat be rehabild-at- and 20,000 square
feet be created.
Environmemal Checklist-Page 6 of 28
S=Significant I=Insig�u5cant
An En 1111193dal Impact Report diuvssea air impoas that could be
attributed to the designation of Rodeo u a Redevelopment Project
Area. While this mahodology determined that the potential for
dhmges m air gmlity large]y sums Som auto emissiaos,there was no
caoclusive evidence that the adoption of the R od6o Redevelopment
Project Area would impact the air quality for**ciaher local effects,
oautrucom impacts or oda complaints. Though it was I P "AMA
that ioaeating the number of molest vehicles inW the air basin could
000Qdb�e to ngiooalpollutionmnwas less
than pcceat of the camry-wide emissions for bydrocmb—
oneoand
DW
monoxide emissions.
As desmI)ed within tLe Public Hewing version and Staff/Consultant
altaaative of tLe proposed Specific Plea,San Pablo Avenue is to be
reconfigued as it puns into Parker Avenue. The rocan5guration
would occur as this is a poorly designed turn. Itis anticipated that
Public Works wild construct the raon5gurati�. The Public
Works Depw-wwlit should aver into a dust control mitigation
F1 ogram during the rx�givation of San Pablo Avenue.
Changes to tLe air qusliry may also depend upon which vusi�of the
proposed Specific Plan is adopted. Generally, these are mere
automobile trips, creating mese air emissions, generated from
Commercial land uses than those associated with Housing elated
uses. 71= Public Hearing proposal retains a large portion of
Commercial uses along Parker Avenue and could tribute to
degradation to tLe air quality. The StaWConsultant altanativq
however, would change the Comm=ial along Parker Avenue to
Housing, thereby having the potential W decrease air ssiolis.
Howevex,both,vcsioms focus increased activity into Rodeo area
from r rl Imacial and recreational improvements to the Marina and
Waterfront areas and sok W capitalize upon thGae eahanc�mu.
Th=may be some ovwall savings in air quality as there is interest
to cbse off San Pablo Avenue between Parker and Rodeo Avmuas.
It is an ltih7marea of roadway and it is this mea that is
PTaPosod to become s marina gem parkway and
promenade. Rodeo Avenue,betw=Parka and Pacific Avenues,
would be closed offaod benom a wall access road to this area slated
tos ecome part of Rodeo's oo�maeial cera. This area is proposed to
become "Commercial Recreation" for both tLe Public Hearing
popoasl and Staff/Consultant alternative and subject to the policy of
obta waterfix)nt study and implementation progam uaining
described in the General Plan. Based upon review of the previous
Eat,it dos not appear that 1Le oa�struction of 165 new housing units
would cseeaa significant impact to Rodeo's local air quality.
S=Significant I=InSigniScant Environmental Checkfist,=Page 7 of 28
b. The creation of objaxiaiable odes? _ JL
It is not anticipated that objectionable odor would be created 5nm
the adoption a impleauntatia�of the proposed Specific Play
C. Alterafm of air movement,moisdme,a tempuaUue,a aoy change
inclim-ade,eiatLfocally or ngiooalh'? _ �L
It is not anticipated that any aluratian of air movement, ;tUreV
tempaaUae or ury chaage in climate rather locally a*lviolmawg
would oaav as a result of residrntial or wmmeraal development
projects at contanplated within tl�e proposed Specific Plan.
3. Water. Could the proposals result in:
a. Changes in carents,or the course of direction of water movements,
in either muine or fresh wales? g -
New residential development is expected W occur in an uea tLat is
already developed and is primarily outside of the Flood Zone area.
Any new fesideatial development would have to comply with the
Flood Plain Manageme�A
nt saa of the Zoning
xktiiOr&na=,
However, new commercial development may occur in either the
proposed Commercial Core area alwasg First Stat or in the Marina
area. Policy 3-171 di s#me that "large scale development in the
Commercial Recreation area must be predicated upon a thorough
study of the watafront. Comprehensive development policies
inoaporated into a specific plan or watahoot developmmt plea and
imPlmimtatim progam must be in place before such development
can promod". An example of the type of large scale development at
Bennett's Marina includes the ultimate buildout to 230 baths, nP
from its current capacity of 108 berths,a two lme boat launch,a
new fuel dock,and expaasi�s to the ameot restaurmt,bait shop
icy. Itis suggested that drudging --to axammodate these
additional I22 berths. These tiould berths more than double the
existing cooditiaa4 aad caild cause aosian of the a6aelioe. The
locAt*on of the 122 baths is na Imown and this shaild be eddied
FOrthe, proposed Specific Plan could cause a sigu5cant
�aoge in jimits,or the course of dirxtian of water move�ats,in
either marine or fresh warns and should be studiod.
Should it be proposed for implemeatatioq the Marina will be subjxt
to a separate environmental review.
S=Significant I=Insigni5cant Enviromental Checklist-Page 8 of 28
patteml-411 or rate andb. Changes in absorptionace rnoffdraimge
X
amount unt of surf
a#,&A withinMitigation1111ficeAs 40%0%9 Measures for water runoff
impacu in the EIR for the Rodeo area Redevelopment Plan, "the
its J..1 . av%A
tpiamingGNU"
all ^11 IN
Agency hould
'I
WCosta contyORMS the Contra Flood
implem
i�
Control WaterCons«vatioa District(CCCFCWCD) in ri rto the pri of specificI r'i Arai 11MOVAb improvements Ority which are
-ceded in the projcct mea. 'The Ageny should also ordinate its
:)ad improvement assistance activities with tLe CCCFCWCD to
ensue that 1MMsay dnimge improare to
precede or withUnproll Utivitiese
PTOJ
Storm drainage*plans for individual projaxs:Could be prepared by
M+ftraft
the applicants at the devdopmeat equired by the
U r
CCCFCWCD mid approved by the.District primo to final approval by
the Agency".
Since d=will be coordination between the Redevelopment Agency
and public Works r—mviine the construction of new residential end
commercial projects, it is not anticipated that any changes in
absoptomotes,dramagePatterns,othe raw and amount
Of surface
runoff would as a result of or
plaw iiomt the
is conunccial
I AL Adevelopment acts as proposed021
Plan. The ad
sting sdng 11-11nercial SP sh-oWd.not impair
the existing storm drain systan-
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
�L-
As indicated within the EIR adoption of Rodeo as a
Redevelopment project Arm"the maJor dra's channel thrOU&the, arca,Rodeo Creek,is in relatively good condi"%*+;Own
M&mid hss a 50
year storm flow capacity. There are portions of the project arm
however, which could encmajoflooding
during
asevere
slam. Development4looatodwithinthe IWyea flood
zme requumm+0ba N MIALMLA
ofYsubjto the special
Flood]asuranoe Progam".
'=Significant I=lnsigni5caut Environmental Checklist-Page 9 of 28
F.E.M.A.Flood Map-Panel# OOSOB
Flood Zone A and C
See-Exhibit C-Rodeo Flood Zone Map.
=.Cl-�Imk�wale d, C6mge- in amount Of in any Water body? _ �
Same as 3.a
el Discharge Nd=waters,
or in any alteration of SUCLINX Woma
�Y.iwdi ;V%ow %*not firnit to I& ----
ad tre dissolved Oxygen,or9
410
alty? � _
Same as 3.a
f Alteration of the diration or rate of flow of ground waters? $ _
Same u 3.a
9- Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
0 A*
-- -"Insintaapti� aquifer byWd 4- or wid1rawals,or of an cuts
or excavations? �L _
Sane as 3.b
h. Substantial reduction in of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? JL
In speaking with EBMt)D,time does not appear to be a n existing
capacity problem, mr would the utility me from the
proposed j0%0%#&A4WPIjL The
IPUvU and impipDOF- Of the
Rodeo area is locatodwithin a "Pressure Z- that,
spans from Crockett toRichcuond. Additional AWadental saloo�aal space wits MVIAdice
notimPId theSOM
C O
thetMprovemnts o the pressure improvement zone AM 'paw
by
EBMtJD.
?16
S=Significsat I=InsigniScant Environmental Checklist-Page 10 of 28
r j t
t
1 .
tom- may' • � -'►♦ \
el f
"!i �Aft
��'�f
• � �. x� I♦i Zit - � t I . ., ,_
- a r �•. ', ]tory 3 } i�' -•'f l I'S• -a� _ a,• r- �`'�"♦qrr• � r
JI �.. 14 v 4P
Pt
or
AII
ow
IF-
''}r yrs r-*.;� tti r`;f --,3 {' ` �• �„�1•- .r't ,,a _.r '"'r• ,
���/"y 1 f -_,�, I f-- -'`t a j` + +- �.• �h++ f la,.� � � .7 w �'� .., i S.,�./ �',,y,,,�`*.',iR:
��."1� .r t s 1. �':r ar*.�-'r. r„ ' 't,�` )�..�_ i• . •/.ai,°T-� i.•. 1 .,t �.*•, -�
',�"'l4. ',i (�"+' � .- ,.► r` * ..1 ••'t f�'�'-'"l+ .♦'"h 'i 'i• -..•J;r l i 1
Aw4 ��'1� "" t`. �' ti i j'*rt r.� I ♦ J- �f� - r� t �1 r�
Ak
=t � J��y � 1� �+ ,�-�C n •,1,J �,�, .► �• a r - may' , > ...
rte . �,�.r �•.{� .• _ ..'t � �,,,�_,•,y"� .- ,Z�» �.� `r •��„r••.,� /.
w s t� • ��,�,',`' 1►.'�' J '�1^_..r1 r/__ �l v 1.w►� ,iti 11�.
III IL
NL
\A
ol
-411
LJWd
IA
OIL
jjam�•'14•` , J' •j_�-� j ) •`
s � �
�^'S_-mow,•. �? f-��
'' ML
0 lot
•► /'``
A..` r� �'j�� • F" •'� � ����.��,�.,a�,,,,•r t
<!"�'{, fir C,.c\s\4�{+'��',.#� r T_ , E1!� *!f d i -'n
s
�'sX t.y,..-..j�.,�'"'...sar..e' '"�It.~t,+`�� .��.j►",-j'"I e,r""4�•f ��� �" � /��� �..,''..� ' ��•/' � �t
����� .L r,� ..�r 1's� ` \ K /t .��-♦ ' C r`y�� �r� �.1� i- ♦�� 1 �+/`_� w.('^a,1 �►',� t+'� �
' f.a.q.F ♦ Iti► Ar 1 't T *.ill'+ rt i �;a t `�h r t •+03,' ♦
.�
+1�t ra''i {!,�• ''f-�_r.s •API AL•.�y ,,,.�++fir-a�.J�! �' �r' •� `.'�..� ..�..r~(�� -aims
10
At'�+" �w ' 1 �.�.Y+'+r f'.r "�~r tiw/I�.e�r'♦�w ,+ �•r i''�' _+fJ1�,�' ' +`l ��.+•*�7►' +► �� �-�r.
10
31
+1 - •' •., '�'-'S'••'f 'yr - •R^"^a L �,y�� , / ..,L�ice_,ice l�` t r,�i�
Oro
4 low
AV
A it
oe
10 10
10
oo
{� � �' ..,,,�,�.--•`"J�!'♦,..."`.�j 1 ♦ ,�,/' �fir'„r• n i 1'� '_"
• _ { vA !
•,.. ., ,a !-�r�",,(; dO
.� ,�
Is : +
Mo so
' s
vo
t'�.�'� - • _r �l •rr t
t . ly • f r•
• +
no-
oN
r
i. Exposure of people aproperty wwater-telatod hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _ �L
Compliance with the Count
.Vs Flood Plain Me, a1zement Ordinance
should minimize water-related hazards such as flom. ...g or tidal
waves fry tLe eeosauchon of new residential and commaoiel
devel 1' lt Pi'oJects as contemplated within tLe proposed SpeciSc
Place
F,E,MA.Flood Mapw Pancl#
Flood Zon4,A apd!C
See Exhibit C-Rodeo Flood Zone Map
4. Plant Life. Could the proposal rssult in:
s. in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants
(including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? �L -
It is not acipated that there would be any a ins!in the diversity of
the species of plants in the Marina area from the edopti� of the
FW Sp--xiUc Plan. However,u stated earlier,Policy 3-a 171 for
the Rodeo area indicates that, "large scale development in the
Commercial Recreation arcs must be predicated "%^" a thorough
study of the waterGont Comprehensive development policies
moaparatedmto a specific plan or waterfront development plan and
impledilentation program must be in place before such development
can Proceed". The develof the Marina could have a
significant impact upon the enviramxmt sinx the San Pablo Bay is
as an mea where Dwarf Downi&and Marro Western Flax are(mown
w exist Sulying the developmentof ithe Marina complies
with the dvxtive as stated within the Genera!Plan.
U..S.G,S. Quad Overlay System No.�
See Exhibit D-Significant Ecological Areas near Rodeo
b. Reductio of the amebas of any qw,rare a endangered species
of PI �
Same as 4.a
US.G.S.Quad Overlay System No.�
S=Sigriificant I=Insigni5cant Environmental Checldistm Page I I of 28
C. Introduction of new a of hots into m �
species P area,a in a barrio to
the normal replenishment of existing species? _ X
It is not anticipated that there will be tLe introduction of new apexes
of plants into an area or will act as s bto the normal
replenishment of existing apccies from the canstr�wtim of new
raida�tial a ommiaaal developments u a result of the adaption of
the
Specific Plan.
U.S.G.S.Quad Overlay System No.IL
d Reduction in acreage of m3's8i Ito."mad amp? _ JL
As t6ae is no known agricultural corps m the IDD area, the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Specffic Plan should
not result is any impact to the Rodeo area.
5. Animal Life. Could the proposal result in:
a Change in diversity of species,or number of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles, Lsh and shellfish benuuc
organisms a insects)? g —
It is not mdicipated that there would be any change in the diversity of
the species of plants in the Marina area &am the adoption of the
proposed SpeciSc Play However,as stated-earlier,Policy 3-171 for
the Rodeo area indicates that, "large acak development in the
Commercial Recreation area must be predicated upon a thorough
study of the waterfront. Cprehalsive development policies
incorporated into a specific plan or tesoug ont development plan and
implemrntation program must be in place before such development
can proceod". The develoP11, au of tl�e Marina caiW have a
mgni5ca86 impact upon the mvironment sines the San Pablo Bay is
as an area where the California Black Rail,Cdifania Clapper hail,
Saumarsh Wandming Shrew,San Pablo Vole,Northern Coastal Salt
Marsh,Monarch Butterfly and Soot Bird's Beak are kwwn to exist
Studying the development impacts of the Marina eemplia with the
dirocfive as stated witlGeneral Plea Should it be proposed for
impi tation, the Marina will be subject W a separate
environmental review.
US,G.S.Quad Overlay System No.�.
Ste Exhibit D-Significant Ecology^al Areas near Rodeo
S=Significant I=Insignificant Environmental Checklist-Page 12 028
1MeO
z ' `' .
5
i��Olro
TWO
dr
. ,•a
iM� •
• •rte. ,
-
M
i
f a
r
�I
f
ti
• rI
v d
W
••
z S
i
OW
'• I
` lbtv
-
,r
s
0 o :! ►
i
so-
dop
ap-
op
dp •� ry
� p
FA
. !C
vp
r
t •
4b
�4p •4b `
Ili►
•
ti►
•
b. Reduction of the numbers of any que,rare or endangered species
ofanimals?� _ '
Same as 5-a
U.S.G.S.Quad Overlay System No.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a
barrio to the migration or nwvemeat of animals? _ �
It is not anticipated that the sdopticU and imp le�eatation of the
proposed Specific Plan wild contribute to the introduction of new
species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration
or movament of animals.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Swne as 5.a
6. Noise. Could the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? �
The issue of noise impacts dine to land use changes and construction
noisy impacts were addressed in the EIR prior to Rodeo's becoming �.
a Redevelopment Project Area. For land use Chan ges, it was
de that "noise related performance standards should be
included as part of any Redcvdqmxft Agency agroement for project
assisted commercial development activities adjacent to existing
residential arras. For construction related noise impacts, the
Redevelopment Agency should include coostNction period noise
criteria in its sgreanents with A assis devely-FuLai and
constructioc� contractors to control hours of co�structio� activity.
C�aos�uction t1oa�xats shotild also include provisions to ensure that
all construction equipment is adequately Mad and maintained".
Due to noise related impacts both transportation sources and
from --ustry., a�ooustical atu�dies will be inquired for major new
&WVd -11 Mt family pis in the Rodeo Planning Area
eventhose extending beyond the 60 CNEL Noise Contours. As the
propomod Specific
Plan oantm�plstes that a maximum of 165 housing
omits would be built,there could be a substantial noise impact to the
c�anart aid new nsideats. Phis issue should be addressed prior to the
adoption of the proposed Specific Play.
S=Significant I=Insignificant Environmental Ugir.-ilacUst-Page 13 of 28
b. Exposure of popple to severe noise levels? �L _
Same as 6.a
U.S.G.S.Quad Overlay No.1{z
7. Light ma Glare. Could the rroposal prod, new light or glare? _ �L
New residential and commercial development would be required to
deflect light a glee as part of the Conditions of Approval ated
the
now&"IF&pmrat. New light poles installed in the dogmWwn and
Maga ams would dim light&wnward and not towards raident,al
areas.
S=Significant I=Insignificant Environmental Checklist-^ay : 4 of 28
8. Land Use.
a. Could the proposal result in a ibstantial alteration of the present or
pl land-use of an
General Plan Land Use Desipation: Various
The majordiffaeoa between these proposals is Low the exdsdng
C ial designation between Parka and Rodeo Avenues fmm
Investment to San Pablo Avenues isu—=111Aed. In the Public Hearing
Draft proposal,it is retained with meas to tt►e youth,west,ast and
north expaiacing additional land use desigution ehm�ee. In the
Staff/Consultant proposal, the existing Cammacial daigoatim
between Parka and Rndoo Avenues from Inves- at to Sao Pablo
Avenues would convert primarily to Multiple Family Residential -
Medium I)msity with additional land use cbmges 0
tinging 1Le Parker
Avenue area. An additional alternative providing a commercial
emphasis on non-retail uses has been id ad and should be
examined.
The Public Hearing Draft proposal primarily ma9+�t.,nc the qct
land use. Placing a Mixed Use category, which allows both
commercial and residential, an other side of Parker Avenue
reinforces the "al activity along this corridor.
A marketing analysis of the proposed Specific Plan cates that of
the e�osCng 120,000 oommaciel square fay approximately 30.40`/0
is either vacant,boarded up or blighted. The existing bus inesses in
this sae area m local saving(eating and driddng establishments,
�5'cka
aos.etc.)in nahae.Thrm loco!oommacial xatm save the,
larger Rodeo popul It was the dedsion of the sutl' and
consultant to rodua the existing Commercial land use dasigoatiM
A reduction would allow the oonantratiaa� of Marina, additional
local serving uses and those catuing to tourism and sports to locate
at the watahont area and near First and Rodeo. Additional land
use cLangas within both proposals ue meant to reinforce the
revitalion strategies within tLe proposed sne640% Plan. A
Workshop alternative, ding a oommapal empLasis on non-
retail uus,Less been id e-n-t iiif ied and sLould be examined.
Due to the caoc�mrat d�angas in the land use and impact upon
downtownRodeo. 1-9-MUL ropl ld in a substmdal altaation
of the load use of either vesico of the proposed SpeciSc Plan.
S=Si*Ip,..cant I=lnsigni5cant Environmental Checklist-Page 15 of 28
b. Will the proposal be conswithzoningplans and other
applicable land use Umauls
q
TL=would be aSpecificOf the a%peaP an" l fim 'I its SAMI I&ML
Of viabus to P'M1, a Plaooed Unit Dvvelopment, to
_ PUM. The PWI allows
I; the proposed 4r flwab�l'ty 1, 011&ofSpocificto coactact theusef1he Of
and
activity Plea40itfljordw lksocfiba tIX -!A-
tla
may and typesSped1.1%of &6red in Abe five,sub-measof FA osWw IspeciSc
0 - _f-2-Alh�� live M M 9
PLa Thew Wavicesforthe
Rodeo IM iiinity as well as s- Whaam.
Rezoning this area MW P-nhnn= the pmgams to be undertaken
by
the Redevelopment Agency.
See Ezhibtt E - ,ng General Plan., Public Hearing
---(-
Draft and StafflConsukant Alternative
9, Natural Resources. Could the proposal result M" an increase M the
rate of use of any mdval_resources? _ �L
It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in an increase in the
rate of use of any mwral raources.
100 Risk of Upset. Could the proposal involve.:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
pesticides, 0(includin&but not I" to,oil, chemicals or radiation)
ie the event of an accident or upset cooditi�l
JL
There is no potential for the risk of evlosion or relbase of
involved halzardous SubCs with adoption Of the proposed
SpociSc Plea �pkmmtatien oft&Howemt Specific
JA
- the -4&+;Pvn of a fuel dock atBemett's Marina,Plan,primmilyWWWAU"pose anto the human 0 As stated
cWher, Joseph's Ragat Listmically had been used, as a damping
Bound fa Sl%A%& the oil Mfinery procasses. Policy 3-171 for
the Rodeo a= indicates that, 9arge scale development in the
Cammacial Reacation must be ptIM"'calpA upon a ftmgh
ofCsudywommuout. Campnhensive develaPmaxt PoI[W=
10% development
M A-
ami a Plan or ply
and
implemeatati� M must Im in place tbefore such developmentientcan PrU Tht dcvtlopn=t of die M a
t%*impact --_--v--iiiiiij IIP%#ofsi 0aVondwuu ___ the San Pablo Bay area
S=SigaiScant I=Insigni5cant Environmental Checklist-Page 16 of 28
R:OLIske ' ! . !
CrjT�J
I 1(r
X1If�l(yJr�
rT jTI
=s.X Tom"citx`•
T!T r s T..►
► T r ly�
�tl
mA
��� 1• r xITT I� � 1�V l
T itY i T'K!t■r •� ��� ��s
wr
gill
Ke
T r �► -..�,fes � ,.. _ .� [_ iF_ �-
�� ..r I
I 1I�r+•X � Y4'1• r � ...�J•f'L�. II r.i"
istrsrY '�i r
SOW-
PIP
=�rrX• t
,,�,•r. 16
OA
mr
t j,J (r ,r err:/► j i
1641
AL
T r
W4 0 P.,
•.I�� it�b x 1"wpm, RAW
it 1601 -tt j, - �r �, � &Aw,_
cf
VMS
wow— .�-- ' ., '� �,. yrs • �„
"` �' Igo� ..� �► _. r
" .;J0 r "'
.�� ,�.wWow
1 P4 PI wow
—MIS 1116m
)MOMM1 "' arm
s ._ owe '—
rt --�.� •- �`'� - anon
AsOki
'� -art -yr "'fir► �r�. __
'fir` �► .r. "�. - ,,,�► �` ',,,,r►
" W
�••�- '�•-
Iffib
. ,,,,,,,..... �� ! - •• ��! •...►!4• • '1� �.�+#1.x`1+ �;�T��Y,,j��..,����_��y fY. • .�+�i!! • i
ti i • !• .+w1 •ori!!• •• •! '.�1 • •` r M �.•! • A !
Z - i
do
` r
Aw Y
l
I it
f xa*
•`x
AY -
L KIL
K YK
"I 17
K
I 1 Xi•
i
Yx tK
Y
Y tj
1*1
IL
.I x
OLIf"
�• I lY Yx �♦
do
40
IL
0 Is
K Y
1
K �
i
}
• ,..ILL
� x
Ic its
OOO
�►"�t�- �,� *♦ �. Imo'�,.r+''"�Is v �Y f,� •'J �*��
Ir- 10W
LASSO
=��♦ `•'* �4 a j, ..�`�! MO �"...�
It
.sow- 'Own swam
I- - I ft so
711 AP 1 1
1;000100 000, it
mow
Opp-- Sam
1 .r - ..,,.* ,,gyp-'
K .11 Wow
'• .I'i''` qw i,''0w-d111111 ,001
IL
. Y
00011' mom ra
[ t ✓ ./ OR dpilo00000, r\
;0
lit
�.s 1 I
; 6
IL OL
fK.!
i �,. _
Y.Y l ...... .
-' ilii
WOO-
row
0000-- row aim
,� � +� . .;tT +,/./'� ,j�! AT „,,,,nom�,.. ..�� `� � �'*' "W” '
1 _ �-
- ..
40 i�1 n Jr�►
1000, .-'
a*"
r
71 Now
"ne 4w
A-V 01b
NINO
44W to
�' •,�`'�,`'" rte''-. .- �- ''!'�►''�r" �''='' "''�►�'
•
now
0
00,
fir►
.IA•*,
•,Y:j„
K
IL IL xf�� • �M
•�iK�=xw*Y
t}
j. � s1�•
low
.0A•'' S S
.�► �'
da
S AS
do
-,I t
�i
� i r
r
� r
Y�
7 tt
1
it
i
j
r
1
• t ``� its �
i s
�l r
40
I t
�� ,x �
� sj
O
m .t�� ♦ ..
ar � �
i .0 ..
is
t=t.
psi psi��`/MI 7!�►� `�� �t/t
la
s t
alltin VOLO
ODA
41b, I
IL
-
i t x� s •* ♦J J5 rte` t
j r
40
♦tis s� Ilk
'OL IL
rr
00or
dop soon Nor"!
�W`
New.
40
40000
�t
z.
t 1`. 2 L. ♦ 1 —40
ONO
V—.
u�' fir►"
s
-,.011111
�- ---''
!�s7 0-
' t .. .� .ter •..
� ..,s' ., ,�,''' ate,. -r+�►,�.
jw
woo Arm
'� .- _ '�- ate' •�►
00
lYsfY xi
�t .�•
• �� �•
lig t
�1 ti
1
r "
t
��rr
and should be studied fwther.
b. Possible interference with an ema8uuy response Plan or an
emageocy evacwtion plan?
The aces in the Specific Plan is to the west of the Unocal Refinery.
As part of the eavironmmtal review for the Clean Fuels Project for
L mca1,a Risk of Upset analysis was completed. This SpeciSc Plan
area ofRodoo wadd fall soda the Risk of Upset malysis gluidelines,
A t—hc--rw- Sh.1VVWW of tLis analysis should be perfmmed to detamme
vvhu level of mipact the poposed�esidmtial and commercial projects
would have upon an emagenry response of evawatian plan.
11.
jr
WAR Caild the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate
of the human population of an area? g _
PIRCTMARNG DRAFT EI&QPOSAL
IU Public Hearing Draft proposal would do little to alta the population of downtown
Rodeo as the land uses ebmges do not add a substantial number of new housing emits.
Same
new units may be cnatod in the proposed Mixed Use areas to the west and east
Of Parker Avenue,thigh Commercial uses will dominate in this area.
STAFF/CONSULTANT ALTERNATIVE
It is the�t of the plan to mtrodi�ce a gieata concentration of new Lousing units new
the revitalized comrt�acial core and waterfrontareas. 'this co�entratiom would help
to bolster new and existing commercial uses in the area.
Up W 30 units per acre for the Mixed Use area and between 12u,21 aoiu pa acre for
Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density would be allowed using the
StafVConsultant alternative,, Based upon diese 0mum densities, up to 165
proposed,new hosing uniu could add 415 raideats W the area (2.5 residents per
dwelling unit). The housing would be constructed in phases. Approximately 15 new
units would be built as part of a catalyst proi phase between 1995-1 999. A near
*.esm pLase(1999-2004)could ser 30�w units completed. The balance of the 120
new homes would be built at the mid-tam p6au of the proposed SpeciLc Plan.
WORKCHOP AIMMA1'tvR
An additiaoal altanaGve providing a commercial emphasis on uses Las been
:AmtiSed and should be examined.
ant I=InsigniScant Environmental Checklist-Page 17 of 28
Figures from the 1990 Census show that 4,500 people reside in Rodeo in 1800 �
househo'AmieThe proposed tion of 415 residents would be a 9%increase to the
aarent population. The 165 new housing units is an incr-----ease of 8.75°/. m the 1884
etstiog units. As stated above,the introducti�of these new units will not happen all
at anti-this inceau will be spread over several years.
Tb=is the potential for flee alteration of the location, distriutioo,density or gowth
rate of tLe human populatiao upaa adoptim aodunplemeotstion of tLe proposod
Specific Play As that is the potential farrs of new nsid"- tial units to
be seated_____Pthe S-ta—Mcm— hmns of tLis population change
could be significant and should be studied fwther.
12. Housin& Coul- afl'at ___1g housing,or create a demand for tional
h^o22 M99 — JL
It is the intent of the proposed Specific Plan to infuse the downtown area between
Rodeo and Parker Avenues with new housing to wok in concert with the car�maoial
�abilitatim and new coi:macial ventures.New housing emits would be designed to
5t the sryk of LU I-in–Aminew area and be suiud with the density of the site. The siu
of any;x=,tiql land assemblage and revised General Plan ignation will determine
the number of uniu for the site: larger land assemblage oppcxtunities within the
proposed Specific Plan area could have more ts,anally sites would have fewer
units.
The proposed Specific Plan is the impetus which would create the additional 165
housingim-its. A' ~fit,fran the adoptiMan and ftnPI of this proposal could
cause ciurent homeowners to improve existing properties or for private parties to
became more interested in the overall Rodeo housing market. This secondary benefit
is not oontanplamd by the propoud Specific Plan,but wrnild only serve to enhance the
development activities in the area.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Could the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial tional vehicular movement?
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT PROPOSAL
Changes to the gearation of substantial vehicular movement may
also depend upon which version of the propouA S *fl^ P Ian is
�P� ���Y,there are more automobile trips geaaated from
Commercial land sues than those associated with Housing related
uses. The Community's proposal retains a large portion of
Commercial uses along Parker Avenue and JA maintain tlu
current mnnber of ON trips. However,both versions focus
Significant I=L%is�;ni5cant Environmental Checklist-Page 18 of 28
,increased,vehicular activity the RodeoM_U
rea from commercial and
V q p-111 toa to
recreational the Marina and Waterfront areas.
SIAEELCONSIIIANI ALUMNATI
rM few%&
Parker Avenue, UMM AL MLAM imdautilizod.Isit is
projxtod to have a Level of Savin of"A". AS flowing
0 0 Ab
trafflic at nvNmp, andpeak bmw wrough theMW CVC=9year
traffic2010. Traditionally,mom is generated eammacial uses
than by raidatial uses. As pmposod Geaaal Plan changes in the
Staff/ConsulwU altermtive reduce the amamt Of comExcial land,
--A.!�!..AL fill 4 *4
there would be an U%apamu deaeau in member I 11)—of-Itmot)"t
trips.
A traffic study should be conducted*for the total 165 proposed
0
housing units to be constructed.
Both versions focus increaged vehicular activity into the Rodoo area
from commercial and recreatic.-W improvanenu to tlx Marina and
Waterfront areas.
There may be some overall savings M- U4UI_ ution use as it is
Wkim within the F11tiff�Jr Specific Plan to close off San Pablo Avenue
between Parker Rodeo Avenues. it is an M A-0%- area of
roadway and it is area that is proposed tobocome
A a
marina gran
pmkway and pedestrim pro�emde.
Rodoo Avenue,between Parker
tAid PaciSc Avenues,would be closed off andbceome a sma I access
becomeroad to this sl topart ofRndeo's wmmaeial core.
As am is IAIDJ)O_SW'.to becm�e"C%;=C r oil0-- Racreation"for both
proposalathe.Public Hearing Draft and alternative
and subject to the policy of obtaining a wauw mc study and
implea�ntatio�n
progam asdesuibed inGmaal Plan, any
U atatnftDachq appropriate+w M9. on __ rFsbe
to the aaAm%ti0
detaminod on of a Specific Plan.
b* Effects onexisting" parking facilities, and for new parking? MIL
The total amort paddng demand for --m-psidential user is 622
spaces. As 730 spaces cxu* these is a surplus of 115 commercial
Off-strat paddng is required for all x=jdential
P�8 SP
develapmwt. There are 20 parking spans at the Lace Tree Point
Park and anadditional 20sp at the proposed staging area at first
Stat effected 0 Ch 0 0 0
]k is that parking will D C at the,
0
COMMUCW Dae
on:u-=Shut,between Parker and Pacific Avenues.
As these is a variety of parking opportunities,it does not appear that
AASpecific Plan will negatively impaetthe FSthe amp
S=Significant I=Insigni5cant Environmental Checklist 19 of 28
c. Substantial impact upas existin8 transportation systems? -IL
Them may be some overall savings in I I P poiUbon use as there is
intaat w close off San Pablo Avenue betwaa Pada and Rodeo
Avaiues- It is an w�daifilimd ams of roadway and it is this uea that
is proposed to become a marina gran parkway edestrian
prUenadc. Rodeo Avenue,between Paka and Pacific Avenues,
would be closed off and twwwa road to this uea slated
to banme part of Rodeds commarial care. As this ma is proposed
w ba�.ame "Cammacial Recrc�atian" for both the Public Hearing
Draft pwposal and Staff/Coasdtant Alt e�aative and subjcct to the
policy of obtaining a watafroot away and -it PVP pgram
as described in the C�eoual Plan, mY � �P� �
aPProPriate mitigaaa�measu�.s should be determined prig to the
0
adopti�of a Specific Plan.
U.S.G.S.Quad Overlay No.,Z..
d. Alterations to presort patterns of circulation c:movement of people
and/or goods? _ .X
San Pablo Avenue,between Patter and Pacific,is of little ictional
values It orfs off downtown Rodeo from the Marina uea and
inuvides little sonic value. Forthese reasons,it is proposed that this
sxtian of San Pablo Avenue be modified W a small access
road. The adjaaat right of way should be converted into a Marina
Giem Parkway and Pedestrian Proma�ade. TLis roadway alteration
will set in motion the inteati� of the proposed Specific Plan to
achieve dw goal W attract nsidents/shoppus/recteation enthusiasts
to the area '17x Lfigutauon of San Pablo Avenue as it turns into
Parker Avenue would provide better and safe access W this
revitaBoth of these road �provemeou
enhance the roadway system and are of benefit, to bicyclists and
Pedatriaos•
U.S.G.S..Quad Overlay No.,Z
C. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? _ �L
No ahetatim w watabome,rail or airtratTic is... patedwith this
I alo
S=Si*gm..cant I=Insignificant Environmental Checklist-Page 20 of 28
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
Pedestrians? - JL
his mificipeted that tLae would not be an increase is tragic ba"'s
to motor vehicles,bicyclists,or pedestrians from the adoption and
lerrim.. of tLe proposed Specific Plan.
As described within the Public Hearing Draft version and
Staff/consultant altana6ve of the proposed Specific Plan,San Pablo
Avenue is to be rxanfigurcd u it dans into Parker Avenue. The
.01 ~V would occur u this is a poatly ipmed turn.
Reducing the speed through this cave will add a safety mechanism
W this area.
It is proposed that Parker Avenue though downtown would be
alwrd from its four lane capacity to tiva lanes,with a aster uuning
1MV9 Pe�parking�Provema►ts. Implementatian of this
guideline would be contingent upas the ability of Cmnmings skyway
W accommodate though truck traffic.
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay System No.y�
14. Public Services. Could the proposal have an effect upon,or result in nerd for new or
altered govecnmentel servixs in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ JL
As per General Plan policy 4-0, Page 4.015, within the Growth
:M%Maeen--x:nt Elanmt, new residential and coenmacial development
will have to comply with the regulations,requirements and fors of the
vffiiaa depmtmaus m proportion m the demand impacts and burdens
generated by the project as proposals go through the development
review and pem�iping process.
b. Police protection? JL _
Crime deterrent site design features should be inooiporatod into the
plaming pmas far tl�e proposed 165 dwelling emits. Revenue fiom
w dcvdAVmmt would pay for the additional polis savixs needed
new
It should be discussed within the mvienW do C i--.i i F at if these
new dwelling wits will impact the response time W the Rodeo an:a.
C. Schools? JL -
S=Sigmucant I=Insignificant �rj iironmental Checklist-Page 21 of 29
GarrSchool,a closod public school, is outside the proposcd
#0*%#AmfromSpecific Plan area. In speaking with a a IV%# the John
Swett School District, they anticipate 66 new st11A the
proposod 165 new residential units. The possibility of rCWq*=g
&V
Garrettson poses a pot, �tial health risk to these saud-ents as school
is cast of PacificRefinary. Additionally, thwnood may exist for
9 1 1 gill ch school.A
--poftfion to take the students to -chool. Fee these
further in t1w 0relmom, &is d be studied document.
(L Parks or other rxreational facilities? _ �
S as 14.a
e. Maintenancxof JL
public facilities,includingmads?
Same as 14.a
f Mer services? X
Sarna as 14.a
is. Energy. Could the proposal result in: --�,
a. Use of substantial amountsof fuel or eniergy? X
Upon the total buildout of either version of the proposed Specific
Plan,there would be an in the use of fuel and eaerBY supplied
to the new housing units and downtown cammtrcial space,as well as
commercial ventures in the Marina arra. Since it is not known
whether this additional use would beconsid�erod SU man al
impact should be studied furder.
0
b. Substantial increase in dca�and upon existing sources of energy,or
require the development of new sources of X
Wa it is not cmwd new oir -ru will be rcqpired,
0there. wouldbe an P.,r In use supplied tothe r.*,v
0 ..2 INilil-iiiii-
oilunits downtown F r timil space, as will as
commercial ventures in the Marina area. Since it is not lc.cnm
whether this additional use would be sub.. 131 this
impact should be studied further.
16. Utilities. Could the proposal result in a need for new systwts, mbstantial
alterations to the following utilities: X_
S=Sig1uficant pEnvirora��I=Insilecklist-Page 22 of 29
As indicated in the proposed Specific Plan,there exists&c need for
to water, sewer and drainage A
improvcmtnt the Oya
—
These improvements, however, art meant to replace q u t-e d-
systems and 000;0betterMOO" in theoperation of the water, sewer andlift* system Inarca.- The c M* afion Of the
undagmmding of Sy tiesN --19&v hi within
j5UWM3;cCommis also to be 1144cwlisw"
mding is
P"denfial cr n-1111
generally a standard for new AVO i&OMW
development will -=--timod m* Rodeo arca. These
improvements will be funded by private developers through the
permitting process. Additionally, funds are availablt fa this
component of the Specific Plan should the County dcsignata
the
Commercial Watcrfront/First and Rodeo Avenue areas as an
Undergroundiag District.
Water
In speaking with EBMUD,th=does not appear to be an existing
capacity problem,
nor would the utility anticipate one the
adoption and unples�entadon Of the 1ropmed Specific Plan. Tht
Rodeo am is located within a "Pressure unprovar�ent that
spans from Crockett to Richmond. Additional idential and
limitscon�menci21
al ldmp dkd not impact tile A Service or Ater
the improverrunts to the Pressure improvemennt zone anticipated by
EBMUD.
The Rodeo Sanitary District currently has an allocation to use a
maximum of 1.14 million gallons of water per day. Normal use,
however, is generally half of this amount. The Rodeo Sanitary
District may experience excessive flows during peak periods due to
Strom water runoff. Plandsystam capacity can be elccoodod.
1S=Significant Envkommental Checkfisr. .0.01ge 23 'of-2-9
17. Human Health. Could the proposal result in:
A. Creation of any health Lazard or potential health hazard(«cluding
meatel6ealth)?
�L- -
The Mminaareai*s coinposed of dimmajor am: Joseph!s Resort,
Resort historicauy
dwBIuffs&taBeaoett'sM Joseph!s0 fcw sludgefrom the oil nfinery�amdhad bow as a '
processes. Due to a possible toxic at Joseph's Resort and
installati� A of a fuel dock atBmneu's Mm�im, there 111"URN.W., be a
potential health hazazd and tLis should be studied further. Should it
be proposed the Marina will be subject to a
sepatift CnVVC, --tal review.
b, Exposure of people to potential health hazards? � _
Same as 17.a
is, Aesthetics. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic Vista or view
open to the public, or will theproposal result '*in the ctrwguon of an uacucaliv�4;
offensive site open to public view? _ �L
San Pablo Avenue(and where it becomes Parker Avenue)is designated as a scenic
route within the Transportation and Circulation Elementthe General Plan. It is
planned that 0 0.
Parke Avenue be altered a width of fav
lanes to three with a median
itlmidThis ped III I will soften the severity of theroadprovide better
I Von
visual access to the maxim and a.1al cue and allow for urban design featwes
such as lighting, deco
ratve paving,stet benches that the
eommuaity of Rodeo.
went OfTh=wfflbeanthe av=all Of downtown Rodeo qpon the
Planelem 0adoption and impl�eatstion of the Specific the urbandesign
- -A IN Jill dk+:OWW" F�t3 1-ral
r-13 aAman d- '"W"Of the,
feahmm,Mmina Cmrn c=dina archite
SWIM Ofproposeddevel — t with residential and commercial M M ft
U.S.G.S.Quad Overlay Systan No.
190 Recreation,, Could the proposal result in an imp upw the -am—a'itY or cit ty Of
existing-0-pq P
ninal opportunitic -X
r Moans, in, eft#'2 +2,00Bodi quaiiny munbtv Of Wrial the Rodeo area could
be enhaMAQU from tLe imprwements to the Marina and pedestrian pranemde with the
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. This could be seen as a beneficial
tMpacte
S=SigniScant I=Insignificant Environmental Checklist-Page 24 wt-7
Should it be proposed implementatim,the Marina will be subject to a separate
lkdhf 0 0^01M
environmental review. Policy 3-171 dictates that, "large awimaw developmentin the
4W
Commercial Rccreation must be predicated Rill atjXWOU& study Of the
I'Ve development policiesincaporatoda cific plan orWGUZU A AULLYA AAA0
inbefore
must be* place
waterfront plan and implemrntation program
AANWW% F" IN__ " a*" 0^01M development
9%069 1% md . An C=&AJK&e of the,*Ve Of law O% W91ch devel Can F A.Opat # M0s 0_childebm the 10, buildout to 230 berths,upits GWIL
I 1�P-11 gm
Capacity of 109 baths,a two lace boat kunch,a new fuel dock, - ,-
--- -ions to
the
U&UaUU a*# baitNchandlery. It IS Deca dredging __
to
MWbaths
10 doubles
amoulmodaafto the ad ditional 122 berths. These additional
existing 0
tLe 6011:0j,46 -1 Q,
N � 11cob-crosion of sbaclim. The Of
ti-I and could
the
o"nb"IqwJ
122 behsrtis nd lmbwn and this �MwlAbe ed with any ad-d-i
tiaosl mviro�ntal
review.
20. Cultural Resources
a. Could the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction.of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site? JL
Though Rodeo is largely an urbanized area,them maybe significant
archeological resources within the area per the Archaeological
Sensitive Map in the General Plan,Figure 9-4,page 9-I5.
Should any artifacts be unearthed during the---m—&-i-guration of San
Pablo Avenue or during fugue residential or wmmercial
development, these projects shall comply with ayProposed
mitigation measures. 1'6e California Archeological Survey at
Sonoma State will be notified of thedecision of thisulAv*review and will have the opportunity tocomment on this—_ ssPect Of
the proposal.
See Exhibit F-Rodeo Archeological Sensitivity Mop
S=SigniScant I=Insigin5car►t Environmental Checklist-Page 25 of 28
10
-
it Z4 4F
XZO 4
10
00
00r It
oe
Ae
00
00r,Op00r, 1100/
d OF
Of, 00,11 OF
JO
00r, 0
OF
�%� or
0 X� -
�/ FvI
�i�"' —01
�'�/%�%%'Oji /
/�jG, �'.•iii
vO/•�iGr /�/ FO
b. C.-Could the�oposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,structure,or objax? _ �L
Ibem is the desire to maiotam and pregawe the existing olds historic
buildings in downWwn Rodeo. They must be drought up to cumeat
Building
CodeComply with 1Le UMinforCCdh&LSOWy Building
IPA ovisio�. The cwt msy be prohibitive. but all efforts will be used
to retain the aigioal awchaes t}ut helped to shape the community of
Rodeo.
C. Does tLe proposal6ave the potcaCal to ause a physical cbmtgewhich
would affect unique ethnic culpaal values? _ x .
Same as 20.6
d Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential finpact area? _ �L
Same as 20..a
SeamsigniScaut I=InsigniScant En*omentW CheckJist-Page 26 of 28
21. Mandatory Filings Of Significance.
AI Does the project have the potential to deerade the qualibt of the
environment substantially roduce
the habitat of a or wildlife
0
species, 0,11 - a fish
--- or wildlife population to drop below self
4
sustaining levels,threstea to eliminate a plant or animal iunity,
red��oe A
JFplant
the ber or luau Of a or m--d VU
0 1
or I or eliminateimpatent examples of or periods of
California history or prehistory? ...X._ _
SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
b, Does the project have the poteatisl to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, ta 47sin-
als? (A short-termermimpact on the J*LIUluis one which UWA in a relatively brief,
0
&finitive period of while long-fain acts will endure well into
the future.) - .x-
Same as 21.a
C. Does the project have potential impacts which are individually
limitod, lafiv*c=i&ra1b1e*?. (A project may impact on two
but ctm
or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
0 ev"011
VAN lvely..,,,,.,but where the effect of the total of these impacts on
iffie 0 M-4
01VULnunent is significant.) � _
Same as 21.a
d. Does the project have enw- onmental, effects which could cause
1& .69%+; himnan I *U~ *Isubs Aal adverse effects onbeings, M. directly or
indirectly? -�- -
Same as 21.a
S=SigniScant IEnvironmental Checklist-Page 27 of 28
HI. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
0
Based on the foregoing ru VIGWS---- the project will not result in any
potentially significant environmeatal impacts.
IV. Determiustion.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposod project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the envunanunt,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 fmd that although the proposed project could have a si,,,,, -'riscant effect on the
0
environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case -because the mitigation
mdescribedattached elk
measures on an have been addod to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WELL BE PREPARED,
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. �_
00,
Date Si
4000*,*
i By:
�_`.*ficant I=lnsigniscant Environmental Checklist-Page 28 of 28
�"'^""..
r.,..r,r,,,w.
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
HOURLY VOLUME VARIATION
S
M
N
a
8
r
N
S
UW)
C1
� g
o � g
tl> > CIO LLJ4) Lo
0 o
.� � g i
o
o >
>LM
g Z
Q
Li
a�
L p
(vO
a
0
0
CIO
g
0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn co ti to U) v V) N TW-
awnlon
v
N
� S
r
N
8
o
o
. as
d � o
N
V to co
slow-
0
V) 11l �° ..-..
cc
O 4)
s �
o Now g
0
i3i
�
woos
o
� � g Z
> o
Q =
L
O
L �
a o
0
0cn
g
0
Ln 0
0
o
� N
cn njoA
g
0N
S
0N
8f0 a
cc
0
cen
g �
ti
3
° = S
— o
8� U)
cu
9� CD
o Lo c
cc 0 6�
0 mc > M c �
O EU) 0
4) LU 0L CO)
O
O4) r
> L S
0
0 0 �
— = o
-Q g Z
ca00
cc 0
0
Log
00g
0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0
0 Go � (D LO v M N r
ownloA
O
O
M
N '
O
N
O
C1
cc
Lo
aid 0
cu
r
Q
a. 'L
LU W
� E g o
0
0
0
> Lo
Q 0 �
0
.Q o
to ti
an
c g
g
0
0
r
ewnlOA
/ g
N
O
N
O .
C)
r
O
� c 0
1-
0
Q = o
LO
L
L � CD> CIO c �
CL
O ui
3 0
as >
0
> O �
Q =
LO
� g w
V
a g
0
0
S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v N O co �O v N
r r r
ewnlOA
LEVELOF SERVICE DFr'IINI'I'IONS
Level Stopped Volume to .
of � Delay Capacity
0 Serv _
v Ratio Deserifltion of Traffic Conditions
A X5.0 000040459 Insigntftciat Delayse. No approach
.
phase is fully atiliud and no vehicle
waits longer than one red indication.
B* 5.145.0 0060M0,069 Malmal Delays: An occasional
approach phase is fully utilized.
Driven begin to feel restricted.
C 15.1-25.0 0.70-0.79 Acceptable Delayr. Major approach
phase may become fully utilized. Most
drivers feel somewhat restricted.
D 25.1-40.0 0,0804089 Tolerable DeIiy:: Drivers may wait
through more than one red indication.
Queues may develop but dissipate
rapidly, without excessive delays.
E 40.1-60.0 0.90-0.99 s1galficaut Delays: volumes
approaching capacity. Vehicles may
,it through several signal cycles and
long queues of vehicles form upstream.
F a60,0 n,a. Excessive Delayr. Conditions it
capacity, with extremely long delays,.
Queues may .-•bloek upstream
intersections and do not dissipate,.
SOURCES: Hianx-C city 312111, Highway Research Board, Special Report
No. 117, Washington, D.C., 1965.
Inte ..*+ Matelills enHi9-bwU.Cj1pAcjjX, Transportation Research
Board rcular 212, Washington D.C., 1980
Hig.bWAY rft - *ty Man Transportation Research Board Special
Report No. 209, Washington, D. 19x5; DKS Associates.
APPENDIX C
INVENTORY OF BUI]LDINGS
MORE THAN 45 YEARS OLD
i
i
I
J
i
t
7r "w a
r
List of buildings in Rodeo Specific Plan Area which appear to be over 45 years old.
Page 1
House/Bldg.# Street Old? Comments
238 First St. Yes
37? First St. Yes Address obscured,probably 337.
432 First St. Possible Plaque with dedication 1953.
440-456 First St. Yes One building,,
442 First St. Possible
448 First St. Yes
509 First St. Yes Commercial; Brick building.
512 First St, Yes
513 First St. Yes Commercial; Brick building.
516 First St. Yes
525 First St. Yes Commercial; Dated 1925 on facade.
526-528 First St. Yes Commercial;Two storefronts.
530-534 First St. Yes Commercial;Three storefronts.
632 First St. Yes
642 First St. Yes
663 First St. Yes
665 First St. Yes
428? First St./Pacific Yes NW Comer; address obscured
105 FirstSt./Rodeo Yes Commercial; Large brick building, includes on facade with no
address.
500 FirstSt./Rodeo Yes
500 Fourth St. Yes
512 Fourth St. Yes
524 Fourth St. Yes
721 Fourth St. Yes
709 Investment Yes
105 Pacific Possible
112 Pacific Yes Residence
12 Pacific Yes Residence
122 Pacific Yes Residence
141/2 Pacific Yes Residence
14A Pacific Yes Residence
14B Pacific Yes Residence
14C Pacific Yes Residence
204 Pacific Yes Residence
.0p
Page 3
F
NouselBld Street Old? Comments
127 Rodeo Possible Residence
133 Rodeo Possible Residence
135 Rodeo Yes Residence
139 Rodeo Yes Residence
145 Rodeo Yes Residence-
146 Rodeo Yes Residence
160 Rodeo Yes Residence
200 Rodeo Yes Residence
225 Rodeo Possible Residence
Unknown Rodeo Yes Adjacent to 225 Rodeo,abandoned, no address visible.
Unknown Rodeo Yes Residence; Blue house adjacent to abandoned house, between
146 and 225 Rod -no add visible.
Unknown Rodeo Possible Residence; Located between 133 and 135 Rodeo,address not
678 San Pablo Yes visible: Possible remodel of oIder structure.
2'14 Second St. Yes
520 Second St. Yes
521,635 Second St. Yes Commercial; Storefronts.
616 Second St. Possible
620 Second St. Possible
633 Second St. Yes Residence; Free standing garage near building is included,
640 Second St. Yes
Unknown Second St. Yes Commercial; Beauty Shop adjacent to 520 Second St.;
DMviously resiaence.
Unknown Second/Parker Yes Commercial;Windmill Club.
511 Third St. Yes Commercial;Three storefronts,
512 Third St. Yes
517 Third St, Yes
320 Third/Parker Yes Commercial;Older building with new addition.
APPENDIX D
VIOLATIONS OF REGULATION 1
SECTION 301 RODEOAREA
1 JANUARY 1993 - 11 AUGUST 1995
i
s
i
i
AUG11ENFORCEMENT2:09 BAAQMD ENFORCENFORCEMENTP.02
.i■i ilk w.�r r rr rr.■M w �r.s . rr w on=r f..� i a�..�.��■►.r�r rs..f.n rr.�► w w�►�....�+■�w rr
�r
ISSTJJWCF 8awam—
&ZNOan1, r
1.993 & AU9 11, 1995
"wow mnvwi�"M�Qftaw��mw��Imwl�-W avow iW
Rer-aw u-1 at*1on 2
Rule
Section 301.
<< Enter second set, to skip press Enter »
Regulation4P
Sitepe,Rec1pIont, 0 0 0 0 . . Pacific Ref .nin Company, Plant # 3 2
Address • 0 . 0 • • 0 • • • 0 • . • • . • • 4901 San P 10 Ave Hercules, CA 94547
« Violation Notices Sorted by Occurrence Date >>
..a.....■. w .�s w...„�.r.....,,,,, .� w r.�,.....�r am. art.....••...r 0 00..►:00 00.�,,...►.r.��►. am mm am•...�.r w.r�.w....w.�r.�s s....„�.�.r..��.►00 00..���►.�+�..�0000 r
Violation Not ice i . r. . . . . • • #21045
occurrence 90r000000000000 Feb 19, 1993 7.&30p.m.
Issuance i • i • i ♦ • i0000 . . • . i Feb 22, 1.993 10.56 a.m. by Brent L Rudin (566
Offense #000 * * . • • . i . • . : . . . 1, Regulation l Section 301
Cleared Date . . i . . . . . • . 02� 19
....arce # i . • • . i • • . i 1 . . i • f . 76
Nunber of days i • . i . i • . . . • 1pre�discovery
Violation Details • • • . . . , . (7) OdorComplaints
Interim Disposition 0 0 0 0 • . Legal Action, May 10, 1993
Received by Lecjal . . . • 0 0 0 0 May 11, 19
a1 disposition 0 0 0 0 i . . . unknown
offense #. i . . . . • . . • . . . rr . . . 2, Health & Safety, Section 424Q1
VN Cleared Date . . 1 0 0 0 0 . . . 02-19"w93
'Source ' . • i • . s • r • . • • • . . • . 76
lumber of days . . • . . . . . . . . 1
pre�discovery
Violation Details • . • . . • . . Unconditional order of Abatement
,Interim Disposition 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action� y Ma 10, 1993
Received by LegalMay 11 1993
t
Final disposition . . . . . . . . unknown
�.....�...•�:�s ter....�.....�►rr.�.�.•�.n■■M�.w.►�..•..�►•�•....rr 0000..
��►�rwM��..D��Mww+w� dftr�+rs&�..11bra.Wwam �....vw�i- +Or+rve �rr..ww�&...mr�
Violation Notice i • . . • . • ♦ .
#22183
occurrence . . . / . i i . . i 1 . . . i -Apr 20r 17:20 pome
,issuance iii . . • i . 00 • • . t r • . Apr 21, 19 9 3 3:21 p. . by JamesT Weems 2 8
C �
offense . . . . . . . . . / 0 0 0 0 . . . 1., Regulation 1, Section 301
VN cleared Date . . i • . . . • . i 04m-20am93
Number of days i i • • . . . . . • . l pre- d i s cover
7'olatio►n Deta ila . . . . . . . . Conf i ed Complaints Sulfur Odor
ter i'm Disposition 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Jun 23.. 1
Received by Legal 0 0 0 0 • • . . Jun 28, 1993
Final disposition . • . • . . • i unknown
offense #006000609 * 699 * 00 * 2, Health & Safety, Section 42401
VN cleared Date . , 0000 i . . . 04sw20"93
ENFORCEMENT
03
_ �M
A�JG 1l 1995 �2;l0
K=ber of days . . • 0 0 0 0 • . . . 1. pre--wdiscovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . Unconditional, Order Of Abatnt v
Interim Disposition . i . • . • Legal Action, Jun 23, 1993
Received by Lecjal • . • • . • . . aun 28, 1
Final disposition . . • 0 0 0 0 . unknown
...1.. ...r.ter. am mw r dam Imam......r.r...am ftw:..#nW. ..�,,.�........s..•�r.........�...�..�.........�,r...........-.�...�
Violation Notice . . • . • • . . • #20265 is
Occurrence . • 0 0 0 0 . . • • , . • ♦ . May 10, 1993 39000 p
Issuance . 0 . 0 0 6 . . 0 0 0 0 May 13, 1993 10:37 a.rt. by Peter A iCal izer,is (522)
offense #. . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . 1, Regulation 1,, Section 301
VN Cleared D . . . . . . . . • . 051wlO-93
Number of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1premadiscovery
Violation Details . , 0 0 0 0 . . 10 Complaints Of CDMDS Drum
Interim Disposition 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Jul 2, 1993
Received by Legal . 0 0 0 0 . . . Jul 8, 1993
Final disposition . . • 0 0 0 0 . unknown
...��..fir.r i••... •�•..r.�...„�r...r w•r•............►....................... dN...*W•.... MW 4W.o amp ww. �Mw.
Violation Notice • 0 0 0 0 . • • . #20963
Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 30, 1 9#000 p
Issuance 0000 . 0000 . . . • 0000 Jul 3, 1993 4:20 p.n. by Alex P Ezerskly (364)
offense #. . . ! . f . . ! • . . • ! ♦ . • 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VN Cleared Date . . • • . . • . . • 06-30-93
Number of pre-d.149covery
daYs . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Violation Details • 0 0 0 0 . • . (24) Odor Complaints
Interims D is0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Sep 30, 1993
R:eceived by Legal acct 4, 1993
F 1 disposition . 0 0 0 0 . . . unmown
Offense 0 0 0 0 . • 0 0 0 0 . • 0 0 0 0 . 2, Health & Safety, Section 42401
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 06"w3 O 3
Neer of days ` • • . . . , . ♦ . . 1 premadiscovery
Violation Details . . . • 0 0 0 0 Unconditional abatement order violated
interim Dispos ition 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Sep 30, 1
Received by Legal . , 0 0 0 0 . . Oct 41 1993
Final disposi'tion ♦ . ♦ . i . • . unknown
! ►+��l�aft MMO-00liWW�Wft�m-�iSbwAMiWftww iar�r�•��i+��s��r�+w���ri�w��iit�����r.
Violation Notice: • . . . . . . . . #20966
Occu once . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . Jul 10, 1993 2*000 p*me
n . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aug1993 3:2? p*zao by Alex P Ezersky (364)
lssua oe g
offense 1 Regulation 11 Section 301
VN Cleared Date . 0 . 0 0 9 • . . . 07-10=w93
.
Numbero f days 600 * 6040040 1 pre-d iscove
s . . . . . • . . Exchanger Leaking, Odor Complaints
vViolation De�ta�,�.
Inter Disposition . . • . • • Legal Action, Mar 10, 1994
Recoived byLegal • . . . . . . . Mar 14 , 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . unknown
Offense 2, Health Safety, Section 42402 �
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 07awlO-93
Number' of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1 pre-discovery
Violation Details . . . . . • . . Unconditional abatement order
nter i z Dis o s i't ion 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Mar 10, 1994
P
Received by Legal Mar 14, 1994
ri.nal disposition . . , 0 0 0 0 . unknown
P•O4
11-2 l2•.l0� BAPDMD ENFORCEMENT
995
lrw�lr����s■ram► ■r�w����r�!! l��►w•, ►.ra•sl"rww•rrw�w�rr�.�r�M�t+w+r■►w.�r�r.w�ri....X11•w�.r•wr.rtir�.rr���i..�sl�i►��r.!!'rir�i
violation Notice0 0 0 0 . . i . . #2096 5
)ccurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . i Jul 12, 1993 14935 p*zt
Issuance. . . . . . . . . . . . , « . • . . Jul 12, 1993 4*611 by Alex P Ezersky (
offense ! . ! • ! i . i i . • i . • i • . 1,, Regulatio' n 1, Section 301
VW Cleared Date . i ! • . . . ! • . 07-12=w93
Source # . • . . . . ! • . . • . i . . • • 76
Number of days . , ! • 0 0 0 0 . . . l pre-dizcove
Violation Details 0 0 0 0 . , . . 8 Complaints
Interi� �Disposition0 0 0 0 ! . � aiACtiOnjSep 3�rl1993
Received by g . • . ! 0000 tact 4 1993
Final chi sp os i t,i on . . . . . . . . unknown
!!!ll��i�!l l����!!#���!!i►l�A�l��l ►!'lamiAftvw ri�w�i�lir�r�r�ii�rll�i+�r+il�!l�liir►!l��l1r�!!�i
Violation Notice #20273 - record archived
Occuence Doc 8, 1993 4:00 .m•
Issuance ! . . ! 0000 ! . ! • • i • • • Dec 15, 1993 110.02 a.m. by Peter A Calimeris (522
Offense 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VK Cleared Date . . . ! 0 0 0 0 • i 12=v09--w93
Source . • . . . . i « . • • • . • • • ! 2
Number of days ! i i r ! i • i ! w • I pre.-wdiscovery
Violation Details . i . • . . i . Smoke From Stack, 14 Complaints
Interim Disposition • . . • i . Mutual. Settlement, Jan 25r 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, Feb 17, 1994
Penalty cunt . . • • w . • . i • . $ 1000
AM,iiOW +am!it��amiW UW004ft� da►lMrmwlohm li"Wr an"W�i.�iitli�Wlir'!• ftw .rilftvo r►+A1iw-"W
_olation Notice . • . . . ! . . ! #20272 - record archived
Occurrence . • i . • . ! . . • . . • ! • Dec 10, 1993 3p6mo
Issuance ! . • • , . • • • . • • . • • . • Dec 10, 1993 4.10 p.m. bit peter A Caliraeris (522)
offense ! • 0000 . • . • . . • . • . ! 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VN Cleared Date 0000 . . . • . . 12110i93
Source # . 0 . 09009 . 9i09 • 09 • 10
Nuatber of days i . • • . • ! ! • ! . Ipre/d iscovery
Violation Details • . . . • . . Steam From Drains Near Z 604
interim Disposition 0 0 0 0 . . Mutual Settlement, Jan 22 1994
Final disposition . . • . • • • ! Settled out of Court, Fib 81 1994
Penalty Amount • i • • • • . • • . • $ 1000
i"pew avow iiabwwam.womb!!dam ll.mmidwrGNP riditwawam~l/..rim►�ldww il+...00
Violation Not ice 0 0 0 0 . • • . . #20971
Occurrence r i ! i • ! . . . . i . i ! i Feb 4F x.994 120*18 poze
Issuance . • . i ! . . . • . • . ! • • . . Feb 7f 1994 12*001 pome by Alex P Ezersky (364)
Offense #. 669096400 * 4 * * 900 1 Regulation 1, Section 301
VX Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 02m*04aw94
Source # • . . . . . • . . ! • . . . . . . 24
N er of days i i i . • • • • ! • • 1 pre-discovery
71*olation, Details 0 0 0 0 , i . . Tank Seal Fire
.interim Disposition . • . ! • • Legal Action, Mar 10, 1
1 s ivetd by gal Mar 14 r 1994
�.&nal disposition, 0 0 0 0 . . . , unknown
•ice."Mqm•■rlw • am•,rw"r�gwwra rrftwr •."Ww Mw�•.err• OEM�AND"M.wAMr!airrrr...Sl"Won"r�8MOON iwmrwi►i.wiaw"M iam"Woft rr!STAN"mom
.r.��►wti..!i
Violation Notice . • , • . • 0 a #20973 record archived
)ccurrence . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . Feb lot 12.*00 p
AUG-11-1995 1211 BAPDM EWORCEMENT P905
Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar 15, 199a 4:04 p.m. by Alex P Ezersky (364)
Offense #. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i, Regulation 1, Section 301 t
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 02-10-94
Number of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1pre-discovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . Drawing Cont, .(8) Odor Compliants
Interim Disposition . . . . . . Mutual settlement, Apr 19, 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, May 26, 1994
Penalty Amount . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1000
Violation Notices . . . . . . . X25080 - record archived
Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 25, 1994 2:00 p.m.
Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 21, 1994 1:33 p.m. by Alex P Ezersky (364)
Offense #. . . . see * . . see . 1, Regulation 11 Section 301
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . .. 05-25-94
Number of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1 pre-discovery
violation Details . . . . . . . . (s) Odor Complaints
Interim Disposition . . . . . . Mutual Settlement, Aug 8, 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, Aug 24, 1994
Penalty Amount . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1000
violation Notice . . . . . . . . . #z 5 08 1 - record archived
Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jul 12, 1994 3:16 poz*
Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jul 12, 1994 4:15 p.m. by Alex P Ezersky (364)
Offense #. . . . . . . . . . . 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 07-12&w94
Number of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1 pre-discovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . (a) Odor Complaints
Interim Disposition . . . . . , Mutual Settlement, Aug 10, 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, Aug 23 , 199a
Penalty Amount . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1000
Violation Notice . . . . . . . . . #25752
Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sep 7, 1994 11:30 a.m.
IssuanC! Soo 00 sag Sap 26, 1994 11:45 a.m. by David M Hassenzahl (604)
Offence . . . . . . . . . 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VN Cleared Dates . . . . . * * a 09-07-94
Source , # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Number of days . . . . . . . . . i pre-discovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . Gasoline Spill From Tank, (22) Complaints
Interim Disposition . . . . . . Mutual Settlement, Dec 61 1994
Final disposition . . . . . . . . unknown
Violation Notice . . . . . . . . ------^-------------------
#25758
----------------
0cmzrrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan 27, 1995 4:05 S.m.
Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb 21 1995 9:28 a.m. by David M Hassenzahl (604L0
3ffense 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 01-27-95
Number of days so 066 * 0 i pre-discovery
violation Details . . . . . . . . Complaints confirmed To pond
]Inter Disposition . . . . . . Legal Action, May 3, 1995
Final disposition . . . . . . . , unknown
P•06
•
AUG-i l-'19'9 5 12:12 BPACMENFORCEMENT
6666..�.!...•�..■.a•••r�...�w.....r.�..!�►a.!�.a.w...+�►�.a.�..�a■.!�ar�..�.�..ar...�......!.w.�.►+�6666..!�►....r.air a.s�r!ar'
�r * ISSUANCE BETWEEN Tan. 1, 1993 & Aug►t�t,� *�
• ! !!+ !!`r l am, one i fow comer dwn Mo A�Mme' �no ohs MW on=0 aw
Rocrulation Z
R-u1e
Section 301
<< 'Enter second set, to skip press Enter >>
Regulation
Site t 6 6 6 6 . Unocal Co oration, Pl Arlt #
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1380 San PAve,A�r Rodeo, CA 94572
<< Violation Notices Sorted byoccurrence Date >>
��!!!!!! !! ��► aM a lr!!!��!!rr am=&a Mqr!a rr!a r m.n!!a*"W!i A.am. a a !!Mb i arm!!ar��!�►a�!!����!�r a��S
Violation Notice #20264 - record h'
r archived
Occurrence . . . . . . . . . ! 6 6 6 6 . Apr l1993 1:14 peze
Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr 13 1993 11.:39 a.m. by A Calimeris (522)
Offense lr Regulatilon Z, Section 301
r Cleared gate . . . . . . . . i . 04-l2aw93
%. .✓jrce # . . . . . . . . . • . . • 6666 . 297
Neer of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1 pre-discover
Violation Details 20 Compla'nts dw Smoke zFrom Flare
InterDisposition Mutual Settlement, May 1 1993
Final disposition i � � � � . . . Settled out o Court,f 17, 1
Penalty ount . • • i • . . i . • . $ 1000
! lqm~ � �w��ftm .qw��4 r��Ajhwmw� m=400 �� ## jm�am* diem~llftw~lMVmw
Violation Notice 6 6 6 6 . i . . . #25357 record archived
� d
Occu once • . . • . • i ♦ • . • • . i . Sep 51 1994 10900 p
Issuance . . . . • . . . • • . i • . . . . Sep 8 1 1994 10:58 a.u. by Peter A Ca�.i�eris (522)
offense #604 * * 090690 * 96 * 89 1 Regulation 1 Section 301
VN Cleared D . . . • . . • . • . 09"O6-94
Source . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Number of days . • i . . i6666 • 2pre�discovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . 23 Fallout Complaints
Interim Disposition 6 6 6 6 . . Legal Action, Dec 28, 1
Received by Legal ! . • . • i . . aan 3 1995
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Sent To District Attorney, Jul 71 1995
Penalty unt • . . . . . . . • . . $ 0
wnr!!a w!!Aww 4M a a.r a~ar .. i.. 9► .w 4..s 4.dam aN r rs w...ar at.�w at�■�►«
Violation Notice 6 6 6 6 . . i . . #25751 so& record archived
.3e"cuence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sep 15, 1994 1:20 peme
uance . . . . . . . . . • • . 16666 Sep15? 1994 1:38p.m. by David M Hassenzahl (604)
)ffense #. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It Regulation 2r Section 301
VN Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 09-25~94
1 or of days . ! . ♦ ! . . • . . i 1 pre--*discover
7iolation Details • 6 6 6 6 • . • 15 Conf iced Odor Complaints
PUG-11-1995 12:12 BPAGM ENFORCEMENT P.07
Inters Disposit ion 0 0 0 0 . . Legal Action, Dec 28, 1994
Received by Legal . . . • . . . . Jan 3 1995
Final disposition 0 0 0 0 . . * . Sent To District Attorney, Jul 1 1995
Penalty amount . . . . . . . . . . . $ a
Offense 2, Regulation 8,Rule 5 Section 311.3
W Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . Q9--15-94
Source # 139
N er of days . 40 . . . . . 0 9 . . 1 pre-discovery
Violation Details . . i • +0 0 0 0 B#2557 Denied Sour NTanks 204 fi, 205
Interims Disposition Legal ActiontDec 26,
1994
+eceivad by al . . • 0000 . Jan 3 1995
� j
Final disposition . . . . . . . . Sent To District AttoeJud. ? 1995
Penalty ount . . . . . . . . . . . $ o
sow qww•w ____qw�__� am_____,0►ass__�__+_a moms W�r__dm 41ftMrr-4wwqww__�Avbdr�qw_'_ _M!
Violation Notice 0 0 0 0 • . . . • #25360 ow record archived
occurrence 0000 • . • . . . . . . . . Mar 28, 1 1.1:1.8 a.m.
Issuance 0 0 0 0 . . • . . . i • . . . . . Mar 29, 1 11:00 a.m. bpeter A Calimer.is (522)
Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, R*gulation 1 Section 301
Cleared Date 0000 . . . 1 . . 03-29-95
source i • . i i i i • • i • # # ; ! i i 107
Number of days ! . 1 1 • • 1 • 1 1 • pr*�discovery
Violation Details • , • 0 0 0 0 . 5 conf1 ed odor of +6 received
Interim Disposition 0 0 0 0 . . Mutual Settlement, May 17, 1995
Final dispos it ion . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, Jun 24, 1995
Penalty ount • • . • . . • • • . • $ 1000
�___'____��+�r____�1_ir���l�1�__`/►�r�____�►��,�.�r1��__�_kiwi__�►+�_�i.rw�lr��_��rallsa�.�sa�,�__i_�s��r���
Violation Notice #25363 - record archived
Occurrence , 0000 • . • . • 0000 . Apr 24, 1995 10:45pems
Issuanco iii ! ♦ • • . . ! • . ♦ . . ♦ . Apr 2 1995 4.19 p9m* by Peter A Calimeris (522)
Offense 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . • 0 0 0 0 . . 1, Regulation 1, Section 301
Vel' Cleared Date . . . . . . . . . . 04-25=&95
Source # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Number of days • • • . . • . • • • • 1 preowdiscovery
Violation Details 0 0 0 0 • . . • 24 con,fied complaints out of 49 received
Inter�.m Dispositi on Mutual Settlement, Jun 7, 19955
Final disposition. . . . . . . . . Settled out of Court, Jun 24, 1
Ponalty amount 0 0 0 0 • , . • . . . $ 1000
_______________________ ._.W_________40.____ __,�___.. .0W_.48M_____mama
Violation Notice 0 0 0 0 . . . • . #25365
Occurrence • . . i . . . ♦ . • • 0 0 0 0 O`un 16, 1995 5*0 0 0 p.m.
Issuance . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 21 r 1995 10:43 a.m. by Peter A Calimeris (522)
Offense 1, Reciulation 1, Section 301
Cleared Date 06IW16"95
source • . . • . • • • • . • i • . • • • 178
Number of days . . . . . . . . . . . 1 preowdiscovery
Violation Details . . . . . . . . Fire Tank 288, 13 Confirmed Complaints Smoke
Inter raa disposition 0 0 0 0 . . unknown -
Final disposition . . • . i • • . unknown
list viol.ations for PLANT (@ for all) >>
ALIG-11-1995
12:13 BRAG MD ENFORCEMENT Pee
t op
-�, BAYAREAAIR QUALITY
`�t" IkIA
AGEMENT DISTRICT
FOB IMMEDIATE R LEASE FOR MOR INFORMATION
Thursday, July 20, 1995 Teresa Lee
(415) 749,4905
Unocal to Pay X2,050.000 to Air District and Contra Costa County
The Say Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County
District Attorney have reached anga reement with Union Oil Company oCalifornia
(Unocal) regarding a Catacarb leak occurring between August 22 and September
6, 1994. The agreement calls for Unocal to pay civil penalties and cost
reimbursements In the amount of S1,050,000 to the Air District and $1,000,000
to the Contra Costa County Treasurer,
0
The Catacarb release occurred at Unocal's refinery in Rodeo,, an
unincorporated community of Contra Costa County. As a result of the Catacarb
release, the District staff documented various violations of its rules restricting
Omissions of particulate matter and organic compounds as well as the creation of a
public nuisance. The nuisance violation was referred to the Contra Costs County
District Attorney's office for criminal prosecution,
Catacarb is a compound that purifies hydrogen gas for Unocal's Unicracker
complex, which is used to derive high value petroleum products from crude off,
On August 22, 1994*. a leak occurred In a regenerator tower which recycles
Catacarb. The leak grew continually larger, and the District began receiving
complaints from the public on September 5, 1994. The tower was shut down the
next day after 16 days of leaking. Under the California Health and Safety Code,
the District may collect civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each violation.,
(more)
14Z 5TR=.%-r*%7- SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94109 (415) 771-6000 FAX (415)928,4360
1b
aic-it-ins
12 14 BAAQMD EWORCEMENT
P.09
Say Area Air Quality Management District, pg,, 2
Unocal to Pay 42,050,,000 to Air District and Contra Costa County . /`�
Unocal.has acknowledged that this incident was not handled to the best of
its abillty and Is taking steps to make sure that similar types of releases will not
happen again, As part of the settlement, Unocal has agreed to provide enhanced
9
training for all of Its employees who work in the areas of emergency response mind
environmental protection.
A significant portion of the amounts to be paid will be used to reimburse the
Air Disttict and the District Attorney's office for expenses Incurred by these
agenclesin responding to the Catacarb release.
• JJ #
------------NNW