HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05052015 - D.5RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPEN the public hearing and ACCEPT testimony on the appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to
approve a 2-lot subdivision and development plan for the constuction of an approximately 3,000 square foot
commercial building, and to modify the site’s off-street parking configuration, located at 3189 Danville Blvd., in the
Alamo area. (County Files MS11-0006 and DP12-3029)
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. DETERMINE that the Project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15303(c) (Class 3 Categorical Exemption and 15315 (Class 15 Categorical
Exemption).
4. ADOPT the project findings and conditions of approval for County Files MS11-0006 and DP12-3029, contained in
Exhibit 2 to this Board order.
5. ADOPT Board Resolution No. 2015/121.
6. ADOPT the findings contained in the proposed Board Resolution No. 2015/121 as the basis of the Board's decision.
7. APPROVE the Vesting Tentative Map received and Final Development Plan, based on the attached findings and
conditions
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/05/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Gary Kupp (925)
674-7799
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 5, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
D.5
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date:May 5, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of County Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Minor Subdivision and Development Plan in Alamo
(County Files MS11-0006 & DP12-3029)
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
of approval.
8. DIRECT the Community Development Division to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant is obligated to pay any additional costs above the initial deposit associated with the
processing of the applications.
BACKGROUND:
This is an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a Vesting Tentative Map which proposes to
subdivide a developed 58,326-square-foot parcel into two lots and a Final Development Plan for construction of
an approximately 3,000-square-foot, two-story commercial building, and to modify the site’s off-street parking
configuration. The applicant also requests approval of a Tree Permit to work within the driplines of five (5)
code-protected Valley Oak trees for the construction of the proposed commercial building. No variances are
requested. The appeal was filed on December 24, 2014, primarily over the right to use 30 deeded parking spaces
in the Alamo Plaza Shopping Center and regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The appellants are TRH Holdings LLC, represented by the law firm of Miller Starr Regalia.
On April 17, 1979, thirty parking spaces located off-site on adjacent parcels 191-090-047 and 191-180-018 were
deeded to the applicant, Albert Rubey, for exclusive use by patrons of his existing commercial building located at
3189 Danville Boulevard in Alamo (Exhibit #3—1979 grant-of-easement). TRH Holdings, located across the
street from Mr. Rubey at 3236 Stone Valley Road, claims that the same deed grants them use of the 30 spaces as
well. The 1979 deed refers to 50 spaces total, with 30 of the spaces designated for use by the property located at
3189 Danville Boulevard (owned by Albert Rubey), and the other 20 spaces, located at 3240 Stone Valley Road,
designated for use by 3236 Stone Valley Road (currently owned by TRH Holdings). Both properties were owned
by Albert Rubey at the time the deed was recorded. The question of who has right to use the 30 spaces is the chief
point of appeal.
On February 12, 2013, Miller Starr Regalia, representing TRH Holdings, disputed in a letter Mr. Rubey’s
exclusive use of the 30 parking spaces, and claimed that they have the right to use the spaces as well. Since the
project is dependent upon the exclusive use of the 30 spaces by the proposed minor subdivision, the County
informed Mr. Rubey that the project could not move forward until the legal question regarding the deeded spaces
was settled. On March 8, 2013, Mr. Rubey’s legal counsel responded to Miller Starr Regalia in a letter (Exhibit #4)
contending that the appellant’s interpretation of the 1979 easement was incorrect and that the 30 spaces in
question are, in fact, for the exclusive use of 3189 Danville Boulevard. The letter went on to state that if any
disagreement remained, TRH Holdings should file suit. After a period of several months, during which the
appellants were silent on the issue, and without a suit being filed, the County considered the matter settled and
moved forward with processing the development applications.
On March 5, 2014, the County sent TRH Holdings a public notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration, as
required by CEQA when a negative declaration is prepared. There was no response to the CEQA notice
contesting the negative declaration, use of the parking spaces, or any other aspects of the project at that time. On
April 2, 2014, Miller Starr Regalia filed a Public Records Act request and copied the entirety of both project files.
No objection to the use of the parking spaces or any other aspects of the project was filed at that time. The project
was scheduled for hearing before the Zoning Administrator for July 7, 2014.
On July 3, 2014, four days prior to the hearing, Miller Starr Regalia submitted a letter (dated July 2, 2014) once
again contesting the use of the spaces (Exhibit #5), and on the day of the hearing submitted a second letter, dated
July 7, 2014 (Exhibit #6), contesting the adequacy of the CEQA Negative Declaration, of which the appellants
were duly notified and to which they submitted no response during the proper response period. In light of these
two letters, the Zoning Administrator continued the hearing to August 4, 2014, in order to review the issues raised.
After consideration of the letters, the Zoning Administrator approved the project at the August 4, 2014 hearing,
which decision was subsequently appealed by TRH Holdings on August 14, 2014 to the County Planning
Commission (Exhibit #7). On December 16, 2014, the appeal was heard before the Planning Commission, who
upheld the Zoning Administrator’s decision and approved the Project. TRH Holdings LLC subsequently appealed
the Planning Commission’s approval of the applications to the Board of Supervisors.
APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES TO APPEAL POINTS
On December 24, 2014, Miller Starr Regalia submitted a letter (Exhibit #8) on behalf of TRH Holdings appealing
the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project for the reasons already set forth in their July 2, 2014 and July
7, 2014 letters (see again Exhibits #5 and #6). The December 24, 2014 appeal letter also makes comments relating
to the CEQA status of the Project and the Planning Commission’s authority. The appeal points are responded to
below in chronological order.
1. Miller Starr Regalia Letter, Dated July 2, 2014: The main point of this letter is the appellant’s assertion that
the 1979 easement conveys a total of 50 parking spaces without limiting or allocating use of the spaces between
3189 Danville Boulevard (which has 30 of the 50 spaces) and 3236 Stone Valley Road (which has 20 of the 50
spaces). The letter further contends that TRH Holdings is entitled to the “full beneficial use of the entire
easement,” which would include use of the 30 spaces located across the street by Mr. Rubey’s property, and refers
to the map attached to the easement document to support this claim. The July 2, 2014 letter is incorporated by
reference into the December 24, 2014, appeal letter.
Staff Response: In response, staff also refers to the attached map in the 1979 document that divides the easement
into two areas: “A” and “B”. Section A refers to the property located at 3236 Stone Valley Road, and section B
refers to the property located at 3189 Danville Boulevard. Map area A states that a “20 parking space use [is]
granted to [the] adjacent parcel to the East.” The “adjacent parcel to the East” is 3236 Stone Valley Road, and
the language clearly states that 20 spaces are for use by that property. Map area B states that a “30 parking space
use [is] granted to [the] adjacent parcel to the East,” which in that instance is 3189 Danville Boulevard. Upon
reading the easement and looking at the associated map, staff finds that there was a clear intent to divide the 50
parking spaces between the two properties in a 20/30 split. Mr. Rubey’s legal counsel also argues this point in the
March 8, 2013 legal response letter to TRH Holding’s attorney (see again Exhibit #4). A previous entitlement,
County File #DP3047-80 (Exhibit #--9—DP3047-80 Site Plans), was granted based on this arrangement. There is
no mention in the entire 1979 document that use of the combined 50 spaces is to be shared between the two
properties. Furthermore, staff notes that at no point in any of the appellant’s letters do they concede any right to
the use of their 20 spaces by Mr. Rubey and his patrons, which would be expected if their interpretation of the
1979 document were correct.
It is helpful to note, for the sake of background, that during the Zoning Administrator hearings, Mr. Rubey, an
original signatory to the parking easement in 1979, provided first-hand testimony that the intent of the easement
was to provide a 20/30 division of the 50 spaces. Prior to approving the project on August 4, 2014, the Zoning
Administrator explained that the March 8, 2013 letter from Mr. Rubey’s counsel, and the July 2, 2014 letter from
the counsel for THR Holdings referenced the same easement document, but came to opposite conclusions. The
Zoning Administrator went on to explain that Mr. Rubey provided first-hand testimony as to the intent of the
easement. As the appellant was unable to provide similar first-hand testimony to refute Mr. Rubey’s testimony, the
Zoning Administrator was inclined to accept Mr. Rubey’s testimony as a reflection of the intent of the easement.
Mr. Rubey reaffirmed this account of the creation of the parking easement to the Planning Commission on
December 16, 2014.
2. Miller Starr Regalia Letter, Dated July 7, 2014: This letter is a challenge the publicly noticed Negative
Declaration, and was not received during the publically-noticed comment period, which ended on March 25,
2014, but rather was submitted on the day of the July 7, 2014 Zoning Administrator hearing. The letter claims that
the CEQA Initial Study (Exhibit #10) was so flawed that it did not serve the basic, fundamental purposes of
CEQA. The letter also claims that the Initial Study did not adequately address the project’s potential impacts in
terms of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Noise, Traffic and Transportation, and Cumulative Impacts. The July 7, 2014 letter is incorporated
by reference into the December 24, 2014, appeal letter.
Staff Response: On March 5, 2014, the County sent TRH Holdings a public notice of intent to adopt a negative
declaration, as required by CEQA when a negative declaration is prepared. No response contesting the Initial
Study / Negative Declaration was received from the appellant during the comment period that ended on March 25,
2014. Furthermore, on April 2, 2014, Miller Starr Regalia filed a Public Records Act Request and copied the
entirety of both project files; no objection or comment on the Negative Declaration was submitted by the appellant
at this that either.
When the Zoning Administrator approved the Project, he also found it to be categorically exempt from CEQA,
and therefore did not adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission upheld this finding.
The following discussion responds to the July 7, 2014 letter and supports the Planning Commission’s decision to
find the Project exempt from the provisions of CEQA; nevertheless, these responses also refer to the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration in order to comprehensively address the issues raised by the appellant in the letter.
Response to Aesthetics: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the assessment of aesthetic impacts in the Initial
Study is deficient because the project description (i.e., the description of the building and its uses) is
inadequate.
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration provided a description of the project site and surrounding area and
incorporated the project plans. The subject property is located in close proximity to other commercial and retail
buildings in Alamo Plaza shopping center. The surrounding commercial area is made up of offices, gas stations,
and retail stores of varying ages and architectural styles. The plans depict a two-story, 26-foot 8-inch tall,
2,875-square-foot commercial building located in a Retail Business zoning district. The architecture is similar in
terms of style and scale to the existing building on the project site and the buildings across Stone Valley Road
West owned by the appellant. Because these buildings all have the same zoning, it is reasonable to expect that
their uses would be similar, such as banking or other retail services consistent with R-B the zoning district.
Project approval would require development to be consistent with the plans assessed in the Initial Study. The
appellant has submitted no evidence demonstrating that the proposed building would be inconsistent with the
character of downtown Alamo or the surrounding commercial buildings.
Response to Air Quality: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the project’s impacts on air quality have not
been evaluated adequately and that potentially significant impacts may occur.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) 1999 CEQA Guidelines screening methodology
for new projects was cited. The Guidelines provide a table showing various types of development and the project
size (square footage or number of units) generally necessary to impact air quality in terms of the criteria pollutant
Nitrous Oxides (NOx). The Guidelines indicate that a detailed study should be undertaken if a project comes
within 20 percent of the values indicated in the table. The purpose of this is to help lead agencies determine which
projects might result in an air quality impact and which ones clearly would not. According to the BAAQMD, in
order for a medical office building to impact air quality in terms NOx, the project would have to be approximately
110,000 square feet. For a supermarket the value is 24,000 square feet. The proposed building would be
approximately 3,000 square feet.
The 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines contain a more comprehensive list of land uses and address additional
pollutants, including greenhouse gases. According to the 2010 Guidelines, a 117,000-square-foot medical office
building, a 42,000-square-foot supermarket or a 33,000-square-foot “high turnover” restaurant would result in a
significant NOx impact. For greenhouse gas emissions, the values are 22,000, 8,000, and 7,000 square feet,
respectively. Based on the Guidelines, it is clear that at 3,000 square feet there is no possibility that the proposed
building would result in a significant air quality or greenhouse gas impact.
In comparison, a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was prepared for the proposed Saranap Village project
near Walnut Creek. The Saranap Village project proposes to construct 235 multi-family units and approximately
43,500 square feet of commercial and retail space. The air impact analysis for the DEIR concluded that the project
would not result in significant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD has since indicated that it has no comments on
the Saranap Village DEIR, thus suggesting that the air impact analysis is correct. Saranap Village dwarfs the
proposed Project in size and scope, is located in the same air basin, and is only four miles away along the same
freeway corridor. Since Saranap Village would not result in a significant air quality impact, it is unreasonable to
freeway corridor. Since Saranap Village would not result in a significant air quality impact, it is unreasonable to
conclude that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact.
Response to Biology: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the project’s impacts on biological resources have
not been evaluated adequately and that potentially significant impacts may occur.
On March 12, 2014, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) issued a No Effect Determination letter
for the project (Exhibit #11). A No Effect Determination signifies that the DFW has reviewed the project in terms
of assessing CEQA filing fees and has determined that the project will have no effect on fish and wildlife
resources, including habitat. The appellant has submitted no evidence showing that the DFW determination is
incorrect or that an impact to biological resources would occur.
Response to Geology: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the project’s impacts on geology and soils have
not been evaluated adequately and that potentially significant impacts may occur.
The project site is a flat, paved parking lot, a portion of which would be redeveloped. The proposed building must
comply with the California Building Code. Standard procedure for the Building Inspection Division’s engineering
and plan-check staff is to review the project prior to issuance of construction permits to determine any special
geologic or seismic requirements for the building. A geotechnical/soils report will be required at that time. The
plan check process for standard buildings mitigates any potential impacts. It is unreasonable to think that a small
building on a flat, already developed site would result in impacts. The appellant has submitted no evidence to the
contrary.
Response to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the project’s impacts on
greenhouse gas emissions have not been evaluated adequately. See the discussion on Air Quality impacts
above. The project would not result in significant greenhouse gas impacts.
Response to Hydrology and Water Quality: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the project’s impacts on
hydrology and water quality have not been evaluated adequately.
There are no creeks, streams or other bodies of water on the subject property. All runoff from the site would be
directed to San Ramon Creek through the existing public storm drain system, as is currently the case. Thus, there
would be no change in drainage patterns.
Public Works Department conditions of approval (COA) numbers 33-39 address stormwater runoff concerns
pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the County’s Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance. These conditions will assure avoidance of any impacts to water quality.
Specifically, COA #33 states: “The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and
industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional
Water Quality Control Boards....”
Compliance with this condition must include developing long-term best management practices for reduction or
elimination of stormwater pollutants. Further, COA #34 states: “The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water
Control Plan and a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan to the Public Works Department, which
shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National NPDES Permit and shall be deemed consistent with
the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance §1014 prior to issuance of a building
permit.”
The proposed building would replace paved parking that collects pollutants such as oil, antifreeze, and other
chemicals associated with automobiles. The plans include new permeable landscaped areas that would filter and
reduce runoff. Also, the project is subject to modern, more stringent standards related to stormwater quality and
flow. Compliance with these standards ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts to water
quality. The appellant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
Response to Noise: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the Project’s impacts related to noise have not been
evaluated adequately.
The Project would generate noise during construction and as a result of slightly increased traffic volumes.
The Project would generate noise during construction and as a result of slightly increased traffic volumes.
Construction of the building would involve activities routinely associated with small-scale development in
urbanized environments. The County routinely and appropriately finds construction noise impacts to be less than
significant when such noise impacts in a developed area would have limited hours and specific work days, would
be short in duration, and would not involve especially noisy equipment and activities, such as pile driving,
blasting, etc. The proposed project meets all of these criteria. The appellant has submitted no information
demonstrating that construction activities would result in a significant noise impact.
Furthermore, a traffic study prepared for the Project (Exhibit #12) indicated that the project would generate up to
72 new daily trips. Given the uses allowed in the R-B zoning district, these trips would involve vehicles like those
that already traverse the area (i.e., personal vehicles, small delivery vehicles, etc.; not heavy trucks). In the
context of the thousands of vehicles using roads in the project area each day, the 72 new vehicle trips of like kind
clearly would not create significant noise impacts. The appellant has submitted no evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traffic and Transportation: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the Project’s impacts related
to traffic and transportation have not been evaluated adequately and that potentially significant impacts
may occur.
The “mini” traffic study for the Project (see again Exhibit #12) indicated that it would generate up to 72 new daily
trips, with 5 new trips in the A.M. peak hour and 9 new trips in the P.M. peak hour. A comprehensive traffic study
typically is not required unless a project may generate 100 A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips or 50 peak hour trips at
certain intersections. The traffic study concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on
levels of service at the Stone Valley Road/Danville Boulevard intersection. The study also found on-site parking
and circulation to be adequate even after implementation of the Project. The appellant has submitted no evidence
demonstrating that a significant traffic/transportation impact would occur.
Response to Cumulative Impacts: The July 7, 2014 letter claims that the Project could result in
cumulative impacts related air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic.
As explained above, the proposed Project’s individual impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
and traffic would be less than significant. The BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines indicate that a cumulative
impact would occur if a project exceeds one or more of the significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants or
precursors. As the proposed Project would not exceed any of the thresholds, there would be no cumulatively
significant air quality impact. The traffic study indicated that the project would not change the level of service at
the Stone Valley Road/Danville Boulevard intersection. At the intersection the project would result in increased
delays of 0.3 seconds and 0.5 seconds in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively. The County’s
Transportation Planning staff has indicated that such increases are not cumulatively considerable.
3. Miller Starr Regalia Appeal Letter, Dated December 24, 2014: The first paragraph of the December 24,
2014 letter of appeal references the issues raised by the appellant in the July 2 and July 7, 2014 letters, which have
been responded to above. The second paragraph makes comments relating to CEQA and the Planning
Commission’s authority, stating that they are appealing on the basis that the environmental review for the Project
under the California Environmental Quality Act was changed from a proposed negative declaration to a
determination that the Project is categorically exempt without the prior opportunity to review or comment on that
determination. The appellant also states that they believe that the County may not unilaterally adjudicate private
property rights, as was done with the parking easement in this case, and that the Zoning Administrator’s approvals
were in derogation of the law and not supported by the evidence, as was the Planning Commission’s upholding of
those approvals.
Staff Response: At the July 7, 2014 hearing of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator suggested
that the project may be exempt from CEQA and that an Initial Study/Negative Declaration may not be required, to
which the appellant’s legal counsel responded, “The County has treated it [the project] as if it’s not categorically
exempt. If the County wishes to go back and decide that it is categorically exempt, it can do that, and then we can
examine that issue. However, it didn’t do that; it issued a Negative Declaration.” While there is no statutory
requirement under CEQA that notice be given or that a review period be provided for a project that is
categorically exempt, the Notice of a Public Hearing that was distributed for the continued August 4, 2014
Zoning Administrator hearing indicated that the project may be found to be categorically exempt from CEQA. The
Zoning Administrator hearing indicated that the project may be found to be categorically exempt from CEQA. The
notice was sent to the appellant and their legal counsel; thus, the record demonstrates that opportunity was
provided to review and comment on the new CEQA determination.
Furthermore, the Legislature has made certain categories of projects exempt from CEQA. When a lead agency
determines that a project qualifies for a categorical exemption, the burden shifts to the challenging party to show
that the project is not exempt. A challenger must produce substantial evidence showing a reasonable possibility of
adverse environmental impact sufficient to remove the project from the categorically exempt class. As explained
previously in this report, the appellant has produced no evidence demonstrating that the project would result in a
significant environmental impact.
At the December 16, 2014 hearing, the Planning Commission found the project to be categorically exempt. The
proposed commercial building falls under the Class 3 exemption for new construction or conversion of small
structures [CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c)], which exempts: “A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar
commercial or institutional structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not
exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such
commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving
the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are
available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.”
Pursuant to the appellate court decision in Patricia Ann Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley et al, the Class 3
exemption can be used for one commercial building up to 10,000 square feet in size. Thus, the proposed building
meets all of the criteria for this exemption. The proposed minor subdivision falls under the Class 15 exemption
for minor land divisions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15315), which exempts: “...the division of property in
urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is
in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access
to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel
within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.” The proposed
subdivision meets all of the requirements for the Class 15 exemption.
Also, these exemptions require a project to be located in an urbanized area. It is understood that buildings, air
pollution, noise, traffic, etc. already exist in urbanized areas. The clear intent of these exemptions is to allow
small-scale projects in already-developed areas, despite any minor impacts that could occur, because the qualities
and characteristics of the urban environment itself render those impacts insignificant.
Finally, the December 24, 2014 appeal questions the Planning Commission’s authority to adjudicate the issue of
the parking easement. This issue was first raised in the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s August 4, 2014
approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Staff notes that at no time prior to the Zoning Administrator’s
decision did the appellants suggest that the County did not have authority to render a decision regarding the
parking requirements of the project based on its interpretation of the 1979 easement. As stated previously, since
the project is dependent upon the exclusive use of the 30 spaces, the project was delayed for several months until
the legal question regarding the parking easement was settled, and since there was no response from the appellants
to the March 8, 2013 letter from Mr. Rubey’s legal counsel (Exhibit #4), the County considered the matter settled
and moved forward with processing the development applications. Furthermore, since no judgment or legal
decision on the matter of the easement was submitted prior to taking the project to hearing (nor subsequently to
this date), the County used its authority and discretion to approve the project based on the information in the
record.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The tentative map for the proposed minor subdivision would not be filed and the property would not be
subdivided and the proposed commercial building would not be constructed.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No impact.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
The applicant has withdrawn their appeal. No action taken.
ATTACHMENTS
MS11-0006 Presentation
Resolution No. 2015/121
Exhibit #1: CPC Resolution No. 5-2015
Exhibit #2: CPC Approved Findings & COAs
Exhibit #3: 1979 Parking Easement
Exhibit #4: 3/8/13 Rubey Legal Counsel Response
Exhibit #5: 7/2/14 Miller Star Regalia
Exhibit #6: 7/7/14 Miller Star Regalia
Exhibit #7: 8/14/14 Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision
Exhibit #8: 12/24/14 Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision
Exhibit #9: County File No. DP3047-80 Pertinent Site Plans
Exhibit #10: CEQA Negative Declaration/Initial Study
Exhibit #11: No Effect Determination
Exhibit #12: Traffic Study
Exhibit #13: 12/16/14 CPC Staff Report
Exhibit #14: 7/7/14 Zoning Administrator Staff Report
Exhibit #15: Project Maps, Plans and Site Photos