Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12102002 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD n, Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR "' y� County DATE: December 10, 2002 ` SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE A PARCEL FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY (M-29) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4970 BLUM ROAD IN THE UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ AREA, COUNTY FILE #RZ013102, TROY BARTZ (APPLICANT &OWNER)—(DISTRICT II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in Resolution No, 32-2002, to approve the rezoning of a .38-acre parcel from Multiple Family Residential (M-29) to Commercial (C). 2. FIND the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the same. 3. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive reading and set date for adoption of same. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ' - RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 10. 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER See Attached Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II ) 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: John Obornes 925-335-1207 ATTESTED Deember 10, 2002 ©rig: Community development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Troy Bartz(Applicant and Owner) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council City of Martinez File BY Cly JC, ti,. ,DEPUTY December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#Rz013102,#DP013035 Page 2 4. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 32- 2002 as the basis for the Board's action. 5. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant is responsible for cost of processing the rezoning request. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a .38-acre parcel from Multi Family Residential (M-29) to General Commercial (C) to establish consistency with the General Plan Commercial (CO) designation. The site fronts on Blum Road in the Martinez area. The Parcel is a rectangular lot that is .38 of an acre. Currently, this parcel is in the Multi-Family Residential (M-29) zoning district, and the General Plan Designation is Commercial (CO). The zoning districts in the surrounding area consist of Retail Business (RB) to the north and west, and Commercial (C) to the east. The uses in the immediate area are commercial in nature. The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's request on August 27, 2002. The County Planning Commission, after evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, voted to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board of Supervisors and approved the development plan. The Community Development Department has not received any letters from the general public regarding the request to rezone the property. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning recommended by the County Planning Commission. J— ADDENDUM TO 1_TE__N­1 SD.2 December 10 2002 The Clerk of the Board heretofore noticed the hearing before the Board of Supervisors to consider the recommendation of the Contra.Costa County Planning Commission on the application by Troy Bartz i:Applicant and Owner) to rezone a t 6574 square foot parcel, located at 4970 Blum Road, Mart inezPa.checo area, froni Multiple family Residential (M-29) to Oren- al Commercial ( C ?. Dennis Barry: Director, Community Deveiopnnent Department, presented the staff recommendations and described the project. The public hearing, was opened, but there was no one to speak on this matter. The Board discussed the platter and nook the following action CLOSED the public hearing_ ACCO PTED the roc-onitnendation c?fthe County Planning Corm-nission to approve:the rezoning of property located at 4970 Blum Road, unincorpor-_,ateal 'k1artinez area; from w'fultipie Family Residential (M-21,1)to Gene!.,-,I Cominercial (C), found the _ec,afi e Declaration prepared for the project to be adequate for compliance with,the Calif;arn a Environmental Quality Act and adopted the sarne; and F\TROD CED Ordinance 2002- 50 giving effect to the rezoning, W kl\,T;D the reading, and SET December 17; 2002 for adoption. s , z` RESOLUTION NO. 32-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY TROY BARTZ (APPLICANT & OWNER) (RZ013102, DP013035) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Troy Bartz (Applicant & Owner) to rezone a .38—acre parcel from Multiple-Family Residential (M-29) to General Commercial (C) and a Development Plan request for a contractors business with a variance to parking standards was received by the Community Development Department on June 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between October 8, 2001 and October 29, 2001 and the County Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration at their meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on August 27, 2002, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: 1. FINDS that the proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same; 2. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning of the site from the Multi Family District (M-29) to the General Commercial (C) District, and approves the Development Plan for a contractors business: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: A. Rezonin Findings.. 1. Required Finding — The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding — The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan relative to the site, namely that the site has a commercial designation which allows for a broad range of commercial uses. 2. Required Finding — The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The proposed use, a General Contracting business, is compatible within the land use district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. The adjacent districts are Commercial (C ) and Retail Business (R-B). 3. Required Finding — Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: Commercial buildings surround the subject site; therefore, the community has already demonstrated the need for the proposed commercial designation. B. Development Plan Findings The development plan consists of an 1800 square foot office and an 1800 square foot storage building for a General Contracting Business, which is consistent with the district. The two buildings are one story stucco and of contemporary design. The architecture is compatible with other uses in the area, both inside and outside the district. C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project will generate less than 100-peak hour trips and does not trigger a Measure C traffic study. 2. Water: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Water District. 'Water service is available for the project. 3 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Mountain View Sanitary District. Sanitary sewer service is available for the project. 4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District boundaries and the applicant will be required to comply with the District's requirements. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. There will be a minimal impact on public protection in the area since the applicant is proposing to secure the site with fencing. 6. Parks & Recreation: Due to the nature of the project, no park dedication fee is required. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey requirements. D. Variance Findings The public right of way line is 24 feet behind the existing curb, onto the applicant's property. The curb and gutter were installed by the Public Works Department a few years ago and according to the Department they have completed the widening of Blum Road in that area and will not be widening the road up to that right of way line. In addition, the applicant must use the front portion of the lot for parking to comply with the minimum number of parking spaces required for the site. Therefore due to the location of the parcel in relation to the public right of way line the applicant is limited in his development of the property. Consequently the granting of a variance will not result in a grant of special privilege and will meet the intent of the Commercial District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson and Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Clark, Wong, Gaddis,Hanecak, Mehlman, Terrell,Battaglia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Bennis M. Barry, Secretary County of Contra Costa State of California CO Findings Map R •7 Lw aL \ w \Y wYa w wq a+ aw w • wY 4 } f 4S Sq 1 STI`�-iii� /�/y� R•13 \ a k w. Y • a � a� Rezone Prom.,®-29 TO�_ _ MQC`tltle2 _-- Area Pacheco 1, HVawn _Wong Chair of the Contra Costa County , Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correctcopyof 6-13 of the CoutAy15 1978 male -- indicating thereon the decision of the contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter 02 AMR Seaetaty cfiheCaftCostaCaIAY pianningCarnnissim,SteisdCallif. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-50 / —le, v/2 (Re-Zoning Land in the Martinez/Pacheco Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page-__G-13 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by rezoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached hereto and incorporated herein(see also Community Development Department File No. RZO13102 .) FROM: Land use District M-29 ( Multiple Family Residential 1 TO: Land Use District C { General Commercial and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the ,a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia { ) ( ) ( ) { ) 2. G.B Uilkema ( ) { ) ( ) ( ) 3. D.Gerber ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) { ) ( ) 5. Federal Glover ( ) ( ) { ) { ) ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chair of the Board By ,Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 2002-50 RZO13102 Troy Bartz Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Rezoning/Development Plan RZ01-3102/DPO1-3035 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor. Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: John Obome (925)335-1207 4. Project Location: Project is located at 4970 Blum Road in the Martinez area 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Troy Bartz 4970 Blum Rd. Martinez, Ca 94553 6. General Plan Designation: CO,Commercial 7. Zoning: M-29,Multi-family Residential 8. Description of Project: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of a 16,574 square foot parcel from M-29,Multi-family Residential District to C,General Commercial District. In addition, a request to allow a newly constructed one story 1800 square foot storage building with a remodeled one story 1801 square foot office building on the site for a General Contracting business. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by commercial uses and a California Highway Patrol station across the street. 10. Other public agencies whose approval -No approval from agencies outside the County are necessary. is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ Public Services Population&Housing Circulation Utilities&Service Systems _ Geological Problems Biological Resources i Aesthetics ® Water _ Energy&Mineral _ Cultural Resources Air Quality Resources _ Recreation Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards X No Significant Significance _ Noise Impacts Identified x'? Z 1.9- 3 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL RVIPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed u pro osed project. Signature Date ��``�-- - (' CCC Communi Development Department Printed Name For SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System-Quad Sheet Panels -Walnut Creek, CA 2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996) 3. General Plan and Zoning Maps 4. Project Description 5. Zoning Ordinance 6. Site plan 7. Site Visit on July 9, 2001 S`02 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imvact Itirga oration Lniwct 1MRAG EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista?(Source# 1,2,4,7) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, _ X including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(Source# 1,2,3,4,7) C. Substantially degrade the existing _ _ i X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source#1,3,4,7) d. Create a new source of substantial light _ X or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source# 1,4,7) SUN04ARY: The subject property is located on a relatively flat lot and surrounded by commercial buildings with similar height or taller than the existing building in the site. There are three mature trees on the site( Silver Leaf Maple,Modesto Ash and a Date Palm) with a trunk diameter greater than 6.5 inches. No trees are to be removed.The construction of the storage building did not impact any trees. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?(Source#2) b. Conflict with existing zoning for _ _ X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No homt In_cgMoration Itnnact fact agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 2,4,7) C. Involve other changes in the existing i X environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Source#2) SUMMARY: The property is not included in the Williamson Act nor is the site within any agricultural resource. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation _ X of the applicable air quality plan? (Source#2,4) b. Violate any air quality standard or _ _ X contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(Source#2,4) C. Result in a cumulatively considerable _ X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Source#4) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial o _ X pollutant concentrations?(Source#4) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? Source#2,4) SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning will not affect the air quality of the subject site nor the air quality of the area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either _ _ X directly or through habitat modifications, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Implgt IncgMoration Impact impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Source#1,2) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any _ x riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source# 1,2) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?(Source# 1,2) d. Interfere substantially with the movement x of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Source# 1,2) e. Conflict with any local policies or _ x ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source# 1,2,5) f. Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Source# 1,2,4) SUNINJA.R.Y: The site is a developed lot with no evidence of any biological resource. The proposed rezoning or any future proposed development should not affect any biological resource of the subject site. Y. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ x 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Imvact Fact significance of a historical resource as defined in 315064.5`7(Source# 1,2) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ _ X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 315064.5?(Source#1,2) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique e X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source#1) d. Disturb any human remains, including _ X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source# 1) SUMMARY: A memorandum dated July 19, 2001 from the Historical Resources Information System indicated there is a low possibility of historical resources and further study is not recommended. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: 1.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, _ 4 X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source#1,2,) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ X 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including _ X liquefaction?(Source#1,2) 4. Landslides?(Source# 1,2) _ X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil?(Source# 1,2) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is a_ X unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source# 1,2) d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in _ X g Potential Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imnact Inc==tion Impact InWLct Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source# 1,2) e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting _ X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?(Source#1,2) SUMMARY: Because the site is relatively flat,it has been determined that no geo-technical concerns apply to this property. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public _ X or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source#4) b. Create a significant hazard to the public _ _ _ X or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Source#4) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle _ _ _ X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source#2,4) d. Be located on a site which is included on a _ X list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source#2,4) e. For a project located within an airport land _ _ X use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source#2,3) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source# 1,2) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact InCQrporatiM Impact Imnact g. Impair implementation of or physically _ _ X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source#2,4) h. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ X risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source#2,4) SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning and development does not involve the use or transportation of hazardous materials,nor is the site in close proximity to a hazardous materials site. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or i _ X waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies X or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Source#4,6,7) e. Create or contribute runoff water which _ X_ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source#4,7) 2, /i 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incongoratiat Impact m a f. Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source#4) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood _ _ X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source# 1,2) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area m _ X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?(Source# 1,2,7) I. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ X risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or darn? (Source#1,2,4) j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? _ X (Source# 1,2) SUMMARY: The subject site is located within Flood Zone "C" of minimal flooding. The applicant has installed drainage for the site. A memorandum dated August 8, 2001 from the Public Works Engineering indicated the have no comments and no conditions of approval. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? _ _ _ X (Source#4,) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, _ X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source#1,2,4,5 ) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat a_ X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source#2) SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning from M-29, Single-family Residential District to C,General Commercial,is consistent with the existing general plan designation CO,Commercial. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: 1,;2 l Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Lm-2m Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known _ _ X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source#2) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- _ _ X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source#2) SUMMARY: No comment. XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ `X_ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source#2,4) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ X excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(Source#4) C. A substantial permanent increase in _ X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source#4) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase _ X in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source#4) C. For a project located within an airport land _ X use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source#2,4) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private i � � X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source#2,4) SUMMARY.- Blum Road is considered to be a collector street in the General Plan Circulation Element and the site is within the noise level 70 dB. According to the Noise Element of the County General Plan, -21 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Lnjact bkQM=ticn fact act this is the upper limit of the Normally Acceptable range for Commercial Districts and as such any building involved are to be of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Staff observed,during site visit on July 9,2001 at 11:00 AM,that while in the office on the site the noise from the freeway was not detectable. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an _ X area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(Source#4) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing _ i X housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source#4) C. Displace substantial numbers of people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source#4) SUMMARY:No comment. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services(Source#2,4): 1. Fire Protection? _ _ X 2. Police Protection? _ X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? _ X 5. Other Public facilities? X SUMIvi[ARY: This is a proposal to rezone from M-29 to C,General Commercial.The proposed project should not have any potentially significant impact on public services . 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Itrroact Ina Mmitic—n ILtpact Impact XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of _ _ X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source#2,4) b. Does the project include recreational e _ X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source#4) SUMMARY: The proposed project will have less than significant impact on existing recreational facilities. XV. `I'RANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is _ X substantial in relation to the existing traffic — — load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source#4) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,_ _ i X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source# 1) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, — —— X_ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source#4) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design _ X feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? (Source#4) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? _ —X— (Source#4) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? _ _ X_ (Source#4) g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or X 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irnnact Inc poration ImUact Impact programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Source# 1,4) SUMMARY: There are 4 employees of the business that work Monday through Friday from the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00 PM.There are 11 off-street parking spaces provided on site. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements X of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source#4) b. Require or result in the construction of new e X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects?(Source#4) C. Require or result in the construction of new _ X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source#4) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to _ _ X serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed?(Source#4) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater i X treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve The project0s)projected demand in addition to the provider existing commitments?(Source#4) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ X permitted capacity to accommodate the project(s)solid waste disposal needs? (Source#4) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes _ X and regulations related to solid waste? (Source#4) SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning and development will not affect any utility and service systems. Contra Costa Water District and Mt. View Sanitary service the subject site. 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No ITIMut Incc=oration I act Lnlact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade _ X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- _ _ X idually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects _ _ X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning and development project will not have a significant impact on the environment,nor will the project have a significant cumulative impact. 159 150 011 159 150 021 159 210 006 1.; le-ZZI California State Of California State Of Tolbert Hamilton PO Box 7791 Pd Box 7791 4940 Blum Rd San Francisco,CA 94120 San Francisco,CA 94120 Martinez,CA 94553 159210010 159210011 159210011 Eddie Abrao Jr. Forrest Book Inc&DBA J B SERVICE Forrest Book Inc&DBA J B SERVICE 723 Primrose Ln 4960 Blum Rd 4960 Blum Rd Benicia,CA 94510 Martinez,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553 159210012 159210016 159210017 Troy Bartz James&Patricia Cumbra Jr. Robert Foard&Thomas Sullivan PO Box 272861 6552 Northridge Dr 120 S Buchanan Cir Concord,CA 94527 San Jose,CA 95120 Pacheco,CA 94553 159 210 018 159 210 024 159 210 026 Walter&Irene Hardeastle C&M Investors nnWd9 Jr. 4949 Pacheco Blvd 3948 Santa Rosa.Ave t Martinez,CA 94553 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 159 210 026 159 210 026 159 210 026 fnc h& &41 Jr. YCncoWr , 94i2 eld Jr. Joseph&Alma Field Jr. & at opat Cesar&Kath Poropat er 1757 Glazier Dr ,CA 1 Concord,CA 94521 159 210 028 159 210 029 159 210 037 James Hein Cce Employees Assn James&Patricia Cumbra Jr. 1185 Mountain View Blvd P©Box 222 6552 Northridge Dr Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Martinez,CA 94553 San Jose,CA 95120 159 210 038 159 210 039 Primo&Rosemarie Facchini Walter Hardcastle 123 South Ave 4949 Pacheco Blvd Alamo,CA 94507 Martinez,CA 94553 Smodth Feed SheetsTM Use template Tor 5160f . 159 150 011 159 210 006 159 210 010 California State Of Tolbert Grant Hamilton Eddie Abrao Jr. PO Box 7791 4940 Blum Rd 723 Primrose Ln San Francisco,CA 94120 Martinez,CA 94553 Benicia,CA 94510 159210011 159210012 159210016 Forrest Book Inc&DBA J B SERVICE Troy Bartz James&Patricia Cumbra Jr. 4960 Blum Rd PO Box 272861 6552 Northridge Dr Martinez,CA 94553 Concord,CA 94527 San Jose,CA 95120 159210017 159210018 159210024 Robert Foard&Thomas Sullivan Walter&Irene Hardcastle C&M Investors 120 S Buchanan Cir 4949 Pacheco Blvd 3948 Santa Rosa Ave Pacheco,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553 Santa Rosa,CA 95407 159210026 159210028 159210029 Joseph&Alma Field Jr. James Hein&Richard Hein Ccc Employees Assn Cesar&Bath Poropat 1185 Mountain View Blvd PO Box 222 1757 Glazier Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez,CA 94553 Concord,CA 94521 159 210 038 Primo&Rosemarie Facchini 123 South Ave Alamo,CA 94507 Historical Resources Information System Mountain View 1303 Maurice Avenue Sanitation District Mr. Troy Bartz Sonoma State University I PO Box 2757 4970 Blum Road Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 PACHECO MAC Public Works 1230 Temple Drive Building Inspection P INTEROFFICE Engineering Pacheco, CA 94553 INTEROFFICE Sheriff's Office CCC Fire District Admin. ',& Zoning Committee INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE /lay".rfi VE" PROOF OF`PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) aran'efl I ics bar tr°° traast ounty�oard , ho STATE OF CALIFORNIA buc att re to oonnsiYd°r . County of Contra Costa :folIawing�ianning mat- I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Recommendation of the Cant Caeta Cau Plan- County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and ninS mmb}sysi " me . not a partyfa or interested in the above-entitled matter. oa an dra�+neartz iaafltt a awn tem re- {�%!, 4 tt ami I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a es entisl M t�O� . newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at Brat omme Dl1106 2640 Shadefands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County (�R�Zp1}3102); ■ tar ap- of Contra Costa,94598. Plan a f a ant And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of rt an a aim equa na Oea Bd general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of to derretftFlflppq ab"u� Contra Cosh, State of California, under the date of October fwotek w1i n theidrt line ar 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. severalag� In qaudd trona, th to The notice, of which the annexed is a printed cop y (set inrig cx�vehtpc° �so type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in each ! 3 hr of way regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not In any The Iaaatlo�Ithln of the sub' t supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: r Fporat property e o cunt+ November 20 EF !F fl i t MW Rl�omaiaw, all in the year of 20102 r°preo�se d riptia+� t ceot�e factor of I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the mtyunity Ad eril foregoing is true and correct. Bu(Idlri0, MeZ Z,Cirai r- Executed at Walnut Or Callfomi �'a°e7oiurtr Ram In tt°1e On is 2/j7 day of No m r, 2002 1%tinewPacheao ores. f' if vyau Challanaa this matter In"Court ou may bs 11 t- ....... .. ad to FaIN only tP a°4 Ia- si atur surala'ac Mt�eorrlb Rte24" Co tra Costa Times neo r 0 dara�d�°d'e' P O Box 4147 notice,or In written coma- Walnut Creek,CA 94596 nos del red to the 925 935-2525 ty at ng r to,the ( } public hearing. Proof of Publication of: mruunn to�1°ave�,�nt�se"t- (attached Is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) nt staff IE be avali- la bony da �En; ay.m.In Ro +1 t Ad- t'wi a�° stall wer begvunar )(1 thtie ea mt�b°Ifla oonaal tnp Baan and(4) {t�Favi atr ap pity to want Fos flr namaw mIin rnfrtdri6M.ttwMoh Ce- sput }Kau.wish to att this mea q woihth ttommf��f, dpi as°n�[ - SW'Ten� vby 'JO' ber p, am- 2�t to oa'' rm your P JIM6 Date:November 13,2002 MAfil1 AP AP AOHfOO John S�wfegetuteonne Clerk of the NOTICE Is herob�y ghro &SatyAdrflinietratcrand �t2 an g. mgrs 1 By b!dine Martin, Rood i10a7tiftthe Oda, t}y, {chiieaf{ lerfc � eat Pin°Street,(Cornee b4 Publish CNlavembar.20,