Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12092008 - D.3 �_ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS =� ContraCosta °•. .::, r, -= County FROM: CATHERINE KUTSURIS _ DIRECTOR T" °" DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2008 SUBJECT: Hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to approve a rezone of a 0.96-acre parcel from R-7 Single-Family Residential District to R-6 Single-Family Residential District. The subject parcel is located at 4769 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Loving & Campos Architects — Applicant) (Church of God of Martinez/First Light Church — Owner); County File #RZ08-3200 (Supervisorial District II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION —After accepting any testimony and closing the hearing: A. ADOPT the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. APPROVE the rezone of the 0.96-acre parcel from R-7 Single-Family Residential District to R-6 Single-Family Residential.District. C. ADOPT the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution Number 20-2008 as the basis for this decision. COJdTINUE1D ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Lr APPROVE OTHER //�� SIGNATURE(S): Qld;�= ///iA,p-a 61; /JY►✓ ACTION OF BOARD ON_12 D APPROVED A&RECOMMENDED '< OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT� CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION .TAKEN AND ES A : NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Will Nelson (925)335-1208 ATTESTEDOZo0lr>4g DAVID TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Division(Orig.) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DCD—GIS Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div. Loving&Campos Architects—Applicant BYDEPUTY Church of God of Martinez/First Light Church—Owner D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2008-33 giving effect to the aforementioned rezone, waive reading, and adopt the same. E. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. It. FISCAL IMPACT None; the applicant has paid the necessary application processing fees, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional staff time and materials costs associated with the application processing. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION On February 14, 2008, applications were filed with the Department of Conservation and Development for a rezone, minor subdivision, and land use permit modification with variances to the development standards for off-street parking areas. The site is already developed with a single-family residence and church consisting of a sanctuary and fellowship hall. No physical changes are either proposed or would be required. A. Proposed Proiect Rezone The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML). The current R-7 zoning is inconsistent with the land use designation. Rezoning to R-6 would bring the zoning into consistency with the ML designation. Minor Subdivision The subdivision would result in one parcel of approximately 39,634 square feet which would contain the existing church, sanctuary and off-street parking area, and one 7,359 square foot parcel which would contain the existing residence. The purpose of the subdivision is to allow the residence to be sold, financed, etc. separately from the church. The subdivision is consistent with both the current R-7 and proposed R-6 zoning designations and all applicable General Plan policies. Land Use Permit Modification with Variances A land use permit modification is required to authorize the new lot configuration and to formally establish the fellowship hall. County File #623-53 is an approved land use permit for the establishment of a church and parsonage (residence). The original use permit contains one condition of. approval which states a minimum parking requirement of 65 spaces. In 1979 a land use permit modification (County File #2103-79) authorized an approximately 1,950 square foot expansion of the sanctuary. Page 2 The site's permit history does not reveal the origin of the fellowship hall; staff researched the origin of the building and could find no formal approval. The building is one story and approximately 2,044 square feet and is located on the west portion of the lot (to the left of the sanctuary when facing the site from Pacheco Boulevard). Based on historic photos it appears that the fellowship hall was constructed somewhere between August 1970 and May 1978. The County's typical practice is to treat sanctuaries, worship areas, and the like as the primary use at church sites and to treat other, buildings and uses, such as fellowship halls, meeting rooms, offices, etc. as ancillary to the primary use. The reasoning behind this is that the sanctuary is typically the most intense aspect of the overall church use. One notable exception to this is schools. The subject fellowship hall is used for church group meetings, social events, etc. and is ancillary to the primary use of the site. If it were proposed today, it is highly likely that the fellowship hall would be exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures) primarily due to its small size and innocuous function. Staff determined that it was important to formally recognize the fellowship hall in the official record through this project approval. The off-street parking area does not meet Title 8 off-street parking standards. Some of the existing parking spaces are substandard in width and depth, and the existing drive aisle width between parking stalls is substandard. It is unclear when the substandard parking spaces and drive aisle were established, though from aerial photography it appears to be decades ago. Given the current footprint of development on the property, it would be impossible to establish an adequate number of standard spaces with a standard drive aisle. Additionally, due to the configuration of the proposed access easement leading to proposed Parcel B, only 36 spaces will be provided where a minimum of 37 is required. Thus, variance approval is required to allow the one-space deficiency. The property owner has indicated, and staff has observed, that the site provides adequate parking during church services. As no expansion of the use is proposed, staff determined that there was no negative aspect in approving variances to formalize the long-standing substandard dimensions for spaces and drive aisles and permit substantial compliance with the requirement for minimum number of spaces. B. Site and Area The subject site is located approximately 190 feet west of Interstate 680 and 1,300 feet south of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. The subject site is adjacent to recent housing developments, such as Belmont Terrace (128 units) and the Fassler Project (20 units), which are located directly across the street, and surrounding the site on all sides except the project frontage (Pacheco Boulevard) is the Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes project (89 single-family homes). The site is in close proximity to the City of Martinez boundary and is in an area in Page 3 transition where many properties have been zoned for single- and multiple-family residential use. Those lots in the unincorporated area tend range in size, but are generally medium-density, planned unit developments. The closest properties in the City of Martinez are zoned for light-industrial, commercial, open space and single-family residential uses. C. General Plan and Zoning General Plan Land Use Designation and Area Specific Policies The ML General Plan requires density of 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The proposed minor subdivision does not fall within this density range. However, it is an improvement over existing conditions and does not hinder future implementation of the General Plan. The project as conditioned is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan, as well as the overall goals and policies of the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area contained in the Land Use Element. Zoning The site is zoned R-7 Single-Family Residential District. As stated above, the R-7 District is inconsistent with the ML General Plan land use designation. The R-6 Single- Family Residential District is consistent with the ML designation. The proposed subdivision and land use permit modification are consistent with the uses and development standards provisions of the R-6 District. Thus the proposed project would be appropriate for the site. D. Environmental Review For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared and circulated for review and comments between August 25, 2008 and September 5, 2008. In the Initial Study, staff concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts. No comments were received disputing the adequacy of the environmental review. However, the City of Martinez submitted comments in response to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated September 9, 2008 indicating that the project proponent should be required to construct street frontage improvements, relinquish abutter's rights, and dedicate any additional right-of-way on Pacheco Boulevard to conform to the future Pacheco Boulevard improvement plan. The following excerpt from the September 23, 2008 staff report to the County Planning Commission responds to the City's comments: The subject parcel fronts Pacheco Boulevard, a public road. There is an existing 92-foot wide Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes recorded along the project frontage (Doc. 2007-0299787), which is adequate for the ultimate planned right of way width for Pacheco Boulevard. There is an existing Deferred Improvement Agreement for frontage improvements recorded along the project frontage (9699 OR 843); however, due to the recent improvements along Pacheco Boulevard on the opposite side of the road and just northwest of the site, frontage improvements Page 4 are now required along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. Additionally, the adjacent properties (APN 159-230-002 and -003) are currently pursuing a subdivision (County File #SD05-8967), the conditions of approval of which require the applicant of that development to construct improvements along the frontage of the subject parcel. As of today, the frontage improvements along the subject parcel have not been constructed. The required improvements will consist of concrete curb, gutter, six-foot wide sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions. The face of curb shall be placed 10-feet from the ultimate right of way line, per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project plans. Essentially, there is already a Deferred Improvement Agreement for frontage improvements at the subject site, but the County anticipates that the improvements requested by the City will be constructed in conjunction with larger residential projects in the immediate vicinity. The County Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration at their meeting on September 23, 2008. IV. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the proposed project. The item was placed on the consent calendar and no testimony was given. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minor subdivision and land use permit modification with variances contingent upon the Board of Supervisors approving the rezone, and approved a motion recommending that the Board approve the rezone. V. CONSEQUENCE OF INACTION OR DENIAL OF PROPOSAL BY THE BOARD If the Board of Supervisors denies the rezone, then the subject property will remain zoned R-7 Single-Family Residential District, a zoning designation that is inconsistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density. Additionally, the County Planning Commission's approval of the minor subdivision and land use permit modification with variances would be nullified. VI. EXHIBITS 1. General Plan Map and Aerial Photograph 2. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-2008, Findings Map, and Ordinance No. 2008-33 3. Conditions of Approval 4. September 23, 2008 Staff Report for County Planning Commission 5. Pertinent Correspondence 6. CEQA Determination / Negative Declaration 7. Site Plan and Floor Plans 8. Notification List Page 5 Exhibit # 1 General Plan Map and Aerial Photograph N �„�_..., __---------�1 r -� �, i �� �, � `� I �-- .. � � , - �� :il � W !-- e.. H V1 �' �.. '-, to � a f `.-,�' ;: �` �. J' �l R�. A C �� J "� �, �� .....-! i�} Ir 1^i"".-`.�-•+*t rf /!/ _F *`nye" > ✓ .. t f.l 77 VIFI J r r: tC. � "• @ K`" r ,1 'L �.� w x "`'�7 �"' l '� L C( tl � �'• ..�� 5\k .tL fr-�.:.c-,.�Y � ,�}' ti`�� i .5� ��� LP ��fi '�' ����Gr�� �"'`-�.i I Exhibit #2 County Planning Commission Resolution No . 21 -2008 Findings Map Ordinance No . . 2008-34 RESOLUTION NO. 20-2008 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING A RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS FOR A REQUESTED REZONE, MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND LAND USE PERMIT MODIFICATION WITH VARIANCES AT 4769 PACHECO BOULEVARD IN THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, on February 14, 2008, Loving & Campos Architects (Applicant) submitted applications on behalf of Church of God of Martinez/First Light Church (Owner) to rezone a 0.96-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 159-230-006) from R-7 Single-Family Residential District to R-6 Single-Family Residential District, subdivide the subject parcel into two lots, and modify a previously approved land use permit to legalize an existing fellowship hall, with variances to off-street parking requirements at 4769 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("Initial Study") was prepared to determine the project's environmental impacts and whether an environmental impact report should be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified no potentially significant environmental impacts related to the project; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, the County published a Notice of Public Review for a Proposed Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing facts, indicated that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and started a period for public review and comments on the adequacy of the environmental documentation related to the project that ran to September 15, 2008; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, whereat all persons interested in the matter might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the County Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ("this Commission"): 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and.the County CEQA Guidelines (together "CEQA"), this Commission FINDS that the proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the Negative Declaration for the project. In support of these actions and conclusions, this Commission ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This Commission adopts these findings specifically for each of the approvals and entitlements it approves or recommends for approval for the project. This Commission certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the other information in the record prior to making the following recommendations, Resolution No. 20-1008 File#RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 Loving& Campos Architects (Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) determinations, and findings. The Commission further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with CEQA regulations. 2. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning (County File #RZ083200), changing the zoning designation of the property from R-7 Single-Family Residential District to R-6 Single-Family Residential District. 3. APPROVES the proposed minor subdivision (County File#MS080003) of the 0.96- acre subject property into two lots. 4. APPROVES the land use permit modification (County File #LP082040) to legalize the existing fellowship hall, with variances to off-street parking requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission determines that sufficient evidence has been provided to determine that the proposed project conforms with the County Growth Management Performance Standards (County General Plan 2005-2020, Growth Management Element, Section 4.4) and makes all of the findings required by County Ordinance Code §26-2.1806, §94-2.806, §26-2.2008, and §26-2.2006 to allow approval of the proposed project as follows: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project would not generate additional traffic because no new residential units or church expansions are proposed. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the Measure C-1988 requirements. The applicant must comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Water: The subject site currently receives water service from the Contra Costa Water District. The district did not provide comments on the proposed project. However, no new development is proposed. Thus, there would be no increase in demand for water services. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The Mountain View Sanitary District is the local wastewater service provider. No new development is proposed. Thus, there would be no increase in demand for wastewater services. 4. Fire Protection: The project site is within the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The District has required that the project provide a clearly identifiable fire line and premises identification on the existing buildings in order to allow for the best provision of emergency services. The site is located more than 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station. However, as no new buildings are proposed, automatic sprinkler systems would not be required for this project. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriffs facilities per 1,000 members of the population. No new development is proposed that would create an increase in population. Therefore, there would be no impact to the provision of public protection services. R-2 Resolution No. 20-2008 File#RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 Loving& Campos Architects(Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) 6. Park & Recreation: The subject site has an existing residence and church. No new development is proposed that would create an increase in population. Therefore the project would not impact existing park and recreational facilities. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: Public Works has indicated that the applicant shall be required to collect and convey stormwater runoff to an adequate natural watercourse, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 the ° County Ordinance Code. Public Works has also required drainage facilities be constructed in accordance with Public Works Design Standards, the prevention of stormwater from draining across sidewalks and driveways, and that a drainage easement, conforming to the width specifications in Section 914-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, is dedicated over any proposed storm drain line traversing the site. The site is not within a 100-year flood plain. B. Findings to Approve a Rezone Section 26-2.1806 of the County Ordinance Code requires specific findings to be made by the planning agency when a request for change in land use district is made; they are as follows: I. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Proiect Finding: The current R-7 zoning is not consistent with the Multiple-Family Low-Density (ML) General Plan land use designation while the proposed R-6, Single- Family Residential zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan designation. The General Plan contains specific policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area. The proposed project would not conflict with these policies as they mainly pertain to the scenic assets of the Vine Hill Ridge, and properties that are not adjacent to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed rezoning would substantially comply with the General Plan. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The subject property is surrounded on all sides by P-1, Planned Unit District and M-12, Multiple-Family Residential District zoning designations. Many of the uses allowed in the adjacent use districts with or without a land use permit are the same or similar to those allowed with or without a land use permit in the proposed R-6 zone. Thus, the proposed rezone to R-6 zone would be compatible with uses authorized in adjacent residential districts. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The site's current R-7 zoning is not consistent with the ML General Plan land use designation. Community need is demonstrated; zoning and General R-3 Resolution No. 20-2008 File#RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 Loving& Campos Architects(Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) and General Plan designations must be consistent with one another. Rezoning the site to R-6 would correct the inconsistency. C. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable General and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project as conditioned is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Multiple-Family Residential Low- Density (ML), which requires density of 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The tentative map provides for two residential lots on 0.96 acres. While this does not fall within the density range, it is an improvement over the existing condition and does not hinder implementation of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area policies stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed lots conform to the area and dimensional requirements for the R- 6 zoning district. Finally, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project which concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Proiect Finding: No construction is proposed, and no improvements would be required for the site. The required frontage improvements are to be constructed by a neighboring project. The Public Works Department has determined that the existing ingress and egress are adequate. D. Findings to Approve a Land Use Permit 1. That the pioposed land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety andeg neral welfare of the County. The proposed project does not require any development or alteration of the existing site or buildings. The proposed zoning would create consistency with the site's ML General Plan. Thus, approval of the project clearly would not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. 2. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. The site is already developed with a church and single-family residence. Approval of the project would correct an inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan, create on additional residential lot (which is already developed with a residence), and authorize an existing building and parking layout. No additional development is proposed. The creation of one residential lot would not adversely affect the orderly development ofproperty within the County. R-4 Resolution No. 20-2008 File#RZ08-3100,MS08-0003 and LPO8-2040 Loving& Campos Architects(Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) 3. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Implementation of the proposed project may increase the County's tax base due to the creation of a separate residential parcel. As neither construction nor establishment of non-'compatible uses is proposed, there is no potential to adversely affect the tax base. 4. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the policies and goals set by the General Plan. Primary land uses in areas with the Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML) General Plan land use designation include: attached single-family residences (duplexes or duets), multiple family residences such as condominiums, town houses, apartments, mobile home parks, and accessory structures. Secondary uses include: churches, second units, home occupations, and group care and/or childcare facilities. Thus, the church is consistent with the ML General Plan's secondary uses. The proposed R-6, Single-Family Residential zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan, unlike the current R-7 zoning. Uses allowed by right in the R-6 zone are consistent with the ML General Plan as well, thus the existing single-family residence would not be in conflict. The goals and policies adopted for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard area are not applicable to the proposed project. The project is otherwise consistent with the overall goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. 5. That the proposed land use shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. The church and residence have existed for several decades and have not proven to be a nuisance. No changes to the existing buildings are proposed, though the fellowship hall would be formally recognized. Variances are requested for off-street parking areas to legalize the existing substandard dimensions for stalls and drive aisles and to allow one less space than the minimum required. The substandard stalls and drive aisles have existed for some time and the property owner has indicated that ample parking exists. The County has no knowledge of a nuisance resulting from the existing parking situation (i.e. insufficient parking, parked cars in the street, circulation problems) and does not anticipate that one would arise if the project was approved because the church would substantially comply with the minimum requirement for number of stalls. 6. That the proposed land use shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Approval of the project would correct an inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan designations and there would be no expansion of the existing church or R-5 Resolution No. 20-2008 File#RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 Loving& Campos Architects(Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) residential uses. The area is transitioning from light industrial/commercial to residential, with several high-quality, medium-sized residential projects having been approved recently. Approval of the proposed project would essentially formalize the existing conditions onsite and clearly would not hinder the area's continued transition to a residential character or encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundin s are established. The church and residential uses have existed on this site for several decades and have proven to be compatible with the uses existing around them. The existing uses and buildings are to remain, and no new development is proposed. The proposed project would not impact on the surrounding area in any way. E. Findin sg to Approve a Variance 1. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Proiect Finding The applicant requests approval of variances to allow substandard widths and depths for off-street parking stalls, a driveway width between parking stalls of 24 feet where a minimum of 28 feet is required, and 36 off-street parking spaces where a minimum of 37 are required. No other land in the vicinity is zoned R- 6 and there are no other properties in the area that are developed with a church and a residence. Because the subject property is unique, approval of the requested variances would not amount to a grant of special privilege. 2. Required Finding: That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Proiect Finding: The church was established in 1953 and the existing sanctuary was established in the 1970s. It is unknown exactly when the fellowship hall was established, though it was sometime between 1970 and 1978. When the current parking configuration was established is also unknown, though it is understood to be several decades ago. Off-street parking standards relating to the dimensions for parking spaces and drive aisles and quantity of spaces were first adopted in 1966 Special circumstances do apply to the subject property. Because of the site's current building layout and the requirement to establish a 25 foot wide access easement in order to meet the project's main goal of separating the church and residential uses, it is not possible to establish a parking area that complies with the off-street parking standards. The irregular triangular shape of the site and the upward slope across its eastern half add further difficulty to establishing an adequate parking area. In R-6 Resolution No. 20-2008 File#RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 Loving& Campos Architects (Applicant) First Light Church (Owner) addition, the.parking area was originally established prior to the adoption of the current off-street parking standards. 3. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. Proiect Finding: Typically, the intent and purpose of the R-6 District is to establish and regulate development of high-density single-family neighborhoods. However, the proposed R-6 District is being established in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning, while simultaneously accommodating the existing land uses. Approval of the proposed variances would facilitate these dual goals, and thus would not conflict with the intent and purpose of the proposed R-6 zoning. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County 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 County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Battaglia, Wong, Clark, Snyder, Murray NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis, Terrell ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None MICHAEL MURRAY, Chairman of the Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California I, Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on September 23, 2008. ATTEST: Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California R-7 Findings Map L-I �• 1 i I♦ ♦ ♦ P-1 P-1 e° �e v A Sh P dc�i ada�yv M P-1 c 9a c City of a�ao �ee`eP 1 Martinez Cit of "-2 Marti z Rezone from R-7 to R-6 ® Martinez Area I, Michael Murray Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of page G-13 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of Applicant: Loving & Campos Architects, Owner: First Light Church - RZ08-3200 ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California ORDINANCE NO. 2008 - 33 (Re-Zoning Land in the Martinez Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page G-13 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. RZ08-3200 ) FROM: Land Use District R-7 ( Single Family Residential ) TO: Land Use District R-6 ( Single Family Residential ) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. L-I P-1 R P-1 Ja �m vfi :1 Sha P °oy 12 ♦ ha. P-1 zaSmr� dc��0c 0 City of a<, P-1 �o a Martinez tea` A- City o Martinez\ SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the C:QwkV7 [a5-ta, !:1 r.A S , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on V;16,6110 !9 by the following vote: Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia X ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. G.B. Uilkema x ( ) ( ) ( } 3. M.N. Piepho IN ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. S. Bonilla 05 ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F.D. Glover Ixl ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk oard of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By _ Dep; (SEAL) I. ORDINANCE NO. 2008 - 33 RZ08-3200-Applicant:Loving&Campos Architects,Owner:First Light Church Exhibit #3 Conditions of Approval FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE # RZ083200, MS080003 AND LP082040 — LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS (APPLICANT), FIRST LIGHT CHURCH (OWNER), AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2008. FINDINGS I. Growth Management Performance Standards A. Traffic: The project would not generate additional traffic because no new residential units or church expansions are proposed. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the Measure C-1988 requirements. The applicant must comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. B. Water: The subject site currently receives water service from the Contra Costa Water District. The district did not provide comments on the proposed project. However, no new development is proposed. Thus, there would be no increase in demand for water services. C. Sanitary Sewer: The Mountain View Sanitary District is the local wastewater service provider. No new development is proposed. Thus, there would be no increase in demand for wastewater services. D. Fire Protection: The project site is within the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The District has required that the project provide a clearly identifiable fire line and premises identification on the existing buildings in order to allow for the best provision of emergency services. The site is located more than 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station. However, as no new buildings are proposed, automatic sprinkler systems would not be required for this project. E. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriffs facilities per 1,000 members of the population. No new development is proposed that would create an increase in population. Therefore, there would be no impact to the provision of public protection services. F. Park & Recreation: The subject site has an existing residence and church. No new development is proposed that would create an increase in population. Therefore the project would not impact existing park and recreational facilities. G. Flood Control & Drainage: Public Works has indicated that the applicant shall be required to collect and convey stormwater runoff to an adequate natural watercourse, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 the County Ordinance Code. Public Works has also required drainage facilities be constructed in accordance with Public Works Design Standards, the prevention of stormwater from draining across sidewalks and driveways, and that a drainage easement, conforming to the width specifications in Section 914-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, is dedicated over any proposed storm drain line traversing the site. The site is not within a 100-year flood plain. COA- 1 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings& Conditions of Approval II. Rezone Findings Section 26-2.1806 of the County Ordinance Code requires specific findings to be made by the planning agency when a request for change in land use district is made; they are as follows: A. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding: The current R-7 zoning is not consistent with the Multiple-Family Low-Density (ML) General Plan land use designation while the proposed R-6, Single- Family Residential zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan designation. The General Plan contains specific polieies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area. The proposed project would not conflict with these policies as they mainly pertain to the scenic assets of the Vine Hill Ridge, and properties that are not adjacent to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed rezoning would substantially comply with the General Plan. B. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The subject property is surrounded on all sides by P-1, Planned Unit District and M-12, Multiple-Family Residential District zoning designations. Many of the uses allowed in the adjacent use districts with or without a land use permit are the same or similar to those allowed with or without a land use permit in the proposed R-6 zone. Thus, the proposed rezone to R-6 zone would be compatible with uses authorized in adjacent residential districts. C. Required Findi g: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Proiect Finding: The site's current R-7 zoning is not consistent with the ML General Plan land use designation. Community need is demonstrated because by law, zoning and General Plan designations must be consistent with one another. Rezoning the site to R-6 would correct the inconsistency. III. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map A. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable General and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project as conditioned is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML), which requires density of 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The tentative map provides for two residential lots on 0.96 acres: While this does not./all within the density range, it is an improvement over the existing condition and does not hinder COA - 2 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions ofApprovat implementation of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area policies stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed lots conform to the area and dimensional requirements for the R-6 zoning district. Finally, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project which concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. B. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Proiect Finding: No construction is proposed, and no improvements would be required for the site. The required frontage improvements are to be constructed by a neighboring project. The Public Works Department has determined that the existing ingress and egress are adequate. IV. Findings to Approve a Land Use Permit A. That the proposed land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety andeg neral welfare of the County. The proposed project does not require any development or alteration of the existing site or buildings. The proposed zoning would create consistency with the site's ML General Plan. Thus, approval of the project clearly would not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. B. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. The site is already developed with a church and single-family residence. Approval of the project would correct an inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan, create on additional residential lot (which is already developed with a residence), and authorize an existing building and parking layout. No additional development is proposed. The creation of one residential lot would not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. C. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Implementation of the proposed project may increase the County's tax base due to the creation of a separate residential parcel. As neither construction nor establishment of non-compatible uses is proposed, there is no potential to adversely affect the tax base. D. That the proposed land use shall not adversely affect the policies and goals set by the General Plan. Primary land uses in areas with the Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML) General Plan land use designation include: attached single-family residences (duplexes or duets), multiple family residences such as condominiums, town houses, apartments, mobile home parks, and accessory structures. Secondary uses include: churches, COA - 3 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval second units, home occupations, and group care andlor childcare facilities. Thus, the church is consistent with the ML General Plan's secondary uses. The proposed R-6, Single-Family Residential zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan, unlike the current R-7 zoning. Uses allowed by right in the R-6 zone are consistent with the ML General Plan as well, thus the existing single-family residence would not be in conflict. The goals and policies adopted for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard area are not applicable to the proposed project. The project is otherwise consistent with the overall goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. E. That the proposed land use shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcementrop blem within the neighborhood or community. The church and residence have existed for several decades and have not proven to be a nuisance. No changes to the existing buildings are proposed, though the fellowship hall would be formally recognized. Variances are requested for off-street parking areas to legalize the existing substandard dimensions for stalls and drive aisles and to allow one less space than the minimum required. The substandard stalls and drive aisles have existed for some time and the property owner has indicated that ample parking exists. The County has no knowledge of a nuisance resulting from the existing parking situation (i.e. insufficient parking, parked cars in the street, circulation problems) and does not anticipate that one would arise if the project was approved because the church would substantially comply with the minimum requirement for number of stalls. F. That the proposed land use shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Approval of the project would correct an inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan designations and there would be no expansion of the existing church or residential uses. The area is transitioning from light industrial/commercial to residential, with several high-quality, medium-sized residential projects having been approved recently. Approval of the proposed project would essentially formalize the existing conditions onsite and clearly would not hinder the area's continued transition to a residential character or encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. G. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The church and residential uses have existed on this site for several decades and have proven to be compatible with the uses existing around them. The existing uses and buildings are to remain, and no new development is proposed. The proposed project would not impact on the surrounding area in any way. COA - 4 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval V. Findings to Approve a Variance A. Required Finding: That any variance authorized,shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Proiect Finding: The applicant requests approval of variances to allow substandard widths and depths for off-street parking stalls, a driveway width between parking stalls of 24 feet where a minimum of 28 feet is required, and 36 off-street parking spaces where a minimum of 37 are required. No other land in the vicinity is zoned R-6 and there are no other properties in the area that are developed with a church and a residence. Because the subject property is unique, approval of the requested variances would not amount to a grant of special privilege. B. Required Finding: That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: The church was established in 1953 and the existing sanctuary was established in the 1970s. It is unknown exactly when the fellowship hall was established, though it was sometime between 1970 and 1978. When the current parking configuration was established is also unknown, though it is understood to be several decades ago. Off-street parking standards relating to the dimensions for parking spaces and drive.aisles and quantity of spaces were first adopted in 1966 Special circumstances do apply to the subject property. Because of the site's current building layout and the requirement to establish a 25 foot wide access easement in order to meet the project's main goal of separating the church and residential uses, it is not possible to establish a parking area that complies with the off-street parking standards. The irregular triangular shape of the site and the upward slope across its eastern half add further difficulty to establishing an adequate parking area. In addition, the parking area was originally established prior to the adoption of the current off- street parking standards. C. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is located. Project Finding: Typically, the intent and purpose of the R-6 District is to establish and regulate development of high-density single-family neighborhoods. However, the. proposed R-6 District is being established in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning, while simultaneously accommodating the existing land uses. Approval of the proposed variances would facilitate these dual goals, and thus would not conflict with the intent and purpose of the proposed R-6 zoning. COA- 5 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082046 Findings& Conditions of Approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Approval 1. This approval is contingent on the Board of Supervisors approval of the rezone request from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single- Family Residential District. 2. This approval is based on the following materials and is subject to the conditions herein: A. Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Loving & Campos Architects, Inc. depicting two parcels of 39,634 square feet and 7,359 square feet, received by the Community Development Division — Current Planning Section on May 14, 2008. B. CEQA Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, posted by the Contra Costa County Clerk on August 25, 2008. 3. Approval is granted to allow for the following variances that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code: • 36 off-street parking spaces granted (37 off-street parking spaces required for the 110 seat capacity church). • 60 degree angled parking stalls with 8 %Z-foot widths and 19-foot depths granted (minimum 9-foot width and 21-foot depth are required). • 90 degree angled parking stalls with 7 '/2-foot widths and 15-foot depths granted (minimum 9-foot width and 19-foot depth are required). • 24-foot wide access drive between parking stalls granted (28-foot minimum required). Duration of Approval 4. The approval is for a three (3) year period which may be extended consistent with the provisions of State law. An extension request must be submitted prior to expiration of the initial approval and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. An extension request is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Extended: CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP Payment of Any Supplemental Processing Fees that May Be Due 5. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$1,638.00 that was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior COA - 6 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings& Conditions of Approval to exercising the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Department of Fish and Game Environmental Review Fees 6. By Monday, September 29, 2008, the applicant is required to pay the California Department of Fish and Game environmental review fee of $1,876.75. Payment of this fee is mandated by Assembly Bill 3158, which became effective on January 1, 1991. Until the fee is paid, the project approval is not considered vested or final; the Parcel Map cannot be filed and no building permits can be issued. Also, if the fee is not paid by the date specified, then the 30-day statutory time limit to file a legal challenge against your approval will be extended to 180 days. Indemnification 7. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, issuance of grading permits, or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall. submit a letter indicating that it will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Department (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the Department approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the applicant or subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Condition of Approval Compliance Review 8. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, issuance of grading permits, or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an application for Condition of Approval Compliance Review. The deposit for this application is $1,000.00 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional payment will be required. This application requires submittal of materials showing how each condition of approval 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. COA - 7 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval Will-Serve Letter 9. At least 30 days prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit a letter from the Contra Costa Water District, and the Mountain View Sanitary District indicating that they have adequate capacity and intends to provide water and sewer service to the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR FILE RZ08-3200,MS08-0003 and LP08-2040 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 Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development on May 16,2007. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements 10. 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 subdivision. Any necessary traffic signing and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Private Roadway 11. Applicant shall dedicate a private access easement (PAE) through Parcel A for the benefit of Parcel B, as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 12. 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 13. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center,. if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Pacheco Boulevard. COA - 8 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval Abutter's Rights 14. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along Pacheco Boulevard with the exception of the existing driveway location, as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Sight Distance 15. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of the private driveway and Pacheco Boulevard for a design speed of 45 miles per hour. The applicant shall remove or trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at this 'intersection, and any new landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, signs, or other obstructions proposed at this intersection shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Pedestrian Facilities 16. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 17. All pedestrian curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate right of way shall be dedicated to accommodate a minimum 4 foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed. Underground Utilities 18. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities 19. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the on-site private driveway and storm drainage facilities. 20. Applicant shall apply to Public Works for annexation to the County Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities prior to filing of the Parcel Map. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 21. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which COA - 9 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings& Conditions of Approval conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 22. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards. 23. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across any sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 24. A private storm drain easement, conforming to the width specified in Section 914-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over any proposed storm drain line traversing the site. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 25. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this subdivision totals less than 10,000 square feet, which is the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to incorporate stormwater quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), in accordance with all other provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 26. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm 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. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains. - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing runoff to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. COA - 10 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval - Shared trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. - Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains. - Shallow roadside and on-site grassy swales. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. Area of Benefit Fee Ordinance 27. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Martinez Area of Benefit, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors prior to filing of the Parcel Map. Drainage Area Fee 28. The applicant shall .be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee shall be paid prior to filing of the Parcel Map. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. 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. B. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Division. C. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department. D. This project must comply with the requirements of the Fire District. The following conditions submitted by the District must be met: COA - 11 RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040 Findings&Conditions of Approval 1. The existing 25-foot driveway shall have "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and curbs painted red on access roads less than 28 feet wide. 2. Premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of four inches high with Y2 inch stroke or larger as required to be readily visible from the street. 9901.4.40 CFC 3. Any building construction modifications/additions to the property will require plan submittal to the Fire District for review and approval. 4. Plan review and inspection fees shall be submitted at the time of plan review submittal. Checks may be payable to Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. (CCCFPD) 5. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (925) 941-3300 The above-referenced CCCFPD Project Number shall be required in all correspondence or communication with the Fire District. Submit to the Fire District a copy of the conditions of approval as set forth on the subject proj ect. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\RZ083200&MS080003 COA.doc COA - 12 Exhibit #4 September 23 , 2008 Staff Report for County Planning Commission Agenda Item# Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 L INTRODUCTION LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS (Applicant), FIRST LIGHT CHURCH (Owners) Count File #RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040: The applicant requests approval of. (1) a rezone of the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single-Family Residential District; (2) a vesting tentative map to subdivide the 0.96-acre parcel into two lots; and(3) a land use permit modification to authorize the establishment of the "fellowship hall," and current configuration of the church's parking and driveway areas. Variances are requested to allow deviations from the minimum required quantity of off-street parking, and layout and design requirements for off-street parking areas for the existing church which include; (1) to allow a total of 36 off-street parking spaces where 37 are required; (2) 60 degree angled parking stalls with substandard widths and depths (where a minimum 9-foot width and 21-foot depth are required); (3) 90 degree angled parking stalls with substandard widths and depths (where a minimum 9-foot width and 19-foot depth are required); and (4) a 24-foot wide access drive between parking stalls where a 28-foot minimum is required. Approval of the proposed project would not increase the number of single-family residences or expand the existing church. The subject site is located at 4769 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Zoning: R-7) (ZA: G-13) (CT: 3200.02) (Assessor Parcel Number: 159-230-006). II. RECOMMENDATION A. For the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), find that the Initial Study is adequate for the project and adopt the Negative Declaration, finding that no substantial evidence has been presented indicating that the project might result in a significant environmental impact. B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a motion to rezone the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single- Family Residential. C. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Division on May 14, 2008, Land Use Permit modification, and variances based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval, contingent upon the Board of Supervisors approval.of the rezoning of site. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML) B. Zoning: R-7 Single-Family Residential C. CEOA Status: An Initial Study has been prepared for the project and no significant environmental impacts were identified. A Negative Declaration was posted August SR- 1 25, 2008. The public comment period ended on September 15, 2008. No comments were received challenging the adequacy of the environmental document. D. Previous Applications: 1. LP623-53: Approved land use permit for a church and parsonage. 2. LP79-2103: Approved land use permit modification to add to the existing church. 3. ZI79-5855: Condition compliance review for off-street parking. 4. ZI96-7528: Condition compliance review for proposed front entry enclosure for existing church. E. Regulatory Programs • 60-dB Noise Control: The most significant noise source would come from Interstate 680, putting the site in the 70 dB range. This range is between "Conditionally Acceptable" and "Normally Unacceptable" for single-family homes and churches. New construction of these types of facilities would require mitigation or may even be discouraged. Since the buildings on the subject site already exist, and no new buildings are proposed, exposure of people to excessive or unsafe noise levels would not increase. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject site is an approximately 0.96-acre parcel located in the unincorporated area of Martinez. The site is located approximately 190 feet west of Interstate 680 and 1,300 feet south of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. The site fronts Pacheco Boulevard, and the Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes project (89 single- family homes) surrounds the site on all remaining sides. The Belmont Terrace (128 units) and Fassler projects (20 units) are directly across the street. The site is in close proximity to the City of Martinez boundary and is in an area in transition where many properties have been zoned for single- and multiple-family residential use. Those lots in the unincorporated area tend range in size, but are generally medium-density, planned unit developments. The closest properties in the City of Martinez are zoned for light-industrial, commercial, open space and single-family residential uses. The site is currently developed with one residence and a church comprised of a sanctuary and a fellowship hall. The property is accessed off of Pacheco Boulevard. The topography is flat at the point of entry and where the church buildings are located, and slopes upward at approximately 41% generally between the sanctuary building and the residence at the top of the site. V. PROPOSED PROJECT A. Rezone: The applicant requests approval of a rezone of the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential to R-6, Single-Family Residential. The subject site is under SR - 2 the ML, Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density General Plan land use designation, which is not consistent with the current zoning. The R-6 District is consistent with the ML designation. Therefore, rezoning the site would correct the inconsistency between the General Plan designation and zoning. B. 2-Lot-Subdivision: The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 0.96 acres into two lots. Parcel A would have an area of 39,634 square feet, an average lot width of approximately 189 feet, and a lot depth of 209 feet. Parcel B would have an area of 7,359 square feet, an average lot width of 70 feet, and a lot depth of approximately 105 feet. Parcel A would contain the church and Parcel B would contain the existing single-family residence. C. Land Use Permit Modification: The original land use permit (County File #623-53) approved the establishment of a church and parsonage (residence) on one lot. Approval of a modification to the land use permit is required to separate the church and residential uses on separate lots and to formalize the current parking configuration. This modification would also recognize the establishment of the fellowship hall. The fellowship hall is further discussed in the "Staff Analysis/Discussion" section below. D. Off-Street Parking Variances: The applicant requests approval of variances to the quantity, layout and design requirements for off-street parking areas. For churches, the County Code requires one parking space for every three seats. The property owner has indicated that the church sanctuary contains 110 seats, which would require 37 off-street parking spaces. Approval of a variance is requested to allow 36 off-street parking spaces. The site currently has 13 angled parking spaces adjacent to the Pacheco Boulevard frontage. These spaces are angle at approximately 60 degrees. The County Code requires a minimum 9-foot width and 21-foot depth for stalls of this type. The existing 13 angled stalls are as narrow as 8 '/z feet and as shallow as 19 feet. The remaining parking stalls are 90 degrees, with widths as narrow as 7 '/z feet and depths as shallow as 15 feet, where a minimum 9-foot width and 19-foot depth are required. The drive aisle between the stalls is currently 24 feet wide, where a minimum width of 28 feet is required. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS All comment letters and memos are attached. No comments were received from the following agencies: Building Inspection Division and Contra Costa Water District. A. Public Works Department — Engineering Services: Submitted 22 conditions of approval in an interoffice memo dated March 11, 2008. A memo dated August 27, 2008 recommended changes to the Frontage Improvements (Pacheco Boulevard) and Maintenance of Facilities conditions, and the deletion of two of the Private Roadway conditions. No major project changes are necessary in order to satisfy these conditions. A second memo dated September 8, 2008 recommended deletion of the Frontage Improvements (Pacheco Boulevard) conditions. SR - 3 B. Public Works Department — Flood Control: Comments dated April 22, 2008 stated that the subject site is within Drainage Area 57 (DA 57) and that drainage fees were due in accordance with the Flood Control Ordinance. The memo also provided an estimate of the drainage fees for the site. The Department also suggested that the project be conditioned to design and construct an adequate storm drain facility. Since the church and residential buildings already exist, and no new construction or physical site alteration is proposed, this condition may not be necessary. C. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Comments dated March 17, 2008 state 5 conditions of approval. These conditions have been included in the Advisory Notes. D. Mountain View Sanitary District: Comments dated March 19, 2008 state standard service requirements and also indicate that a main extension may be required. E. Martinez Unified School District: Comments dated February 25, 2008 indicate that school fees would apply to the proposed project. F. Office of the Sheriff: Comments dated March 5, 2008 indicate that the Office of the Sheriff has no objection to the proposed project. G. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): Comments provided via e-mail dated March 4, 2008 that the proposed project would require no further LAFCO action. H. City of Martinez: Comments dated September 9, 2008 indicated that the project proponent should be required to construct street frontage improvements, relinquish abutter's rights, and dedicate any additional right of way on Pacheco Boulevard to conform to the future Pacheco Boulevard improvement plan. The letter was sent in response to the circulation of the proposed negative declaration; however none of the comments challenged the adequacy of the CEQA document. StaffResponse: See discussion under "Traffic & Circulation and Drainage" below. VII. STAFF ANYLYSIS/DISCUSSION A. General Plan & Zoning Compliance: The project as conditioned is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML), which requires density of 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The tentative map provides for two residential lots on 0.96 acres. While this does not fall within the density range, it is an improvement over the existing condition and does not hinder future implementation of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area policies stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan. The site is zoned R-7, Single-Family Residential District, which is not consistent with the ML General Plan designation. The proposed R-6 zoning would establish consistency. The proposed lot areas, average widths and lot depths comply with the required minimums for the proposed R-6 District. No change to the existing land use is proposed. The undivided property is currently developed with a church sanctuary, SR - 4 fellowship hall, and single-family residence. The church sanctuary and residence were originally approved in 1953 under County File #623-53 (the origin of the fellowship hall is unknown). The R-6 District allows churches and religious institutions with approval of a land use permit. One detached single-family residence is allowed by right per legal lot in the R-6 district. The proposed division would result in the church and fellowship hall on proposed Parcel A, and the residence on Parcel B. All existing buildings would comply with setback requirements. The.project would therefore comply with the development standards for the proposed R-6 District. B. Site Plan Anal: No construction is proposed, though an access easement would be established for the benefit of Parcel B. The easement would eliminate several existing parking spaces, resulting in the variance to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required. Though thought to be necessary at the beginning of the project, construction of driveway improvements and a turnaround for fire truck access would not be required. Existing Residence The existing residence was constructed as a part of the land use permit that originally established the church (County File #623-53). The residence is not proposed to be modified or expanded. As stated above, a single-family residence is a permitted use on a legal lot under both the current R-7, and proposed R-6 zones. The ML General Plan provides primarily for dual and multiple-family uses. Single- family residences are not stated as a secondary use under the ML General Plan. However, the R-6 zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan, meaning that the uses allowed under the R-6 zoning are considered consistent with the ML General Plan. Existing Church and Fellowship Hall The,subject site received approval of a land use permit (County File #623-53) for the establishment of a church and parsonage (residence) on the same lot. The original use permit contained one condition of approval, which stated a minimum requirement for off-street parking (minimum of 65 spaces). The site later received approval of a land use permit modification for an approximately 1,950 square-foot sanctuary addition to the existing church (County File#2103-79). The subject site currently contains a one-story,building directly adjacent to the church sanctuary labeled as a "fellowship hall." The building is approximately 2,044 square feet and is located on the west portion of the site (to the left of the sanctuary when facing the site from Pacheco Boulevard). This building is not accounted for in any building or development permit record history. However, based on historic Department permit information and photos, staff is confident that the fellowship hall was constructed somewhere between August 1970 and May 1978. The County typically views church buildings such as fellowship halls as ancillary to the main use, the sanctuary. Because of its small size, the fellowship hall does not cause a substantial increase in attendance at the site. If the building were constructed SR - 5 today, it would likely be exempt from environmental review under CEQA §15303(c), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This section provides for the construction of a store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. All factors considered, staffs determination is that the fellowship hall does not cause significant impacts to the environment and finds that the building should be established in the official record through this project application. In addition, staff has indicated in the proposed Advisory Notes that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Division. Parking As explained above, several variances to off-street parking requirements are requested. It is unclear when the substandard parking spaces and drive aisles were established (though from aerial photography it appears to be decades ago) and given the current footprint of development on the property, it would be impossible to establish an adequate number of standard spaces. The one-space deficiency in required parking spaces would result from implementation of the proposed project. The property owner has indicated, and staff has observed, that the site provides ample parking during church services. As no expansion of the use is proposed, staff sees no negative aspect in approving variances to formalize the long-standing substandard dimensions for spaces and drive aisles and permit substantial compliance with the requirement for minimum number of spaces. Access Easement The proposed access easement to Parcel B would traverse the south edge of Parcel A. As proposed, the easement would contain the existing onsite driveway. The proposed easement and existing driveway are adequate for emergency vehicle access and would not require improvements according to the Public Works Department. Encroachment Easement Agreement A small portion of the parking area encroaches into the neighboring property (Bodhaine property). This area of the site currently consists of approximately four paved tandem parking stalls for the church. The church entered into an encroachment easement agreement with the neighboring property owner for the use and maintenance of this encroachment area. The agreement does not authorize rights of access over the Bodhaine property for the subject site. VIII. TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION AND DRANAGE A. Traffic & Circulation: The subject parcel fronts Pacheco Boulevard, a public road. There is an existing 12-foot wide Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes recorded along the project frontage (Doc. 2007-0299787), which is adequate for the ultimate planned right of way width for Pacheco Boulevard. There is an existing Deferred Improvement Agreement for frontage improvements recorded along the project frontage (9691 OR 843); however, due to the recent improvements along Pacheco SR- 6 Boulevard on the opposite side of the road and just northwest of the site, frontage improvements are now required along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. Additionally, the adjacent properties (APN 159-230-002 and -003) are currently pursuing a subdivision (County File 4SD05-8967), the conditions of approval of which require the applicant of that development to construct improvements along the frontage of the subject parcel. As of today, the frontage improvements along the subject parcel have not been constructed. The required improvements will consist of concrete curb, gutter, six-foot wide sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions. The face of curb shall be placed 10-feet from the ultimate right of way line, per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project plans. B. Drainage: The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. IX. CONCLUSION The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and proposed R-6 zoning regulations. The proposed project would not result in an increase in single-family residences or expansion of the existing church use. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and this conclusion has not been challenged. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission take the following action on County File #RZ083200, MS080003 and LP082040: A. For the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, find that the Initial Study is adequate for the project and adopt the Negative Declaration, finding that no substantial evidence has been presented indicating that the project might result in a significant environmental impact. B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a motion to rezone the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6. C. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Division on May 14, 2008,,Land Use Permit modification, and variances based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval, contingent upon the Board of Supervisors approval of the rezoning of site. �IA19/r7l G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\RZ083200&MS080003 SR.doc SR - 7 Exhibit #5 Pertinent Correspondence vet 1 OF MART i City of Martinez 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez, CA 94553-2394 08 S.O 10 RM r- '5 1876' GOi�SRON September 9, 2008 NIJID LIE'ILLOPMENT Community Development Department Contra County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Comments in Response to the Proposed Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision No. 08-0003 on Pacheco Boulevard County file: #RZ083200/MS080003/LP082040 Thank you for your project referral notice for the project. Please note that this project is within City of Martinez sphere of influence. The following are comments on the subject project: 1. Street frontage improvement along Pacheco Blvd. should be required of this development. 2. The developer should be required to relinquish abutter's rights on Pacheco Blvd., except for the access road. 3. The developer should be required to dedicate to the public any additional right of way on Pacheco Boulevard to conform to the ultimate Pacheco Blvd. section as per the map entitled "A Precise Section of the Streets and Highway Plan, Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County, Road No. 3951", dated May 27, 1968. Sincerely, r FR. Khalil Yoakum, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer 1 Exhibit #6 CEQA Determination / Negative Declaration Department ofContra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Interim Director Conservation & Costa Catherine Kut uric Development County I De r ctor CL Community Development Division County Administration Building ' AUG 25 2008 651 Pine Street , s r, North Wing, Fourth Floor �.- o S.L.WEIR, Cu€ItJTY CLERK Martinez, CA 94553-1229 °�- i'=cPw C T�DE UTY S>q BY . Phone: (925) 335-1220 DATE: August 25, 2008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #RZ083200/MS080003/LP082040 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: ERINN PETERSON, LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS (Applicant), FIRST LIGHT CHURCH (Owners). County File #RZ083200/MS070006/LP082040: The applicant requests approval of: (1) a rezone of the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single-Family Residential District; (2) a vesting tentative map to subdivide the 0.96-acre parcel into two lots; and (3) a land use permit modification for the purpose of legalizing the current configuration of the church's parking and driveway areas. Variances are requested to allow deviations from the layout and design requirements for off-street parking areas and to allow a total of 36 off-street parking spaces where 37 are required for the church. Approval of the proposed subdivision would not increase the number of single- family residences and the project does not involve a request to expand the existing church. Physical changes that might take place include widening of the driveway serving the existing residence and construction of a turnaround in order to meet the ingress and egress requirements of the fire district, though it is not certain that these improvements wilt be necessary. The subject site is located at 4769 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (General Plan: ML) (Zoning:R-7) (Zoning Atlas: G-13) (Census Tract 3200.02) (Assessor Parcel Number: 159-230-006). The proposed development would 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 Department of Conservation and Development 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., Monday, September 15, 2008. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Department of Conservation & Development Community Development Division 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Jamar Stamps The proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission in an open public hearing held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street (intersection of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California. It is anticipated that this hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2008. Sinc rely, Jamar Stamps Project Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (3 copies) California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: First Light Church Rezone&Minor Subdivision County File#RZ083200, MS080003, and LP082040 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation& Development, Community Development Division 651 Pine St.,4°i Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jamar I. Stamps, Project Planner, (925)335-1220 4. Proiect Location: 4769 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 APN: 159-230-006 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Erinn Peterson,Loving& Campos Architects (Applicant) 245 Ygnacio Valley Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 First Light Church (Owners) 4769 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML). This designation allows 7.3 to 11.9 multiple-family residential units per net acre. Attached single-family residences (such as duplexes or duets), condominiums, town houses, apartments, mobile home parks along with their accessory buildings and structures, are the primary land use. Secondary land uses which do not conflict with the primary land uses are allowed, including home occupations, group care and/or childcare facilities, churches and other similar places of worship and secondary dwelling units. 7. Zoning: R-7 Single-Family Residential District; 7,000 square foot minimum lot size. The primary land use in this zone is single-family residential. 8. Setting, Site Description & Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is an approximately 0.96-acre parcel located in the unincorporated area of Martinez. The subject site fronts Pacheco Boulevard, and the Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes project(89 single-family homes) surrounds the subject site on all remaining sides. The Belmont Terrace (128 units) and Fassler project (20 units) are directly across the street. The property is accessed off of Pacheco Boulevard. The subject site is currently developed with one residence, as well as a church comprised of a sanctuary and a fellowship hall. The site topography is flat at the point of entry and where the church buildings are set. A slope of approximately 41% occurs generally between the sanctuary building and the residence at the top of the site. A. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of. (l) a rezone of the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single-Family Residential District; (2) a vesting tentative map to subdivide the 0.96-acre parcel into two lots; and (3) a land use permit modification for the purpose of legalizing the current configuration of the church's parking and driveway areas. Variances are requested to allow deviations from the layout and design requirements for off-street parking areas and to allow a total of 36 off-street parking spaces where 37 are required for the church. Approval of the proposed subdivision would not increase the number of single-family residences and the project does not involve a request to expand the existing church. Physical changes that might take place include widening of the driveway serving the existing residence and construction of a turnaround in - 1 - order to meet the ingress and egress requirements of the fire district, though it is not certain that these improvements will be necessary.. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g. permits, financing, approval or participation agreement): Contra Costa County Public Works Department/Flood Control District, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 4 Aesthetics Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality Biological Resources — Cultural Resources _ Geology& Soils Hazards& Hydrology& Land Use& Hazardous Materials _ Water Quality _ Planning Mineral Resources _ Noise _ Population &Housing _ Public Services _ Recreation _ Transportation/Circulation Utilities& Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ✓ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL 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 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoi ed or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that a i posed u n the proposed project. o� f'/2/� Signature Date Jamar I. Stamps Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department - 2 - SOURCES In the process of preparing the Initial Study 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. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, 2. Contra Costa County Code, Title 8 Zoning Ordinance. 3. Contra Costa County Code, Title 9 Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Site visits conducted by County Staff, 2007. 5. Vesting Tentative Map—Minor Subdivision 08-0003 and Church Floor Plan—Minor Subdivision 08-0003 prepared by Loving & Campos Architects, Inc. received by the Community Development.Department on May 14, 2008. 6. Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map 2006 prepared by the California Department of Conservation. 7. Contra Costa County Assessor records. 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, December 1999. 9. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended January 1, 2008 and CEQA Guidelines as amended July 27, 2007. 10. California Department of Toxic Substances Control website. 11. Contra Costa County Public Works Department memo by Laurie Sucgang, Staff Engineer, dated March 11, 2008. 12. Contra Costa County Flood Control District memo by Jorge Hernandez, Staff Engineer, dated April 22, 2008. 13. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District letter by Kathy Woofter, Fire Prevention Technician, dated March 17, 2008. 14. Association of Bay Area Governments Geographic Information Systems, Hazard Maps — Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threat. 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map—Panel 0295. 16. Association of Bay Area Governments Geographic Information Systems, Hazard Maps — Dam Failure Inundation Areas. 17. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 18. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development Geographic Information System and Land Information System. - 3 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?(Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,4, 5) ✓ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source: 5) ✓ SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a.—c. The subject site is not located on or near a scenic vista. A portion of the subject site is located on a hilltop, and is visible from Interstate 680 (the nearest designated Scenic Highway). The Contra Costa Fire Protection District may require improvements to the existing driveway and construction of a new turnaround. Construction of these improvements would not necessitate alteration of any of the natural land features visible from Interstate 680. The project would not result in any damage to scenic resources or substantial degradation of the quality of the site. d. The proposed project would not create new sources of substantial light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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: 6) ✓ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?(Sources: 1) ✓ c• Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or - 4 - nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 2, 4, 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. The site is designated "Urban and Built-Up Land" on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2006 Map prepared by the California Resources Agency. This designation is described as follows: "Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 structure to 1.5 acres or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment and water control structures." According to the Map, the proposed project would not convert any farmland to non- agricultural uses. b. The General Plan Land Use Element Map designates the land for multiple-family uses, and the 2005 County Zoning Map designates the land for single-family residential uses, not for agricultural uses. The property is not covered under a Williamson Act contract. C. None of the land in the immediate area is designated for agricultural uses and no agricultural uses are conducted in the vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project has no potential to change the existing environment in a way that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. III. AIR ()UALITY—Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?(Sources: 5, 8) ✓ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 5, 8) ✓ c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 5, 8) ✓ d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 5, 8) ✓ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 5, 8) ✓ - 5 - SUMMARY: No Impact a.—e. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of additional residences or expansion of the church. Only minor physical alterations to the site may be required for this project. At most, driveway widening and construction of a turnaround would be the extent of site improvements. The construction emissions associated with the driveway wideningltumaround construction would clearly be de minimis due to the short construction period, minimal amount of earthwork involved, and minimal amount of construction equipment involved. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plans for the Bay Area, violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria,pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Less Than • Si6mificant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ 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? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ 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, 5) ✓ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 5) f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted - 6 - Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a.—b. The Conservation Element of the County General Plan identifies significant ecological areas and selected areas of occurrence of protected plant and wildlife species. According to this source, the subject site is not located within any of these areas. In addition, the site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, riparian or other sensitive habitat. Minor access improvements would be the only physical changes, if they are constructed. The scope of these changes would be so small that they clearly do not have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species or their habitat, or on a sensitive natural community of any kind. c. —d. The subject site is within an urbanized area. The site and its surroundings are already developed. There are no wetlands onsite. The proposed project clearly would not impact the movement of migratory species or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. Clearly no actions associated ,with implementation or establishment of the project would result in degradation of biological resources. Thus, the project would not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting such resources. f. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan has been approved or adopted for the project site or its vicinity. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Less Than SiymiScant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?(Sources: 5, 7, 9) ✓ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?(Sources: 1, 5, 9) ✓ c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?(Sources: 1,4, 5, 9) ✓ d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 4, 5, 9) ✓ SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as follows: - 7 - "a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the following: (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, §5024,1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.10 of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided.the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives ofpersons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a. type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. " The subject site contains three buildings. County records indicate that two of the three were constructed in 1953. These buildings may qualify as historic resources. However, no physical changes to the buildings are proposed. If driveway improvements are constructed, the changes would be minor and would not alter the character of the site or area. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not impact historic resources. b.—c. The Conservation Element in the County General Plan identifies areas of archeological sensitivity (Figure 9-2). The map indicated that the subject site is in a largely urbanized area, but also has the possibility of containing archeological resources. It is not readily known if the subject site contains unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Only minor physical alterations to the site may be required for this project. At most, driveway widening and construction of a turnaround would be the extent of site improvements. Because these improvements would involve very little ground disturbance, it is highly unlikely that any underground resources would be uncovered or damaged, even if they do - 8 - exist onsite. Nonetheless, the project would be conditioned to require that in the event of discovery of such resources, all development activities would cease until a qualified professional (archaeologist, paleontologist, etc.) was able to assess the find and determine the appropriate course of action. For these reasons, the County has determined that the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in an archeological, paleontological, or geologic resource. d. Human remains are not apparent onsite. If the project were to be approved, then the conditions of approval would contain the following requirement: "Should human remains be discovered, construction work shall be stopped and the coroner shall be contacted immediately, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e). These requirements shall be stated on the face of all construction drawings." VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1,4, 5) ✓ 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1,4, 5) ✓ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?(Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ 4. Landslides? (Sources: 4, 5) ✓ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?(Source: 4, 5) ✓ 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 5) ✓ 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? (Sources: 5) ✓ - 9 - 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: 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. The subject site is already developed with a church and a single-family residence. No new buildings are proposed. The extent of any changes to the existing conditions at the site would be limited to construction of driveway improvements. These changes clearly would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, or landslides. b. Changes to the existing conditions at the subject site would only result from the possible construction of driveway improvements. These changes would clearly be of a scale too small to cause substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. C. The exact geologic and soil characteristics of the subject site are unknown, though Figure 10- 4 in the Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the site is underlain by bedrock. If constructed, the driveway improvements would not require deep excavation and no cut slopes would be necessary. Such shallow disturbance would not destabilize the site's underlying geologic unit and the surface soils would be only minimally impacted. d. It is unknown whether the subject site contains expansive soils. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures with shallow foundations. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue. The driveway and turnaround would be engineered appropriately for the local soil conditions if these improvements are required to be constructed. e. The project is served by existing wastewater facilities operated by the Mountain View Sanitary District. No septic systems or alternative waste disposal systems are necessary. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?(Source: 5) ✓ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Sources: 5) ✓ c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1, 5) ✓ - 10 - 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: 10) ✓ 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. (Sources: 1, 5, 17) ✓ 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?(Sources: 1, 5, 17, 18) ✓ g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Sources: 1, 13) ✓ h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? (Sources: 4, 5, 14) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a.—b. Residential and religious institutional land uses do not routinely handle hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. C. The subject site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides an annually updated list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This list, know as the "Cortese List", identifies thirty-eight sites within Contra Costa County that have hazardous materials issues. According to the list, the subject site is not on or located near any such site. Therefore, no significant hazard to the public or environment would be created. e.—f The subject site is located within the Buchanan Field Airport Influence Area. The closest runway at Buchanan Field is approximately one mile southeast of the subject site. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) outlines land use policies relative to all property within an established distance of the Buchanan Airport, generally 14,000 feet from the end of the runways. The ALUCP evaluates safety for various land uses in three main areas: noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection. The project site has existing land uses (i.e. church and single-family residence) that would potentially be regulated by the ALUCP policies. The subject site is not within the affected ALUCP noise contours or safety zones. - 11 - The Plan's airspace protection criteria limit building heights in specific zones within the airport influence area. The existing building heights do not exceed any of the required limitations set forth in the ALUCP. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard from Buchanan Field for people attending the church or residing in the home. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g. Comments received from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and County Public Works Department did not indicate that the existing emergency vehicle access and circulation are inadequate. However, there remains the possibility that the Fire District may require widening of the existing driveway and construction of a turnaround. If the existing driveway is modified, the emergency vehicle access and circulation would be improved and therefore the project would not result in an adverse impact on emergency response or evacuation plans. h. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the likelihood of the project site and its residents being impacted by wildfires. The distance between people and wild lands would not change. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?(Sources: 1, 5, 7) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (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)? (Sources: 1, 5, 7) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course oT a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?(Sources: 4, 5) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, in 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: 4, 5) ✓ 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: 3, 5, 11) `/ - 12 - f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 5, 11) ✓ 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: 5, 15) ✓ h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?(Source: 15) ✓ 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: 16) ✓ j. Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?(Sources: 4, 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. The subject site is served by the Mountain View Sanitary District. The District controls and maintains the local public sewer system in compliance with the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The site has two existing land uses, a church and single-family residence that have been, and would continue to be served by the District. At most, driveway widening and construction of a turnaround would be the extent of any site improvements (improvements to the street frontage of the subject site are required to be constructed as part of a larger project on the adjacent properties). This clearly would not lead to a change in the quality of the water being discharged to the District. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. The subject site is located in an area that receives potable water from the Contra Costa Water District and does not rely on an aquifer and wells. The proposed project would not draw upon groundwater supplies.and the minor amount of additional impervious square footage that may be constructed would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. c.—d. If the driveway improvements are constructed, the site modifications would be minor and would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in the area. Existing grades and flow directions would be preserved. e. Division 914 of the County Code requires that stormwater runoff be collected and conveyed to an adequate natural watercourse or to an adequate man-made system that empties into an adequate natural watercourse. Conditions of approval provided by the County Public Works Department require that the applicant collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property. The applicant is not required to submit a storm water control plan for this project because the project would not result in the construction or replacement of 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. It is not anticipated that implementation of the project would lead to substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, as neither the character nor intensity of the site's use would change and any increase in impervious square footage would be minor. r - 13 - f. Implementation of the proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Neither the intensity nor character of the site's use would change. The Public Works Department has determined that the project is not required to submit a stormwater control plan and the project would be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. g. —h. The subject site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. i. The subject site is not protected by levees or dams. No impact would occur, as neither people nor structures would be threatened as a result of levee or dam failure. j. Seiche and tsunami occur in larger bodies of water such as lakes and oceans. There is no threat to the subject site from Seiche or tsunami because the types of water bodies where they occur do not exist in the vicinity. Any current threat to the site from mudflow clearly would not be exacerbated by the minor circulation improvements that may be required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 4, 5) ✓ 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 11) ✓ c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. Approval of the proposed project would allow for the establishment of two lots with existing buildings which may be sold separately. The existing land uses would remain. The project would not lead to a physical division of the established community. The proposed R-6 zoning is essentially the same as the existing R-7 zoning. The uses allowed in both zones are identical. The differences between the two zones are that the minimum lot area for the R-6 zone is 6,000 square feet while the minimum for the R-7 zone is 7,000 square feet and the average lot width for the R-6 zone is 60 feet while the minimum for the R-7 zone is 70 feet. Due to these differences, the R-6 zoning might yield one additional lot if the entire property were ever to be subdivided. However, the potential to develop one additional residence clearly would not lead to a future physical division of the community. b. Nothing in the record suggests that the proposed project would conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating environmental impacts. As explained throughout this Initial Study, implementation of the project would not result in physical changes to the site, with the exception of possible minor driveway improvements. The - 14 - impacts resulting from the driveway improvements are considered by the County to be de minimis. The subject site's current R-7 zoning is not consistent with the ML General Plan land use designation. The proposed R-6 zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan, and would therefore establish conformity. C. No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan has been approved or adopted for the subject site or its vicinity. X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigmif cam Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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) ✓ 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) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. —b. The proposed project would not impact mineral resources because_ no mineral resources are present in the area. XI. NOISE—Would the project result in: Less Than Sigmifrcant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 5) ` ✓ b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(Sources: 1, 5) ✓ c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ e. Fora 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 - 15 - airport, would.the project expose people residing . or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Sources: 1, 4, 5, 17) ✓ 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: 18) ✓ SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a.—c. The County General Plan analyzes and quantifies, to the extent practical, current and projected noise levels for various types of major noise producing sources in the County (i.e. freeways, power plants, airports, etc.). Table 11-6 in the Noise Element identifies noise compatibility with certain land uses. The most significant noise source would come from Interstate 680, putting the site in the 70 dB range. This range is between "Conditionally Acceptable" and "Normally Unacceptable" for single-family homes and churches. New construction of these types of facilities would require mitigation or may even be discouraged. Since the buildings on the subject site already exist, and no new buildings are proposed, exposure of people to excessive or unsafe noise levels would not increase. Implementation of the proposed project would not permanently alter the existing noise environment because neither the character nor intensity of the site's use would change. d. There would likely be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels if the driveway is modified. Because the construction period for the improvements would be extremely short and would not involve major construction equipment, the County considers the potential impact to be less than significant. e.—f. The subject site is located approximately one mile from Buchanan Airport. The County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan contains noise contours and provides acceptable noise levels for certain types of land uses. Single-family residences are normally acceptable up to 55 dB and conditionally acceptable up to 65 dB, and churches arernormally acceptable up to 60 dB and conditionally acceptable up to 65 dB. The major source of noise that impacts the project site is Interstate 680, not Buchanan Airport. As the project does not include a proposal for additional residences or an expansion of the church, its implementation would not expose additional people to noise associated with airport operations. The subject site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: Less Than Significant - Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact. 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: 5) ✓ b, Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 4, 5) ✓ - 16 - c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Sources: 4, 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. No new residences or businesses are proposed and no new offsite infrastructure is proposed. Thus, the proposed project would neither directly nor indirectly induce population growth. b.—c. The proposed project does not involve new development and would not displace people or housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? 1. Fire protection?(Source: 5) ✓ 2. Police protection? (Source: 5) ✓ 3. Schools? (Source: 5) ✓ 4. Parks? (Source: 5) ✓ 5. Other public facilities?(Source: 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. The proposed project does not involve development of new buildings or facilities and it would not induce population growth. Therefore, the County can find no potential impact to public services. XIV. RECREATION Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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: 5) ✓ b• Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse - 17 - physical effecton the environment?(Source: 5) ✓ SUMMARY: No Impact a. As explained in Section X11 above, implementation of the proposed project would not induce population growth. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that physical deterioration of parks or recreational facilities would be accelerated as a result of the proposed project. b. The proposed project does not include a proposal for new recreational facilities and would not necessitate the expansion of existing facilities, as no population growth would occur. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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?(Sources: 5, 11} ✓ b. . Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 5, 11) ✓ c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 5) ✓ d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Sources: 4, 5) ✓ e. Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 5, 13) ✓ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 4, 5) ✓ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Sources: 1, 4, 5) ✓ SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a.—b. The proposed project does not include new residences or expansion of the church. Thus, it would not generate additional traffic. - 18 - C. The closest airport is Buchanan Field, which is more than one mile away.No new buildings or structures are proposed. Implementation of the proposed project clearly would not impact operations at Buchanan Field. d. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or the introduction of incompatible uses. No major physical changes to the site are proposed. The site's uses would continue to be residential and a religious institution. e. If any physical changes are implemented, they will be for the purpose of improving emergency vehicle access. f. County Parking Standards require that churches provide at least 1 parking space for every 3 seats (County Code §82-16.018[3]). The subject site currently contains 45 spaces for the church. Based on information provided by the property owner, the existing church contains 1 10 seats, which would require a minimum of 37 off-street parking spaces. Due to the design of the subdivision, and location of the access easement for proposed Parcel B, approximately 9 spaces would be eliminated to accommodate the access easement, resulting in a total of 36 spaces. Variance approval would be required for the one lost off-street parking space. The existing church holds services twice a week, once on Sundays and once on Wednesdays. Site observations indicate that even during times when the church use would experience highest intensity (during services), the parking is more than sufficient, even resulting in a surplus at times. The 36 off-street parking spaces would be sufficient for the subject site and only one short of the minimum required by Code. Some of the existing off-street parking stalls have substandard dimensions, which would also require variance approval. However, none of the existing parking stalls are unable to properly accommodate a standard vehicle. . Impacts related to the loss of parking or the allowance of substandard parking stall dimensions would be less than significant. The subject site currently complies with the County's off-street parking requirements for single-family residential lots and would remain in compliance after division. g. There is no potential for the proposed project to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. There would be no change in the number of residential units or the use of the site, and there would be no physical changes that would impede the development of public or other alternative modes of transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?(Sources: 5) ✓ 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?(Source: 5) ✓ c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, the construction - 19 - of which could cause significant environmental effects?(Sources: 5, 11) ✓ d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 5) ✓ 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: 5) ✓ f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted . capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs?(Sources: 1, 5) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1, 5) ✓ SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. See discussion in Section VIII.a above. b. See Sections XVIA and XVI.e below regarding water and wastewater facilities, respectively. C. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. See discussion in Section VIII.e above. d. The Contra Costa Water District is the local supplier of potable water. No new development is proposed. Thus,there would be no increase in water demand. e. The Mountain View Sanitary District is the local wastewater service provider. No new development is proposed. Thus, there would be no increase in demand for wastewater services. f.—g. The site is served by a landfill facility within Contra Costa County that complies with applicable codes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the quantity or type of solid waste produced at the subject site. County landfills have adequate capacity to continue serving the existing uses. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 - 20 - self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ✓ SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a. As explained throughout this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts. Based on the evidence in the record,the County finds that the project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As explained in Section V above, it is unknown whether any cultural resources exist on the subject site and no changes are proposed to the existing buildings, which themselves are of sufficient age to qualify as historic resources. If.driveway modifications are constructed, the improvements would cause very minor changes to the physical environment. The County finds that implementation of the proposed project would have essentially no potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. The only possible cumulative impact would be the potential to establish one additional housing unit as a result of the rezone from R-7 to R-6. As stated above, due to the square footage differences for the two zones, the proposed zoning could possibly yield one additional lot if the entire property were to be subdivided. However, the land uses are already established and the current proposal is only for the subdivision of one parcel into two. The R-7 zoning and R-6 zoning are identical as far as uses allowed. Additionally, the proposed R-6 zoning is consistent with the ML General Plan fand use designation, whereas the current R-7 zoning is not. Clearly the possibility to establish one additional housing unit would not constitute an individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impact in connection with past, present or future projects. C. As explained throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in very few potential impacts and all of the impacts that were identified would be less than significant. Nothing in the record indicates that project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on humans. - 21 - Exhibit #7 Site Plan and Floor Plans i f I NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 107, McBrien Administration'Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, the County Planning Commission will consider REZONING, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN applications as described as follows: LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS (Applicant)— FIRST LIGHT CHURCH (Owners), County File#RZ083200/MS080003/LP082040: The applicant requests approval of: (1) a rezone of the subject site from R-7, Single-Family Residential District to R-6, Single- Family Residential District; (2) a.vesting tentative map to subdivide the 0.96-acre parcel into two lots; and (3) a land use permit modification to authorize the establishment of the "fellowship hall," and current configuration of the church's parking and driveway areas. Variances are requested to allow deviations from the minimum required quantity of off-street parking, and layout and design requirements for off-street parking areas for the existing church which include; (1) to allow a total of 36 off-street parking spaces where 37 are required; (2) 60 degree angled parking stalls with substandard widths and depths (where a minimum 9-foot width and 21-foot depth are required); (3) 90 degree angled parking stalls with substandard widths and depths (where a minimum 9-foot width and 19-foot depth are required); and (4)a 24-foot wide access drive between parking stalls where a 28-foot minimum is required. Approval of the proposed project would not increase the number of single-family residences or expand the existing church. The subject site is located at 4769 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (R-7) (ZA: G-13) (CT: 3200.02) (Parcel #159-230-006). For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project 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. For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Jamar Stamps at 925-335-1220. Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director- Community Development Contra Costa County Page 1 of 5 Ot Contra Costa County \.'"'t �� 'd'�aU�)�7pA9+! 1LI4?ppol.pt pi?93 �-l'1IpCi y. 1°-e'•' ."v�Q„.. 5��y��4.4• `x\'f�i: ,/v�).'\�`� •\• \,\ <° , I, \. Martinez 1 { �`1'�i� a vp 1 http://ccmap.us/gis/print.aspx 9/11/2008 I 1 APN SITUS-NB SITUS-STREET N,!SITUS-STREET-S SI SITUS-CITY-,SITUS_ZIF SITUS_ZIF 1 161570021 . NO ADDRESS MARTINEZ 94553 1 161022001 4808 SUNRISE DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 4346 1 159230002 4755 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3630 1 159230006 4769 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3630 1 161570009 101 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161580098 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 I 161580100 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161262015 4754 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3632 I 161580143 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570010 109 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570011 117 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570001 401 HERON LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 159220011 4791 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 36301 161580102 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161262014 4744 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 36321 161570012 '125 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161262009 4736 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3632 I 161580099 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161580145 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570005 100 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570006 108 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570007 116 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570003 506 WEATHERLY LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570004 500 WEATHERLY LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161021009 4801 SUNRISE DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 43871 161580148 FALLING STAR DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161262021 4734 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3632 1 161580101 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161270011 4776 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3632 1 161580144 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 159230003 4781 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 3630 1 161580095 833 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 1 161580097 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD MARTINEZ 94553 I 161570002 407 HERON LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 161570008 124 KINGSWOOD LANE MARTINEZ 94553 1 PARCEL-OWNER NOTIF_STREET_ADDR NOTIF_CITY_STATE NOTIF_ZIF NOTIF_ZIF COMMON AREA-TRACT 7418 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 NAREZ RICHARD S 2504 ROLLING HILLS CT ALAMO CA 94507 2309 OBRIEN LAND COMPANY LLC 950 TOWER LN #1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 4267 CHURCH OF GOD AT MARTINE 4769 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 3630 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCI; 94080 3203 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 GUNSUL THOMAS 4754 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 3632 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN #1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCI: 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCI: 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCI; 94080 3203 BARTLETT RICHARD J 1125 B ARNOLD DR#229 MARTINEZ CA 94553 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 KOCH EUGUENE R& DARLENI4744 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 3632 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 ERDEI VICTOR 4736 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 3632 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIj PO BOX 5300 DANVILLE CA 94526 1076 BELMONT TERRACE HOA 4861 SUNRISE DR#104 MARTINEZ CA 94553 KNOBLOCH ROBERT W 4734 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA 94553 3632 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 KELLEHER WILLIAM J TRE 906 HARBOR VIEW DR MARTINEZ CA 94553 2762 BELMONT TERRACE HOA 4861 SUNRISE DR#104 MARTINEZ CA 94553 BODHAINE RANDALL C &C I TI PO BOX 23366 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 366 HARRISON MATTHEW L & MAF 833 LITTLE VALLEY RD MARTINEZ CA 94553 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN#1250 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 2121 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCK 94080 3203 161570021 161022001 159230002 COMMON AREA-TRACT 7418 NAREZ RICHARD S OBRIEN LAND COMPANY LLC 975 EL CAMINO REAL 2504 ROLLING HILLS CT 950 TOWER LN #1250 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA ALAMO CA FOSTER CITY CA 94080 94507 94404 159230006 161570009 161580098 CHURCH OF GOD AT MARTINEZ FIRST NATIONAL BANK OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 4769 PACHECO BLVD 975 EL CAMINO REAL 950 TOWER LN#1250 MARTINEZ CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA FOSTER CITY CA 94553 94080 94404 161580100 161262015 161580143 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC GUNSUL THOMAS OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 950 TOWER LN #1250 4754 PACHECO BLVD 950 TOWER LN #1250 FOSTER CITY CA MARTINEZ CA FOSTER CITY CA 94404 94553 94404 161570010 161570011 161570001 FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL 975 EL CAMINO REAL 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 94080 94080 159220011 161580102 161262014 BARTLETT RICHARD J OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KOCH EUGUENE R&DARLENE G 1 125 B ARNOLD DR#229 950 TOWER LN #1250 4744 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA FOSTER CITY CA MARTINEZ CA 94553 94404 94553 161570012 161262009 161580099 FIRST,NATIONAL BANK ERDEI VICTOR OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 975 EL CAMINO REAL 4736 PACHECO BLVD 950 TOWER LN #1250 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA MARTINEZ CA FOSTER CITY CA 94080 94553 94404 161580145 161570005 161570006 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK 950 TOWER LN#1250 975 EL CAMINO REAL 975 EL CAMINO REAL FOSTER CITY CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA •94404 94080 94080 161570007 161570003 161570004 FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK 975 EL CAMINO REAL 1975 EL CAMINO REAL 975 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 94080 94080 161021009 ]61580148 161262021 BRADDOCK & LOGAN BELMONT TERRACE,HOA KNOBLOCH ROBERT W ASSOCIATES 4861 SUNRISE DR #104 4734 PACHECO BLVD PO BOX 5300 MARTINEZ CA MARTINEZ CA DANVILLE CA 94553 94553 945 (, 161580101 161270011 161580144 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KELLEHER WILLIAM J TRE BELMONT TERRACE HOA 950 TOWER LN #1250 906 HARBOR VIEW DR 4861 SUNRISE DR #104 FOSTER CITY CA MARTINEZ CA MARTINEZ CA 94404 94553 94553 159230003 161580095 161580097 BODHAINE RANDALL C& C I TRE HARRISON MATTHEW L& OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC PO BOX 23366 MARYANN 950 TOWER LN #1250 PLEASANT HILL CA 833 LITTLE VALLEY RD FOSTER CITY CA 94523 MARTINEZ CA 94404 Q41;1;,; 161570002 161570008 FIRST NATIONAL BANK FIRST NATIONAL BANK Loving & Campos Architects 975 EL CAMINO REAL 975 EL CAMINO REAL 245 Ygnacio Valley Rd. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA Walnut Creek, CA 94596 94080 94080 Loving & Campos Architects Church of God 245 Ygnacio Valley Rd: 4769 Pacheco Blvd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez, CA 94553