This hearing is to address the appeals filed by CeCe Valenzuela and Timothy Reimers of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a development plan for the construction of a new 193-unit apartment complex.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Site Description: The project site is a 7.61-acre area comprised of two vacant parcels located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway in Bay Point. The project site is relatively flat and is void of any natural or man-made watercourses running within its boundaries. There are no mature trees located on the subject property, but there are ornamental nut tree saplings and one young palm tree located in the southeast corner of the site. There are no curb and gutter improvements along the Port Chicago Highway frontage, a curb without sidewalk along the Willow Pass Road frontage, and full curb and sidewalk improvements along the Weldon Street frontage.
General Plan:
The project site is located within a Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density (MM) General Plan Land Use Designation. The MM designation allows for residential uses such as attached single-family residences (duplexes or duets), multiple-family residences such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, mobile home parks, and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses. The proposed development is for a multiple-family apartment complex, and thus will be a land use that is consistent with those allowed within the MM designation. Based on the net acreage of the proposed project (7.34 acres) a maximum of 161 units would be permitted at the site to fall within the density range of 12.0 to 21.99 units allowed within an MM General Plan land use designation. However, the applicant has proposed 32 additional units based on the maximum 23% density bonus, which is afforded to the project pursuant to the County’s Residential Density Bonus Ordinance (822-2), and the fact that 19 of the 161 allowed units are designated as affordable units. A project's available density bonus is calculated by taking the percentage of proposed affordable units within the development, which then corresponds to a preset density bonus percentage which has been designated in the State's adopted Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq).
Zoning:
Final Development Plan Consistency: The subject property is located within a Planned Unit (P-1) zoning district, which typically has project-specific design and development guidelines that are approved as part of a development plan. When the project site was rezoned to a P-1 district in December of 2007 (County File #RZ05-3173), it was approved in concert with General Plan Amendment (#GP05-0001), Major Subdivision (#SD05-9077), and Development Plan (#DP05-3102) applications all associated with a proposed 126-unit townhouse project. The General Plan amendment and rezoning elements of the project took effect immediately and resulted in the current Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density (MM) General Plan land use and Planned Unit (P-1) zoning designation for the property. However, the subdivision and townhouse complex elements of the project were never exercised by the applicant. As a result, there are no existing Final Development Plan conditions of approval related to setbacks, building height, or overall design that can be used or referenced to guide development for the subject site. Therefore, a new Final Development Plan and project-specific conditions of approval are proposed as part of this application.
P-1 Zoning District Standards: P-1 zoning districts allow for any land use permitted by an approved Final Development Plan that is consistent with the General Plan (Section 84-66.402.1 – Uses). The proposed development is of a multi-family residential nature, will be in harmony with the surrounding multi-family residential and neighborhood-oriented commercial uses, and is consistent with the General Plan, as documented above.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant seeks approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow the construction of a new 193-unit apartment complex. The project consists of the following elements:
1) Eight, three-story multi-unit residential buildings totaling approximately 243,265 square feet of living, garage, circulation, deck, utility, and community center area;
2) 193 one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units (19 of which are reserved for low income households);
3) Request for approval of a density bonus to allow 32 additional units beyond the 161 units allowed under the applicable density standards. The request is permitted pursuant to the County’s Residential Density Bonus Ordinance and the applicant’s proposal to provide 19 affordable units within the development;
4) 328 covered and uncovered off-street parking spaces;
5) 25,180 square feet of outdoor pool and recreation area;
6) Perimeter gate and two gated entries;
7) Two monument identification signs for the development;
8) Contra Costa Water District/Golden State Water Company and Contra Costa Fire Protection District fire water lateral extensions from the project site to an existing water main located within the Willow Pass Road right-of-way;
9) 8-inch Delta Diablo sanitary sewer lateral connection from the project site to an existing sanitary sewer main located within the Willow Pass Road right-of-way;
10) Request for approval of an exception to allow a diversion of storm water from the designated drainage area to another drainage area.
11) Six on-site bio-retention areas totaling approximately 21,583 square feet for drainage purposes;
12) Electrical, gas, cable, and telecommunication utility connections from the site to existing extensions within the public right-of-way, via underground joint trenches; and
13) Cut and fill grading activities that will result in approximately 24,410 cubic yards of soil being removed from the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study was prepared and staff found that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of project-specific mitigations. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document were posted for public review on June 30, 2016, with the public review period ending on August 1, 2016. Four pieces of correspondence were received during the public comment period, which have been summarized and discussed with related staff responses in the “CEQA Public Comment” section of the December 6, 2016, County Planning Commission public hearing staff report.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION ON DECEMBER 6, 2016
The matter was initially heard by the County Planning Commission on December 6, 2016. During the public hearing, testimony was accepted from the applicant and members of the public. Based on the accepted testimony and project analysis provided by County staff, the County Planning Commission approved the project with three additional conditions. The added conditions pertained to a) lowering the elevation of the project site at the common boundary with adjacent northern parcels (COA #23), b) requiring that solar collecting equipment be added to the project design (COA #22), and c) that a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program be incorporated as part of the project (COA #33). These conditions have been incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval as directed by the County Planning Commission.
APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECEMBER 6, 2016 DECISION
On December 16, 2016, appeals of the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #DP15-3023 were filed by Timothy Reimers (firm representing applicant/property owner), and CeCe Valenzuela (resident of Bay Point). The main points of the appeals are summarized below, followed by staff responses.
I. APPEAL OF CECE VALENZUELA
Primary Appeal Points:
1) Notice of the proposed project was only provided to residents within a 300-foot radius, many of which are renters who have little commitment to Bay Point and did not respond.
2) The height of the proposed development at 3-stories is too tall and will tower over the adjacent residential and commercial developments.
3) The overall design of the project is monolithic, fortress-like, and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the window treatments, materials, and proposed colors are incompatible with the surrounding developments.
4) The assumed tenant population for the proposed development is inaccurate, and as a result the associated impacts to childcare, traffic, and the school district are inaccurate. The HUD Fair Occupancy Guidelines and occupancy limits for the Grove at Sunset should be utilized.
5) Additional attention and analysis pertaining to energy conservation is required in the form of electrical charging stations, additional solar shade, reduction in the amount of asphalted and other hardscaped surfaces, and an increase in landscaping.
6) Due to current mandatory water restrictions alternative options for landscaping irrigation such as rainwater catchment and gray water systems should be required.
7) The proposed landscaping design should be revisited. The amount of landscaped area should be increased, and the proposed tree and plant species should be reviewed.
8) Storm water runoff from the proposed buildings and parking areas has the potential for polluting the environment.
9) A survey needs to be conducted to determine if burrowing owls inhabit the project site.
10) The childcare assessment does not correctly estimate the childcare need that will be created by the project. In addition, an onsite childcare facility would be more beneficial than the provided off-site mitigations.
11) Schools in the Bay Point area are at capacity and the students are performing at below-average levels. These conditions will be further aggravated by the proposed project.
12) The increase in population and vehicles as a result of the proposed project will adversely impact wait times during commute hours.
Staff Responses:
1) Project Noticing: Noticing for the proposed project was administered a total of three times. The first public noticing administered for the project was the “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration”. This noticing was distributed to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, the County Clerk, and all occupants and owners of the parcels contiguous to the subject property. Therefore, this notice was distributed to all the occupants (i.e. renters) of the adjacent apartment complexes. This distribution method and distance were administered in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.b.3 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration).
The second and third noticing for the project were Notices of Public Hearing, which were distributed to all property owners of parcels located within 300-feet of the project site. The distribution method and distance for the public hearing noticing was administered in compliance with Section 26-2.2004 (Variance, Conditional Use and Special Permits – Notice Requirements) of the County Ordinance and Section 65091 of the Government Code; which require that the noticing be provided to the owner of the subject property and all owners of real property within 300 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the hearing
2) Proposed 3-Story Height: The project site has no specified height limit as the development is subject to plan approval in a P-1 zoning district. This site was not part of the larger P-1 district created for the former Bay Point Redevelopment Area (“Bay Point P-1”) but is immediately adjacent to it. The applicants have designed the proposed apartment complex with a maximum height of 42 feet-6 inches, which does not exceed the 45-foot maximum building height that is permitted for buildings on properties within the Bay Point P-1 area with “Multiple-Family” General Plan designations; it’s also lower that the 50-foot maximum height permitted on the adjacent Retail-Business zoned parcel to the north.
Generally, taller buildings are constructed along arterial roadways and this trend is reflected in Bay Point along arterial roadways and commercial corridors such as Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway; which then transition to smaller one- and two-story residential structures located along the “feeder” roadways typically found deeper within the region’s residential neighborhoods. The project site is located at the intersection of two of Bay Points primary arterial roadways, and thus the proposed 3 story building is consistent with the general practice. The residential buildings of the proposed development will only result in a one-story height increase from those of the adjacent Mission Bay and Rivershore apartment complexes, which is a height transition that can be found elsewhere in the immediate neighborhood. Furthermore, the Bella Monte apartment complex located on Willow Pass Road at Fairview Avenue is also a three-story complex, and there are two-story buildings within the Mission Bay Apartments development that are adjacent to single-story residences along Clifford Court.
3) Overall Project Design and Architecture: The project site is immediately surrounded by various uses including a small commercial center, a “Tower” gas station and market complex, two apartment complexes, and single-family residences. Due to the variety of uses in the area, there is a diverse range of architectural styles that surround the project site. As a result, the applicant has incorporated an architectural style into the development which is contemporary in nature, utilizes architectural elements found on adjacent properties, and that is compatible with the surrounding area. This is evident in the modern rectangular architectural elements that are similar to those found at the “Tower” gas station complex and adjacent commercial center, the exposed stairwells of both the Rivershore and Mission Bay Apartment complexes, protruding balconies of the Rivershore Apartments, and a mix of siding, wood, and stucco materials which can be found on both of the adjacent apartment complexes. Based on the combination of the variety of architectural styles within the surrounding neighborhood and the various design elements incorporated in the proposed buildings; the proposed project is of a design that is appropriately unique for a development of this nature, but that is also compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4) Estimated Tenant Population: It is clear that there is no exact science for estimating the tenancy of the proposed development due to the various geographical, social and economic forces that will factor into the true numbers. The appellant believes that HUD standards should be used to estimate the tenancy for the proposed development. However, the HUD exhibit provided by the appellant pertains to how HUD may determine the maximum occupancy of a unit, not for estimating tenancy. Based on the average household size of 3.52 occupants for renter-occupied units in Bay Point (U.S. Census Bureau; 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates), the estimated tenancy for the project would be approximately 679 people. The appellant has voiced concerns regarding the accuracy of the estimated tenancy for the project because they feel it will alter the impacts and mitigations related to childcare, parking, and traffic. However, the childcare, traffic, and parking impact analysis for the project are based on unit counts, and not on project tenancy. Therefore, neither the required childcare mitigations, amount of parking spaces, or findings of the traffic study will be impacted by the number of tenants.
5) Electric Charging Stations / Landscaping Amount: The proposed development will be subject to the California Green Building Code (Title 24) standards. Under the Title 24 standards, 3 percent of the total parking spaces shall be capable of supporting future electric vehicle charging stations. In addition to the State Title 24 standards, the County has adopted its own standards pertaining to the number of required electrical vehicle charging stations. Pursuant to County Code section 74-4.006(a) (Amendments to the Green Building Standards Code), at least 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided shall be electrical vehicle charging stations and equipped with fully operational electrical vehicle supply equipment. Based on the County’s requirement and the applicant’s proposal to provide 328 parking spaces, a total of 16 electrical vehicle charging stations will be required as part of the project. This required number exceeds the six stations requested in the appellant’s letter.
6) Water Conservation: As required pursuant to Condition of Approval #24, the Final Landscape Plan submitted for the proposed project shall be compliant with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (SMWELO). One of the primary goals of the SMWELO was to promote the value and benefits of landscaping practices that integrate and go beyond the conservation and efficient use of water. In order to verify compliance with the standards of the SMWELO, the applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan that consists of elements such as a water efficient landscape worksheet with water budget calculations, a soil management report, landscape design plan, irrigation design plan, and a grading design plan. All elements of the plans will be reviewed and approved by staff to ensure that the proposed landscape design will not cause the estimated total water usage to exceed the maximum applied water allowance for the site. In addition, for compliance with the SMWELO, the approved landscape design and calculations will be forwarded on to the local water provider.
7) Landscaped Area: The project site is located within a Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density General Plan land use designation, which allows between 12 and 21.99 units per net acre. Based on this allowed density range it is desired and understood that a fairly dense development will be established on the property. The applicant has accomplished this within the complex by building up with a multi-story configuration, rather than expanding horizontally. Along with providing the residential units, the applicant is required to provide access and parking, which is all being provided for on-site. Furthermore, the applicant has incorporated parking on the first floor of three of the eight buildings, which further reduces the amount of surface parking outside of building envelopes. Although the development consists of a 193-unit complex with associated infrastructure and access improvements, the applicant has incorporated approximately 1.98-acres of landscaping into the development design. Approximately 26 percent of the net acreage is covered by landscaping, planted bio-retention areas, or the designated recreation area.
8) Storm Water Runoff: As conditions of approval (COA #104 & #105) the applicant will be required to comply with all rules, regulation, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), as is publicized by the California State Water Resources Control Board and/or its Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Compliance with the NPDES ensures that storm water or any other pollutants that may be generated at the site are of a type and/or level that do not hurt water quality or people’s health. As evidence of compliance with NPDES standards the applicant will be required to submit a Final Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) for review and approval by the County Public Works Department. Approval of the SWCP and O+M Plan will be required prior to the applicant obtaining any building permits for construction.
9) Burrowing Owl Preservation: A biological assessment of the project site was completed as part of the CEQA analysis for the proposal, and it was determined that Western Burrowing Owl habitat may exist at the site. Based on these findings mitigations (MM BIO-4 through BIO-6) and conditions of approval (COA #37 through #39) have been incorporated into the project to ensure that impacts to any existing burrowing owls are minimized as much as possible. The added mitigations require that a preconstruction survey for the presence of owls be administered prior to any ground disturbance at the site. In the event that owls are located at the site, the mitigations require that certain protocol be taken to ensure that the owls are avoided, relocated, or given the opportunity to leave on their own. Further, the project will be covered by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan which is a regional plan for conserving species and facilitating economic development. The project proponent will be required to pay mitigation fees which will be used to acquire and conserve habitat in East County for burrowing owl and other sensitive species.
10) Childcare: As discussed in subsection 4 above, there is no exact science for estimating the tenancy of the proposed development due to the various geographical, social and economic forces that will factor into the true numbers. The childcare needs assessment prepared for the project found that the proposed development would generate a total of 94 children in need of licensed care for the geographical location. However, the actual demand for the project is estimated at 47 new spaces due to the fact that assessments take into account that 50 percent of the children will be cared for by a parent or relative at a home or in a license-exempt facility. This estimate is based on data and trends unique to the region of Contra Costa County.
11) Child Performance in Schools: Notification of the proposed project was forwarded to the Mt. Diablo Unified School District on two occasions for comment. There has been no indication from the District that the additional school-aged children that would enter their schools as a result of the project would exceed their current resources. Low test scores and performance are independent from the approval of the project. The proposed development will contribute towards resolving the existing issues within the School District by payment of its fair share of the school fees that will be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
12) Traffic Wait Times: An in-depth traffic impact analysis of the proposed project was completed by Abrams Associates. The resultant report anticipated that the proposed project would generate approximately 94 peak hour trips in the morning, and 115 peak hour trips during the evening commute. The report also acknowledges that the proposed development will have some impact on intersection delay times in the region. However, the findings of the report indicate that of the eleven intersections that were analyzed, the maximum increase in delay time will be no more than 4.2 seconds. The report also found that the Level of Service (LOS) grade for all analyzed intersections will be maintained, even with the anticipated increase in traffic from the development. Lastly, an analysis of the project’s impacts on State Route 4 (SR4) was also completed. This analysis found that the peak hour traffic volumes on the SR4 would increase by no more than 0.5%, and that the ramp queue lengths for the eastbound and westbound off-ramps would be increased by no more than 2 feet with the project.
II. APPEAL OF TIMOTHY J. REIMERS/META HOUSING
1) Summary of Appeal: The County Planning Commission’s added condition of approval (COA #23) pertaining to rough grade at the project site’s common boundary line will result in either a stepped foundation for Building B1, which will result in adverse aesthetic impacts to the building; or require that the entire building pad be constructed approximately 4 feet lower than the driveway entrance at Port Chicago Highway, which will likely result in drainage issues. Based on the above, the applicant requests that language of the added condition (COA #23) be amended as follows:
“At least 45 days prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing that the foundation pad for Building B1, parking surface (1st floor) for Building D1, perimeter surface parking, and other related improvements along the northern, northeastern, and eastern property lines of the project site shall either be the same elevation as that of the adjacent properties to the north and northeast, or the height of the building will be no higher than the maximum allowable height as calculated above grade from the nearest adjacent property boundary line.”
Staff Response: Based on plans submitted by the applicant, there is a difference in elevation of approximately 9 feet between existing grade at the northernmost property line and existing grade at the southernmost boundary line with Willow Pass Road. In other words, natural grade increases as you move in a southward direction across the site. In the event that the entire foundation pad of Building B1 is lowered to equal that of the adjacent commercial property to the north (APN: 098-240-057), portions of Building B1 would be approximately 4 feet below the elevation of the Port Chicago Highway roadway and the associated driveway access to the proposed development. This difference in grade elevation would require the construction of retaining walls to support the roadway, driveway entrance, and parking lot areas adjacent to Building B1. The applicant has mentioned that this is an undesirable configuration because of an applicable building code requirement (Section 1804.3 – Site Grading) to have a minimum 5 percent slope away from the building foundation for the diversion of water away from the structure. Based on the location of Building B1, its proximity to Port Chicago Highway, and the topography of the project site, lowering the elevation of the building pad pursuant to the added County Planning Commission’s condition of approval may create a situation where the applicable building code related to diverting water away from the foundation cannot be met (see applicant Attachment-B). Furthermore, lowering the pad elevation of Building B1 will also result in the need for substantial design modifications in order to maintain the project’s compliance with applicable ADA accessibility and sanitary sewer regulations.
Staff has had the opportunity to meet with engineers of the County Building Inspection Division, who have confirmed that the proposed condition of approval will require significant design modifications and potentially impede the applicant from complying with applicable building code related to drainage. As a result, the applicant would potentially be subject to an undue financial hardship with relation to the additional design and structural changes that would be required. In addition, the changes that would be required in relation to the project’s structural, drainage, and sewer designs were not previously analyzed under CEQA, and may change the significance of the project’s impacts upon the environment. Staff believes that the adverse effects of Condition of Approval #23 substantially outweigh the benefits, and thus recommends that the condition be eliminated. After discussing the matter further with the applicant and Building Inspection Division staff, the parties also agreed that the applicant's revised condition language may also have adverse impacts on the project design and it compliance with applicable code, and that the initial design is the best option at this time.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed project because it is consistent with the land uses allowed within the respective General Plan land use designation and zoning district. Analysis has also shown that the proposed project is consistent with applicable sections of various General Plan Elements such as Traffic and Circulation, Housing, and Land Use, as well as the Specific Area Policies for the Bay Point area. Furthermore, the proposed project will bring much needed housing and economic benefits that the Bay Point community has sought to improve for an extended period of time.