Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12052000 - D4
D- 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,��, , ,:'k-•. ` Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ~�' � Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORg County DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL BAUMAN, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE ADM I NSTRATIVE PERMIT#N R950020 FOR A CONTRACTOR YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROOKSIDE DRIVE AND THIRD STREET(115 BROOKSIDE DRIVE)IN THE NORTH RICHMOND AREA. (H-1)(CT 3550.02)(PARCEL 409-202-004). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning Admistrator's decision to revoke the Administrative Use permit for the contractor yard. ACCEPT the staff report stating that circumstances have changed since the County Planning Commission's decision. CONTINUE the public hearing to allow staff to continue to work with Mr. Bauman to gain compliance of the conditions of approval. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE�>�� G RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON nnnamhar s-2nnn APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER,U The public hearing was OPENED, no one appearing to speak, the Board took the following action: CVgTE OF SUP4AVIj jng to February 13, 2001 , at I AiR &TERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ** ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Maureen Toms,Community Development-335-1250 ATTESTED naramhar s,_ 2ono PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Public Works Department-H. Ballenger SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR Redevelopment Agency-B.Lee Building Inspection Department-B.Pierce ),Ut 1 .40,000 Health Services Department-K.Stuart B _,DEPUTY District Attorney's Office-J. Sepulveda ** Supervisor seat V was vacant on this day. December 5, 2000 Board of supervisors File#NR950020/P1018 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Costs incurred by this staff-initiated revocation are covered by the Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND Administrative Use Permit: Permit#NR950020/P1018, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995. The Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines, was subject to Conditions of Approval. Following the approval, the applicant requested clarification from the County Public Works Department and Redevelopment Agency of the Conditions of Approval. A meeting was held on January 25, 1996, with the applicant to review the Conditions of Approval for the permit. A summary of this meeting was provided in a February 1, 1996, letter to the applicant (see attached). Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1956, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. Revocation: Due to the amount of time that has passed without compliance, further delays in submitting improvement plans, the significance of the septic system failure, and the further blighted conditions that chemical toilets would add to the site, the Zoning Administrator revoked the use permit for the contractor yard on June 26, 2000. The permittee appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the use permit. In the appeal letter, the permittee asked why they are being required to improve the road (Central) only they use. It is further stated in the appeal letter that the permittee agreed to do the improvements only to get the use permit. The permittee further states that they feel that the County is harassing them and that they are willing to cooperate. On August 8, 2000, the Planning Commission upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Complaint, Stipulation, and Consent Decree: The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office file a Complaint, Stipulation, and Consent Decree against Michael Bauman and Bauman Landscape. Mr. Bauman agreed to the terms of the Stipulation and Consent Decree on August 17, 2000. The Consent Decree identifies a timeline for compliance of the conditions of approval for the permit. December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#NR950020/P1018 Page 3 Progress: To date, Mr. Bauman is in compliance with the timeline set forth in the Consent Decree. The failed septic tank is no longer being used. Temporary portable toilets have been installed at the site. LAFCO considered and approved the annexation of the site into the West County Sanitary District (WCSD) on October 11, 2000. The applicant has submitted plans to WCSD for the sewer connection and is awaiting their approval. Improvement plans for Third Street and Brookside Drive frontages were submitted to the Public Works Department on September 18, 2000, for review and approval. The accumulation of waste and recycled material at the rear of the property has been removed. It is anticipated that compliance with all the Conditions of Approval will take several more months. V. CONCLUSION: Staff is recommending the appeal hearing be continued to February 13, 2001, so that staff can continue to work with Mr. Bauman to gain compliance of the conditions of approval. W:\MAT\North Richmond\BAUMAN BOARD ORDER12-5.doc Resolution Number 18-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT #NR950020, EAUMAN LANDSCAPE (PERMITTEE AND OWNER) Whereas, Administrative Use Permit #NR950020, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995, and Whereas, the Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines, was subject to Conditions of Approval, and Whereas, clarification of the Conditions of Approval was provided to the permittee/property owner at a January 25, 1996 meeting and recapped in a February 1, 1996, letter to the permittee/property owner, and Whereas, staff notified the permittee/property owner via a letter sent on December 12, 1996, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit, and Whereas, the permittee/property owner was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing, and Whereas, Article 26-2.2022(1), of the Contra Costa County Code provides for revocation of a permit in the event of a continuing violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of violation, and Whereas, Article 26-2.2022 (2) provides for revocation of a Use Permit for violations of requirements of the code relating to the premises and activities authorized, and Whereas, the conditions of approval related to frontage improvements have not been completed; the required building permits for the modular office have not been obtained; and, the failure of an adequate sewer/septic system creates a hazardous situation for the occupants of the site, as well as the general public, and Whereas, on December 15, 1997, January 6, 1998, May 18, 1998, June 15, 1998, August 3, 1998,October 12, 1998, December 7, 1998, March 8, 1999, May 17, 1999, August 9, 1999, October 11, 1999, December 20, 1999, February 28, 2000, April 24,2000 and June 26, 2000, after proper notice thereof having been given in the manner prescribed by law, Resolution No. 15-2000 Contra Costa County Planning Commission County File#NR950020 a hearing was held before the Zoning Administrator, at which time an opportunity was afforded to any interested person to appear and be heard, and Whereas, the Zoning Administrator received a written and oral report from staff relating to the facts supporting the revocation and demonstrating the permittee/property owner has not submitted any evidence of compliance with the conditions of approval, and Whereas, the Zoning Administrator reviewed of all relevant documents within the project files and considered all of the evidence and testimony offered in the matter of revocation of the Administrative Use Permit, found that sufficient cause has been demonstrated to revoke the subject permit, and on June 26, 2000 revoked the permit, and Whereas, the permittee/property owner appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the County Planning Commission, and Whereas, the Planning Commission received a written and oral report from staff and reviewed of all relevant documents within the project files and considered all of the evidence and testimony offered in the matter of revocation of the Administrative Use Permit, and Now, therefore, be it resolved that having considered all of the evidence and testimony offered in the matter of the appeal of the revocation of Administrative Use Permit 950020, the public hearing having been opened and closed by staff, as required by the County Code, the Planning Commission finds that sufficient cause has been demonstrated to deny the appeal of the revocation of the subject permit, in that the use is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and that the failure of adequate septic or sewer services result in a hazardous situation for the occupants of the site, as well as the general public have been conclusively demonstrated, and therefore the appeal of the revocation of Administrative Use Permit #950020 is DENIED and the permit remains REVOKED. AYES: Commissioners - R. Clark, H. Wong, L. Battaglia, C. Gaddis, J. Hanecak, G. Kimber, A Terrell NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None Richard Clark, Chair of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California 2 Resolution No. 18-2000 Centra Costa County Planning Commission County File#NR950020 I, Bennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on August 8, 2000. ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary f the County Planning Commis ion, County Of Contra Costa, State Of California 3 10/13/00 Maureen's Labels Beth Lee Supervisor John Gioia Le`Faye Walton Redevelopment District 1 111 West Grove Ave. INTEROFFICE Attn: Rayne Martin Richmond, CA 94801 V i5ry i C� A440VA�S Barry Pierce Jesse Slocum OF Building Inspection 15514'' Street A thry::Ti m 5eP✓t✓tR._ INTEROFFICE Richmond, CA 94801 N. Richmond MAC Joe Wallace Tracy Dones Joseph Barrett Chair1649 First Street Richmond,312 Grove Ave. 1753 , Street CA 94801 Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond, CA 94801 Allen Stuart Robert Coleman Diana Silver Health Services 1832 4'h Street County Council INTEROFFICE Richmond, CA 948011 INTEROFFICE Henry Clark Michael d Ellie Bauman Nove Investments 1323 Battery St. 115 Brookside Dr. P.O. Box 4100 Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond, CA 94804 Ninomiya Nursery Richmond CCC Flood Control District Growers Colorvue Brookside Drive 255 Glacier Dr. 2206 Central St. Richmond, CA 94801 INTEROFFICE Richmond, CA 94801 Nobeta Nursery Inc. Building Inspection Environmental Health 411 Brookside Drive INTEROFFICE Health Services Dept. Richmond, CA 94801 INTEROFFICE Hazardous Materials Flood Control Engineering Services Health Services Dept. Public Works Dept. Public Works Dept. INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE Traffic Fire District Public Works Dept. INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE West Contra Costa East Bay Municipal Utility District City of Richmond Sanitary District Environmental &Planning Community Development Dept. 2910 Hilltop Dr. 375 11 Street 2600 Barrett Ave. Richmond, CA 94806 P.O. Box 24055, MIS 701 Richmond, CA 94804 Oakland, CA 94623-1055 Sheriff's Office Admin. & Comm. Services INTEROFFICE Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENTS COUNTY PLANTING COMMISSION TUESDAY AUGUST 8 2000—7:00 P.M. MICHAEL BAUMAN (APPLICANT and OWNER), County File #NR95002O/P 1018:This is a hearing of an appeal filed by Bauman Landscape,of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Administrative Permit#NR95002O for a Contractor Yard. The subject property is located at the northwest comer of Brookside Drive and Third Street(115 Brookside Drive)in the North Richmond area. (H-I)(CT 3650.02)(Parcel 409-202-004). The enclosed attachments are supplemental to the staff report prepared for the August 8,2000 Planning Commission hearing. The attachments include updated information from the Health Department and copies of photographs taken at the site on July 25, 2000. 1 08-02-2000 03:03PM CCC ENUIRONMENTL FILTH 922) b4b 51bb P.02 ! `v+�tlllh,,i 8. W�Ialr. M. 0. ; CONTRA COSTA ENVIPONMENTAt. 5;F F1.{{!'EHS �.iVikfIH1�.1(1.+f.t Itt Tl isi t%+�!'°.]5 _ H FAU+-H )120 Diamond PivtJ..Suite 200 .CORTt1 COSTA Concord. California H E A L T H SERVICES Ph (433)(i46 5225 fxk{925)646-5225 • t I Bauman's X,andscaping,Inc. Chronological Account Update } C9rntra Costa Environmental Health ! j August 2,2000 I i 4 j June 20,2000—Fred Smith called Sherman Quinlan requesting and receiving assistance on completing and submitting the Application.for Septic Tank Abandonment. i July 12, 2000'—.Sherman Quinlan met with Fred Smith onsite to discuss progress on completing !the items delineated in the June,I3, 2000 compliance schedule submitted by Bauman j Landscaping to the Division. To date, the only item completed was applying for a permit to )destroy the septic tank. There ate no portable toilet facilities; water is still connected to the j trailer, and, presumably, wasteiater is still flowing into the malfunctioning system. No letter has been received from WCCSD about connecting to the sanitary sewer. I j i !July 24,2.000—A-ftdiscussing with Richard Lee and Ken Stuart, Sherman Quinlan called Fred j !Smith to see if an onsite inspection of 115 Brookside Drive could be completed. The inspection ;would include photographs and testing for sewage. Fred would check with bike Bauman and i {call Sherman back. 1 � 1 j July 25, 2000—Sherman Quinlain called Fred Smith,who told him that Mike.Bauman had agreed Ito an inspection of the premises,;and Fred would be around the office to assist with the !inspection. Sherman Quinlan visited the site, and was accompanied by Fred Smith. Sherman took numerous photographs, and tested standing water under the deck, and on the south side and i. north side of the office trailer. All tests were positive for sewage(immediate orange color with (Nessler's Reagent). Standing wastewater was noted outside the areas under the mobile office buildings, and the wastewater tested positive for sewage. The ponded sewage on the north side 0 f the office building was very close to a grated opening that led to the storm water run-off 4cumulation stem. Noted many empty chl6rine bleach containers in the dumpster. Noted solid waste i on property,pestigide sprayers with liquid in their reservoirs, and changes in the )clarity of the creek water near the probable location of the storm water outfall near the west side orf the property on Ya Street. f j 1 i + i E 1 i • i • t untra C:9Ct3{A,rf;lu9:ty:•�!,yl.r !:+h;itt'lfW+tt'S Cum!;.'Ovza imC,�;ii;y AAi!dirri Gr,;t'S • Lurltra t:d<Ix fnv+roorsr.7[di Ww;ala:l (nitr?C.GSi t!iea:tt:P!Af "" i • t,+ar+t+d�tlft8 h87dr:f�11'.;N.;:6"w'o "�Cr2+`.IS •CKV:i1!COSEJ c•'•:dt�LEIt� d{iiia i t P�11. 1C. , • Contra CG${a.k.Pgurr;h8j;aC•eqtFr•.• (p,irb:GiJ-yad•llh••. C`rr.tnr, TOTAL P.02 r � - 4 4 -l .y. r •: --- :'"'ate a ` r s � 0. f6 ray,-fi.. yY?ns.- J� {r y fj'r�r r � ,� .yy.,rlr31-yrkA {s: fir' �• /r7a'fyyr rr ywrr",bufr4ytt ...rl.. `� - .. ". fmFy`4 '? yy i y ,•yr��y f Urr{ / ef'-""7; � • y y {r ��fl�,�/ftp;; :' � 4 , yr6 y +eyy�fy y J+�ri� �y �• �" ;'. ... x ,.. , Ai �g � fps :N4 is • •' 10 • Y� J] q i py'frL{.l 4 of � s 5 f f 4 � mzeNY,,ro,„ ; RFRRt!}(pq pp�zc+aaooc�e«,w � �1�• I O 5C" f may.. •• • ' a ;r ,! iNC% lx '34 ry `F r v Y y,r ! �(/fi • Agenda Item.#�, Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY AUGUST 8 2040—7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION MICHAEL BAUMAN (APPLICANT and OWNER), County File #NR950020/P 1018:This is a hearing of an appeal filed by Bauman Landscape,of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Administrative Permit#NR950020 for a Contractor Yard. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Brookside Drive and Third Street(115 Brookside Drive) in the North Richmond area. (H-I)(CT 3650.02)(Parcel 409-202-004). II. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the use permit. 111. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Background: Permit#NR950020/P 1418, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995. The Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines,was subject to Conditions of Approval. Following the approval, the applicant requested clarification from the County Public Works Department and Redevelopment Agency of the Conditions of Approval. A meeting was held on January 25, 1996, with the applicant to review the Conditions of Approval for the permit. A summary of this meeting was provided in a February 1, 1996, letter to the applicant(see attached). Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. Conditions of Approval: The required roadway improvements,as conditioned under Permit P 1018, for Third Street and Brookside Drive,road dedications, installation of street lights,utility undergrounding,and drainage improvements have not been done. In addition,although the contractor yard was established at the property, no building permits have been issued for the purpose and location described on the permit as 1 Third Street. Improvements to Central Street were not required as part of the use permit. It is further stated in the appeal letter that the permitee agreed to do the improvements only to get the use permit. Compliance with the conditions of approval, not merely agreement to provide them,are required prior to the initiation of use and expected by the community. In addition, no bonds to guarantee the work have been submitted. Almost five years have passed since the use was approved, which is more than adequate time to have completed the required conditions of approval. The permitee further states that they feel that the County is harassing them and that they are willing to cooperate. The County has advised the permitee on numerous occasions over the past five years that they were not in compliance with the conditions of the use permit. In addition, the permit has been in the revocation process since December of 1997. During this time, staff has been working with the permitee on compliance issues. Very little progress toward compliance with the conditions of approval has been made,even though more than ample time has passed. VI. CONCLUSION: Due to the amount of time that has passed without compliance, further delays in submitting improvement plans, the significance of the septic system failure, and the further blighted conditions that chemical toilets would add to the site, staff is recommending the Zoning Admistrator's decision to revoke the permit for the contractor yard be upheld. W:\MAT\North Richmond\$AUMAN.SRI Iepc.doc 3 Agenda Item# ,. Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY AUGUST 8, 2000—7.00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION MICHAEL BAUMAN (APPLICANT and OWNED), County File #NR950020/P 1018:This is a hearing of an appeal filed by Bauman Landscape,of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Administrative Permit#NR950020 for a Contractor Yard. The subject property is located at the northwest comer of Brookside Drive and Third Street(115 Brookside Drive) in the North Richmond area.(H-I)(CT 3650A2)(Parcel 409-202-004). 1I. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the use permit. III. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Background: Permit#NR950020/P 1018, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995. The Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines,was subject to Conditions of Approval. Following the approval, the applicant requested clarification from the County Public Works Department and Redevelopment Agency of the Conditions of Approval. A meeting was held on January 25, 1996, with the applicant to review the Conditions of Approval for the permit. A summary of this meeting was provided in a February 1, 1996, letter to the applicant(see attached). Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. Conditions of Approval: The required roadway improvements,as conditioned under Permit P 1018, for Third Street and Brookside Drive,road dedications, installation of street lights,utility undergrounding,and drainage improvements have not been done. In addition,although the contractor yard was established at the property, no building permits have been issued for the purpose and location described on the permit as 1 required by the County Ordinance (Article 26-2.2014). Some progress toward compliance with the required conditions of approval was made during the revocation process. Due to the progress made, staff provided updates of the progress made to the Zoning Administrator and recommended that the revocation hearing be continued. In late April 2000 it became evident that the progress was no longer being made toward compliance of the conditions of approval. Improvement plans have been prepared, however were not submitted Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review,as previously reported(Staff Report---April 24,2000). The applicant's engineer advised staff that the property owner on the southwest comer of Third Street and Brookside Drive(truck maintenance facility) is proposing changes to their development plan,therefore the improvement plans would need to be modified. The improvement plans include the plans for the sewer hook-up,as well as the frontage improvements. The required building permits for the modular office have not been obtained. Before the permits are obtained, the applicant must provide sewer services to the site. The Contra Costa County Health Department recently responded to-a complaint at the site related to a failed septic system. The complaint of raw sewage on the ground of the site was confirmed by the health Department. According to the Health Department, the applicant has expressed an interest in installing chemical toilets to address the situation for the short-term. Delays in the submittal of the improvement plans for review and the ultimate construction have resulted in a serious health and safety situation at the site. At the June 26, 2000 Zoning Administrator hearing, the permitee's representative, Mr. Smith, advised the Zoning Administrator and staff that they had improvement plans ready for submittal. Mr. Smith was advised to submit the improvement plans, with the required review fees,to the Public Works Department. It was also estimated that review of the plans could take 6-8 weeks. As of July 25, 2000, neither the improvement plans, nor the required fees have been submitted to the Public Works Department. Revocation; According to Article 26-2.2022(1), a permit may be revoked if the permitee has allowed the commission of a violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of violation. At the Zoning Administrator's hearing regarding the revocation,a decision may order additional terms, limitations or conditions, a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements, a future review at a time specified, or a combination of these, or revocation(Article 26-2.2028). V. APPEAL: The permitee appealed the Zoning Administrator's June 26, 2000 decision to revoke the use permit. In the appeal letter, the permitee asked why they are being required to improve the road (Central) only they use. As a condition of approval, Bauman Landscape was required to install frontage improvements on Brookside Drive and 2 Third Street. Improvements to Central Street were not required as part of the use permit. It is further stated in the appeal letter that the permitee agreed to do the improvements only to get the use permit. Compliance with the conditions of approval, not merely agreement to provide them,are required prior to the initiation of use and expected by the community. In addition, no bonds to guarantee the work have been submitted. Almost five years have passed since the use was approved, which is more than adequate time to have completed the required conditions of approval. The permitee further states that they feel that the County is harassing them and that they are willing to cooperate. The County has advised the permitee on numerous occasions over the past five years that they were not in compliance with the conditions of the use permit. In addition, the permit has been in the revocation process since December of 1997. During this time, staff has been working with the permitee on compliance issues. Very little progress toward compliance with the conditions of approval has been made,even though more than ample time has passed. VI. CONCLUSION: Due to the amount of time that has passed without compliance, further delays in submitting improvement plans, the significance of the septic system failure, and the further blighted conditions that chemical toilets would add to the site, staff is recommending the Zoning Admistrator's decision to revoke the permit for the contractor yard be upheld. W:WA'RNorth Richmond\BAUMAN.SR11cpc.doc 7slar� 3 IK J dodo « / /A1 L t6) a �� K t. / � I l Y Yx d7 '3" t13A3NA3N j 9 Y �— aUZ � S S 4 V �# Y �� ye �� t✓ K } C E4 e S cari auaua yerd z z J Y L Book 408 Y Block 201 T CENTRAL < sT. Book 408-Block 190 3 —35 C13 I 7i1 j s Aur f _ &OQK 408 VAG(H iRhY iCLiSfA G4s1ftTT.CAU& it .r` . ,2 RESOLUTION NO. 6-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA -COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER Of A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF-INITIATED REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT #NR950020, BAUMAN LANDSCAPE (PERMITEE AND OWNER) WHEREAS, Administrative Use Permit #NR950020, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995, and WHEREAS, the Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines, was subject to Conditions of Approval, and WHEREAS, clarification of the Conditions of Approval was provided to the permitee/property owner at a January 25, 1996 meeting and recapped in a February 1, 1996, letter to the permitee/property owner, and WHEREAS, staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit, and WHEREAS, staff notified the applicant on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing, and WHEREAS, on December 15, 1997, January 6, 1998, May 18, 1998, June 15, 1998, August 3, 1998, October 12, 1998, December 7, 1998, March 8, 1999, May 17, 1999, August 9, 1999, October 11, 1999, December 20, 1999, February 28, 2000, April 24, 2000 and June 26, 2000. after proper notice thereof having been given in the manner prescribed by law, a hearing was held before the Zoning Administrator, at which time an opportunity was afforded to any interested person to appear and be heard, and WHEREAS, the .Zoning Administrator received a written and verbal report from staff relating to the facts supporting the requested revocation, and WHEREAS, Article 26-2.2022(1), of the Contra Costa County Code provides the revocation of a permit in the event of a violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of violation, and WHEREAS, the conditions of approval related to frontage improvements have not been completed, and WHEREAS, the required building permits for the modular office have not been obtained, and WHEREAS, the failure of an adequate sewer/septic system creates a hazardous situation for the occupants of the site, as well as the general public, and WHEREAS, by a review of all relevant documents within the project files, staff has also demonstrated that the applicant has not submitted any evidence of compliance with the conditions of approval, and WHEREAS, the permitee/owner is no in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of the Administrative Use Permit, and WHEREAS, Article 26-2.2022 (2) provides for revocation of a Use Permit for violations of requirements of the code relating to the premises and activities authorized, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having considered all the evidence and testimony offered in the manner of revocation of Administrative Use Permit 950020, the public hearing having been opened and closed by staff, as required by the County Code, the Zoning Administrator finds that sufficient cause has been demonstrated to revoke the subject permit, in that the use is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and that the failure of adequate septic or sewer services result in a hazardous situation for the occupants of the site, as well as the general public have been conclusively demonstrated, and therefore Administrative Use Permit #950020 is hereby REVOKED. At the conclusion of the revocation process, Building Inspection Department is requested with code enforcement action to provide for compliance with the Ordinance Code. Robert Drake Zoning Administrator $a111`ri�.tl July 6, 2000 Bob Drake Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 652 -.Martinez,Com.94553400.95 Dear Bob, This is our letter of appeal to the Contra Costa County zoning board. Bauman Landscaping wants to know why are we being asked to improve the road (Central) only we use? We agreed to do the improvements only to get the use permit. We feel the county is harassing us. We are willing to cooperate, but not if you want to fight. Fred Smith Bauman Landscape 115 Brookside Drive Richmond, CA 94801 (510) 236-1212 Fax: (510) 236-1680 An Equal Opportunity Employer ___ _ __ __ r Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY JUNE 26. 2000= 1:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION MICHAEL BADMAN (APPLICANT and OWNER), County Nile #NR950020(P 1018: This is a hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke Administrative Permit#NR95002O approved by the County Zoning Administrator on August 24, 1995, for a Contractor Yard. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Brookside Drive and Third Street(115 Brookside Drive) in the North Richmond area. (H-I)(CT 3650.02)(Parcel 409-202-004), 11. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator revoke the use permit and adopt the attached resolution. Ill.' DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: According to Article 26-2.2022(1), a permit may be revoked if the permittee has allowed the commission of a violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of violation. At the Zoning Administrator's hearing regarding the revocation, a decision may order additional terms, limitations or conditions, a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements,a future review at a time specified,or a combination of these,or revocation(Article 26- 2.2028). Permit#NR95002O(P 1018,an administrative permit,was issued on August 24, 1995. The Permit,issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines, was subject to Conditions of Approval. The applicant requested clarification from the County Public Works Department and Redevelopment Agency of the Conditions of Approval. A meeting was held on January 25, 1996, with the applicant to review the Conditions of Approval for the permit. A summary of this meeting was provided in a February 1, 1996,letter to the applicant. Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996,that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997,via certified mail,of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. The required roadway improvements,as conditioned under Permit P 1018, for Third Street and Brookside Drive, road dedications, installation of street lights, utility undergrounding, and drainage improvements have not been done. In addition, although the contractor yard was established at the property,no building permits have been issued for the purpose and location described on the permit as required by the County Ordinance(Article 26-2.201.4). Development Permit#NR9700I D(Michael Woldemar&Associates-Applicant and Nove Investors & Clyde Figone - Owner), for a truck maintenance facility on the southwest comer of Third Street and Brookside Drive,was approved on October 27, 1997. The Conditions of Approval for the Development Permit include the requirement for frontage improvements on Brookside Drive. The property owners of the truck maintenance facility site and Mr. Bauman have reached an"agreement to cooperate"in sharing the cost of design and construction of the improvements along Brookside Drive. The final agreement was signed June 8, 1998. The applicant has accepted a cost proposal for an engineering firm to prepare improvement plans for the frontage improvements. Improvement plans have been prepared, however were not submitted Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review,as previously reported(Staff Report— April 24,2004). The applicant's engineer advised staff that the property owner on the southwest corner of Third Street and Brookside Drive(truck maintenance facility)is proposing-,hanges:io-tileir-devzelopment-plan;therefore°the,-impro-ement-pl=&-w _— need to be modified. The improvement plans include the plans for the sewer hook- up, as well as the frontage improvements. These plans are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, prior to the construction of the improvements. The Contra Costa County Health Department recently responded to a complaint at the site related to a failed septic system. The complaint of raw sewage on the ground of the site was confirmed by the Health Department. According to the Health Department, the applicant has expressed an interest in installing chemical toilets to address the situation for the short-term. IV. PREVIOUS HEARINGS: This item was originally brought to the Zoning Administrator on December 18, 1998. Since some progress toward meeting the Conditions of Approval was being made, staff recommend continuance of the hearing several times. The Zoning Administrator was advised through staff reports of the progress of preparation of the improvement plans and efforts to obtain the necessary building permits. At the last Zoning Administrator hearing on April 24,2000,it was incorrectly reported that improvement plans had been submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review. The applicant's engineer met with staff of the Public Works Department, however,did not submit the plans due to substantial changes in the plans requested by one of the property owners. 2 V. CONCLUSION: Due to the amount of time that has passed without compliance, further delays in submitting improvement plans, the significance of the septic system failure,and the further blighted conditions that chemical toilets would add to the site, staff is recommending the permit for the contractor yard be revoked. WoiMAT\nr\BAUMAN.SRI O.doc 3 Resolution Number RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF-INITIATED REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT #NR.950020, BAUMAN LANDSCAPE (PERMITTEE AND OWNER) Whereas, Administrative Use Permit#NR950020, an administrative permit, was issued on August 24, 1995, and Whereas, the Permit, issued under the guidelines of the North Richmond Planned-Unit District Guidelines, was subject to Conditions of Approval, and Whereas,clarification of the Conditions of Approval was provided to the permitee/property owner at a January 25, 1996 meeting and recapped in a February 1, 1996, letter to the permitee/property owner, and Whereas,staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996,that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit, and Whereas, staf -the�pplicant_.was=notified-on_O.ctober 28, 1997,.via_certlfted-mail,.-of the -- -- continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing, and Whereas, on December 15, 1997,January 6, 1998, May 18, 1998,June 15, 1998, August 3, 1998,October 12, 1998, December 7, 1998, March 8, 1999,May 17, 1999,August 9, 1999, October 11, 1999,December 20, 1999,February 28,2000,April 24,2000 and June 26,2000, after proper notice thereof having been given in the manner prescribed by law,a hearing was held before the Zoning Administrator, at which time an opportunity was afforded to any interested person to appear and be heard, and Whereas,the Zoning Administrator received a written and verbal report from staff relating to the facts supporting the requested revocation, and Whereas,Article 26-2.2022(1),of the Contra Costa County Code provides for revocation of permit in the event of a violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of violation, and Whereas, the conditions of approval related to frontage improvements have not been completed, and Whereas, the required building permits for the modular office have not been obtained, and Whereas,the failure of an adequate sewer/septic system creates a hazardous situation for the 4 occupants of the site, as well as the general public, and Whereas, by a review of all relevant documents within the project files, staff has also demonstrated that the applicant has not submitted any evidence of compliance with the conditions of approval, and Whereas, the permitee%wner in not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of the Administrative Use Permit, and Whereas, Article 26-2.2022 (2) provides for revocation of a Use Permit for violations of requirements of the code relating to the premises and activities authorized, and Now, therefore, be it resolved that having considered all of the evidence and testimony offered in the manner of revocation of Administrative Use Permit 950020,the public hearing having been opened and closed by staff, as required by the County Code, the Zoning Administrator finds that sufficient cause has been demonstrated to revoke the subject permit, in that the use is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and that the failure of adequate septic or sewer services result in a hazardous situation for the occupants of the site, as well as the general public have been conclusively demonstrated, and therefore Administrative Use Permit#950020 is hereby REVOKED. 06-20-2000 01:04PM CCC ENV[ROWa4ITL HLTH 925 646 5168 P.02 �,illccraM B, WALICEP, M. D. CONT �lfA(,TH 5E+iwtEs Otnceras ! RA COSTA NHETH:Co. STUART. ± ENVIRONMENTAL StK,RHs HEALTH a«.+rrarwt HEAITK �1R£CTaR 00 CONTRA COSTA 2120 Wamottd Etivd.,suite 7. tontord,Catifamu HIEALTH SERVICES 94520 Ph(925)646-5225 t Fax(925)646-5225 �auman's Landscaping, Inc_ Chronological Account Contra Costa Environmental Realth , February 1% 1999 I ' Frank Angelo called Malvin Larson about septic system matters. Matt Rei had a letter ready for Maureen Toms,sul��jectabove. February.22, 1999 = Agnes Vinluan set up,an atipointment with Marvin LmOn to inspect Bauman's septic ( tank. 11 February 2(, 1999 � ° Agnes 'Vinluan and Frank iAngelo visited Bauman's Landscape, 115 Brookside Dr., Richmond, to evaluate the situation. They dye-tested toilets and looked at septic tank --` pumping invoices. They detected sewage odors, sampled some water surfaced under a trailer, and looked in ditcheshor sewage. Obtained copies of septic tank pumpetr receipts, and a plot plan showing apptoximate location of a septic tank under deck between office trailers. 114 arch 3, 19:99 ' Agnes Vinluan contacted AJ Septic Tank Service. Bob related that the tank at Bauman's was probably 1500 gallon capacity,based on dispatch records. ' i March 11, 1999 ? ' Agnes Viriltian contact Mr.1 Larson at Bauman's. Mr, Larson related that one of his =ployees: had seen dye in the water surfacing underneath an office (nailer by a conference room, March.16, 1999 Agnes Vinlaan. met with Mr. Larson at Bauman's. They discussed capping and 1 discoranectiori of a toilet andi sink in the shop area.. She placed dye in both toilets in the Office trailers and tested water samples collected by Mr. Larson (3/11199) and by herself s (3/16199). All three samples were observed to be positive for nitrogen, using N_essie;rs reagent, (test for sewage). The two samples taken by Mr. Larson had "rotten egg" odor, (typical of sewage). i `r Contra taxa CommrreE f Substance Abuse SeMicet - Contra Costs Emergency Medica(5ervKa• Cavia(0Aa Env4uirwul Heath Contra Costa tcea(q,P(aa - {, Cobra Cana Hszardovs Ma*41s Prograru •can Cosa N owl Heatb - Conlra Costa Mk mate+ - COMZ Costa Rrgica WdU CNuer • Corxra Costa Health Cenum ' i OG-20-20W 01:05pM CCC ENVIROWENTL HLTH 925 646 5168 p.03 i June 2,1999 1 Agnes Vinluan prepared and sent a letter regarding: existing septic system located at 115 ' Brookside Dr., Richmond, a6essed to Mr. Marvin Larson. This letter summarized the actions taken to date and course for future corrective actions by Bautnan's Landscape, Inc. I June 4 1499 Agnes Vinlnan spoke with]Steve Damm, WCCSD, to ascertain proximity;of sewer (within 300 ft).�he'also coritacted Mike Bauman to tell him that sewer connection was the only alternative for them! He needed to contact WCCSD for a permit to do-so. Frank Angelo relayed this information to Mr. Powers,CCC Building Inspection Dept. June 17, 1999 Agnes Vinluan prepared and sent another Ietter regarding: septic system located at 115 Brookside Dr., Richmond ]lis letter stated the requirement to establish connection to sewer,under.appropria(e permits. -_ April 24,2000 ? Sherman. Quinlan respondcdl to complaint about wastewater at Bauman's but could not identify the problem.Anonymity of complainant prevented further investigation.: i April 28,2000 _ a Sherman iQvinlan was-able to contact complainant at home. Discussed the situation and . developeli-�a7 pla3rfbr investigation: { May 3,2000: Sherman Quinlaa drove to site, spoke with Fred Smith. Observed surfaced wastewater under the deck. Photos were taken and efforts to connect to the sewer were discussed. Sherman Quinlan prepared a notice of violation with deadline for correction by June 3, } 2000_ May 9,2000. I t Sherman Quinlan prepared 4d sent certified letter requiring abatement no later than.June 5,2000.(sii=June 3;is a Sa jurday). MALy 22,2000 Sherman Quinlanreceived r� uest for "variance' from Bauman's_ We understood that -to be a request fona hearing and set up a hearing for June 6, 2000_' .lune 6;2000 ( Conducted:hearing vrith Frew Smith. representing Bauman's, Sherrnanl Quinlan and Ken Stuart°representing CC Env� Health. Four critical compliance issues were: 1) Provide portable toilets with' hand- h stations. 2) Disconnect water supply to trailers. 3) Abandon septic tank, ua* permit from Env. Health. 4) Connect to sanitary sewer. Provide letter from WCWW D indicating approval-f6r hook-Up. j 06-20— 01=05PM GCC ENV I M-Zl ENTL HLTH 925 646 5168 p.04 i t JutLe:12,2000 • Fred Smith called to inquirq about specifics for his compliance letter. He was given the criteria from the hearing on June 6,2000. .Tune.13,2000 � Sh Qu;nlan received iAX'd copy of a compliance letter from Fred Smith,covering the criteria for compliance. • i .Taae 19,2000 ' Sherman.Quinlan called Frei Smith about lack of a permit for septic tank abaildonmentr Fred apologized for missing his compliance date of Tune 14, 2000, and said he would have someone come to pick tip an application today. r i (4 i . is { j �t 1 i • 06-20-2000 01:06PM CCC EWIRtJ 1&4TL HLTH 92S 646 5168 P.05 _ Batumi I , 1 Jane 13,2000 I Mr.Sherman.Quinian Contra Costa County.&vironmental Health 2120 Diamond Blvd Concord,Ca 94520 ; Dear Mr.Quinlan f Thi&Letter is to addre a the problem that exists with the septic system at the Bauman Landscape yard in Ric and Ca. Bauman Landscapc s s to resolve the situation and meet our agreement with Contra. Costa County Fnvironthetital Health. i Step 1)Bring in Portable trailer frorn Redwood Sanitary with two toilets and wash station by Julyl,20W(pump out oqce a week.). Step 2)Turn-off water Supply to office and no use of office toilets or sinks. — Step 3)Abandon septi tank with permit though county start pemait process June 14, 2000 I Step 4)Obtain Letter from WCCSD detailing schedule for sewer line hookup. t i Shei hope this salsfies most of the requirements we discussed at our June G`'' rman Meeting. � : I am waiting on WCCT for their tetter, the vender may be able to supply us with a portable trailer before J}iiy I and I wi II start working the process tank abandonmdnt permit today, i Fred Smith Dispatcher t!�Bre K•l til tc Drivci Richmond.CoA 94.ah (ito)M-1212 An Egtutl Or",rruni(v Ernr+ow, 1 06-20- 01:06PM CCG ENV IRCW24TL HLTH 925 646 5168 p.06 WILL AA B.WALrEP, M. d. CONTRA COSTA HeAcm Jeow{ES OfitecToa KENNET}( Cr STUk1LT, ENVIRONMENTAL MSBH.RfH5 H£ALTH Eetwrtoa+�jt:.trwt. Ett:Aua titaeeroR kEON-TRA COSTA 2120 Diamond Btvd.,Suite Zq0 A L 1 1 1 SERVICES Concord, Cali 94 20 Ph(92S)646-5225 Fax(92S)646-5225 I CERTIFIED MAIL June-2, 2000 1 Mr. Miohael Bauman i 1.15 Brookside Drive ' Richmond, CA 94801 SUBJECT: Notice of Adaninistra.tive Hearing a t Dear Mr.Aauman: j On May 3, 2000; violations of Contra. Costa County Ordinance Code 420-6,303, California Health and Safely Code section 5412, were documented at 115 Brookside Drive, kichmond, CA 9480.. Specifically, sewage was ponded on the asphalt above the septic tank,located under a deck between two office structures. C Due to similar findings last 'Year, you were advised to connect your facilities to available sewer, (West County "Wastewater District), in accordance with Contra Costa County Ordinance Code 420-6.115. ; 4 t Legal: action may be necesjary at this time. Therefore, an Administrative Hearing has beers. 'schedWed for June, 6, 2000 at 10:00 am. The hearing will be held at the Envisronmental Health offi4 2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200, Concord, CA-, as agreed in our.phone call ori Thursda* June 1,2000. i If you have any questions,phase contact me at(925)646-5225 x230. + Sincerely, �. . Richard Lee,Supervisor Environmental Health.S,peci11ist i R.L:lj . I f cc: Kenneth C. Stuart, Director of Environmental Health : Sherman L. Quinlan, Senior Environmental Health Specialist t �+ Canna Castta to(nmuMty S46Wa Ct A&.e Coma Cotta(W(gency Mtd+Cat kf*tS (a+aa Casu En'itorxtat+tia(Health Camra Costa Heatth Pun Coned Cassa Hatatt A ltatttWS FM4(a(% +Cala(Coin Memzl tkahh • COAtra Cotta P-hk tk4h . Comm Costa Reglonat�te&al Ctntt+' + Contra Latta Health(enters 06--20-2000 01:06PM CCC ENV I RONMFNTL HLTH 925 646 5168 P.07 QrVrI ' May 19, 2444 Mr.Richard Lee Contracosta,Coiut Environmental Health 2124 Dianziond Bi Suite 249 Concord,CA'94520 Dear Mr. Lee: i We received your letter dated May 9 and I have pied to contact you to receive a variance on our sewer sylst4rn problem. Today I called Sherman Qainl.an and he directed me to put our request in letierform. Please contact the as soon as possible as I would like to schedule a meeting with you to request a variance. • 1 , Bred Smith r - { DiSI}atCl1 i Bauman Lan cape 514-236-12.12 514 n— -i 681ax { i { 115 Brookside Drive R4--hmond,CA 94801 (510) 236-1212 Fax:(510) 236-1680 iAn Equal Opporruniq Employer r _. _. .......... ._. 11 11 06-20-2000 01 07Ph! 'GCC ENv1R0t41F_NT'L HLTH 925 646 5168 P.08 . (LvA t B.Watrak M.. O. 1 CONTRA COSTA [^LTat SiltYKES 014KCL44t ENVIRONMENTAL Nfiat;TH C. SrTUAM. iSEH.I MS j "IEALTH rKVW0WACW^4L Wre.Tai 04AKTQrt 1C O -N T R A COSTA 2120 o4mand slvd,sr�r, 200 Concord,C,atifornia ys«t HEALTH SERVICES 94526 1 Ph(925)646-5225 QUAt Fax(925)646.5225: CERITnED NIAID Y a 9, 2000 a 1 sA , Mr; MicbaelsBa4 an 11� Brookside D.rly� x Ricbibaoud, CA.94801 =1661 i : Empraperly functioning sewage disposal system at 115 Brookside Dr., Richmond ,00 to 3L ,pall t< Assessof's Parcel Number: 408-202-004 Dear'Mr. Baummn: - Ins66ction of the above refer roperty on May 3, 2440 revealed an improperly functioning sewage disposal system: Specifically, sewage was ponded on the asphalt above the septic tank, located under a deck between two office structures this is a violation of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Section 42q4.303, the California Health 'and Safety Code Section 5411 and the Uniform Plumbing Code Secti6hs 341:and 315. In a, cord ice with the provisions of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, - — i6n 424-6.311,:-ou;as er -the- ro are-required-to abat�tl�r andii on rx�edlatei .. p party, eq y If this violation of the County Codei is not abated within 21 days of the date of this letter, the nuisance will be abated by the health Offi and.you, as owner of the property, wilt b e liable for the cost.. - theieof. Yoa .may request a h before the Health Officer to discuss the situation by submitting a written,request within 15.days of th I date of this letter. If tbz above-described nuisance has been abated, you are required to contact this office immediately and mafe such information known. Failure to abate the condition and notify the Enviroamental. Health DiAsion or failure to request a h , a constitutes approval for the Health Officer to the condition. at your e.- Administrative Tsts will be added to any abatement cost. A reinspection will be con&cted on or:about June S, 2000 o determine compliance. If y'o have aby questions, please co itact me at(925) 646-522.5 x208. sincerely, Sh . Quinlan, R.E.H.S. SeriCkr Envire�nri�ntal Health Spec` ist cc: ! West County. Wastewater District City cif Richmondo Building departmeat t;LUT.<z .a i • Cantu Cbz ra Coav mity 5utx1arKt Ab#M')rtiKt� • Cicala Costa£metaeficY MedQ1 S4emcts •{«Wa Cana EM*QR0 Intal Heakh Contra`Costa Heath?tvd • Caat+a Citta Haaardaai wwiatt Wovans -COW;Costa Mental Heath • Contra Coca iutW • COON Cosa Reginal Medwat C"te - Cama Conn Heahh Centers t ' t 0620-2000 01:0?PM CCC ENV IROt tdTL HLTH 925 646 5168 P.09 • iciiA4 E. WACKFP. M. t7. j CONTitA COSTA. cAa«SfRvtCts Dtaftrt<a ENVIRONMENTAL KwNcrti C. STUART. SEH.KEHS j HEALTH n126 Dimond Blvd_Suite 266S ^ / Con<ord,California 'CON ^ RA CO •REALTH SE YICES Ph(925)646-5225- fax(925)646-5225; • i i June 17; 1999 i j Mr.,Michael Bauman I B auman Landscap a Inc. i 1.15!Bmokside Drive ltichmbad,CA 94801 I y�E .Septic.System located at 115 Brookside Drivel2icbinond,CA Dear Mt.Bauman: � i On lune 14, 1999,representatives from the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Agency coiitactcd the.West County Wastewater District to verify the location of the neatest sewer connection td,your facility.•Our department was informed that the closest "stubb-out.' for searer ho,6up is within.300 feet_ The-0r�`inan66-Code of Contra Costa e ffty, 1 �3ivisiarr 2�-Section 6A-i-6 -- - (b) 1 "Sevier availability".states that if your property is within 340 feet,you must connect to sewer. Based on.the sitelconditions verified by this department,that your on-site septic system may be failing;, and that our department records do not indicate that proper installation of your system ivas ever recorded,etre have advised you via telephone conversation that you at ' f the proper permits and connect to sewer. 1f you have any fiuther questions,please contact me at(92.5)646-5225, ext-225, weekdays, from 7.34 a-m--�9:00 a.m. Sincerely, + ' A i Vinluan,:lt,.E.H-S Senior Environmental Heal Specialist : i ' AT't.jar. ' cc: mate Powers,Contra Costa County Building Department Steve Damen,West County_Wastewater District George Nakamura;Supervising Environmental Health.Specialist i • Contra Cotta Comet!Suwaxe AbrA Senates�� Cont+a COW(nWV,-<y++seal sefykt • Ca"ta Coca f(w w+o",NeAttt - Centra Casty t4;,016 feta y• ttvsua Crsta ttalat6o��'!a a aagfat"s •Cnrn .Costa wfku Health - (Onua Costa mk Kketh - Coma Costa steges a!Ue&,t.Ceater • Conga Cotta ttealth CMk ' ' TOTAL P.69 £xrM� S t n ro ."�'H^`• :2 ii i rS x; to ff. u.�4 .+k• ?' ,.t;:c6e.; "fg-?<A'ky`<. , w-i :.,...-� .'roman,+" .�PSfsF�•Ti�c .;: .- - . . { r • . r { 1 t ` !'I 111 1 ' r { a * r t { I. "T ! ■ ' ! { { M ^mm"t R!..�t+-r14F' h.tl .,F-.a. },x' R' wN +-, .,'•x ^t:•tY7P`� ? �F •, CF. 7V'.£.' t ,?i>r tX f�•t+ 'c`Y to '�F x .t 1 n `b��, R��" rS a S,s ,.r +, ,'u.•*� r .t }..F S`f+.'#a k�` `ntn'� '@,� r »w ..t.Y' y� Y } - �'4�atn :ian�:S'��.'�^'+*"•.` .a3` 'S..,s`� t;r` n",'�.Y��`�v�F.ifiay'�w. .iS�.i3'�� }.�e. ?.Y����v'�:£. x �. �,.k -r ti tc . aY aM w+tcv.•< * "x"?$wm�svur $a."�"+n`�F <£wt'°wa m'�o!:,x to ;`off *x`+ � n. _ 4`.1'�.�` '• -itt, .t_.-. .x:�^"i�,��,�at�•'+t ,mow �•.#p'� `�at"'� Vit•.' > a{•�, �R°�zC,},��' }'��n'£.f.�i - � _' a �t�'�a x�+'' '„' .a ' °'.iR'S4"4t w� S.f'�,sA '+: "o�'Y a r,�•}ki,, §asrt > ^Fe,b } Lr£°,� `+x i }r^'. ,� 6.1A' .raxa�gr ta �w+ ^`��" 4vyt.,n.�$•��3'� :'K^:}+f 'S' # ,�t �. , yin y,. : r'.: cS -a�'x'",�^ #�y�r�' t3. •`�_ •i 2irRa e4t;� +.,..,£.a }? '<sR r tnnr 't,,S`+too t`'2.t�' a•. a'^w iY. h SFi'^+L K •Gz t T $ ,, � ,3o-a�'.','c.�i���? �'�a•�ssd�` X •c+•* �-_ }""""k xx, n� 'k•<• nv zRF'+} � ^P,. K• �3�`;?.r? *.,�..#.t r*h, 'fi};'^'sde`2,3 n "�.--. t }:Y^�"`,,v+ •:rrr,';�""`.w�"..,t `vim'.fi' `S' ! $?. n k:;, 'r'�K- S ;N' `+'.' ,dap � i,, 4 •�"v •, ,t t # �� s vc•K�}• �'�+ukt+�'}�+, �+f'S�'�F�. ...+5,..}. ,r •� �S , ,S�s�`tt+k.;,'a'��,s�'^ �''G¢..�.•��`'s �`gg�, . y �gr^"c,Fr "t „4 k, rc3•� z ..,mow .td rYt 'fF 4 be r•�xa�wce#n.ns °esriaLe�s3,`�t�Yawuaa. ..a_�<ac.�u �.,�+,,....,,e..m. t atls5tkr :rstr•.�:rszs�at,,..x�^r,.4 k�ar�� er«�mM�af�.Yi.+x��'ssrs�ri:�s 3q}r s 'n; } g ?sn+ �.-,x'z7�•^ F a� x 'S, }�wY*' �i'Y w.tr y"wk.z S"* ttw.�.xk*.. t.'�' ,fig2c-..#` $� `t,+j4;'+n+zt Ott'kw?�rQ X�" K. n•..Y{ t 7 n C Z :�'• ,t y...'^, ,da> M1,z s`c'y !° t•x +.t� &. - £..q.+2 t tr t,-.,a�'.,.L.^�•F.. �, t` n. Sy" ,. s+•' 't..$. `" tik} i� ^?:;M'•, a i i "t Y iw.""T kin 'K r�,... }...Wk's r a'n.0 rw`v:. nt t•59n'7. a' ;•- }F c ? S w' .s.e> ` "•n.} f 't; •^r+`'+ ^rk f;.,.'��'i� �''�,b ?t• ^�� }�� ., � {. X "r, 't."�, S;53 "� +�, "4' yScsvti. .ten ;r T' a T+.wi3 }.,:r..z�x:���r.^?r..•r Q k �. x � ,� ,Fyr,�}�'Sc+'}r�t¢��n s^, r��'� �StXc +`S`.c�1' a atk^^�r: �xy,z••:: ��,„°• G <{��Fr�rrr. < br h��3k���} £ �$ � } it s..�r ra�'�^.,. +F6�.#ds.�.'P`iu�.'"�'a 4+��}����'an,.•gA...' .�5'w'4^�`r'+'�,�r'''" _ �'+aC h.?�^.ar"• �' a f •vr~r} ..rL r, r +9.Fu.,* +"raaF+ `,n+'#kw: ^a. T� 's'�'sv.,wev'•X,.q:an�..3,7�+}' .msv eF �. c ,..,t:.,�,.;.;;:y. }.�a}s4T` x >'z � > �• �} £ .c :i}} a,, t?�.v..£ :k£;� .## }r F:. ?,iAX;?,C' ';Y•'•Y::x±...}. LT?- F-0Y x;�s+n'2 Kr t„.v F}++-{ ♦i.:. aaar. +a z_•^ b>r.`4 `�`,+t'. �,. i A;.;k;}r��a'•t'•.'�:!.rr„wS±ST�'`�za,�fi :f.c'�„S.x..a. {£.,} } oto. . •"'�`.w"'tw4;U,kwt,+;? K'�}''`�.,t%a* �a.�..,,�,n.,." -�i+,.•tF•z;,,z' ,c. t+� ��a--�` 4 -.rr �}•t xk:�-'. A+., �w'� .'n > Fc r;ir t�'•S vt t. �Y"'"r' �5� r 5..� �,"a'�, �} t'' ? s,.: .s ty a+^,o � �.{ .�,.. �•to f ntt .-•£✓ }}t �w k+a �•n"�nR *,yR2 0? nw•. +$ � ,.,r> � ��^F• X St�., $z��B �$ gam+ j E #� S'�`f' Y�K�i� ���y ts� +k. ~���° *�+ .W.� �''� � ax�•�y of S^ S'n ' Nm "`+�.,{C^h+{'� �^�>a +}.4iiY 07ca�A+��C'i�.K+'S-^ '�F..,�^','A.,. �2+. a X+fr"M4.•"?.sv'}rMti$ 3., i'`"�J' <^'�,.'�,"ni•varrr t..• d 't'r } ,#•Ct•+c••� "�rc ti to @'�. tia >. ;cap Sci 7,ui { �^.. rt,. -e ? k C's�z�•- t,��t.f o-€n n+t }r )ran ac.�wn' '.� _ t �i � , �,.,p„t '�,iy„ aa#ac, n- ':•u 'p .ni �S.G u .. .a u � �. .. y �.,..,, a. �•�•' `^"�,�. �, � c4: .�+��v. +.a. ry^•ar r+.+ t..a 'e� `�F •�ci ,r ro'..... vd. x �t S:t. ,^4 rr .y,• +✓.. .t2 � .:i �a" ��'�rw':Fr t^ .E +r.pnM,w,^^ v^.r, Y'Jv' MS�� .,+.... v} fro„^' r�, �c •p2.,�t+,^.w d''Y5!f•>,f �.}�.yv a 'w F r+cr•*,vd. .r ?s"5��", vt+^^M•^.�^n-.^a,c: F<� r}Fnfi. �a.� z.•^.,�y,t} Ott 9k�'�,�ss�'c ',;,aSv^y+�'r4�K N, 3 dn 'M#.:� ° �"`4CrorsY YaF>+cx• >. A' f;,..:^`i,.>,wt2 rix .a;rx^+s� n,.t. ..,,4"4�k�:1C,`.i.,.....�Sw.¢: a ..Aa§...r' .nam'�a��v�fu�'s ""' •`:�"An�u"",u.$ 'c+ �"�v'f� �v.: T;:t, k•; sr�X�.�'arn..�.• � ... ar mss. _ .. -. '' • 1 ! A. APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Michael Bauman (Applicant and Owner), Comnly File##NR950020: The applicant is requesting an administrative permit for an occupancy change from a trucking storage use(Sheldon Oil)to a Contractor's yard. Subject site is located at the north west intersection of Brookside Drive and 3rd Street in the North Richmond area of the County. (APN:408-202-004) GENERAL INFOIt MATION A General Plan: The site is designated Heavy Industrial in the County General Plan. B. ZS?ning:.The zoning for the property is Planned Unit District(P-1). PROJECT DESOUPTIOES The applicant is requesting an administrative permit for occupancy change. The applicant is proposing storage areas for equipments, parking areas for vehicles used in business and associated office buildings as shown on the revised drawings dated received by the Community Development Department on June 29, 1995. The North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council has recommended denial of this application. However, since this is an administrative permit, the use is appropriate under the Heavy Industrial land use designation for the property and hence is not subject to discretion. The applicant is required to go through the administrative permit for compliance with all the P-1 requirements. The business has already been relocated to thv subject property. The County Public Works Department is requiring all access to the property only from Brookside Drive.A:s a condition of approval of this project, the applicant shall comply with all the attached P-1 standard conditions of approval and the attached Public Works conditions of approval. In addition, the applicant shall submit improvement plans to Public Works Department within 90 days of approval of this permit. The applicant shall submit final landscape plans and revised parking plan and execute first source hiring agreement with the County within 15 days of approval•of this permit. r CONDITIONS QF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE#NR950020 The following conditions of approval shall apply to the project in addition to the attached standard conditions of approval for all administrative permits in the North Richmond area: 1. The improvement plan shall be submitted to the County Public Works Department within 90 days of approval of this permit. 2. The applicant shall submit landscape plan and revised puking plan within 15 days of approval of this permit. 3. The applicant shall execute first source hiring agreement with the County Redevelopment Agency within 15 days of approval of this permit. 4. The landscaping shall be installed within 60 days of approval of the landscape plan by the Community Development Department. 5. The"oil storage" located on the west side of the property shall be removed/disposed off the property in compliance with all the regulations within 30 days of approval of this permit. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COIIIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT--PUBLIC.AYOR.KS DEPARTMENT CONDITIQNS 07/2795 THU 11:15 FAX $10 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS REDEV. AGENCY 16002 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: ruly 25, 1995 TO: Amina Shat,Project Planner,Community Development Department FROM: Eric Whan, Civil Engineer, Current Planning,Engineering Services t SUBJECT: P-1018(Pubfic Works File NO.):(Bauman Landscaping/3rd Street&Brookside Drive North Richmond Area) ROAD AND Dl'LAWA,GE CONSIDERATLONS• The attached conditions of approval based on the March 1995, site plan include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. EIY.•o! G.tengsvekewip-1018.7 JLL-27-1995 1023 510 30 2333 P.002 07/27/95 `IHU 11:18 FAX 810 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS iii REDEV, AGENCY Q003 t� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR P-1018 A. General Requirements: This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance.The following mquircnnents must conform with Division 914: 1. Drainage,road and utility improvements shall require the reviewand approval of the Public Works Department.This dcwlopumc at shall comply with the requirements of(Title 9)and(Title 10)of the Courny Ordin rice Code.Any c=ptions therefrom must be specifically fisted in this conditional approval statement. 2. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Worts Department and are based on the plan date received March 1995. 3. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division,along with review and inspection fees,and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Coda for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. B. Roadway Improvements(Third Street Frontage): 1. Applicant shall construct face of curb 6.7 m0ers(22-feet)from the ultimate right of way Bene. 2. Applicant shall construct curb and gutter,necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage,street lighting,border landscaping and irrigation and pavement widening along the frontage of Third street. 3. Applicant shall cut existing pavcrucznt to a neat line along an existing adequate structural section when widening the pavement. Widening shall commence at that line and may require an exploratory trench or pothole to determine the limits of pavement widening. 4. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on Third Street(including traffic signs and stuping)as approved by the Public Works Depwtmeant,Transportation Engineering Division. 5. The applicant shall remove the driveway access from Third Street including removal of pavement and drainage facilities to accommodate driveway. C Roadway Improvements(Brookside Drive Frontage): 1. Applicant shall construct face of curb 3.0 meters(10-feet)from the ultimate right of way line. 2 Applicant shad construct curb and gutter,necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage,street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation and pavement widening along the frontage of Brookside Drive. 3. Applicant shall cut existing pavement to a neat fine along an existing adequate structural section whoa widening the pavement. Widening shall commence at that line and may require an exploratory trench or pothole to determine the litnits of pavement widening. 4. Applicant shall construct a stred-type connection with 9.1 meters(30-foot)radius curb returns in lieu of standard driveway depressions at Brookside Drive. JLL-27-1995 10:23 510 30 2333 P.003 07/27/95 TSU 11:19 FAZ $10 313 Vt } CCC PUBLIC WORKS REDEV. AGENCY 0004 i J 5. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on Brookside Drive(including traffic sighs and striping) as approved by the Public Works Department, Transportation Bngirwring Division. 6. Applicant shall construct a 9.1 meters (30-foot)radius curb return and necessary pavement widening at the northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Brookside Drive. D. Access to Adjoining Property: PMf of Acees l ►agWsition 1. Applicant shall i4mish proof to the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all nacessary rights of way,rights ofentr3;permits and/or casements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent,mad or drainage improvements. 2. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Depantnett,Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from Brookside Drive. Enc achment Permit Obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Centex for construction of driveways,or other improvements within the right of way of Third Street and Brookside Drive. e- tter's Rights Relinquish abutter's rights of access along the frontage of Third Street. E. road Dedications: Applicant shall convey to the County,by Offer of Dedication, 3.0 meters (I0-feet) of right of way necessary for the planned future width of 18.3 meters(60-feet)along the frontage of Brookside Drive. F. Street Lights: Street lights shall be installed on Brook-side Drivc and Third Street and the property annexed to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lighting.The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division.Application for annexation to CSA L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits G. Intersection Design/Sight Distance: Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 82-18 of the Ordinance Code pertaining to corner sight distance at the northwest comer of the intersection of Third Street and Brookside Drive. H. UtilitiesMndergrounding: All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Third Street and Brookside Drive. t. Drainage Improvements 1. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be cx►vc),4 without div=ion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks,or to an existing adequate JLL-2?--1995 10:24 510 30 2333 P.004 07/27/95 'TRU 11:19 FAX 510 313 2,133 CCC PUBLIC FORKS 4-,4 RMEIT. AGENCY 0005 f public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 2. As part of the collect and convey requircment,the Applicant shall construct 750 millimeter(30- inch)diameter pipe(minimum)along the North side of Brookside Drive from Third Street to Central Street. From Central Street at Brookside Drive,this facility shall drain to the north through APN#408-202-005 to San Pablo Creek.The pipe shall be sized to handle drainage from parcels north of Brookside Driva,.we st of Third Street to Central Street known as parcels G,13,T and J of the Samson Tarns Ranch Subdivision.The applicant should contact the Public Works Department to discuss specifics or possible alternatives to this requirement: This condition is an exception to the Ordinance Code requirement of collect and convey without diversion of the watershed.The exception was originally granted under Land Use Permit 2017- 91, 3. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 4, Discharging concentrated storm water into roadside ditches is prohibited by the Ordinance Code. J. Mlseellane;ous Drainage Requirements: The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage casement any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. ADVISORY NOTES 1. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the BridgeTThoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the West County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 19A as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 3. The project lies within the;100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware ofthe requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 4. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations,and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems(NPDES)for municipal,construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board,or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay-Region H or Central Valley-Region V). 5. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. 6. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. 1t is the applicants responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to detemune if a permit is required,and if it can be obtained. JUL-27-1995 10:24 510 313 2333 P.005 _. _... _. Contra Public Works Department J.Michael Watford t?ublic Works t)iretto Costa 255 Glacier Drive _ County Martinez, California 945s3Q TPA COSTA COUNTY Detty F. ring FAX: (510)313-2333 Telephone: (510)313-20086 FEB -5 PM 3: 04 Patricia R McNamee February 1, 199 OMMUNITY PEVEI-OPMENT DEPT. Dewy-Operations Maurice M.SNu Deputy-Transportatior S.Clifford Hansen. Deputy-Administratior Mike Bauman Bauman landscaping 115 Brookside Drive Richmond, CA 94801 ES: P-1018 Dear Mcke: This is a follow-up to our.January 25, 1996, meeting concerning the public road improvement requirements along Third Street and Brookside Drive for your office permit application P-1018. At the meeting were Beth Lee and Aruna Bhat of County Redevelopment Agency, Bob Faraone of Public Works,Marvin Larson and you. I felt we came to a reasonable understanding and agreement. You will be receiving a copy of the revised conditions in a memo I sent Aruna. I thought this letter would better explain our understanding. Third Street All Existing conditions will apply with the exception of the,driveway off Third Street. You will be allowed to use the driveway as a temporary driveway for a period of five years then you will have to close it off and relocate your permanent access to Brookside Drive. This will allow you enough time to reorganizing your staging area once the "Truss operation" is moved. You can construct a driveway curb depression as part of your requirement to install curb along your Third Street frontage. When you close the driveway you will need an encroachment permit to remove the driveway depression and the AC driveway pavement within the road right of way and place new curb and appropriate landscaping. You are required to install the street lights on metal poles along Third Street. Brookside Drive The power poles can remain in the current location. The face of curb will be placed approximately three feet(0.9m) from the-edge of the power poles. The curb line should be a straight line between Third Street and Central Street. The minimum slope of the curb that you will construct should be no less.than 1%. Since Brookside is relatively flat; you will probably have to do conform paving at high points and construct drainage inlets at curb love points. You will now only have to dedicate the right of way within ten feet ( 3m) from the face of the new curb. s dp. S ES: P-1018 DATE: February 1, 1996 - Page -2- Since we have reduced your right of way dedication requirements by moving the road approximately five feet ( 1.5m ) to the south, and since you do not have to relocate or underground the power lines, and since you do not have to install metal street light poles you have agreed to widen Brookside Drive between Third Street and Central Street by fifteen feet (4.6m) on the south side of Brookside Drive by filling in the existing ditch. You will have to work with the fronting property owners to tie in their sub-drains to the storm drain line you will be installing in the existing ditch. All water collected along Brookside Drive shall drain westerly and connect to the existing 30-inch(0.76m) storm drain pipe which runs through your crushing yard operation to the creek The minimum size storm drain pipe alloyed in this county road is eighteen inches (0.5m) in diameter. You can install the new street lights on the existing wood poles along Brookside Drive. Fees The following fees will be required: The Bridge and Thoroughfare(.Area of Benefit) fee is $1.40 per sf Drainage Fee is $0.35 per sf of new impervious surface Plan review fee $5,000 + 6.5% of an amount more than $50,000 improvements. Inspection Fee $1000 + 6.5% of an amount more than $100,000 improvements. Since you have indicated you would construct the improvements beyond of your obligation I am willing to reduce the"plan review" fee to actual time charged by our staff to review the improvement pians for your project. You can deposit $5,000 and we will charge against it. If there is money remaining we will refund it to you. If we need more, we will inform you. Very truly yours, Robert Faraone Senior Civil Engineer Rvi;:mw Engineering Services Division g:knWvc4vMau.t2 cc: M-Avalon,Engineering Services E.Whan,Engineering Service I DiMaggio,Engineering Services A.Blest,Redevelopment Agency D.Peilegrini,Maintenance Division PERWT R+V..J, APPLIC:ATIC N # 1 , l'7 ��"� • �, . YES NO N/A COA USE V610 -❑ ❑ 1. Does the proposed use conform to the Land Use Matrix? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Does the proposed use conform to the foot notes of the Land Use Matrix and the applicable definitions? DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS--GENERAL -��K❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Does the project conform to all Development Standards on the Development Guideline.? If not, list all deviations ❑ . ❑ ❑ 4. Is the building bulk, height, land coverage, visual appearance from adjacent tend, and design compatible with existing adjoining development and land which will remain? �'Z❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Does the development's design successfully integrate individual buildings and building groups with surrounding development, other physical features in the area, and existing development which will remain? Zo ❑ ❑ 6. Does the design of structures provide for harmonious composition of mass, scale, color, and textures, with special emphasis on the transition from one building type to another, termination of groups of structures, relationships to streets, exploitation of views, and integration of spaces and building forms with the topography of.the site an t e unique character of the area? --'��;� y> ��� {t„� i , ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Are the off street parking and loading areas integrated into the overall vehicular circulation system? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Do major development applications provide adequate buffers between unlike land us s7 e . ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Is the environmental setting of the Bay Shore and its environs respected and enhanced? ❑ ❑ ❑ �/10. Have efforts been made to hire employees, constructio.1 workers and subcontractor components at the project or business from the North Richmond community? �: �= �'� t�-,t Xl ur �`tKby�� i�1`49, , ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Has the development been sited and designed to maximize physical and visual access to the / Bay Shore? V� ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Are provisions made for an efficient, direct and convenient system of pedestrian circulation, together with landscaping and appropriate treatment of any public areas or lobbies? Zo ❑ ❑ 13. Does the proposed project comply with applicable regulations of the (a) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, lb) Regional Water Quality Control Board, (c) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, (d) State and County Health departments, and (e) any other regulatory agencies affecting the site/project? ❑ ❑ ❑❑% 14. Does the project have the approval of the West County Wastewater District? ❑ 0 15. Have trails and public access corridors been clearly delineated and barriers installed to protect —�/', habitat areas and public safety? ❑ ❑ �d Cl 16. Are trails accessible to handicapped and disabled? ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. If the project abuts a Public Access Corridor has adequate land dedication and improvement and maintenance funding been provided? ,❑ 0 0 Lit i 8. Is all outdoor lighting directed down and screened away from adjacent properties and streets? YES NO N/A COA 1 3 ❑ ❑ V ❑ 19. Is 3:1 compensatory mitigation of any project directly impacting a "significant wetland" provided? ❑ ❑ /❑ 20. Are all native trees with a trunk circumference of 72" or more measured 4Y2 feet above the ground protected? ❑ ❑ ifs ❑ 21. If not, has it been demonstrated why the removal of such tree(s) unavoidable? 0 ❑ ❑ 1/22. Are setbacks of 100 feet from the edge of wetland areas or the flow line of a creek provided? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6/23. Are setbacks of at least 50' from the centerline of San Pablo or Wild Cat creeks provided? ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. Are any structures/improvements proposed within 25' of an intersection or driveway which would interfere with safe sight distances? RESIDENTIAL ❑ ❑ U ❑ 25. What are the total number of /as 'sed? ❑ ❑ ❑ 26. What is the total number of boposed? What is the percentage of affs? What is the number of units adsult of Density Bonusprovis What is the Density Bonus p rcentage? ❑ ❑ d 27. Are the exterior material those customarily used in conventional single family homes? i 17 © 11 0 28. Have pitched roofs a d window trim been included in the building design? ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 29. is at least a one r garage and one car parking in the driveway per unit provided? ❑ 13 13 30. Which two o the following three items have been included? a. An dditional enclosed parking space. b. IF nt landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the Water Conservation andscaping requirements of Chapter 82-26 of the County Code. C. Rear yard solid fencing. ❑ ❑ 13 ❑ 31. oes the residential development include attractive and varied designs which avoid monotonous streetscapes and improve the quality of life for residents? ❑ ❑ 13 ❑ 2. Are there staggered setbacks, frontage improvements, adequate and safe yard areas and landscaping? ❑ ❑ ❑ \33. The building materials and colors are: NON-RESIDENTIAL 10 0 ❑ ❑ 34. Do projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous materials comply with the provisions of Chapter 84-63 of the County zoning Ordinance? ❑ - ❑ 35. Have the recommendations of the Health Risk Assessment been incorporated into the project? ❑ ® ❑ fid 36. Has landscaping been provided on all frontages and as a buffer to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Has any outdoor storage been screened from view of the public streets and adjacent properties? PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 YES NO NIA COA ❑ ❑ ❑ 10/'0/38. Are all ground, wall and roof mounted screened equipment ee ed from public rights of way and adjacent properties? ❑ 0 . 0 P/39. Are visual screens painted or treated to match the color of the wall or roof? ❑ ❑ ❑ 40. Are freight docks, loading area, truck berths and heavy vehicle equipment storage screened from all public rights of way and abutting uses, excerpt,w-�,here the abutting use is determined to be similar in nature? A i Y& A ❑ ❑ ❑ 41. Are any storage tanks or process equipment located between any str et and the respective building setback line? If so, explain nese city. ❑ ❑ ❑ 142. Are any loading spaces, dumpsters or refuse areas placed so as to face way? i so, explain necessity. t e any public rights of J ❑ ❑ ❑ 43. Are yard areas abutting a street landscaped? © �4. Have long curb radii and "red curb zones" within 25` of entryways been provided at intersections and driveways to accommodate truck turning movements. ❑ tJ/❑ ❑ 45. Will loading and unloading operations impact the public road system? ❑ ❑ ❑ 46. Is adequate parking provided on site? ❑ ❑ 47. Are street level views of all automobile and true ,parkin areas screened from public streets? ❑ ❑ Q/ ❑ 48. is a dual wafter system y providetl' wherever possible (per Chapter 82-30 of the County Ordinance) for all projects within a "dual water system area" greater than 15 acres or 120,000 square feet in floor area? SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL DES NATIONS ❑ ❑ ❑ 49. If the project is within the special stud area, does it protect the adjacent marsh from run off from urban activities and hazardous aterials? ❑ ® ❑ 50. Do public facies have metal exte ors? If so, explain necessity. © ❑ 11 ❑ 51. Will noise, glare or vibr tons extend beyond the exterior boundaries of the proposed industrial use? ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 52. Are all new utility lin -placed underground? © ❑- 13 ❑ 53. Are proposed driv ways closer than 150' to other driveways? If so, explain necessity. ❑ ❑ ❑ 54. Can, or wit adjacent parcels share driveway entrances? ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 55. Are buil ing masses simple in form and have architectural articulation? ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 56. Is si age designed as part of the building? PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION p41�p .t } ARCHAEOLOGY ❑ ❑ ❑ 57. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the'significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigations(s), if deemed necessary. GRADING ❑ ❑ 0/58. The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permits to assure compliance with this Planned Unit District. 0 ® ❑ Z5 9. No trees shall be removed prior to written approval of the Zoning Administrator. LANDSCAPING ❑ ❑ ❑ /60. Are parking lots landscaped at a minimum ratio of one tree per fourarkin s f P 9 spaces or double-loaded stalls and one tree per six spaces of single-loaded stalls? ❑ ❑ 061. Are California native drought tolerant plants used as much as possible? ❑ ❑ ❑ 62. Will landscaping be maintained by the developer/hang SIGNS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 63. Are signs approved with this pro�je t? 1 max. height , max size , per plan dated .k CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS ❑ ❑ ❑ /64. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. 0 ❑ 0/"65. Construction sites shall be periodically watered sufficient to control dust. ❑ ❑ ❑ �66. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles on site and shall be removed as necessary. ❑ 67. Does the project create more than 1500 square feet of new impervious surface area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 68. If yes, has an on-site retention or detention facility, silt or grease traps in the storm drain system been installed for the proposed project during project construction. . CHILD CARE ❑ 0/0 ❑ 69. Does this project have (a) 100 or more employees, (b) 15,0010 gross square feet or more retail area, and/or (c) residential projects of 30 dwelling units or more. If yes, prior to obtaining building permits, proposed child care program shall be submitted for the rbview and approval of the Zoning Administrator. PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 YES NO N/A A 0 11 Cl 70. Does this project have 29 or fewer dwelling units? If yes, a fee towards a child care facility need in the area shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit as follows: $400 per Single Family Residential. $200 Per unit for condominiums or townhomes. $100 per apartment unit with two or more bedrooms. Studio and bedroom units are not subject to the fee. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT D O © 71. Does this project have 100 or more employees or 13 or more dwelling units? If yes, submit at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Transportation Demand Management(TDM)information program in accordance with the requirements of Article 532. 2.606 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. FIRE PROTECTION U 07 . Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Fire District shall review all plans for development. ® Cl 0 73. Sprinkler systems shall be required for all n6v development. 0 0 L 0 74. Is this project within 1.5 miles of the nearest fire station? © 0 Lla' 11 75. If NO, sprinkler systems shall be required in new residential construction. IJ 0 0 76. Do all new buildings and major remodels have fire resistant roofs (Class C) and exterior .. materials? PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS ® 0 13 077. Are all storm drainage facilities designed to accommodate the ultimate developmentof he watershed? © L`l 13 ❑ 78. Is this project within a flood zone other than B or C? 0 0 13 ® 79. If YES, the project shall be subject to the requirements of the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 82-28 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Cl C) 13 ® 80. Does the project require a Flood Plain Permit? O ❑ 13 0 81. Is this subject site within 50' of the center line of Wildcat or San Pablo creeks? Cl 0 11 0 82. If YES, comply with Section 914-14-012 of the Ordinance Code "Structure Setback lines for unimproved earth channels." 0 0 13 0 83. Are right of way dedications and/or improvements required? 0 ® 11 0 84. If YES, comply with Division 1006 of Title 10 of the (P.W.) County Code. d 0 ❑ 85. Drainage improvements shall be installed in accordance with Division 914 of Title 9 of the (PW) County Code. D ❑ 86. Does the project front on: Goodrick Avenue,.from Parr Boulevard to the Richmond city limit Parr Boulevard (All) Pittsburg Avenue (All) West Gertrude Avenue (All) PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 YES NO N/A COA Brookside Drive, from Central Avenue to the Richmond city limit Richmond Parkway (All) Central Avenue (Ali) 3rd Street, from Verde Avenue to Parr Boulevard. 11 ❑ ❑ 87. If YES, prior to the issuance of a building permit relinquish abutters rights. ❑ ❑ 13 ❑ 88. Does the proposed project front on a public road where widening is required? ❑ ❑ 13 ❑ 89. If YES, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the submittal of improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage end Striping plans for review by the .Transportation Engineering Division. A deferred improvement agreement may be executed at the discretion of the Public Works Department. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 90. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application & Permit Center for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of any public street if no improvement plans are required. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 91. The applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along any road indicated on the North Richmond Plan Map for limited access. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 92. Prior to the issuance of a building permit preliminary plans for necessary improvements shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and comment. Final improvement plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 93. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned future width of any public street as indicated on the North Richmond Plan Map. ❑ ❑ Q7 ❑ 94. All public pedestrian facilities including sidewalks, paths, trails,driveway depressions,as well as handicap ramps and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 95. All storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Significant off-site improvements may be required to comply with this condition of approval. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 96. The applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of San Pablo and Wild Cat creeks. The approximate structure setback area shalt be that area which falls within 100 feet of the flow line of the creek (200 feet total). "Development Rights" shall be conveyed to the County by Grant Deed. ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 97. Have the recommendations of any traffic study required for projects generating more than 100 peak hours trips/day been incorporated in to this project? ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 98. If the subject property is to be accessed by a private road, is there a turnaround at the end of the private road? 0 ❑ Q ❑ 99. If YES, has the maintenance agreement to the private road been provided? ❑ C11 ❑ too. is landscaping and irrigation required in the parkway and median areas? ❑ ❑ d ❑ tot. If YES, does the work comply with County standards and has funding and maintenance been provided? PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 YES NO N/A COA El 0 O toe. Has the applicant applied to the County Landscaping District AD 19793 (LL-2) !0 0 O los. Has storm drainage originating on the property been prevented from draining across the sidewalk and driveway in a concentrated manner? O 0 ❑ JJZ(/"'1104. Monitoring of Conditions of Approval required. 0 0 ® los. The applicant is required to submit a statement addressing each of the conditions of approval or otherwise noted annually. �//O ® 0 106. Is the project exempt from CEQA? If yes, Class 0 ® 1 0 to7. Has a negative declaration been filed for the project? 0 O C 1 Cl tog. Has a mitigated negative declaration been filed for the project? a 0 11 0 tog. Is the project subject to an EIR? ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE IF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicant is required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance in the amount of $3,178.00 per dwelling unit for Single Family Residential projects, $2,555.00 per dwelling unit for duplex or multiple family residential projects, $5.05 per square foot for office projects and $7.93 per square foot for commercial projects. ,B. If the applicant is required to comply with the drainage fee requirement for Drainage area 19A the amount of$0.35 per square foot of impervious surface shall be collected by the Public Works Department. C. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department, the Building Inspection Department and EBMUD. D. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which mL,;t be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the West county Wastewater District. E. A Park Dedication Fee of$2,000 will be required for all new residential construction. F. Compliance 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 (San Francisco Bay-Region II or Central Valley-Region V) is required for all projects on sites over 5-acres in size. G. Projects within areas shown on USGS maps as a "blue line" waterway, or which include any drainage outfall to a creek may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish&.Game, P. O. Box 47, Yountville,California 94599, if any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish&Game Code. H. Projects within(insert threshold of when/where required)may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicants responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. I. Flood Plain permits are $ 380.00. :drg AAda.pennit.rev (rev.8134194) PERMIT REVIEW APPLICATION Page 7 __ _ _ _ _ . . ......... ......... ......... ......... ....: ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............... ___ __ _ -_.. ..._.... ... ..._..... ......... ......................... ..... ... .. . .... . .......... .......... . .. ........................... ...... ...... 1. 1. I I'll __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ . 1. __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _. __ I'll I'll I'll I'll 1. 1.11 I 11 11 1, 11 I'll, .1111, I I 11 s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNflY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 65 1 INE STREET, N. WING - 4TH FLOOR MARTINEZ, CA 94553 TELEPHONE: 335- 1250 FAX: 335- 1265 TO: Supervisor John Gioia, District 1 FROM: Maureen Toms, Senior Planner ''"1'vt- DATE: February 17, 2000 SUBJECT: Bauman Properties on Brookside Drive As discussed in our meeting last month, Community Development staff and Building Inspection staff have compiled the code enforcement activities for properties located along Brookside Drive, Owned by Mr. Michael Bauman in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County. Specifically, these include parcels 408-190-040, 408-202-005, and 408-202-004. Following is a description of each parcel, and a recap of entitlements and code enforcement issues pertaining to the parcels: Parcel 408-190-040 is a 2.75 acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Central Street, on the north side of Brookside Drive, east of the East Bay Municipal Utility District property. Uses at the site include processing and storage of bulk rock, concrete and wood. Parcel 408-x202-005, directly east of Parcel#408-190-040, is 3.08 acres in sire. It is located on the north side of Brookside Drive, near the northern terminus of Central Street. The northern boundary of the parcel is adjacent to San Pablo Creek. The property is addressed at 113 Brookside Drive, Richmond, CA. Uses at the site include processing and storage of bulk rock, concrete and wood. On February 28, 1991 Bauman Landscape Inc. filed a land use permit application (LP912417) to establish a warehouse/equipment storage, outdoor garage and a fuel area for a landscape contractor's yard on parcels 408-190-040 and 408-202-005 . The application was approved by the County Zoning Administrator on June 17, 1991. The approved plan was for the construction of an 18,704 sq. ft. one-story office/warehouse building, a 6,000 sq. ft. equipment storage building, landscape construction materials storage at the rear of the property and associated parking lot and landscaping. Per provisions of Section 26--2.2014 of the County Ordinance, a land use permit is Supervisor John Gioia February 17, 2000 Page 2 deemed to be exercised, used or established when, within one year of the granting, or within the time otherwise specified in the permit, a building permit is issued by the building inspector for the purpose and location described on the permit. The use permit approved in 1991 is no longer valid since no building permits were obtained by Bauman Landscape Inc. within the one year for the office/warehouse buildings. The concrete crushing and storage business was not approved as part of land use permit#912017. In 1993 (date approximate) Bauman Landscape Inc. began processing concrete at the site. The County Zoning Administrator advised Bauman Landscape Inc. that a land use permit would be required for the rock crushing operation. On September 26. 1995 (continued from August 1, 1995) the Board of Supervisors upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination that the concrete crushing business requires a land use permit. The Board directed Bauman Landscape to file a land use permit application with the Community Development Department or cease and desist the operation within ten days. On November 2. 1995 Community Development staff' advised Building Inspection to begin enforcement action at the site since the Board's mandate was not followed. The property owner also began processing bulk wood material and storing it at the site. On October 27& 1997 another complaint was received. Staff has noted that the condition of Brookside Drive and Central Street had deteriorated substantially. In addition, nearby greenhouse operators have complained about the negative impact that dust from the site has had on their businesses. The property owner had not applied for a land use permit or grading permit for the wood recycling business, tree/stump grinding, storage of large piles of recycled/ground wood and concrete crushing and storage A meeting was held with Mr. Bauman's representative, Building Department and Community Development to review need/requirements for permits on December 3, 1997. On February 25, 1999 a 10-day courtesy letter sent to property owner. A letter was sent on March 5, 1999 from C.C.C. Fire Inspector to W. Bauman notifying him of need for fire fighting apparatus road and an approved water supply system to fight fires. Building Inspection staff met with W. Bauman's representative regarding the land use permit requirement violations on March 23, 1999. A Notice to Comply was sent to Mr. Bauman on June 2. 1999 and a Notice of Violation was recorded on July 22, 1999. The Building Inspection Department sent a letter to the property owner on November 23. 1999, listing a suggested plan of action to bring the property into compliance and asking for a response within 10 days. Mr. Bauman never replied. The continued use of this property does create a nuisance and is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the County. Supervisor John Gioia February 17, 2000 Page 3 Parcel #408-202-004 is a 5.07 acre parcel, located on the northwest comer of Brookside Drive and 3' Street. The majority of the northern boundary is adjacent to a 4.21 acre parcel owned by the Flood Control District and the remainder of the northern parcel boundary is adjacent to San Pablo Creek. The property is addressed at 115 Brookside Drive, Richmond. Uses at the site include the contractor yard for Bauman Landscape and the Simon Truss Company. On March 1, 1995, Bauman Landscape Inc. filed an application for an administrative use permit to establish a contractor yard on a portion of Parcel#408-202-004. Can August 25, 1995 the permit was issued, subject to conditions of approval. The applicant and County staff met on January 25. 1996 to discuss the Conditions of Approval. The outcome of this meeting is recapped in a February 1 1996 letter from the Public Works Department. The required roadway improvements, as conditioned under Permit P1018, for 3`d Street and Brookside Drive, included road dedications, installation of street lights, utility undergrounding, and drainage improvements. In addition, the applicant was to obtain building permits for the modular office placed at the site. On March 13, 1995 Building Inspection received another complaint regarding a mobile home/ trailer(used as a residence) on site without permits. This mobile home was not permitted as part of the land use permit. Notices To Comply were sent to the property owner on March 24, 1995, April 28, 1995 and August 30, 1995. Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12. 1996, that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The required roadway improvements, as conditioned under the permit, for 3`d Street and Brookside Drive have not been done. In addition, no building permits have been issued for the modular office, as required by the County Ordinance(Article 26- 2.2014). The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. The revocation hearing was set for December-28-1997 and has been continued, at staffs request, because the applicant has made some progress(i.e., contracted with an engineer-to prepare improvement plans) toward meeting the conditions of approval. Development Permit #NR.97001D (Michael Woidemar & Associates - Applicant and Nove Investors & Clyde Figone - Owner), for a truck maintenance facility on the southwest comer of Third Street and Brookside Drive, was approved on October 27, 1997. The Conditions of Approval for the Development Permit include the requirement for frontage improvements on Brookside Drive. The property owners of the truck maintenance facility site and Mr. Bauman have reached an "agreement to cooperate'' in sharing the cost of design and construction of the improvements along Brookside Drive. The final agreement was signed.lune 8. 1998. The applicant has accepted a cost proposal for an engineering firm to prepare improvement plans for the frontage improvements. Necessary surveys have been completed and the design engineer is currently working on the improvement plans. Staff from both the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department have been in contact with the design engineer and it is anticipated that the improvement plans will be ready for submittal within a few weeks. Supervisor John Gioia February 17, 2000 Page 4 On March 5. 1999 a letter was sent to Mr. Bauman by C.C.C. Fire District to remove accumulations of trash and rubbish. Staff met with Mr. Bauman's representative on March 23. 1999 regarding Land Use Permit/violations. A Notice to Comply was sent on June 2. 1999. Although the necessary building permits have not been obtained for the modular office at the site, the property owner has obtained information(i.e., Department of Housing Certificate, foundation plans, etc.)needed for the building permits. The Contra Costa County Health Department has performed inspection(including testing) of the septic system in FebruM-of 1999. The testing determined it would be necessary to for the applicant to hook up to the sewer system. On June 17, 1999, a letter was sent to Mr. Bauman by C.C.C. Health Services requiring connection to sewer system with proper permits. On August 13- 1999 a Notice of Violation was recorded. On November 23, 1999, staff sent a letter to the property owner, listing a suggested plan of action to bring the property into compliance and asking for a response within 10 days. Mr. Bauman never replied. The applicant's engineer is also preparing the plans for the hook up and processing the annexation into the West County Sanitation District. Once the sewer is hooked up, the applicant can apply for the building permit. As mentioned above Community Development and Public Works Department staff have been in contact with the design engineer and it is anticipated that the improvement plans will be ready for submittal within a few weeks. The next hearing for revocation is scheduled for the Zoning Administrator on February 29, 2000. Cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board D. Barry, Community Development J. Kennedy, Community Development B. Lee, Community Development C. Baltadono, Building Inspection M. Perez, Building Inspection B. Pierce, Building Inspection GIOIAMEMODOC / CD 00 0NN �w w � a — N f l't ti a 1 q t + S Y '3 AV H3},3Wi3N j ■ . t x � "�'yrl`t• 'p- —� --we�..� .. O' H 20 v y � ;: > ^ --------------------- � ' 1 + a cmaw-y I .7x � Book 408—Block 201 CE�RYRAL 5Y, Book 408-Block 190 —u ' __ fkcm ^ �Y rr L �+YYaYak 13 _ ASS(fSOR'S ASA! :'k•=+.�, Ig r�SY WO+c aoe rwc[r9 COM*u■�srw couaYY,txur. i Office Cif District Attorney Contra Distrkl Garylftoff"Yancey Court House,Fourth Floor Costa P.O.Box 670 Martinez,California 94553-0150 County nth AUGcs Ry r (925)646-4500 00 AUG 2 8 Hi i 1 1: 57 A _ 1 August 22, 2000 Maureen Toms Senior Planner Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Bauman Landscape, Inc. Dear Maureen: Enclosed please find copies of the Complaint, Stipulation, and Consent Decree filed against Michael Bauman and Bauman Landscape, Inc.. If we are able to get compliance in this matter, the various concerns and problems at the site should be solved. If Mr. Bauman fails to comply, he will be facing a contempt of court citation and the imposition of the $250,000.00 civil penalty assessment. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 646-4527. Very truly yours, GARY T. YANCEY District Attorney Jenamesior L. Sepulveda Deputy District Attorney I GARY T. YANCEY, District Attorney County of Contra Costa + 2 James L. Sepulveda, Senior Deputy District Attorney(State Bar 58274) Court House, Room 403,4th Floor 3 725 Court Street; P. O. Box 670 Martinez,California 94553-0150 4 Telephone: (925) 646-4527 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, N'b. 0 0 _ 0 3 0 1 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION, CIVIL 13 V. PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF 14 MICHAEL P. BAUMAN, Individually and Doing Business As BAUMAN LANDSCAPE, INC., 15 and DOES ONE through TEN, Inclusive, 16 Defendants./ 17 18 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through Crary T. Yancey, 19 District Attorney of the County of Contra Costa, allege: 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 1 22 Crary T. Yancey, District Attorney of Contra Costa County, acting to protect the public from 23 unlawful and unfair business practices, brings this action in the public interest in the name of the 24 People of the State of California. 25 II 26 The authority of the District Attorney of Contra Costa County is derived from the statutory 27 law of the State of California, specifically Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 28 17204. 1 1 III 2 Defendants,and each of them, transact business in the County of Contra Costa and 3 throughout the State of California. The violations of law described in this complaint have been 4 and are now being carried out, wholly or in part,within the County of Contra Costa and elsewhere 5 in the State of California. The actions of the Defendants,and each of them,jointly and severally, 6 as set forth below, are in violation of the laws and public policy of the State of California and are 7 inimical to the rights and interests of the general public as consumers and competitors. Unless 8 enjoined and restrained by an order of this Court, the Defendants will continue to engage in the 9 unlawful actions, practices, and courses of conduct set out below. 10 DEPENDANTS I IV 12 Defendant, Michael P. Bauman, is, and at all times mentioned herein was, president and 13 chief operating officer of Bauman Landscape, Inc., located at 115 Brookside Drive,Richmond, 14 California. Bauman Landscape, Inc., is a landscape contracting business duly licensed by the State 15 of California. 16 V 17 DOE Defendants ONE through TEN, inclusive, whose true names, identities and capacities 18 are at present unknown to Plaintiff, are and at all times mentioned herein were officers,directors, 19 shareholders,employees or agents of other Defendants,acting in concert with other Defendants, 20 and are being sued herein in that capacity. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint to add 21 the true names, identities and capacities of said DOE Defendants if and as they become known to 22 Plaintiff. 23 VI 24 Whenever an allegation regarding any act of the Defendants is made herein, such allegation 25 shall be deemed to mean that said Defendants or agents, employees, partners, shareholders, 26 officers or directors of said Defendants did or authorized such acts while actively engaged in the 27 operation, management,direction or control of the affairs of said Defendants and while acting 28 within the scope and course of their employment. i 2 I VIl 2 Whenever an allegation regarding any act of the Defendants is made herein, such allegation 3 shall be deemed to mean the act of each Defendant acting individually,jointly and severally. 4 ACTS OF DEFENDANTS 5 Vill 6 All acts of Defendants alleged in this Complaint began at a date unknown to Plaintiff but 7 have been occurring at least since December 12, 1996 and continue to the time of the filing of this 8 Complaint. 9 IX 10 Defendants have been operating a landscape contracting business on three contiguous 11 parcels of land in the City of Richmond. Parcels 408-190-040 and 408-202-005 have been used 12 for the following operations: rock and concrete crushing, wood chipping, and rock, concrete, and 13 debris storage. The subject parcels are currently being used for wood chipping, and rock, concrete, 14 and debris storage. 15 X 16 Defendants do not have, and have not had, a valid land use permit allowing the business 17 activities described in the paragraph above to take place on the sites listed. Therefore, as owners of 18 the subject property, Defendants have allowed and continue to allow unpermitted, nonconforming, 19 and nonexempt uses to exist on the property. 20 XI 21 Defendants have been operating a landscape contracting business on three contiguous parcels 22 of land in the City of Richmond. Parcel 408-202-004 is also known as 115 Brookside Drive, 23 Richmond, California. Parcel 408-202-004 has been and continues to be used for the following 24 operations: storing, maintaining and repairing trucks, tractors, backhoes, and other vehicles, 25 storing land/sea containers, storing landscaping supplies and materials, placing on-site mobile 26 home type structures to serve as business offices, and general use of the site as a contractor yard 27 for Bauman Landscape, Inc., and Simon Truss Company. 28 I/l/ 3 I Xll 2 An administrative use permit to establish a contractor's yard on parcel 408-202-004 was 3 issued to Defendants on August 25, 1995, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions included 4 roadway improvements for 3rd Street and Brookside Drive, installation of street lights, utility 5 undergrounding,drainage improvements,and obtaining building permits for the on-site mobile 6 home type structures. To date, Defendants have failed to comply with the mandated conditions. 7 XIII 8 The on-site septic tank has failed and is still being used despite mandates from the Contra 9 Costa County Health Department to cease and desist. 10 11 CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Business Practices 12 (Business and Professions Code Section 17200) 13 XIV 14 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth in full herein Paragraphs 15 I through XIII, inclusive, of this Complaint. It is alleged that the acts of Defendant, Michael P. 16 Bauman, individually and doing business as Bauman Landscape, Inc.,as set forth in Paragraphs 17 VIII through XIII, above are in violation of Contra Costa County zoning laws, use permit 18 requirements, and health and safety requirements. Said activity therefore also constitutes an 19 unlawful business practice in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. 20 PRAYER. 21 A. That a permanent injunction issue enjoining Defendants from engaging in, committing 22 or performing, directly or indirectly, or by any means whatsoever, any of the following. 23 Violating Business and Professions Code section 17200 by engaging in any unlawful 24 business practices including, but not limited to, those acts set forth in Paragraphs VIII through 25 XIII of this Complaint; 26 B. That Defendants pay a civil penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) per 27 parcel for each day of unlawful and unfair business practices pursuant to Business and Professions 28 Code section 17206 and according to proof, and in no event less than one million dollars 4 i t I 1 ($1,000,000.00). r I 2 C. That Plaintiff recover its costs incurred in this action; i w t 3 D. And that Plaintiff have such other relief as the nature of the case may require and the 4 Court deems proper to fully and successfully dissipate the effects of the unlawful acts complained 5 of herein. 6 DATED: ( Respectfully submitted, at Martinez, alifornia. 7 GARY T. YANCEY District Attorney 8 9 ( 6icnior es L. Sepulved 10 Deputy District Attorney 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 I GARY T. YANCEY, District Attorney County of Contra Costa 2 James L. Sepulveda, Senior Deputy District Attorney(State Bar 58274) Court House, Room 403,4th Floor 3 725 Court Street; P. O. Box 670 tu'L"J G Martinez, California 94553-0150 4 Telephone: (925) 646-4527 �7 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff r 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 THE PEOPLE.OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT 13 v. DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT 14 MICHAEL P. BAUMAN, Individually and Doing Business As BAUMAN LANDSCAPE, INC., 15 and DOES ONE through TEN, Inclusive, 16 Defendants] 17 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, and Michael P. Bauman, 18 Defendant, hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of the Consent Decree and Final Judgment 19 attached to this Stipulation and incorporated by reference as though set forth in full herein. 20 It is the understanding and intent of the parties that the current land use permit revocation 21 action as to parcel 408202-004 will be deferred to give Defendant an opportunity to comply 22 with the injunctive provisions set forth in the Consent Decree. If Defendant complies with the 23 terms of the Consent Decree, it is the understanding of the parties that the recommendation for 24 revocation of the land use permit for parcel 408-202-004 will be withdrawn. 25 It is the understanding and intent of the parties that if Defendant's land use permit for 26 parcel 408-202-004 is revoked as part of the currently pending land use permit revocation action 27 for any reason other than a failure to comply with the terms set forth in the Consent Decree, 28 Plaintiff will move this Court to have the Consent Decree voided and the case dismissed in its I entirety with prejudice. 2 DATED: August�rn, 2000, at Martinez, Cali oia. 3 JAMES L. SEP DA 4 Senior Deputy Distrit Attorney Attorney For Plaintiff 5 6 7 DATED: August!J, 2000, at Martinez, California. 8 44Vdscape, AUMAN 9 Inc. Defendant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I GARY T. YANCEY,District Attorney' County of Contra Costa 2 James L. Sepulveda, Senior Deputy District Attorney(State Bar 58274) Court House, Room 403, 4th Floor 3 725 Court Street; P. O. Box 670 Z i3 !'-'G' 22 P 1= 9 Martinez, California 94553-0150 4 Telephone: (925) 646-"4527 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff :wC-Al 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 I 1 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 0 0 Noyes 12 Plaintiff, CONSENT DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT 13 v. 14 MICHAEL P. BAUMAN, Individually and Doing Business As BAUMAN LANDSCAPE, INC., 15 and DOES ONE through TEN, Inclusive, 16 Defendants] 17 It appearing to the Court that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the 18 parties, that Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, has filed its Complaint,that 19 Defendant,Michael P. Bauman, has been served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint, 20 that Plaintiff has appeared through its attorney, Senior Deputy District Attorney James L. 21 Sepulveda,that Defendant has appeared by way of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment, and 22 that Plaintiff and Defendant have stipulated to the entry of this Final Judgment without the taking 23 of proof, without trial or adjudication of any facts or issues of law herein, and without this 24 Judgment constituting evidence or admission by Defendant of any act or thing or of any 25 allegation in the Complaint, 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 27 A. As to parcels 408-190-040 and 408-202-005, Defendant, his officers, agents, 28 employees, and representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or participating with the I Defendant with actual or constructive notice of this injunction,are hereby enjoined from 2 engaging in or performing directly or indirectly any and all of the following: 3 Using the subject properties for any use not lawfully permitted under current zoning and 4 other land use laws. Any non-permitted activity currently being undertaken at the sites must 5 immediately cease. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 7 B. As to parcels 408-190-040 and 408-202-005, Defendant, his officers, agents, 8 employees, and representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or participating with the 9 Defendant with actual or constructive notice of this injunction, are hereby mandatorily enjoined 10 to perform the following: 1 I On or before December 1, 2000, all concrete, rock, wood debris, and any other unpermitted 12 material intended to be recycled on the sites shall be removed to an off--site location wherein it 13 would be lawful to store such materials. 14 IT IS FURTHER.ORDERED THAT: 15 C. As to parcel 408-202-004, Defendant, his officers, agents, employees, and 15 representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or participating with the Defendant with 17 actual or constructive notice of this injunction, are hereby enjoined from engaging in or 18 performing directly or indirectly any and all of the following: 19 Using the subject property for any use not lawfully permitted under current zoning and 20 other land use laws. Any non--permitted activity currently being undertaken at the site must 21 immediately cease. 22 IT IS FURTHER.ORDERED THAT: 23 D. As to parcel 408-202-004, Defendant, his officers, agents, employees, and 24 representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or participating with the Defendant with 25 actual or constructive notice of this injunction, are hereby mandatorily enjoined to perform the 26 following: 27 1. By August 31, 2000, comply with the mandates of the Contra Costa County Health 28 Department related to the use of the on-site septic tanks; provide temporary alternative bathroom 2 I facilities for employees consistent with the Health Department requirements, disconnect the 2 subject septic tanks and post a notice on-site that the bathroom facilities are closed; and have.the 3 septic tanks pumped out by a licensed contractor. 4 2. By September 15,2000, submit improvement plans to Contra Costa County Public 5 Works Department. Said plans shall include roadway improvements, including road dedications, 6 installation of street lights, utility undergrounding(if applicable),and drainage improvements. 7 All appropriate fees shall accompany the filing of the improvement plans. After the final 8 approval of said plans, install the improvements within a reasonable time frame to be determined 9 by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. 10 3. By September 15,2000, submit plans to the West County Wastewater District for sewer 11 hook-up. Within 60 days after said plans being finally approved, install the sewer lines and 12 connect to the West County Wastewater District. Within 10 days after connection is made to the 13 sewer, remove the temporary toilet facilities. 14 4. By August 31, 2000, comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Program as it 15 relates to having a filter system for the waste water from truck or other vehicle washing. 16 5. By September 30, 2000,paint the land-sea containers that are used for storage, subject 17 to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 18 6. By October 31, 2000, remove all garbage and other accumulated debris from the site 19 and refrain from any future accumulations of trash and debris on the site. 20 7. By September 30, 2000, apply for building permits for the mobile home type structures 21 that are used for business offices. If structural changes, modifications, or repairs are needed in 22 order to obtain the building permits, make the necessary changes, modifications, or repairs within 23 60 days of being notified of such requirements by the Building Department. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 25 E. Defendant shall allow members of the District Attorney's Office, Community 26 Development, Public Works, and the Health Department to visit on site during regular business 27 hours any of the subject three parcels, without warrant, to inspect records, invoices, and other 28 documents, and the on-site facilities themselves in order to insure compliance with the orders set 3 I forth in this Consent Decree. 2 F. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall prohibit Defendant from using his property in any 3 manner permitted by law, including any use properly permitted by the County of Contra Costa 4 and/or any successor jurisdiction. 5 G. Defendant shall pay, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, a civil 6 penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars($250,000.00). Said penalty shall be made 7 payable to the "Treasurer, Contra Costa County" and shall be delivered to Senior Deputy District 8 Attorney James Sepulveda, Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office, P.O. Box 670, 9 Martinez,CA 94553. Payment of the civil penalty is to be suspended on the condition that the 10 Defendant comply with the orders set forth above. If the Defendant fails to substantially comply 11 with any of the orders set forth above, the suspension is lifted and the civil penalty shall become 12 immediately due and payable. 13 H. Jurisdiction is retained by the Court for the purpose of enabling any party to this Final 14 Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be 15 necessary or appropriate to assure compliance with this Judgment and for the punishment of 16 violations, if any. 17 DATED- 18 :s"t ; OF THE S RIOR COURT 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4