The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 11062007 - D.1 • F f. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, A.ICPT` s o.,+..�;;.�..�,._ :> Costa County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF A PARCEL, APPROXIMATELY 9,800 SQUARE FEET FROM D-1 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO N-B (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) AT 61 ARTHUR ROAD WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MARTINEZ. COUNTY FILE#RZ05-3159,JAMES M.T. CHAO (APPLICANT) AND RJRB ENTERPRISES (OWNER) (DISTRICT II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMNVIENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the rezoning. B. ADOPT the Negative Declaration as adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as recommended by the County Planning Commission. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMI717FRATOR—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ✓PPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): - 4r� _1/ ACTION OF BZ7 ON Na v G V,:�07 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED )e' O R_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND jO UNANIMOUS(ABSENTS 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: Christine Louie 335-1237 ATTESTED cc: Public Works JOAN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF James M.T.Chao SUPERVISO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection BY WePUTY November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors County File RZ05-3159 Page 2 C. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission,as contained in Resolution No. 16-2007, to rezone from a Two Family Residential (D-1)to Neighborhood Business(N- B). D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No.2007-32 giving effect to aforesaid rezoning,waive reading,and adopt the ordinance. E. ADOPT findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-2007 as the basis for the Board's action. F. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. I.I. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the development application. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 9,800 square feet of a 36,547 square foot (0.84 acre) parcel from D-1 to N-B to establish consistency with the General Plan designation of Commercial. As shown on the attached general plan and zoning maps,the subject parcel located on the northeast corner of Pacheco Boulevard and Arthur Road is adjacent to Commercial designated land on the north side of Arthur Road. The majority of the property is developed with an existing gas station, mini mart, and car wash which will remain. The area proposed for rezoning is located in the northern portion of the subject parcel. In 1971,a portion of the property was rezoned to allow for a gas station. The applicant is proposing to rezone the remaining portion of the parcel to N-B.. The applicant has separately filed for a 1,462 square foot retail and office use on the portion that is proposed for rezoning. The applicant's request was heard by the County Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. The County Planning Commission approved the development plan proposal and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board of Supervisors. Although the existing portion of the parcel is paved and filled with debris, the approval of this rezoning will allow for the clean up of this area. The proposed area for rezoning is the only portion of the lot and Commercial designated general plan area which is not zoned consistent with the General Plan. November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors County File RZ05-3159 Page 3 The Community Development Department has not received any letters from the general public in opposition to the request to rezone the property and approve the development plan. IV. Environmental Review Staff has determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and proposed adoption of a Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A Notice of Intent was posted with the County Clerk on February 22, .2007 with the public comment period ending on March 14, 2007. No letters or comments were received in response to.this notice. V. County Planning Commission Hearing The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's rezoning and development plan request on July 24, 2007. After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, the Commission unanimously voted to approve final development plan and recommended approval of the rezoning. Following the Commission action, no appeals were timely filed on the development plan. The only matter.before the Board is the proposed rezoning: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning from D-1 to N-B. ro • Q o; C) rf/ ' p d \ UN/TSO @ Sz, dry p' 6 Z� Y u T co � Ss� 0 0 tel, ------------ o � I j.. H. Q = ' bio �;,' � pv. b 04 14 4-4 CCS O cd..,. : E.i s-i �+' O. "� ., Ott 4`'' u, �; "C:7 t O Qi U" +'J v 45,. U ami O G v o: 4. �, . O �.. .. a v 4,W 4.4 Il 14� • �+-� E.0o w � a " .. 'int ��yy ,�' Q � yy . ^+ �'' � p. a '. � ,�_ x� �,. •' w �.•j, }C�IF y,,, c o .. y may" pq y 4 a. v u v . u I,. Ia O.: a.. .�. .p : . CU 'o kil Cts r�"�tt v •~: r .a �. o v . ;� '' ' 5 f tiv ..yy C G .,O NLa1'S �Z053159/DP053029 Genera� Ran Map q hglerso hw ay C SI-I v �C m` LI �a � � s - I SITE -� c0 Legend Site Parcels D SH ML MH CO Ll AL DPS D AL Feet Map created 6/14/2007 by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 0 87.5 175 350 525 700 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. RZ053159/DPO53.029 Zoning Map O ,mss: j M-29 SITE a;�r4 . f - Legend Site Parcels ": ktqpn = X. XxZoning q► '= ® R-6 D-1 M-29 A,2 ® A-4 0 N-B R-B C a -, N � P-j A-4 Map created 6/14/2007 Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GI5 Group 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 0 87.5 175 350 525 700 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. r•----.'-__-•�--;,:,�----� , .'�(� i- �.... �"">.'� -•-mow ��---l�-L,; i' 1 f v^'`�.r i. � ••«�'-!.",X;ID�t1 F �`J o t ...� I(r \- _ �.. .L+ �j r _,',. 41 lb rA ISW Co It _ it i.f• �+ c.�w .� ,{ •�.� /� � I • iSite la�-r ' t 9 , �^ of 1 r r. �j i 1 ii i ii �• t;• - -_�� mltfl �' r t a Iv z z a o tn v 00 — — — — e •OAIB 003HObd - — — — N a " " m cr Cif < 4! a •OD�Y9N '� —�— — ,�— —� _ -T Q V •a_--'V i 1 ei Gi d� d — — — — — — — — — t I F 1 t 1 + �..r i 1 1 ! ! t � 9YrLi •.zaOd9N f 7d i t T � erR 000 38 Y>l 1 1 1 aacn � ao'ss w 8 009 $ fV 1 i 1LOVEa.taad9M "' 11 ►— 1 t WE � ad R J 00 M ~ N N in = �ZJ-1Cs. / ) Q' Q st t74 M i S CY In CV eF• alit G t 1 R , 2 t9'9Zt � OOI 06 , 1 N 1 . 1 t99tL 001 a6 .M z9'tot 3.11M tt S (5). R 3.t4N WEE 911 1� gg OL n R N w at o,', p3( 15028 o ;6 a ,o 09 R �� R s11yyy$ St � Cf�jt�$ ,e n.aria.ow ULU g R L/- R �e SLI-"" 16 asi O ' 22215 r rn rvnuame A 12TH U.iz P OAD oX b I LZ In 0 •� m T Q T ` m b 17 i 'F�005 - ....___-_.- ._._.... .. �JAMES M.T. CHAO, ARC HITECT 1136 ErrB AMMIC, BERKELEY, CAUFORMA 94M-1607PlXl�f1SG 76 Gas ld:(sl6)su-ors? r..:(slo)e4s9sm eman:l•mnmece..�m.cem :.6.I W'jHUIr' Koh'l? coplF.F'6951R CoUUTY;rJ:aF. 1 1 i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i1 i ti i i 1 5 1 1 ti 1 1 1 :i 1 1 1 i 1 i i 1 0 1 .. t i - , 1 1 `1 1 1 1 y t . _ '. 1 .. 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 i rnn+wuaw . L7 I . I , LL- O 7z..,.... .. O I I' o ^ I . i _ Im1 \1 o a ' g 1 - • SCJ'_= r . a D B f �O�D�J� ZOuI1G(I��T =NL- t cor. � JAMES M.T. CHAO, ARCHITECT m m .► ° D � �1116 KA'fH AYBIlU6, BBR68I8Y• CALIPORMA }1701-If07 m P �a z of EXIJ"fIIJG 76 CakD::°�TTIDIJ teL(S10)SNN 0151 =:<s1o, sasol em.B ,.�lt6,e@mmcam N o TIE nN4�E11S{v®mo so�m 101EA NE na rR7EAn or nE wncim,w aul,xar M lE�,wnaeon w 3 �, M AX-THUK F-OAP,.CQIylKA:GiOetrr"-6OUtXT-r)).-CA :IF �.,m. PUFOUM f 7 i i _ � , � i i I i 1 I ' I 1 I . 1 I t 1 1 I J� 1 i 5 5 i 1 1 fi f 1 I I 1 }� 1 i 1 j . . �; _ ; . . { I i f { 1 1 ; rNy M e \ aN t { �14 a , ;]� m Te vn INA A i n m T"s oa b.( , y rna Q \ , \ � J a +/ , ;►-� +� \ 310 I(P �^ R`13Ms ly 1. r i; �•' ` J °e � �O i'• .ter'"� ,mc .I•, t r IF vm i. p � Z s rp . o € QT JAMES M.T. CHAO, ARCHITECT EXI,�TIIJG G1k5 STf�TIOIJ ,CAR .�fe.R.,...; , ,.�._«, WASH � W C nanrvaaa�aoesoeraowM�mva arenlwasotrter n[wrrmnoa+auam a9aamwnnmw Co � e 1 1 1 1 1 h i h S � 1 1 1 , , h 1 � 1 � 1 1 �, 1 � 1 i i 1 1 t 1 1 � 1 h hh _ � h 1 h i 1 i � t t � h 1 1 � 1 1 h i h 1 h t y t h � � __ h, �, i 1 h �. 1 � , h 1 A � 1 1 1` h 1 h 1 � � `' I � 1 1 1. ,, 1. 1 ,, 1 h 1 1 1 '1 y i � ' i a ti t i. h 1 i 1 � 1 1 �` 1 1 1 ,1 1 t 1 1 t h County Planning Commission Resolution No. 1672007 RESOLUTION NO. 16-2007 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND APPROVAL OFA DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY JAMES M.T. CHAO (APPLICANT) AND RJRB ENTERPRISES (OWNER) (COUNTY FILES RZ05-3159 AND DP05-3029) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, on April 8, 2005 the Contra Costa Community Development Department received a request by James M. T. Chao (Applicant) to rezone approximately 9,800 square feet of a 36,546 square foot parcel from Two-Family Residential (D-1) to Neighborhood Business (N-B) and approve a Development Plan to establish a retail and office building on a portion of the parcel; 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 February 22, 2007 and March 14, 2007 and the Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration at their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 2007; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfiilly given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007, where.all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 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 Two Family Residential (D-1) to Neighborhood Business (N-B) District; 3. APPROVES the development plan for the retail and office building, contingent upon the Board approving the rezoning: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 2 A.. REZONING FINDINGS: 1. Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (1): The changed proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The proposed rezoning from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N.B (Neighborhood Business District) is consistent with the CO (Commercial) General Plan designation, whereas the existing D-1 Zoning District is currently not consistent with the General Plan designation. 2. Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (2): The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district area compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The retail and office uses proposed are permitted and compatible uses within the N-B (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Additionally; the proposed development is surrounded by a wide variety of uses that include residential, industrial, and retail commercial uses. The proposed development is located across the street from an R-B (Retail Business) Zoning District, and shares the site with an existing gas station, mini mart with take-out food, and car wash. 3. Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (3): Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding The proposed development is an infill project within an urbanized area. The property is currently a vacant piece of land located between a commercial use and a residential area. The proposed rezoning and development o/• the site for commercial use will bring the property into con forinity with the General Plan and are compatible uses with the existing comniercial activity on the property. B. DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS: 1) That the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The proposed development includes the rezoning of the site to N-B (Neighborhood Business) from D-I (Two-Family Residential), and the construction of a retail and office building which requires approval of a development plan to ensure consistency with the Zoning and General Plan. The proposed development furthers the intent of the General Plan by proposing commercial. uses on the property which are permitted uses within the N-B Zoning District. 2) That the proposed project, as conditioned, is architecturally compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. The proposed retail and office building shares the property with an existing gas station, mind mart, and,car wash. The design of the building is consistent with the appearance and design of the existing mini mart and gasoline station. The. surrounding commercial uses include an existing shell station: with mini mart, and various industrial uses to the south and east of the property. 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, July 24, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Wong, Murray, Battaglia, Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: Clark, Gaddis, and Terrell. ABSTAIN: None Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary County of Contra Costa State of California Rezoning Ordinance No. 2007-32 Findin s. Map p -='-_.-_// \` `/Q`a-O.Q .�n:.`.•\\ fry .� ..\ \ ® a, 40 y R"g 6 N B he Ivd A-2 -X �® D Rezone from D-1 to' N-B Martinez Area I, Hyman Wong Chair of the Contra Costa County P/arming Commission, State of California do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of page F-13 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of James M.T. Chao - RZ- 053159 ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa County . Planning Commission, State of Calf. Conditions of Approval Findings RZ05-3159&DP05-3029 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILES RZ05-3159 & DP05-3029 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 24, 2007 A. Growth Management Element Performance Standards 1) Traffic: The proposed project would generate fewer than 100 a.m. or p.m. peak-hour trips. Therefore, preparation of a traffic report pursuant to the Measure C-1988 requirements isnot necessary. 2) Water: The site is within the service area of the Contra Costa Water District. The District currently provides water service to the site and there is no proposed change in service. 3) Sanitary Sewer: The site is within the service area of the Mt. View Sanitary District. The District currently provides sewer service to the site and there is no proposed change in service. 4) :Fire Protection: The site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. 5) Public Protection: The Growth Management standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff's station area and support facilities for every 1,000 members of the population. The proposed commercial development does not increase the residential population within the area. 6) Parks and Recreation: The project does not include a residential element and therefore would not affect parks and recreational facilities. 7) Flood Control and Drainage: The site is located within Flood Zone A, a'100-year flood hazard area. The applicant must obtain a Flood Plain Permit, and comply with the Public Works Department's Flood Control Ordinance and drainage requirements. B. Rezoning Findings 1) Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (1): The changed proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The proposed rezoning from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District) is consistent with the CO (Commercial) General Plan designation, whereas. the existing D-1 Zoning .District is currently not consistent with the General Plan designation. 2) Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (2): The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district area compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The retail and office uses proposed are permitted and compatible uses within the N-B (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed development is surrounded by a wide variety of uses that include residential, industrial, • COA-1 Findings RZ05-3159& DP05-3029 and retail commercial uses. The proposed development is located across the street from an R-B (Retail Business) Zoning District, and shares the site with an existing gas station, mini mart with take-out food, and car wash. 3) Required Finding: Section 26-2.1806 (3): Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. The proposed development is an infill project within an urbanized area. The property is currently a vacant piece of land located between a commercial use and a residential area. The proposed rezoning and development of the site for commercial use will bring . the property into conformity with the General Plan and are compatible uses with the existing commercial activity on the property. C. Development Plan Findings 1) That the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The proposed development includes the rezoning of the site to N-B (Neighborhood Business) front D-1 (Two-Fantily Residential), and the construction of a retail and office building which requires approval of a development plan to ensure consistency with the Zoning and General Platt. The proposed develop»tertt fisr-thers the intent of the General Plan by proposing contntercial uses on the property which are permitted uses within the N-B Zoning District. 2) That the proposed project, as conditioned, is architecturally compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. The proposed retail and office building shares the property with an existing gas station., mini mart, and car wash. The design of the building is consistent with the appearance and design of the existing mini mart and gasoline station. The surr•ozrnditig conunercial uses include an existing shell station with mini mart, and various industrial uses to the south and east of the property. COA-2. Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Approval 1. This permit is approved to allow the rezoning of 9,800 square feet of the subject property from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business) District, establishment of a 1,128 square foot retail space and 334 square foot office space This approval is based on the following exhibits and is subject to the conditions contained herein: a. Plans received by the Community Development Department on April 8, 2005. Application Fees 2. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $6,113.00, which was paid with the application submittal, and time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fees due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS Condition of Approval Compliance 3. At least 15 days prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an application for Condition of Approval Compliance. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000.00 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Submittal for this application shall.include a checklist describing how each condition of approval has been satisfied, along with applicable proof that each condition has been satisfied (i.e. documentation,plans, photographs, etc.). This application will remain active throughout the life of the project and additional submittals will be required to ensure compliance with each phase of development (grading, building), as described below. Compliance with those conditions administered by the Public Works Department need not be included as part of this application. COA-3 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised floor plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator which clearly shows the final floor plan and architectural design of the building, any grading that may occur on the property, landscaping, and parking for the site. The roofs, exterior walls, color, and design of the building should complement the surrounding development and terrain. Off-Street Parkin 5. The development as proposed will require a total of 13 spaces, minimum size of 9 feet by 19 feet. A final parking plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Landscaping Plans 6. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever occurs first, a landscaping plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Landscaping shall conform to the Water'Conservation Landscaping in New .Developments ordinance (County Code Chapter 82-26) and the Off.-Street Parking ordinance (County Code Chapter 82-16). Landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall include a certification that the plan is in compliance with the ordinance. This certification shall appear as a statement on the face of the plans and shall be accompanied the landscape architect's wet stamp and signature. Landscaping must be installed prior to final " building inspection. 7. Existing Trees to be Preserved--Proposed improvements within the.driplme of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements — The planting of up to three (3) trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Security Amount —.The security shall provide for all of the following costs based on an estimate prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect or landscape contractor: COA-4 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 • A labor and materials estimate for planting the four (4) 15-gallon size trees and related irrigation improvements prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and • An .additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance of a Security- The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The security shall be retained by the County tip to 24 months following the completion of the construction work. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to remain have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 6 months prior to the applicant's request for their return of security, the applicant must demonstrate that the trees proposed for preservation have not been damaged from construction activity, and submit evidence relating to the health of the trees to the Community Development Department. Design Review 8. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the design, colors and types of materials for any proposed walls shall be submitted for the .final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant should be prepared to submit material samples upon request. The applicant shall construct a wall or fence that complies with the provisions of Chapter 82-16.012 (11) as follows: A six feet height, solid fence or masonry wall of acceptable. design, shall be provided along the . edge(s) of any public parking areas adjacent to residentially zoned property to protect these residential properties from the interruption and nuisances of the vehicles using the parking areas. A wall or fence that is acceptable to the neighboring residential property may be approved subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 9. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, a sign program shall be submitted showing the design, colors and locations of all proposed signs for the final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Accessory signs having more than forty square feet in surface area, or are more than twenty-five feet in height, or that are rotating, flashing or animated will require a Land Use Permit application. 10. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, exterior lighting designs shall be submitted for the final review and approval of the Zoning COA-5 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 Administrator. The submittal shall include a phototnetric site plan. Lighting design and layout shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 82- 16.012 (7) of the County Code. New lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and shielded, utilizing motion detection systems where appropriate and shall not unnecessarily "wash out" onto adjacent properties. Those fixtures that are intended to be lit for long periods of time shall utilize low-pressure sodium lamps or similar devices that are long-lasting and energy efficient. Lenses and bulbs shall be recessed and shall not project below any light fixtures, including those on the bottom of the fuel canopy. Floodlights are prohibited. GENERAL CONDITIONS Construction Requirements and Restrictions 11. At least one week prior to commencement of construction activity, the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, construction traffic and vehicles, and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. 12. All constntction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and the following state and federal holidays: New Year's Day (State and Federal) Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) These restrictions shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. COA-6 ' Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 The following websites provide details on the actual days that the state and federal holidays occur: Federal Holidays: http://www.opni..ov/fedhol/ Cali fornia Holidays: llttp://www.edd.ca.,gov/eddsthol.htni 13. Transporting of trucks and heavy equipment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. These restrictions shall be stated on the face of all constriction drawings. 14. No parking or material stockpiling shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree intended for preservation. These restrictions shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 15. The applicant shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. This requirement shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 16. The applicant shall require the contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition. This requirement shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 17. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. This restriction shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 18. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction equipment shall be parked onsite. These requirements shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 19. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be removed as necessary. Following cessation of construction activity, all constriction materials and debris shall be removed. These requirements shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 20. The site shall be watered throughout the day in order to minimize the .amount of dust and particulates in the air resulting from construction. This requirement shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. 21. Dump .trucks entering and exiting the site shall be covered when hauling loose materials. This requirement shall be stated. on the face of all construction drawings. 22. Loose dirt particles tracked onto neighboring properties and public rights-of- way shall be swept and collected as necessary. This requirement shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings. COA-7 ,, ;, :` t, �` . . 't ,t 't . ,{ t `� �, �, �, . . , ,' �, 1 1 ;' t • Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 Archaeology 23. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site activity, earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had- an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 24. Should human rernains be discovered, construction work shall be stopped and the coroner shall be contacted immediately, per Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e). CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised plan submitted to Community Development on April 8, 2005. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: General Requirements 25. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted, if necessary, to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the Conditions of Approval of this Development Permit. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Roadway Improvements (Frontage) 26. .- The proposed northerly driveway on Arthur Road shall be shifted to the north to line up with the 20-foot on-site roadway behind the retail and office building in order to eliminate the "jog" around the proposed retail and office building and providing a straight path of travel. 27. Any cracked and/or displaced curb, gutter,.and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Arthur Road. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. Access to Adjoining Property COA-8 • Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 .Proof of Access 28. _ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 29. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application-and Permit Center for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Arthur Road. 30. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit, if necessary, from Caltrans for construction within the State right of way (Pacheco Boulevard off-ramp). Sight Distance 31. Applicant shall provide sight distance at all driveway locations and' the return for a through traffic design speed of 35 miles per hour on Arthur Road and 45 miles per hour on Pacheco Boulevard. .Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or any other obstructions must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Pedestrian Facilities 32. Applicant shall improve the existing curb ramp or, if necessary, construct a new curb ramp at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Arthur Road and the Pacheco Boulevard off-ramp to conform with current County curb ramp standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on the curb ramp. 33. Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and pedestrian ramps. Utilities/Undergrounding 34. Any new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Parking 35. The proposed parking stalls located at the northwest corner of the property shall be shifted towards Arthur Road as much as possible to provide for a greater stall depth to insure appropriate separation from the on-site roadway and parked vehicles. COA-9 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 Drainage Improvements Collect and Convcy 36. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that 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 a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Exception The applicant shall be permitted an exception from the collect and convey requirements of the County Ordinance Code, provided the applicant does not create more than 1,500 square feet of impervious surface, there are no known drainage problems, the existing drainage pattern is maintained and concentrated storm water runoff is not disposed onto adjacent properties. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 37. This project is subject to the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. As part of these requirements this project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design of this project, implement them and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all treatment BMPs. Exception 38. This project does not trigger Provision"C.3" in the NPDES Permit because the proposed project will not create or replace at least one acre of impervious surface. However, this project is still subject to the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 39. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 40. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 41. 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 COA-10 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay or Central Valley Region). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stop i water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stenciling advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains. - Filtering Inlets. - The applicant shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least once a year between September I" and October 15`h utilizing a vacuum type sweeper. Verification (invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553 - Store oils/Fluids in a covered area. - Develop an employee training and education program to inform employees of the need for the reduction in pollutants leaving the site, and to inform them of appropriate methods of handling potential contaminants. - Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities. - Slope pavements to direct storm water runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. - Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales. - Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department ADVISORY NOTES A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90)-day period, in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was 'approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. COA-11 Conditions of Approval DP05-3029 B. The applicant must comply with the Building Inspection Department requirements. C. The applicant must comply with the Public Works Department requirements. D. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The District submitted the following comments: 1. The developer shall submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications of the subject project, including any required built-in fire protection systems, for review and approval prior to construction to insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (103.3.2.4) CFC 2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum. fire flow of 1500GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than two (2) hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds . residual pressure in the main (903.3) CFC This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 3. The developer shall provide one (1) hydrant of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three (3) copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2) CFC 4. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 5. The buildings as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13. Submit two (2) sets of plans to this office . for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC E. The applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. G. The subject property is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. A Flood Plain Permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for construction within a flood zone area. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\R7.0-iO3l59_DP0503029_COA.doc COA-12 California Environmental Quality Act Determination AlCP Community Contra Dennis Barry, 1 Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building ' 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez;California 94553-1229 --`'-- '. :1_r g�=;; :- _ire r�� ,..� ,.. . Phone: (925) 335-1312 DATE: February 22, 2007 rr --- NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #DP053029 and #RZ053159 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: JAMES M.T. CHAO (Applicant), RJRB ENTERPRISES(Owner), County File #DP053029 and County File #RZ 053159: The applicant.requests approval of a development plan to construct a building for retail and office use. The applicant is also requesting to rezone a portion of the property from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District). The property is addressed #61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. (Zoning N-B/D-1) (ZA: F-13) (CT: 3200.01) (APN: 380-051-034). The proposed development will not result in significant environmental impacts. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents Extends to 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, March 14, 2007. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to.the following address: Candida Wensley F Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor EB 2 2 2007 Martinez, CA 94553 S.L. WEIR, COUfdi YCLERK C OST COUNTY B DEPUTY - It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission,on April 24, 2007. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. Can ida Wensley Project Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) PYEnvironmental Checklist Form FILE CO 1. Project Title: County File"DP05302 and RZ053159 ?. Lead Agency Name and Address:' Contra Costa County Community Development Department 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Candida Wensley, Project Planner (925)335-1312 4. Project Location: The parcel is located northeast of the intersection of Arthur Road and the Pacheco Boulevard off-ramp, on 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. APN: 380-051-034 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: James M.T. Chao 1 136 Keith Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial (CO) 7. Zoning: Currently D-1 (Two-Family Residential), but applicant is applying to rezone the parcel to N-B.(Neighborhood Business District). 8. Description of Project: The applicant proposes to establish a development plan approval for a retail office building and to rezone the D-1 (Two-Family Residential) portion of the site to N-B (Neighborhood Business.District). A gas station, mini-mart, and car wash already exist on the site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site .is bounded by a D-1 (Two-Family Residential) district. an L-I (Light Industrial) district, and an R-B (Retail Business) district. The area is highly urbanized and is ver; close to Highway 680. 10. Other public a=encies whose approval Contra Costa County Public Works Department. is required (e.g. Department of permits, financing,approval, County or participation agreement): ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impaot that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/ _ Public Services Population and Circulation _ Utilities S Service Housing Biological Resources Systems Geological Problems _ Energy R Mineral _ Aesthetics _ Water Resources _ Cultural Resources Air Quality _ Hazards and hazardous Recreation Mandatory Findings of Materials Significance Noise 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. 1 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: 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least one effect' (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant .unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially si_nificant 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 upon the proposed project. Siunature Dat Candida.Wenslev_ Project Planner Contra Costa Count, Community Development Department 1 GACurrent P �T ? .initial lanntn�\Fee Ot•dtnance�curr-p]an`�DPO��U 9 .doc 3 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 2nd Floor- North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: 1. The Contra Costa County General Plan(January.2005). . 2. Title 8 Planning and Zoning Ordinance. 3. Site visit conducted April 2005. 4. CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3). 5. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000 map. 6. Project description and site plan submitted April 8, 2005. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, December 1999. 8. Memo from Mt. View Sanitary District prepared by Randolph W. Leptien, dated May 5, 2005. 9. Memo from the Contra Costa County Public Works Department prepared by Keith Hoey dated May 11, 2005. ..10. 2002 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites (Cortese C) List—State of California. 11. Contra Costa Flood Zone Rate Insurance Map—Panel 0175B. 12. Memo from Building Inspection Department dated May 9, 2005. 13. Environmental Noise Analysis for 76 Gas Station Carwash Addition Project, conducted by Bollard &: Brennan, Inc. on September 22,2004. 14. Contra Costa Water District Interim Service Area Listed Species and Potential Habitat Map, June 2000. 15. Cortese List, compiled by the State of California and identifying sites which contain hazardous materials, 2002. 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated . ITmact irmact I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 3) X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(Source: 3) X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?(Sources: 3, 6) X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare thai would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 6) X SUMMARY: Less Than,Significant Impact a) No scenic vistas are located in the area. b) No scenic resources are located at the site or in the immediate vicinity. C) The site does not contain much existing visual character. It is a paved vacant infill lot in a flat urbanized area that is bounded by industrial development and is close to Highway 680. d) The building will be closed at night, and would be built in an already well-lit urbanized area. Glare would not be an issue, and neither would day or nighttime views. Il. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, .Unique Farmland, 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: 5) X . b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract'? (Sources: 1, 2, 5) X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature,.could result in conversion of farmland. to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 5, 6) X SUMMARY: No Impact a -c) The site isnot located in a farmland area. Instead, it is a small parcel located in an urbanized area in the vicinity of Highway 680. The lot is currently vacant, but is already paved, and has no chance of becoming or affecting farmland. III. AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 6, 7) X J 1 i r Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Inn33Cl Incoroonted Imoacl Irrmact b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ' existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 6, 7) X c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 4, 6,7) X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Sources: 1, X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 3) X SUMMARY: No Impact a j' The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b-c) The retail and office building would not release any criteria pollutants or contribute to any air quality violations. d) No sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the project. e) The retail and office building would not release objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect; either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: X 3; 6) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or reuional plans, policies, regulations or by the California-Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 14) X C. Have a substantial adverse effect on 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) . X d. Interfere substantially with the movement 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?(Sources: 1, 14) X 6 Potentially Significant Potentially finless Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Fact incorporated Impact Impact e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Sources: 2, 6) X f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat . conservation plan? (Source: 1) X SUMMARY: No Impact a—b) The infill lot is within an area that is already urbanized and does not contain.significant wildlife populations. C) The site is not within a wetland area. d) See above..(a-b). e) The proposal does not conflict with any such policies or ordinances. fl There is no:such plan for this area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Source: 1,3) X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Source: 1,3) 'X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? (Sources: 1 _) X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1, 3) X SUMMARY: No Impact a-d) The infill lot is already paved and in an urbanized area, and therefore a building upon it will not disturb any human remains or have an adverse effect upon any archeological, historical, or paleontological resources. i 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: j 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 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 i 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact Incomorated I rrmact Imnact Publication 42. (Source: 1) X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?(Source: 1) X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?(Source: 1). X 4. Landslides? (Source: 3) X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 1) X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 1, 3) X d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source: 1) X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 6) X SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a) 1. There are no faults which go through the site, however there are faults nearby as with the rest of the Bay Area. 2-3.The San Francisco Bay Area is a region of high seismic activity and the proposed development could be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. The General Plan's Safety Element indicates that the site is in an area of"lowest damage susceptibility" from ground shaking because the site lies on hard bedrock: This could still be viewed as a potentially significant impact. However, conformance with the California Uniform Building Code would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level because the proposed structures must be designed to withstand the potential threats posed by the site conditions. 4. The site is flat and would not be susceptible to landslides. b) The site is paved and no longer covered by topsoil. C) See"a).2-3." above. d) See "b)"above. e) The operation would not involve septic tanks. . VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: a. Create a si;nificant hazard . to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal.of hazardous materials? (Source: 6) X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involvine the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Source: 6) X C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 8 Potentially Sirnificant Potentially finless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact Irrmact acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 1, 6) X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 15) X e. For a project located within an airport land 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: 1) X f. For a.project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?(Source: 1) X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Sources: 6) X It. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 3) X SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a -d) The retail and office building would not involve hazardous materials or emissions. e-f) The site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. g) The project should not interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) The project'is in an urbanized area and paved by asphalt, and will not increase,the risk of fire in the surrounding area. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 6) X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharne such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local.groundwater table (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)? (Source: 6) X c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Invact Incomonted Imnact Impact course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 3, 6) X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage 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 run-off in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site?'(Sources: 3, 6) X e., Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1, 6) X f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 6) X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(Sources: 6, 13) X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 3, 6 13) X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1) X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 1) X SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a) The retail and office building would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Water would not be drawn from an underground aquifer as the building would be connected to water lines that already exist in the area. c—d) The site is already graded and paved, and drainage patterns would not be altered. e) The site is already graded and paved, and therefore no new significant source of runoff water would be created. In addition, the retail and office building would not produce substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. f) The project would not otherwise degrade water quality. g) No housing is proposed. h) The site is within a 100-year flood hazard area. However, it is an open and flat area, and while the proposed structures could stand in a flood flow, they would not impede or significantly redirect the flow over the area as a whole. i) The site is protected from flooding by a levee system. However, because the site lies in Flood Zone A. the County Code requires that steps be taken to flood proof any structures by raising them out of the flood plain or by securing them so that floodwaters would not cause damage. When these measures are followed, there is a less than significant impact.. j) Those events are unlikely to occur in the project area. 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than significant. Mitigation significant No lmnact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: . a. Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 3, 6) X b. Conflict with any applicable land-use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an.environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2) X c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1) X SUMMARY:No Impact a) The proposal would not divide a community. b) The applicant is currently rezoning the property from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District) in order to build the retail and office building. This rezoning would also comply with the General Plan, which zoned•the area CO for commercial use. C) No such plans exist for the area.. X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?(Source: 1) X b. Result in the loss or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Source: 1) X -SUMMARY:No Impact a—b) No mineral resources are located in the area. XI. NOISE—Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in I excess. of standards established in the local general ! plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 6, 13) X b: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne:vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Source: 6) X 1 C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing I 1] Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irtroact Incomorated I=act Inroad without the project? (Sources: 3, 6, 13) X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources: 3, 6, 13) X e. For a project located within an airport land 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: 1) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1) X SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a) The building will be located in the Highway 680 corridor, an area designated as subject to a DBL level of 65. However, a DBL level of 65 is still within the acceptable range for establishing a commercial business. In addition, the car wash is far enough away (150 ft.) that it will not increase the DBL above 65. b) There will not be excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. c -d) A retail office building will not increase the ambient noise levels considering its location near Highway 680 and in an urbanized area. e—f) The project is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 6) X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 3_6) X c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing.elsewhere? (Source: 6) X SUMMARY: No Impact ` a—c) The proposal would not impact housing or population a 0,Agh as the surrounding area is already urbanized. 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° I 12 Potentially Sigttificant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Sienificant No ]moact Incorporated Inmact ]mnact 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? (Sources: 3, 6) I. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? X 5. Other public facilities? X SUMMARY:No Impact a. 1 —2. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff serve the site. It is not anticipated that this development would cause an increase in demand for either service. 3-5. The project would not affect schools,parks and recreational services or other public facilities. XIV. RECREATION a. Would the .project increase the. use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(Source: 6) X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational . facilities that!might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 6) X SUMMARY: No Impact a—b) There would be no impacts to recreational facilities and no new facilities are proposed. XV. TRANSPORTATION!TR.AFFIC—Would the project: I a. Cause an increase in traffic that is 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: 6) X b'. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management aLyencv for desienated roads or highways? (Source: 6) y y X c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Im act Impact either an increase in traffic levels or a chance in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 6) X d: Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous -intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.farm equipment)? (Source: 6) X e. Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 6) X f Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 2, 6) X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicvcle racks)? (Sources: 1) X SUMMARY: No Impact a—b) The project will not result in significant traffic impacts. Pacheco Boulevard and Arthur Road are large enough that they will not be affected by the addition of 1,462 square feet of retail and office space. C) Air traffic patterns will not be affected. d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed. e) It is not anticipated that this project will result in inadequate emergency access. fj Adequate parking capacity would be provided. g) The project does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—.Vvould the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X (Source: 6) b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 6) X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities,. the construction of which could cause sienificant environmental effects? (Source: X 6) ` d. Have sufficient water supplies available serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 6) X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments" (Source: 6) X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal 14 Potentiaii% SiLmificanl Potennalh• Unless Less Than Sicniiicant Mitigation Siniticanl No Impact Incomorated Impact Im nl needs?.(Source: I, 6) X g Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 1 j X SUMMARY: No Impact a) No wastewater would be produced. b) The buildin�as would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. C) No new storm water infrastructure is necessary. d) The new building*s would be connected to the Contra Costa Count,,Water District. and are already located upon existing water lines. . e) See"b)".above. •f} The buildings would not produce an amount of waste whereas thev would significantly affect a landfill. gj It would comply with federal. state, and local statutes and regulations. XVII. MANDATORY FFNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade 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? X b. Does the project have impacts that are individually 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 prQlects. and the effects of probable future prQiects)? X c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly" X .SUMMARY: No Impact ' a. The project. does not have the potential to degrade the environment or threaten any wildlife. populations. b. Since the project involves developing*a small parcel of vacant land within a developed area, there are not cumulatively considerable effects. C. There would be no substantial adverse impacts on humans. G:\Current Plannin(, Fee Ordinance`1cun•-plan\DP05 029.initial.doe County Planning Commission Staff Report July 24, 2007 Agenda Item # Community Development Department Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION JAMES M.T. CHAO (Applicant) —RJRB ENTERPRISES (Owner), This project consists of two applications. 1. County File RZ05-3159: A request for approval to rezone approximately 9,800 square feet from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District). 2. County File DP05-3029: A request for approval of a Final Development plan to construct a 1,462 square-foot building to establish retail and office uses with 13 off- street parking spaces and to preserve two existing trees on a 36,546 square-foot parcel. The subject site is located at 61 Arthur Road, in the Martinez area. (General Plan: CO) (Zoning: N-B/D-1) (Base Map Pages: F-13) (Census Tract: 3200.01) (Assessor Parcel Number: 380-051-034). II. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion: 1. That on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department,.651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. 2. Find that the Negative Declaration is adequate for the project. 3. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration determination for the project for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning of approximately 9,800 square feet to N-B (Neighborhood Business) District. 3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with conditions. SR-1 4. Approve the Preliminary and Final Development plan including a condition that makes approval contingent on the Board of Supervisors.adoption of the proposed N-B rezoning. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Commercial (CO) B. Zoning: The location of the proposed development is currently zoned D-1 (Two- Family Residential District). C. CEOA Status: An Initial Study has been prepared for the project and no significant environmental impacts were found. .A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt Proposed Negative Declaration was posted on February 22, 2007 with the,review date ending on March 14, 2007. No comments were received challenging the adequacy of the environmental review. D. Previous Applications: 1. 167-56: This was a land use permit application to construct a church that was denied in 1956. 2. 1613 RZ: This application was a request to rezone in 1971 from D=1 (Two-Family Residential) and L-I (Light Industrial) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District) 3. 453-71: This pen-nit established a service station. 4. LP 369-72: This land use permit application established a self-service station on the property from an existing full-service gas station and building. 5. LP 2009-77: This land use pen-nit was an amendment to LP369-72. 6. LP 2087-78: This land use permit amended the previously approved permit to allow for the increase in height of a free-standing sign. 7. LP 2047-95: Land use permit for a service station expansion to include a car wash. 8. DP 95-3031: This development plan was transferred to LP95-2047 for the expansion of an Existing Service Station Use. 9. LP 03-2103: A land use pen-nit was approved for the expansion of the existing food mart, a take-out food service, and the addition of a car wash. 10. Z105-10812: Sign replacement review. E. Regulatory Programs: 1. 65-dBA Noise Contour: The site lies within a 65-dBA noise contour. The General Plan indicates' that a DBL level of 65 is still within the acceptable range for establishing a commercial business. SR-2 n ,, • . �� 1\ ' . �\ t i �\ �\ IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is located northeast of the intersection of Arthur Road and the Pacheco Boulevard/Interstate 680 freeway off-ramp. The property is surrounded by residential uses to the north, a gasoline station to the west, and industrial uses to th'e' south and east of the property. The subject property is a relatively level 36,547 square-foot parcel consisting of a gasoline station, mini mart, car wash, off-street parking for the retail use, and a vacant paved area located in the northwest portion of the lot. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant proposes to rezone 9,800 square feet of the property from D-1 (Two- Family Residential District) to N-B (Neighborhood Business District), establish a development plan for 1,128 square feet of retail, 334 square feet of office space,and to reconfigure the existing off-street parking to include a total of thirteen spaces. VI. AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Building_Inspection Department: The proposal was reviewed.with no objections provided the applicant comply with the attached comments dated May 9, 2005. B. Mt. View Sanitary District: The District has no objections to the project as proposed provided the applicant comply with the attached comments dated February 28, 2007. C. Public Works Engineering Services Department: This application has been reviewed with no objections but subject to the attached comments dated May 11, 2005. D. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: This proposal has been reviewed with no objections provided the applicant comply with the attached comments dated June 1, 2005. E. City of Martinez: The City responded to this application with no comments.. F. .Contra Costa Fire Protection District: The District has no objections. to this development plan application provided the applicant comply with the attached comments dated May 3, 2005. VII. STAFF DISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: The proposed development is an infill project for a building with a 1,128 square-foot retail space and a 334 square-foot office space located within a developed area. The proposed building site is a paved, vacant portion of a developed lot that consists of a service station, mini mart, and car wash. The rezoning of a portion of the lot from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business) brings the site into further compliance with the General plan, which designates the site as CO (Commercial). SR-3 } •. 0 The subject property can accommodate the proposed uses and complies with .the General Plan and Zoning District standards governing the site. B. General Plan & Zoning Consistency: The proposed rezoning and commercial retail and office building is consistent.with the N-B Zoning District and CO General Plan designation. The proposed use is consistent with the N-B zoning district in that the proposed uses are conducted within an enclosed building and are intended for the carrying on of a neighborhood business, which is the barter, sale or exchange, to the consumer of goods and services necessary for the day-to-day maintenance of a family, which permits retail, professional offices, and real estate offices. The development is consistent with the General Plan and does not exceed the CO (Commercial) standards where the proposed building will be 12 feet in height (where a maximum of 35 feet is allowed), with a site coverage of 15.6% (where a maximum of 40% is allowed), and a floor area ratio of.156(where 1.0 is allowed). C. Hazardous Materials Use: The proposed retail and office building would not include hazardous materials or emissions. D. Site Plan: The proposed site development is located in the northwest portion of the property. The proposed building is set back from the street with off-street parking, and parking access that surrounds the new building. E. Design: The design of the building is consistent with the design of the existing service station mini mart on the property. F. Parking: The proposed development on the property will include the reconfiguration of the existing parking on the lot. The number of existing parking spaces.is seven and the total proposed for the lot is 13 spaces (where 12 spaces are required) for all existing and proposed uses for the site. G. Siege: There is no proposed signage at this time however the N-B Zoning District permits accessory signs with a maximum of 40 square feet of surface area without the approval of a land use permit. H. Trees: The proposed development proposes to preserve the two existing trees on the property however a recent site visit has determined that one of.the two trees has been removed and the other tree's branches have all been severely cut. The project will be subject to the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance which requires the posting of a bond for tree preservation and landscaping. I. Landscaping: The proposed development proposes areas of new landscaping along Arthur Road with three small landscaped areas located around the new parking spaces. The existing landscaping on the property located along Pacheco Boulevard is proposed to remain. The project is subject to the Off-Street Parking Ordinance which requires the following: a planter or landscaped strip at least four feet in width shall be provided adjacent to street rights-of-way. Dead corners and other waste areas shall be SR-4 landscaped to provide a visual break in the paved area. Parking areas of more than five parking spaces shall provide, in addition to the required parking area, an area equal to not less than five percent of the total parking area devoted to landscaping. Within this planter or strip, an irrigation system shall be:installed. Such landscaped strip or planter shall be provided to create the necessary visual and physical break between the pedestrian traffic utilizing the sidewalks along the streets and the vehicular traffic in the parking area, and by this means, substantially reduce the traffic hazard to the pedestrian. The proposed landscaping must also comply with the Water Conservation Ordinance. J. Take-out Food Use: The development does not propose additional take-out food uses to the site. K. Drainage: An exception from the collect and convey requirements of the County Ordinance Code may be appropriate in this case since no new.impervious surfaces are proposed,.provided that there are no known drainage problems, the existing drainage pattern is maintained and concentrated storm water runoff is not disposed onto adjacent properties. VIII.. CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning and development is consistent with the provisions of the Commercial General Plan designation and the N-B Zoning District. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the Rezoning and Development Plan to allow the construction of a building for retail and office uses subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\RZ0503159_DP0503029_Staff Report.doc SR-5 Notification List 380041002 380042001 380042015 POLK JAMES KNOX & SHEILA K UISCHNER CHARLES &THELMA 680 LLC 170 NARDI LN TRE 1200 SNYDER LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 1030 PINE MEADOW CT WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 MARTINEZ CA 94.553 380051002 380051006 380051007 HIRSHFIELD JAMES B CAMPOS PABLOS & OFELIA GOODALL JAMES M PO BOX 481 .608 CIVIC CENTER 77 ARTHUR RD MARTINEZ CA 9453 RICHMOND CA 94804 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051009 380051010 380051011 CROWE PAT& LOU ANN GARCIA RAMON C &ROSA L TRE ROMAN JAIME D & IRMA 5020 GEORGIA ST 121 ARTHUR RD 131 ARTHUR RD VALLEJO CA 94591 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051012 380051026 380051027 LIMON JOSE&OLGA BATH GEORGE H.&MARIA L MT VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT 487 ARTHUR RD 85 ARTHUR RD PO BOX Z MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051031 380051034 380052003 PERACO INVESTMENT GROUP LP RJRB ENTERPRISES INC KALSBEEKBCOOK MARLISE A 3926 ATLAS AVE 61 ARTHUR RD TRE OAKLAND CA 94619 MARTINEZ CA 94553 1724 VIA DEL VERDES CONCORD CA 94521 380180008 380180009 380180010 NGUYEN TINO THI SHAW JOHN D &ARIE E TRE GAROFALO EDWARD J &PEGGY E 101 KAREN LN 103 KAREN LN 105 KAREN LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380180011 380180029 380180030 WEBB PAUL THOMAS III & PAWLOWICZ JENNIFER P TRE JEAN MARIAN I TRE PAULA J 106 KAREN LN 2324 SWEETWATER 107 KAREN LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380180031 380180032 380180034 STONE HELEN D TRE DODGE DANIEL A &BRENDA HUSSAIN AYAD TRE 102 KAREN LN 125 S HONEYSUCKLE LN PO BOX 1312 MARTINEZ CA 94553 GILBERT AZ 85296 SAN BRUNO CA 94066 380180036 380180054 380180063 DELTA ELECTRICAL LAWRIE WILLIAM H III TRE OCONNER CHARLES S &M V TRE CONSTRUCTION 120 ARTHUR RD PO BOX 4369 4305 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 HOUSTON TX 77210 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380180070 380180092 OCONNOR CHARLES S &M V TRE TAPE GUY PRIVAT 0 1220 MORELLO AVE 118 CORTES CT 0 MARTINEZ CA 94553 HERCULES CA 94547 h sy .y j Building Inspection Environmental Health Public Works Entineerinv Services Public Works Contra Costa County Fire District Mt. View Sanitary District Flood Control Consolidated P.O. Box 2757 Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa Water District City of Martinez James M. T. Chao 1331 Concord Avenue 525 Henrietta St. 1136 Keith Ave. P.O. Box H2O Martinez, CA 94553 Berkeley, CA 94708 Concord, CA 94524 RJRB ENTERPRISES, INC. 61 Arthur Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 APN SITUS_NB SITUS_ST SITUS-ST SITUS-ST SITUS-AP SITUS-FR SITUS-CII SITUS_ZIF 380041002 170 NARDI LANE MARTINEZ- 94553 380042001 150 NARDI LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380042015 4501 PACHECO BOULEVAI MARTINEZ 94553 380051002 NARDI ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051006 75 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051007 77 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051009 111 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ- 94553 380051010 121 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051011 131 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051012 . 135 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051026 85 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380051027 99 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEz- 94553. 380051031 155 NARDI LANE 157 MARTINEZ 94553 380051034 61 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380052003 4495 PACHECO BOULEVAI MARTINET . 94553 380180008 101 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380180009 103 KAREN LANE , MARTINEZ 94553 380180010 105 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380180011 107 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380180029 106 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ. 94553 380180030 104 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380180031 102 KAREN LANE . MARTINEZ 94553 380180032 100 KAREN LANE MARTINEZ 94553 380180034 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380180036 4305 PACHECO BOULEVAI MARTINEZ 94553 380180054 120 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 380180063 4355 PACHECO BOULEVAI MARTINEZ 94553 380180070 4333 PACHECO BOULEVAI 4335 MARTINEZ- 94553 380180092 70 ARTHUR ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 38004C005 38018C004 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS MARTINEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on November 6,2007, at 1:00 pm,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, Cali- fornia, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervi- sors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning mat- ter: Hearing on the recom- mendation of the County Planning Commission on a request to rezone a por- tion of a parcel,approxi- mately 9,800 square feet from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business) at 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. County File $tRZ05-3159, James M.T.Chao(Applicant)and RJRB Enterprises(Owner) The location of the sub- ject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,State of California, generally identified below (a more precise descrip- tion may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Develop- ment,County Administra- tion Building, Martinez, California): The location of the sub- ject site is 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. For the purpose of com- pliance with the provi- sions of the California En- vironmental Quality Act (CEQA),a Negative Decla- ration of Environmental Significance (no Environ- mental Impact Report re- quired) has been issued for this project. If you challenge this mat- ter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descri- bed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing.Com- munity Development De- partment staff will be available on Tuesday,No- vember 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm, in Room 108,Admin- istration Building, 651 Pine Street. Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in Order to(1)an- swer questions; (2) re- view the hearing proce- dures used by the Board; (3) clarity the issues be- ing considered by the Board;and(4)provide an opportunity t0 identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Christine Louie at 925-335-1237, of the Community Develop- ment Department,by 3:00 pm on Monday, Novem- ber 5, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: October 26,2006 )ohn Cullen,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Leri CCT 2570334 publish October 27,2007 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Contra Costa I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa,94598. And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: October 27, all in the year of 2007 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Walnut Creek,California. On this 6 day of N vember, 2007 " - Signature Contra Costa Times P O Box 4147 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 (925)935-2525 Proof of Publication of: (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS MARTINEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on November 6, 2007, at 1:00 pm, in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County .Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Hearing on the recommendation. of the County Planning Commission on a request to rezone a portion of a parcel, approximately 9,800 square feet from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N=B (Neighborhood Business) at 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. County File#RZ05-3159,James M.T. Chao(Applicant)and RJRB Enterprises(Owner) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): 1 The location of the subject site is 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. For the purpose of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Sig ificance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Christine Louie at 925-335-1237, of the Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, November 5, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: October 26, 2006 John Cullen,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By atherine Sinclair, eputy Clerk I �., _.. �'r,,... .^R�;' r,. .. � . '-'-''� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OR . Hearing for: Hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission on a request to rezone a portion of a parcel, approximately 9,800 square feet from D-1 (Two-Family Residential) to N-B (Neighborhood Business) at 61 Arthur Road in the Martinez area. County File#RZ05-3159, James M.T. Chao (Applicant) and RJRB Enterprises (Owner) Notice of hearing for Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 1:00 pm, was mailed this day, Friday, October 26, 2007. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: October 26, 2007 Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk 380041002 380042001 380042015 POLK JAMES KNOX& SHEILA K UISCHNER CHARLES &THELMA TRE 680 LLC 170 NARDI LN 1030 PINE MEADOW CT 1200 SNYDER LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ. CA 94553 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 380051002 380051006 380051007 HIRSHFIELD JAMES B CAMPOS PABLOS &OFELIA GOODALL JAMES M PO BOX 481 608 CIVIC CEN'T'ER 77 ARTHUR RD MARTINEZ CA 94553 RICHMOND CA 94804 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051009 380051010 380051011 CROWE PAT& LOU ANN GARCIA RAMON C&ROSA L TRE ROMAN JAIME D&IRMA 1 1 1 ARTHUR RD 121 ARTHUR RD 131 ARTHUR RD MARTINEZ CA 94553 MAR111NEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051012 380051026 380051027 LIMON JOSE&OLGA RATH GEORGE H&MARIA L MT VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT 487 ARTHUR RD 85 ARTHUR RD PO BOX Z MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380051031 380051034 380052003 PERACO INVESTMENT GROUP LP RJRB ENTERPRISES INC KALSBEEK8COOK MARLISE A TRE 3926 ATLAS AVE 61 ARTHUR RD 1724 VIA DEL VERDES OAKLAND CA 94619 MARTINEZ CA 94553 CONCORD CA 94521 380180008 380180009 380180010 NGUYEN ANDY B SHAW JOHN D&ARIE E TRE GAROFALO EDWARD J& PEGGY E 101 KAREN LN 103 KAREN LN 105 KAREN LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 9.4553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380180011 380180029 380180030 WEBB PAUL THOMAS III&PAULA J PAWLOWICZ JENNIFER P TRE JEAN MARIAN I TRE 107 KAREN LN 106 KAREN LN 2324 SWEETWATER MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 380180031 380180032 380180034 STONE HELEN D TRE DODGE DANIEL A.&BRENDA HUSSAIN AYAD TRE 102 KAREN LN 125 S HONEYSUCKLE LN PO BOX 1312 MARTINEZ CA 94553 GILBERT AZ 85296 SAN BRUNO CA 94066 380180036 380180054 380180063 DELTA ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION LAWRIE CHARLENE TRE EQUILAN ENTERPRISES LLC 4305 PACHECO BLVD . 120 ARTHUR RD PO BOX 4369 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 HOUSTON TX 77210 380180070 380180092 WILSON RICHARD&KATHLEEN TRE BOHUI SERI 0 1220 MORELLO AVE 70 ARTHUR RD 0 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 Building Inspection Environmental Health Public Works Enaineerins Services Public Works Contra Costa County Fire District Mt. View Sanitary District Flood Control Consolidated P.O. Box 2757 Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa Water District 1331 Concord Avenue City of Martinez James M. T. Chao . Box H2O 525 Henrietta St. 1136 Keith Ave. P.O. B Concord, ox 20 Martinez, CA 94553 Berkeley, CA 94708 RJRB ENTERPRISES, INC. 61 Arthur Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 i "CCT Legals" To "Kathy Sinclair"<KSinc@cob.cccounty.us> <cctlegals@bayareanewsgro up.com> cc 10/24/2007 11:47 AM bcc Subject RE: Publication Request-Chao -.........--:;...._ --, ,.�-`�-..:� History4W This:message h 4tieen. forwa�deci Y :. .. Ad 2570334 is scheduled in the CCT for 10/27. $163.80 will be billed. Thank you, Jennifer Valahu Legal Advertising Contra Costa Times - Concord Transcript- Lamorinda SUN ph: 925.943.8019 fx: 925.952.5019 . _.............. .......... ......................................... From: Kathy Sinclair[mailto:KSinc cob.cccounty.us] Sent: Wed 10/24/2007 10:22 AM To: CCT Legals Cc: Maureen Parkes Subject: Publication Request-Chao Hi Jennifer Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: Chao One day only, Saturday October 27,2007 Reference PO#: 210') Please confirm receipt of request. Should you have any questions,please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair