Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 01012002 - 2002-032 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution June 18, 2002, by at least a four-fifths vote as follows: AYES. " SUPERRVISORS UILKEMA, GERBER, DeSAULNIER, GLOVER AND GIOIA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2002/-12 (Gov. Code 25365) SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2002/ 32 to authorize exchange of County Real Property with Pinole Redevelopment Agency for West County Animal Shelter Facilities upon satisfaction of stated conditions, and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. [CP# 01-75] Project No. 4070-6G5173 Pinole area. District 11. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: This Board, on April 23, 2002, passed Resolution No. 20021 254 approving Notice fixing May 14, 2002 at 9:00 a.m., in its Chambers, County Administration Building, Martinez, California, as the time and place when it would meet to consummate the exchange of property interests in the real property owned by the County located on Pinole Shores Drive, Pinole, as described in Exhibit 'A" and the real property owned by the Pinole Redevelopment Agency located at the corner of San Pablo Avenue and Sunnyview Drive in Pinole, commonly known as 900 San Pablo Avenue in Pinole. The legal description for the Pinole Redevelopment Agency site is not available at this time. Upon review and approval of the legal description for the Agency site by the County's Principal Real Property Agent, the legal description will be attached to the Grant Deed prior to conveyance of the Agency site to the County. Said Notice was duly published in the Contra Costa Times. At that place and time the Board took action to continue the matter until June 4, 2002. On June 4, 2002, the Board took action to continue the matter until June 11, 2002, at which time the Board took action to further continue the matter to June 18, 2002. This Board, by the aforesaid Resolution, found that said real property described in 'Exhibit "A" is no longer required for County use and the exchange is for real property owned by the Pinole Redevelopment Agency described above, plus the sum of $207,384.40. 1. The Board hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration Finding of No Significant Impact for the Contra Costa County Satellite Animal Control Facility prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The Board hereby DIRECTS the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination. 3. The Board hereby AUTHORIZES the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25.00 fee to Community Development for processing, and a $25.00 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. l:U0ANMPamela\BR10A W estco Animal Shelter(with condltions).wpd RESOLUTION 2002/32 Subject: Exchange County Real Property with Pinole Redevelopment Agency for West County Animal Shelter Facilities Date: June 18, 2002 Page: 2 4. The Board hereby AUTHORIZES the exchange of property interests between Contra Costa County and the Pinole Redevelopment Agency in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Joint Powers Agreement following and subject to the .satisfaction of the following conditions as determined by the County's Principal Real Property Agent: a. Agency must obtain and record an access and utility easement for the use and benefit of the Agency site across the portion of Parcel A of Minor Subdivision 651-00 upon which a portion of the driveway providing access to the Agency site from San Pablo Avenue has been or will be constructed; b. Agency must file a certificate of correction, record a new parcel map, prepare and record a lot line adjustment and quitclaim deeds, or take whatever other steps are necessary, to correct the parcel map for Minor Subdivision 654-00 filed December 31, 2001, in Book 183 of parcel maps, at pages 1-3, Contra Costa County Records, in the following manner: (1) On sheet 1 of 3, in the fourth paragraph of the Owners' Statement, the phrase "is for the use of Parcels A, B, C and D of Minor Subdivision 654- 00" will be revised to state "is for the use of Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Minor Subdivision 654-00" so that the fourth paragraph of the Owners' Statement will read as follows: AND THE AREA DESIGNATED "P.A.E.- (PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT ) IS NOT DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC BUT IS FOR THE USE OF PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 654-00 FOR, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKING. (2) On sheet 3 of 3, all Landscape and Maintenance Easements and all Private Access Easements, and all markings relating to such easements (including lined areas and abbreviations such as L.S.M.E. and P.A.E.), will be removed from Parcel 1. (3) The legal description of Parcels 1 and 3 of Minor Subdivision 654-00 will be revised so that the portion of the driveway providing access to Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of MinorSubdivision 654-00 currently shown on the parcel map as located on Parcel 1 will be removed from the legal description for Parcel 1 and relocated to Parcel 3. C. Agency must obtain and deliver to County an updated preliminary title report which shall include the above-described access easement across Parcel A of Minor Subdivision 651-00, and the private access easements across parcels 2, 3 and 4 of Minor Subdivision 654-00, in the legal description of the property interests being conveyed to the County, and shall delete any reservation or exception to title with respect to any Landscape and Maintenance Easements and any Private Access Easements. L• OANIAParnela18f210A WestCo Animal shelter(with conditions).wpd RESOLUTION 2002! 32 Subject: Exchange County Real Property with Pinole Redevelopment Agency for Vilest County Animal Shelter Facilities Date: June 18, 2002 Page: 3 d. The title to the Agency site that is to be conveyed to the County must be in fee simple absolute, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, leases (recorded and unrecorded), and taxes, except the following approved exceptions: (1) Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record listed as exceptions 1, 2 and 5 in the preliminary title report dated December 31, 2001, issued by North American Title Company, Inc. (2) Grant Deed of Development Rights granted by Agency to the City of Pinole, dated April 12, 2002, and recorded on May 3, 2002, as Instrument No. 20032-157194 in the Official Records of Contra Costa County. e. Escrow for the conveyance of the Pinole Redevelopment Agency site must close on or before July 15, 2002. 5. Subject to satisfaction of the foregoing conditions: a. The Board hereby ACCEPTS the Grant Deed, in the form attached hereto, from the Pinole Redevelopment Agency to Contra Costa County. b. The Board hereby DIRECTS the Real Property Division to have the Grant Deed from the Pinole Redevelopment Agency to Contra Costa County recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. C. The Board AUTHORIZES the Board Chair to execute a Grant Deed, in accordance with the Joint Powers Agreement and the Disposition and Development Agreement, in the form attached hereto, to the Pinole Redevelopment Agency on behalf of the County and accept the sum of $207,384.40 from the Pinole Redevelopment Agency. d. The Board hereby DIRECTS the Real Property Division to deliver the County Grant Deed to the grantee for acceptance and recording. 6. The Board hereby AUTHORIZES the Principal Real Property Agent to terminate the property exchange on behalf of the County by delivering written notice to the Pinole Redevelopment Agency and escrow agent if the Principal Real Property Agent determines that any of the conditions set forth hereinabove have not been met. I h4reby certify that this is a true and correct copy of art action taken and entered on the mW**n of the Board of SuPwAsors an tho date shown ATTESTED: .lf � KAL:eh JOHN SW EETEN,Clerk of the;�=d of Orig.dept.: Public Works(RP) Supervislqrs and County Administrat r t Contact: Karen Laws(313-2228) Sy � cc County Assessor Deputy County Auditor-Controller County Recorder(via RIP) Laura Lockwood,CAO Public Works Accounting Grantee(via R/P) L.Dalziel,Adm. County Counsel(Attn:P.Zaid) i:1JQANN\PamelM8R10A WestCo Animal shelter(with conditions).wpd RESOLUTION 2002/32 Recorded at the request of: Pinole Redevelopment Agency Return to: Pinole Redevelopment Agency 2131 Pear Street Pinole,CA 94564 Attn.Marcus J.Tartt Assessor's Parcel No.402-220-021 Title Co. Order No. 54706.52800067 GRANT DEED For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California, Grants to Pinole Redevelopment Agency("Grantee"),a public body,corporate and politic,the following described real property in the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California. FOR DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Grantee covenants by and for itself,and any successors in interest,that there shall be no discrimination of any person, or group of persons, on account of sex, race, color, creed, religion, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease,transfer,use,occupancy or enjoyment of the property. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY J.Dated .hme 1 BY hair,Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On before me,John Sweeten, Clerk o e46"a-fd o upervisors and County Administrator, Contra Costa County,personally appearediwho is personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s)istare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which t person(s)acted,executed the instrument. By: Deputy Clerk KAL:eh Ci:\GrpData\RealProp\2002-Files\02-4\DE3 Pinole Redevel Agency.doc 4/15/02 EXHIBIT "A" Description: The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California,County of Contra Costa,City of Pinole, and is described as follows: PORTION OF LOT B,AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF DOHRMAN RANCH,FILED DECEMBER 21, 1895, IN BOOK E OF MAPS, PAGE 115, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTAINING 2.04 ACRES,MORE OR LESS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A BRASS DISC MARKED E. B.M. U_D.SET IN A CONCRETE MONUMENT ON THE LINE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES OF C.A. ROY AND WILLIAM OLSEN,SAID DISC BEARING NORTH 252.59 FEET ALONG SAID LINE FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DOLORES H.OBRIEN BY DEED COATED MARCH 22, 1932,RECORDED APRIL 21, 1932, IN BOOK 305 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,PAGE 492;THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 3101.00 FEET;THENCE EAST 250.80 FEET TO THE LINE DIVIDING THE PROPERTIES OF C.A.ROY AND SUGAR CITY DRAYAGE AND BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM C.A.ROY,ET UX,DATED JANUARY 15, 1957,AND RECORDED JANUARY 22,1957, IN BOOK 2208 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, MAGE 315;THENCE SOUTH 0°08'30"EAST ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE 539.55 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARCEL(305 OR 492);THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL SOUTH 840 46'47'WEST,60.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 08'30'WEST 264.94 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM DOLORES H.O'BRIEN TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1935 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1935,IN BOOK 403 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,PAGE 307;THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE,SOUTH 810 12'WEST 193.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, RECORDED 12110/1935, IN BOOK 403 PAGE 307,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS., ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO SUGAR CITY BUILDING MATERIALS CO.,A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY GRANT DEED RECORDED 6/6/1985 8 -72366, IN BOOK 12348 PAGE 80,.CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 402.220-021 G.\GrpData\Reaff>mpt2W2-Fires1U2-4\Pinote Exh A doc 4/1W2 Pinole Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department 2131 Fear Street Tel : (510) 724-9014 Phole, CA 94564 �') AC's,-2 i 9' 05� Fax: {510) 724-4921 APRIL 15, 2002 JOHN OBORNE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 651 PINE STREET, 4TH FLOOR NORTH'WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0095 RE: REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED SATELLITE OFFICE OF PINOLE ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY AT 900 SAN PABLO AVENUE. Dear John, I have reviewed the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Satellite Office of Pinole Animal Control facility at 900 San Pablo Avenue and existing Satellite Office of Pinole Animal Control facility at 651 Pinole Shores Drive. This project conforms to the City of Pinole General Plan. Sincerely Brent Salm' Developm nt Services Director cc: Marc S.Grisham,Executive Director,Pinole Redevelopment Agency Elise K Traynum,Agency Counsel,Pinole Redevelopment Agency Laura Lockwood,Capital Facilites Director,Contra Costa County Pamela Zaid,County Counsel,Contra Costa County pf Community Ontrje�nnlswB �e muni Deva P Development Costa F Department APR County oo� County Administration wilding S.L. WEIR, COUNTY CLERK 651 Pine Street •r 4th Floor,North Vying " CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1210 DATE: April 5,2002 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND IN'T'ENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION t Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: L D.RICHARDSON(Applicant) — CONTRA COSTA COUNTY(Owner). Contra Costa County proposes to construct a satellite animal control facility at 900 San Pablo Avenue which is located at the north west corner of San Pablo Ave. and Sunnyview Drive in the City of Pinole. This facility would replace, in part,the existing county animal control facility located approximately one block away at 651 Pinole Shores Drive. Real property transactions between Contra Costa County and the Pinole Redevelopment Agency will be required to support this activity.The Co-unly wouldurp chase the 900 San. Pablo Avenue site from the City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency ' the 651 Pinole Shores Drive site would be sold by the County to the City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency. The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. A'copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North `Vying, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5.00 P.M.,April 24,2002. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: John Oborne Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North'Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 borne P anner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) Office Hours Monday- Friday: 6:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Environmental Checklist Form I Project Title: Contra Costa County Satellite Animal Control Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County General Services Dept. 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 100 Martinez,Ca 94553-4711 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Les Richardson 925-313-7200 4. Project Location: 900 San Pablo Ave.,Pinole,Ca (New satellite office location). 651 Pinole Shores Dr.,Pinole,Ca(To be sold to the City of Pinole), 5 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County General Services Dept. 1220 Morello,Suite 100 Martinez,CA 94553-4711 6. General Plan Designation: 900 San Pablo Ave. Site :Mixed Use—Light Industrial/Service Commercial and Medium Density Residential. 651 Pinole Shores Drive Site:Medium Density Residential and Light Industrial 7. Zoning: 900 San Pablo�Ave. Site -PD(Planned Development) 651 Pinole Shores Drive Site: M2—General Industrial 8. Description of Project: Request to construct a 5,500 sq.ft.Contra Costa County satellite animal control facility at the north west comer of San Pablo Ave and Sunnyview Drive in the City of Pinole to replace,in part,the existing county animal control facility approximately one block away.Real property transactions between Contra Costa County and Pinole Redevelopment Agency will be required in support of this activity. Contra Costa County will purchase the 900 San Pablo Avenue site from the Pinole Redevelopment Agency.In exchange,the Pinole Redevelopment will purchase from Contra Costa County the existing Pinole Animal Services Satellite facility located at 651 Pinole Shores Drive. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The surrounding uses at the 900 San.Pablo Ave, site include to the north multi-family residential,to the south a small retail/service center to the west a light industrial service use and to the east a lumber yard and multi-family residential and a small commercial building. The surrounding land uses at the 651 Pinole Shores Drive site are light industrial and apartments. 10. Other public agencies whose approval ISiefle is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City of Pinole. Qom=----- of "i0e4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _. Transportation( _ Public Services Papulation&Housing Circulation n Utilities & Service _ Geological Problems — Biological Resources Systems X Water — Energy & Mineral — Aesthetics Air Quality Resources — Cultural Resources T Mandatory Findings of _,_. Hazards __ Recreation Significance X Noise No Significant Impacts Identified 3 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed u roposed project. -3J t 56, t-� a N4J"`_r_ Signgiire Date o U Q CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No h matt Inc tom ion act Im cta SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North`ming,Martinez,and the City of Pinole,2131 Pear St.Pinole,Ca)were consulted: 1. General Plan and Zoning Maps for the City of Pinole. 2. Project Description 3. City of Pinole General Plan Land Use Mitigated Negative Declaration Dated May 16,2000. 4. Site visit November 6,2001. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL]]ITACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No hwact Incoraoration Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on aX scenic vista?(Source#4) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, X including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(Source#3 ) C. Substantially degrade the existing Y� X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?(Source#3) d. Create a new source of substantial light X or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source#2) SUMMARY: The San Pablo Avenue project site is located in an area that is not identified as a scenic vista. Due to the difference in elevation between the project site and the apartments located to the north the proposed project will not significantly impact their view.All parking lot lighting will be designed to direct light away from the adjacent apartments and should have little affect on nighttime views and glare. The Pinole Shores Drive portion of the project is limited to the sale of an existing animal control facility to the City of Pinole Redevelopment Amy.No construction is anticipated as a result of the land transfer. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No IncgMgmitm L=ac Imact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?(Source#3) b. Conflict with existing zoning for _ X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?(Source#3) C. Involve other changes in the existing X environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source#3) SUMMARY:The project site issites are located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing residential and-commercial and industrial developments.No farmlands will be affected by this project. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation _ X of the applicable air quality plan? (Source#3) b. Violate any air quality standard or X contribute to an existing or projected i air quality violation?(Source#3) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoace InggRmtion J=act Impact C. Result in a cumulatively considerable _ X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Source#3) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial e _ X pollutant concentrations?(Source#3) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a _ X substantial number of people? Source#3) SUMMARY: The amount of vehicle trips the proposed change in land use will generate is consistent with the traffic analysis that was done for this site in the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the City of Pinole General Plan that was adopted in 1995.The proposed satellite animal control facility will be required to comply with Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) standards. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions,but considers any project's construction related impacts to be less than significant if required dust control measures are implemented. As mitigated in The General Plan Land Use Map Mitigated Negative Declaration,Resolution No. 124- 2000 for the City of Pinole Measure III b,dust control measures will be implemented at the construction site. Equipment exhaust emissions during construction will result from vehicular traffic generated by constuction activities,including automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site,and from construction and grading equipment. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either i X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Source#3) 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Inv cat Inccmnar ion aCt Irrroact b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any x riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source#3) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on _ _ _ X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?(Source#3) d. Interfere substantially with the movement X of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Source#3) e. Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source#3 f. Conflict with the provisions of an i x adopted Habitat Conservation flan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Source#3) SU41 AARY:There are no known species of protected animals or plants located on-si eeither site. V. CULTURAL,RESOURCES. Would the project. a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the i _ X significance of a historical resource as defined in 315064.5?(Source#3) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ x significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 315064.5?(Source#3) 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incogomtion J=&c h=act C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique i o X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?(Source#3) d. Disturb any human remains,including _ i X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source#3) SUMMARY:The project site is in an w-ban setting suffeunded by residential and eeffiffiefeial devel-----,& sites are located in an urbanized area,surrounded by existing residential commercial and industrial uses.There is no known evidence of any historically significant artifacts on either the site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, r X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source#3) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ X 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including _ __ i X Liquefaction?(Source#3) 4.Landslides?(Source#3) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? (Source#3) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source#3) d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in s _ X Table I18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source#3) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No h act In_cm0nitim IMN act e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting i X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?(Source#3) SUMMARY: The project includes the implementation of mitigation measures adopted as part of the General flan Land Use Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Pinole,Resolution No. 124 2000 dated May 16,2000. This includes the construction/grading contractor will use water bars, temporary swales and culverts, mulch and jute netting, silt fences, straw bales,and sediment traps to prevent eroded soil loosened as a result of grading acivities from being transported into drainage catch basins. These and other methods as outlined in the California Storm water Best Management Practice Handbook will be implemented to reduce erosion and runoff. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public e_ X or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials?(Source#2) b. Create a significant hazard to the public _ X or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source#2) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source#2) d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source#2) 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 27riDaCt Jnc=oratim .I=ac Lmar. e. For a project located within an airport land s X use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source#3) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private i X airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source#3) g. Impair implementation of or physically s X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source#3) h. Expose people or structures to a significant X risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source#3) SUM1b1ARY: No hazardous materials will be kept on site.This facilityhandles only healthy animals and only minor amounts of veterinary medicines will be kept in a secure place in the facility.Stored chemical materials for use in maintenance of the building will be stored on site and will be used in accordance with manufactures' requirements-The Pinole Shores Avenue portion of the protect is limited to the sale of an existing facilily to the City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency.No new construction is anticipated as a result of the sale and the site is not a hazardous materials site. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies X or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact In�mration luyact Impact C. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Source#3) e. Create or contribute runoff'water which _ X would exceed the capacity of existing or v planned stone water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(Source#3) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water _ _ X quality?(Source#3) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal FIood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance hate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source#3) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area i X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?(Source#3) I. Expose people or structures to a significant _ X risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or darn?(Source#3) j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? X (Source#3) Potentially Significant'ImRact: Approximately 10,000 square feet of the site will be rendered impermeable through construction of buildings and parking lots.This will reduce infiltration rates and increase the rate and amount of surface runoff. 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 1-awact Incmmtion 1 tc b2act Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures will be the same as those outlined in Mitigation Measure VIII c of the Adopted General Plan Land Use Map Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Pinole,Dated May 16,2000 those include; Site drainage plans shall be designed to meet the City of Pinole Public Works Department design and engineering standards. SUMMARY: The project site is not located within a floodplain or near a body of water that would subject the future occupants of this project to a potential hazard. The proposed project would be part of larger project that would increase the amount of impervious surface.The increased runoff can be handled by the available drainage facilities. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? _ i X (Source#3) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, _ X policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not lirnited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source#3) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source#3) SUMMARY:The proposed land use will result in there being a natural division between the less intense land use designation to the east and the more intense land use designation to the west. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses which include:multi-family residential to the north and northeast, retail and service commercial to the south and east and light industrial to the west.Real property transactions will be required between Contra Costa County and Pinole Redevelopment Agency in support of this activity. Contra Costa Coupwill purchase the 900 San Pablo Ave.site from the Pinole Redevelopment Agency.In exchange, the Pinole Redevelopment Agency will purchase from Contra Costa County the existing Pinole Animal Services Satellite facility located at 651 Pinole Shores Drive.The General Plan designation for the 900 San Pablo Ave.site is Mixed Use—Light Industrial/Service Commercial and Medium Density Residential and the Zoning is-PD-Planned Development The General Plan Designation for the 651 Pinole Shores Drive site is Medium Density Residential and Light Industrial and the Zoning is-M-2—General Industrial The City of Pinole has no current plans for the 651 Pinole Shores Drive site and any subsequent development would be subject to a separate environmental review. 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No h1120 JUM ation h=ac Imyact The sale of this site does not have any adverse_environmental impacts and does not conflict with any ate lip 'cable Zoning of General Plan policy. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project. a. Result in the loss of availability of a known — — — X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source#3) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- — — X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source#3 ) SUMMARY:There are no known mineral resources located on this site that area considered valuable. M. NOISE-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation ofX — noise levels in excess of standards established_ in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source#2,3) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of — — — X excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(Source#2) C. A substantial permanent increase in — X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity abovelevels existing without the project? (Source#2) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase — X —in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source#2,3) e. For a project located within an airport land — — — X use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation significant No Impact inc rporatimrrM ac Impact (Source#3 } f. For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source#3 ) Potentially Sigglificant impact:The project site is shown on the City of Pinole General Plan Noise Contour map to be located in an area where the decibel level can exceed the allowable noise standards of 60 decibels for exterior space and 45 decibels for interior space. The proposed use of animal control facility may generate levels of noise that could adversely affect the existing multi-family to the north and northeast. Mitigation Measures: 900 Sari Pablo Avenue Mitigation measures will be the same as XI a.and XI d.in the Adopted General Plan Land Use Map Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Pinole,Dated May 16,2000 those include; Prior to construction the applicant shall hire an acoustical engineer to determine actual noise levels occurring at the property line common with the apartments to the north and northeast and to evaluate potential noise levels being generated by the satellite animal control facility. The consultant to recommend mitigation measures for construction to insure that exterior noise levels measures at the property lines common with the multi-family residential will comply with the standards as identified in the City of Pinole General Plan. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and/or acoustically -attenuating shield or shrouds, whenever feasible and necessary) in order to minimize construction noise impacts. Construction shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. S Y:The project site is located adjacent to San Pablo Avenue which is heavily traveled regional route with an average daily traffic(ADT)of more than 25,000 vehicle trips.Because of the high volume of traffic the site is exposed to noise levels,between 60 to 70 dBa,which exceeds the allowable standard of 60 dBa for residentialdevelopments as shown in the City of Pinole General Plan. Short-term noise levels that exceed the allowable noise standards will occur from construction equipment.To minimize the impacts on adjoining neighbors all equipment will have proper mufflers and construction shall be limited to what is allowable by Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an _ X area, either directly(for example,by proposing 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Miti ration Significant No jet Incorporation jct impact new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(Source#2,3) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing — — — X housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source#2,3) C. Displace substantial numbers of people — — X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source#2) SUMMARY: Neither the proposed project nor the transfer of ownership will Gadd any housing or induce population growth. The proposed satellite animal control office replaces an existing animal control facility approximately one block away. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of neve or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services(Source#3): 1. hire Protection? _ _ _ X 2. Police Protection? — — — X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? _— — X 5. Other Public facilities? — — X SIJ DMKY: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Pinole General Plan. XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of — — _ X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 16 Potentially Significant Potentialy Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact lncnom ion act substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source#2,3) b. Does the project include recreational i __ X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source#2,3) SUMMARY: The proposed project will not generate an increase demand on existing recreation facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATIONJTRAFFIC-Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic,which is i X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? (Source#2,3) b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,i _ X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source#2,3) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(Source#2,3) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design _ X feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?(Source#2,3) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X (Source#3) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? _ _ X (Source#2) g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or _ X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Source#3) 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant leo impact inky ora m Im= 1y49t SUMMARY: There is an existing bus stop located in front of the 900 San Pablo Avenue site and one immediately across the street from the site,which are served,by both AC Transit and WestCAT.Employees and some customers will be able to access the site using both bus stops.The City of Pinole has no current plans for the 651 Pinole Drive site,and any subsequent development would be subject to a separate environmental review. 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Ittrnact Inc==tion 1=&c imm XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-- Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements e X of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source#3) b. Require or result in the construction of new — X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source#3) C. Require or result in the construction of new _ _ X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source#3) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to i X serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed? (Source#3) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater i X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projectDs projected demand in addition to the providerDs existing commitments?(Source#3) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ X permitted capacity to accommodate the project--s solid waste disposal needs? (Source#3) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes _ v _ X and regulations related to solid waste? (Source#3) SUMMARY:The proposed project is consistent with the City of Pinole General Plan,and ther-efeFe will ne There is no evidence the project will create an impact on existing utilities that have not been incorporated into each of the utilities master plan._The City of Pinole has no current glans for the 651 Pinole Shores Drive site, and an subsequent development would be subject to a separate environmental review. 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitiption significant No Im�aci IncmMlion Inmact is XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- _ _ X idually limited,but cumulatively considerable?� (ACumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY:TheSan Pablo Avenue project does not have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the environment. No cumulatively considerable impacts from the proposed project have been identified. Mitigation measures have been identified under VIII Hydrology and Water Quality and XI Noise that will reduce the potential impact to a level of-ignifiesneeless than significant.The City of Pinole has no current plans for 651 Pinole Shores Drive site and any subsequent development would be subject toa separate environmental review. SACurrent Planning\Templates\SHELLS\Environment Checklist Initial Study 2000.doc