HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06201989 - T.6 T. 6
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cwtra
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Costa
Director of Community Development Couly
DATE: May 2 , 1989
SUBJECT: Proposed Central County Service Center Including Phase I Development
of Public Works Dept. , Corporation Yard. (S.D. II, Pacheco Area) .
Parcel Nos. 159-140-047, #159-140-001 & 049.
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application
2828-RZ, to rezone 20 acres from Light Industrial (L-I) , Single
Family Residential (R-7) and Heavy Industrial (H-I ) to Planned
Unit District (P-1) , as shown in Exhibit I. for the proposed
Central County Service Center project subject to the attached
conditions contained in Exhibit II as recommended by the County
Planning Commission.
2. Approve Final Development Plan #3050-88 for the 8-acre Public
Works Corporation yard located within the service center
project. subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit III as
recommended by the County Planning Commission.
3. Adopt the County Planning Commission's findings as contained in
Exhibit IV as the Board's basis for this decision.
4. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning; waive
reading and set date for adoption of same.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION:
The proposed project encompasses 20 acres of the ultimate 28 acre County
General Service Center near the corner of Imhoff Drive and Blum Road in the
Pacheco area.
The project is proposed to be developed in phases. The first phase (FDP #3050-
88) encompasses the 8 acre County Public Works Corporation Yard to be developed
in the middle of the Service Center project. The balance of the property is
proposed to be developed in the future to benefit other County departments
(General Services, Agriculture) .
Prior to .any hearings on the project, the General Services and Public Works
Departments conducted several open-house meetings in the Blum Road neighborhood
to describe the proposed project to nearby residents.
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared, circulated and certified on the
project in accord with the State and County CEQA Guidelines.
The County Planning Commission initially took testimony on the merits of the ,
project on March 14 , 1989. On March 28, 1989, the Commission recommended
approval of the project subject to the attached conditions. The conditions call
for the phasing of off-site road improvements to address traffic impacts of the
project. The conditions also limit direct access onto Blum Road by heavy
.v*:hicles based at the Service Center.
Elimination Of Commercial Fueling Facility Proposed:
Originally, the Service Center Project included a proposed commercial fueling
facility. The facility is described in great detail in the EIR. That facility
was opposed by a number of residents in the Blum Road area and by the Central
Sanitary District.
In view of the neighborhood opposition, the commercial fueling facility was
eliminated from the project (C/A #2 of 2828-RZ) . A non-commercial fueling
facility is still allowed by the Commission's action.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: LXXX YES SIGNATURE•
RECOMP[ENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECONrON F COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON . June 20 , 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X .
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors heretofore noticed this
time for hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the recommendation
of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by the
County of Contra Costa (applicant and owner) to rezone approximately
20 acres of land ( 2828-RZ) from Single Family Residential (R-7) ,
Heavy-Industrial (H-I ) , and Light Industrial (L-I ) to Planned Unit
District (P-1) and for approval of preliminary development plan for a
corporation yard/service center; and for final development plan
( 3050-88) approval for a proposed corporation yard on eight acres
within the property covered by 2828-RZ in the Pacheco area.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report. on the request, described the proposed site, and
commented on concerns that had been expressed by neighbors near the
proposed yard, and on the inclusion of an asphalt walkway the for
safety purposes. He also commented on landscaping and buffering, and
advised that the requested fueling plant had been removed from this
proposal. He presented the staff recommendation to approve the
rezoning and preliminary development plan application 2828-RZ and
approve final development plan 3050-88, adopt the Planning
Commission' s findings, introduce the ordinance giving effect to the
rezoning, waive the reading and set a date for the adoption with the
revised conditions.
The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared
to speak:
Rich Jones , 40 Rutherford Lane, Martinez, commented on the
workability of the plan before the Board, expressing gratitude for the
inclusion of a sidewalk that will run along Blum Road and the
crosswalks that would be included at the intersection of Imhoff Drive
and Blum Road.
James Marieiro, 138 Clipper Lane, Martinez, commented on the
canal water system and allowing the drip system to be used rather than
good water.
Paul Macchia, 145 Hillside Lane, Martinez, commented on the
fueling facility not being included in the request.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Fanden moved approval of the staff recommendation.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 with revised
conditions, 3, and 4 are APPROVED; and as in recommendation 4,
Ordinance No. 89-41 is INTRODUCED, reading waived, and June 27, 1989
.is set for adoption of same.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED June 20, 1989
General Services -Joe Baybado PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works-Tom Dudziak THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Assessor0 i�p COUN"Y ADMINISTRATOR
Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. 11
BY a , DEPUTY
EXHIBIT I
Findings Map
YI
.. I •Illlll
D .1
: a
1-660 <• ::•':•::; OP
cos
l�
R• =N"M
R-7
Rezone From L-1 To P-1 Area
I, ✓41Ai 11r4 jwl NEY Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of p4GE G-/3 of THE C&Arr)l S
1170 ZON/NG MdA
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of Cg1yreI czw7,4 czWN7Y v&&A/C fy6�2.C'S
DEPA?7�rEN7'
2828-•2z
air of the Contra Costa C my
Planning Commission,State of California
ATTES
1 '
(THtory of ntro Costa County
Planning Commi Won, State of Calif.
Nr
EXHIBIT II
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CENTRAL COUNTY SERVICE CENTER
(REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN #2828-RZ
1. Development shall be as generally shown on the exhibits submitted with the
application as listed below:
- Preliminary Development Plan.
- Grading and Drainage Plan.
- Building Floor Plans and Elevations
- Road Crew Storage
- Material and Testing Lab
- Administration Building
- Warehouse and Shops
2. The proposed commercial fueling facility is eliminated from this proposal .
Any new proposal to establish a commercial fueling facility will require
approval of a new preliminary development plan application after appropri-
ate environmental review.
3. This approval allows for phased development of the service center. Each
phase shall be subject to prior approval of a final development application
after appropriate environmental review has been completed. Environmental
review shall address:
A. Compatible lighting of Service Center relative to nearby residential
development.
B. Appropriate parking facilities.
C. Re-evaluation and update of traffic impacts, especially those
resulting from freeway modification.
D. Re-evaluate and update noise impacts.
4. Administrative office activities shall generally be limited to those
activities that are directly ancillary to the corporation yard, warehouse,
motor pool , and materials and storage activities on the site. All of the
proposed office buildings shown on the preliminary development plan are
approved.
5. If the site is graded during the winter rainy season (after October 1) , the
grading contract shall specify that all erosion control measures should be
in place within 24 hours of completing rough grading.
The following mitigation measures shall be applied by the Zoning
Administrator as appropriate:
A. Construction of temporary silt basins in puddled areas.
B. Use of silt fences or baled hay to protect the existing drainage
channel .
v3
C. Hydroseeding and hydromulching of grading surfaces.
D. Provision for necessary maintenance throughout the rainy season.
6. A uniform building design theme shall be established by use of colors _.
and/or materials throughout the project.
7. A masonry soundwall shall be erected along the north property line for that
segment adjoining residential development. Perimeter landscaping treatment
shall be undertaken to screen the project from view.
8 Comply with the following road and drainage requirements:
A. Development Plan 3050-88 (the Public Works Corporation Yard) will be
required, as part of its Conditions of Approval , to provide for
pertinent parts of the traffic mitigation improvements for Phase I of
the site development as outlined in the DEIR and summarized on Figure
23 of the DEIR. Subsequent development of the site will require the
completion of those improvements and the construction of additional
traffic mitigation improvements, including the Highway 4 Ramp
Intersection improvements discussed on page 64 of the DEIR, that may
be recommended during the staged EIR process for the site.
B. Development Plan 3050-88 and subsequent development of the site will
be required to conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage)
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
C. Development Plan 3050-88 is conditioned to construct a 4 foot P.C.C.
sidewalk along its Blum Road frontage and a 4 foot asphalt sidewalk
along the remaining Blum Road frontage of the Corporation Yard.
Subsequent development 'of the site will require the replacement of the
asphalt sidewalk with a P.C.C. sidewalk.
RHD/aa
RZX/2828-RZC.RD
3/6/89
3/28/89 - Revised, P/C (v)
9/15/89
EXHIBIT III
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY CORPORATION YARD (FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3050-88
1. This application for final development plan is approved as generally shown
on the following exhibits submitted with the application:
- Final Development Plan-Phase I Public Works Corporation Yard.
- Grading and Drainage Plan.
- Administration Building Floor Plan and Elevations.
- Road Crew Storage Floor Plan and Elevations.
- Warehouse Floor Plan and Elevations.
- Materials and Testing Lab Floor Plan and Elevations.
Direct access onto Blum Road is approved on a temporary basis only. This
access shall be re-evaluated for compatibility with nearby residential de-
velopment at time of review of subsequent phasing of the Service Center
Project.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape/irrigation and
fence plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The applicant shall offer to install up to two 15-gallon
trees in the rearyards of residences adjoining the north side of the
project site. Landscape treatment along the entire Blum Road frontage,
shall be undertaken to screen the project from view. Existing mature trees
shall be retained to the extent feasible.
3. A water service agreement may also be needed to be executed between the
City of Martinez and Contra Costa Water District to provide domestic water
to the site.
The project shall connect to a public sewer system.
4. Fuel tanks and pipelines for the proposed County fueling facility shall be
buried.
5. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator and Building Inspection Department. If the site
is graded during the winter rainy season (after October 1) , the grading
contract shall specify that all erosion control measures should be in place
within 24 hours of completing grading. The following measures shall be
applied to the grading permit as appropriate:
a) construction of temporary silt houses in puddled areas.
b) use of silt fences or baled hay to protect existing drainage channel .
c) hydroseeding and hydromulching of grading surfaces.
2
d) provision for necessary maintenance throughout the rainy season.
6. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, excepting holidays.
7. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to
fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condi-
tion and to locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air
compressors or concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as
possible.
8. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall
post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary of the project site that construction work will commence.
The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone
number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining
the list shall be included. This list shall be kept current at all times
and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action-
in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for
noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The
names and individuals responsible for noise and litter control shall be
expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with
each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be transmitted to the Community Development
Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and
addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area
noticed.
9. A Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program, in compliance with
County policies, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to issuance of a building
permit. An on-going program shall be established to notify employees of
transit opportunities in the area, and encourage and facilitate carpooling
among employees using the project site.
10. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a building permit, a demand study and
an appropriate response program for child care facilities based on ultimate
development of the Service Center shall be submitted in accord with Ordi-
nance 88-1, the Child Care Ordinance. The response program shall be sub-
ject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The response program shall be in operation prior to occupancy of any
buildings. If the Zoning Administrator concludes that a facility is need-
ed, that facility may either be located on-site or off-site.
11. A fugitive dust control program shall be submitted for the review and ap-
proval of the Zoning Administrator.
3
12. Air pollution control equipment shall be installed with the County fuel
facility in accord with State law.
13. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or
other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials
shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the
Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of
the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary.
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, building elevations shall be sub-
mitted for each structure. Building design should generally employ a com-
mon architectural , material , and color theme among the various structures
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Adminis-
trator.
15. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a final grading and drainage plan
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Existing trees shall be identified on the pian and whether they are to be
removed or retained.
16. Comply with the following requirement of the County Planning Geologist:
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a soil , geology, and foundation re-
port shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Geolo-
gist.
17. Heavy vehicles and equipment shall generally be prohited from acessing the
site along the Blum Road frontage. Heavy vehicles are defined here to be
vehicles larger than the typical pick-up truck. Until the improvements
listed below in Conditions 20.A, 4, 5, & 6 are completed, heavy vehicles
and equipment kept at the corporation yard shall use Imhoff Drive or Water-
bird Way for access, via Solano Avenue.
18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a sign control program shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
program shall address on-site as well as any proposed off-site signs.
19. Comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Fire District.
20. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
A. Construct road improvements as follows:
1. (Reference Mitigation Improvement item #1 of Figure 23 of the
Central County Corporation Yard DEIR) . Construct the intersec-
tion and 300 feet of a half-width new Waterbird Way. The re-
maining improvements described in item #1 will be accomplished
when further development of the site occurs.
4
2. (Reference Mitigation Improvement item #3 of Figure 23 of the
DEIR) . Provide striping and relocate driveway as described in
item #3.
3. (Reference Mitigation Improvement item #4 of Figure 23 of the
DEIR) . Construct new intersection at Imhoff Drive/Imhoff Place
and new roadway to the Corporation yard as described in item #4.
4. Construct widening on Imhoff Drive at its intersection with Blum
Road as directed by the Road Engineering Division of the County
Public Works Department.
5. Provide for a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Imhoff
Drive/Blum Road.
6. Construct widening on Blum Road at its intersection with Pacheco
Boulevard as directed by the Road Engineering Division of the
Public Works Department.
7. Construct a 4 foot P.C.C. sidewalk along the Blum Road frontage
of Development Plan 3050-88 and a 4 foot asphalt sidewalk along
the remaining Blum Road frontage of the Corporation Yard.
S. Provide sketch plans, showing curb lines, driveways, lane lines
and signing, of the road improvements described above, for review
of the Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division, prior
to preparation of detailed improvement plans.
9. Informational note: The road improvements described on Figure 23
of the DEIR which are not required to be completed by this de-
velopment will be required to be completed during follow on de-
velopment of the site.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way
on Waterbird Way as required for the planned future width of 68 feet
with a widening to 84 feet at the approach to Imhoff Drive.
C. Install additional street lights on Imhoff Drive. The final number
and location of the lights shall be determined by the County Traffic
Engineer.
D. This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914
(Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Onsite grease traps shall be
provided to prevent petroleum products from entering the storm drain
system.
E. Install all new utility distribution services underground.
F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to
the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for re-
view; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees.
These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping
5
plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement
plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The
review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed
prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the
Public Works Department. If final inspection is requested prior to
construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road im-
provement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required
by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish &
Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box
47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this
development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish &
Game Code.
B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of
Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the
Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required and if it can be
obtained.
BD/GA/df
dp4:3050-88c.bd
3/9/89
3/28/88 - Revised, P/C (v)
9/15/89
Resolution No. 22-1989
EXHIBIT IV
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE CENTRAL SERVICE
CORPORATION YARD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF SAID- PROJECT INCLUDING REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2828-RZ -AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #3050-88, IN THE ORDINANCE CODE
SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE (BLUM ROAD) PACHECO
AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on August 17, 1987, the Community Development Department
received a referral from the General Services Department on a proposed
Master Plan to guide the development of a Central County Corporation
Yard; and
WHEREAS, in accord with the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a
Notice of Preparation was issued by the County on September 22, 1987
that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the above-
described project (File #CP 87-77) ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) , and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared in connection
with the proposed Corporation Yard/Service Center project, and a
Notice of Preparation was issued on October 24, 1988. The DEIR was
circulated for comment as required by law. In addition, a public
hearing was scheduled and held on November 29, 1988 to solicit. oral
comments to the DEIR, at which time, the hearing was CONTINUED to
January 24, 1989, at which time, the hearing was rescheduled to
January 31, 1989, at which time a hearing was held and closed. The
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) consisting of the DEIR and
the responses to comments on the DEIR, was subsequently filed with the
Contra Costa County Community Development Department. On March
14,1989, the County Planning Commission indicated its intent to
certify the FEIR for the corporation yard project as adequate under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS -on December 22, 1988, Applications ' for .;approval of a .
phased..deveaopment_.known as .the :Central .Coun
"coty Service Center ,p 3:��'
mpassing , most 6W'"�V ro3e -t ..described . ,County
. in ..the Central _
Corpgration Yard/Service Center.;pro3ect, ZoCated^atsb#47�85 H1 mad in
the Pacheco ,areas have been submitted t_o ,the Commn3`t'� evopment
I partmentt?fY ontra Costa. lin y,, aLPCL
WHEREAS, these applictions describing the Central County Service
Center are identified as follows:
1 a k; ezoning/Preliminary ;P
-:• Development -. lan f..2828-RZ,"70.`:Pthowing-
itimate -development. ;,of 4,20-acre area;
2. 4'1,hal Development Plan.4 #3050-88,"encompassing Phase I,,.devel -
�opmehoran k8-acre.uarearwithin .the 20-acre County Ser-v'ic" er
rTvp'4Ek--tY.2�" and• -
i
t Resolution No. 22-1989
WHEREAS, staff determined that the project described in the
subject applications was identical to the project described and
reviewed 4Ln the_.k ntral•-�;-County'"Corpora'tion---Yard ,Draft,„;„Env ronment.al
I&PAat_ailpor f, .an r
WHEREAS, after providing notice as required by law, the County
Planning Commission reviewed and considered Rezoning/Preliminary
Development - Plan File No. 2828-RZ and Final Development Plan No.
3050-88, and the staff reports prepared by Contra Costa County Commu-
nity Development Department, exhibits presented at the hearing,
written and oral testimony received at the public hearings on March 4,
1989 and March 28, 1989. The County Planning Commission thereupon
took the actions hereinafter set forth.
STOWS °.t
.T--HEI _ BF T RESOLVED-that ' he"County P-lanning4Commission f:_
- ...:E] ,
NerEby' ;M ceries that:
a. In making its recommendation, it has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) consisting of the DEIR dated October 1988 and
the comments and responses thereto dated February 1989 (all
of which are collectively referred to herein as the "final
EIR or FEIR) ; and
b. OThe TFEIR ->is =adequate and complete .and?;ias_.been prepared=:and
procoss'ed -in. ,compliance with °CEQA -State ' and •-.bounty -XEQA
Guidelines-:'.4rid
C. q�he.?FEIR :has "been "prepared as a single EIR oto describe tithe
preliminary plans for the entire `Service Center.projeet and
final development plans of the County Public Works ' Corpora-
ti.on Yard and it is anticipated that such future projects
(i.e. , development following the first phase Public Works
Corporation Yard) and their circumstances will be essen-
tially the same in terms of environmental input. Therefore,
it is contemplated that for future development projects in
the area, the FEIR might be utilized consistent with Section
15153 of the CEQA _Guide.lines -,,as ,.an EIR from an earlier
project. Rkh b t "A"� entitled . ,CEQA Findings"-, attached
hereto-.and--fully -incorporated *li'erein, "identifies impacts -sand
their..mitigation�measures implemented =•through the conditions.
of approval.•.rfor.. X2828-RZ -and File 13050-88, ani un
avoidable impacts requiring " -a Statement of. `�.Overriding
Considerations._
�E 1Tr�'F'IJRTHER RESOLVED -that"
that. the :Gounty.'"Planning -Commission;-hereby
ecommends -to the Board ,-of mSi4p � o_�. jathe o=ty sta;,
tate'° of%rCa ifdrn"� PROVAL of" the requested hsilt a �ink&lz ram
K .
L - 1 Dlstri "(L I`)'; Single Family Residential 'district
R' -an c ivy Yhn ustrial ..District �(H-Z) 'to ,Planned 'Unit ,a� trict
: ;
W 11 as detailed in Exhibit . '.'.B" entitled,�PAG&.G-13 :OF .:THE,,COUNTY'S
11978 ZONING. MAP, whi,o -1—j t_t�c�edz hereto ;and 'made apart. hereof and .
including the conditions -of -approval -as "'Exhibit "C",1`3"n`C ingvthe
elimination of the ,proposed :commercial` -fuel ng-facility,; and "
-2-
`Resolution No. 22-1989
SE STT !FURTHER °RESOLVED` ,t'hat tie'County''P`laiiniag toinin3s"sion.aialso
recommends &to your ASoard'P,PPRO�FAL GOf` �' na 7 � q�$ plan-4'10'50-88
, .... ...i^-. .ywCr .., .
1.
nchu�ir g the conditions Tof-sapproval att'ached-`�hdkii to-�as =Exh Vit''=°"D" ;
BB3T:FURTHER-RESOLVED that fthe_ proposed-appl3diions as 'approved
couzdlto fu13yor►form„,nth the, ;Publ:ic/Semi,-Public Ndesigtat#ons;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chair and Secretary of this
Planning Commission will respectively sign and attest the certified
copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervi-
sors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of
California.
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this
resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, March 28 ,
1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Nimr, Lane, Accornero, Feliz,
Whitney.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - Leslie K. Davis .
I, Juanita W. Whitney, Chair of the Planning Commission of the
County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the
foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on
Tuesday, April 25 , 1989, and that this resolution was duly and regu-
larly passed. and adopted by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Feliz, Nimr, Davis, Lane, Whitney.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
5L
air of the Planning ommission,
Contra Costa County, State of
California.
ATTESAosta
SecreYoy,
ning Commission,
ContrState of California.
lv/2828-RZ.
-3-
EXHIBIT I
Findings Map_
- �• � I �lilllf
D -1 "
3>
1-680 i;;::;:; :: OQ
cot
�
C[RTRAI
,P-7
'v-I
Rezone From L-I To P-1 PACNECO Area
It 111AN/T.4 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-/3 of THE COUNTy3
/978' ZoNiNa M4P
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of calyre4 cos-7.4CL
G9�UNT)/paBL/C fi'02XS
EPA?TRENT
2828-�L Y
air of the Contra Costa C my
Planning Commission,State of California
ATTES
e r tory of ntro Costa County
Planning Commi Won, State of Calif.
CEQA FINDINGS
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO.22-1989
CENTRAL COUNTY SERVICE CENTER PROJECT
INCLUDING PHASE I DEVELOPMENT
I. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State of
California CEQA Guidelines Section 15901, the approval of a project
requires the approving agency to evaluate the proposed project in
light of the significant impacts identified by the Environmental
Impact Report and impose mitigation measures on the project to reduce
those impacts below levels of significance or alternatively to find
that there is an overriding concern which would take precedence over
the significant environmental impact identified. Such evaluation
requires that affirmative findings be made by the lead agency so as to
present a logical means to evaluate the impacts, mitigations and
reasoning of the approving agency. This Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) has been prepared with the intent that it may be uti-
lized as a single EIR to describe not only the immediate development
proposed for the eight ( 8) acre Public Works Corporation Yard, but the
entire 20-acre Service Center project. As such, many of the inputs and
mitigation measures identified therein might be sufficient for the
CEQA review of future development of the Service Center beyond Phase
I. If not determined to be sufficient, a supplemental EIR document
may be appropriate for addressing only unforeseen impacts.
The following findings generally concern application of the FEIR
and CEQA requirements for File #2828-RZ and File #3050-88. The
specific mitigation applied by the Commission is listed below together
with the mitigation identified in the DEIR.
II . The County Planning Commission makes the following findings
with regard to the recommended Central County Service Project (File
#2828-RZ) and County Public Works Corporation Yard (File No. 3050-88 ) ,
and the analysis of its impacts consistent with the FEIR and the
requirements of CEQA.
A. PLANS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES:
1 . Land Use Compatibility-
Impact
ompatibility-Im act - A corporation yard poses pdtential land use
conflicts with adjacent residential properties.
Mitigation - The County' s Conceptual Development Plan
(Figures 4 & 5) indicate office uses for the west
portion of the site would rise only one ( 1 ) story above
street level and set back approximately 100-ft. from
Blum Road and the property line. Access to the corpo-
ration yard would be from Waterbird Way and Imhoff
Drive.
The EIR indicates that rezoning the entire site to P-1
would provide more control over development of the site
than is possible in other zoning districts. Furthermore,
it recommends that landscaping of the Blum Road frontage
and north boundary of the site be performed in
conjunction with development of Phase I, and that a
masonry wall be constructed along the north boundary of
the site, opposite the residential neighborhood.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The application
submittal satisfies the site plan mitigation described
above. The recommended conditions of approval for the
final development plan (FDP) require landscape plantings
along the entire frontage of Blum Road. The recommended
conditions for the FDP also require that the County offer
to install up to two 15-gallon trees in the rear yards of
each of the abutting residences on the north side of the
project. (C/A #2) . Phase II (preliminary development
plan) conditions call for construction of a masonry wall
along the north property line abutting existing
residences. (C/A #7) .
2. ,' Master Plan
Impact - Development of the property could create design
problems.
EIR Mitigation - Night lighting should be kept to a
minimum. For Phase I . lighting is mitigated by distance.
(The Phase I site is 500 feet from the north property
line. ) For subsequent phases, lighting is an issue that
should be evaluated by EIR Supplements. Potential
mitigation measures include a) coordinating the lighting
concept with landscaping, b) using light fixtures that
diffuse light, c) directing light away from nearby
residences, and d) selecting materials, finishes and
colors for buildings that minimize reflections.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #3 .A. )
3. Sphere of Influence and. Annexation
Impact - The site is in two sewer districts and would
.require annexation to a water district.
EIR Mitigation - Should a boundary reorganization be
requested, the County would be required to pay annexation
and connection fees. There would be no physical or
financial impacts to other property owners in the
district.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP is
conditioned to require boundary reorganization to place
the entire parcel within the Central Sanitary District.
(C/A #3)
The County is also advised on the need for a water
service agreement to be executed between the City of
Martinez and Contra Costa Water District.
4. Parking
Im act - Parking spaces in Phase I are adequate to meet
the requirements of the Public Works Department.
However, parking demand for future phases is less certain
since County priorities (and staffing) may change.
EIR Mitigation - Parking studies should be performed for
future phases as part of each EIR Supplement.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #3.B. )
5. Refueling Facility on Lease Parcel
Impact - The proposed refueling facility is a 7
day-per-week, 24 hour-per-day operation. It is a
potential source of noise (especially nighttime noise) ,
traffic, light and glare, and petroleum products are
hazardous.
EIR Mitigation - The site is 750 feet from the nearest
residence and its elevation is relatively low ( 20 to 30
feet above sea level) . The County use would require
buried fuel tanks, with or without the refueling
facility. Installation and storage of petroleum products
is regulated by law, minimizing risk of explosion or
release into the environment. The lease site would be
landscaped and fenced, and the masonry wall along the
north boundary of the County property together with
landscaping will screen views of the site.
The location of the lease site (adjacent to a wastewater
treatment facility) is a factor to be considered in
determining what uses are acceptable for this parcel.
CCCSD has stated that they are not opposed to a refueling
facility.
r
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The commercial
refueling facility has been eliminated from the project.
(PDP C/A #2 ) . A fueling facility for County vehicles is
still planned which will require buried fuel tanks. The
"lease" site should be designated for future corporation
yard expansion in lieu of the commercial operation.
6. Freeway
Im act - Future freeway construction could greatly modify
the local circulation system.
EIR Mitigation - None required for Phase I. EIR
Supplements for future projects on the site should
re•-evaluate traffic impacts based on planned freeway
improvements.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #8.A. )
B. Traffic and Circulation
1. Phase I Access and Egress
Impact - The Phase I Buildout Plan (Figure 4 ) shows the
access points to the site but it does not show roadway
improvement or striping details.
EIR Mitigation - The traffic consultant for the EIR has
prepared a plan that shows mitigation measures, including
lane widths, striping, stop sign control and road
realignment/widening. The . improvements analyzed are to
Waterbird Way, Imhoff Place Extension, Imhoff Drive and
the Blum Road/Pacheco Boulevard intersection (see Figure
2:3 in EIR) .
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP and FDP are
conditioned accordingly. (PDP C/A #8.A. ; .FDP C/A #20.A. )
2. Fueling Station
Impact - There is a potential for fueling station
customers to back onto Imhoff Drive during peak refueling
hours.
EIR Mitigation - Either redesign the lease site to
provide clockwise circulation, or widen Imhoff Drive for
the full frontage of the lease site to provide space for
a storage lane.
Commission Recommended lyitigation - No longer pertinent.
3. Blum Road Intersection
Impact - The existing roadway improvements are adequate
for autos and small trucks, but the projected truck
traffic could result in significant congestion and safety
hazards.
EIR Mitigation - Provide interim improvements at the two
intersections until local circulation changes are made in
conjunction with future freeway construction.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP and FDP are
conditioned accordingly. Until off-site
road/intersection improvements are completed, the
recommended conditions require that all heavy vehicles
access the site from Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Way, via
Solano Avenue. (PDP C/A 8.A. ; FDP C/A #17, 20.A. 4-6)
4. Secondary Project Area Effects
Impact - The effects of project traffic are not limited
to the immediate site area. Project traffic will impact
the Pacheco Boulevard ramps of Highway 4 and three other
intersections in the vicinity.
EIR Mitigation - Striping, signal modification and stop
signs are recommended to move traffic efficiently using
freeway ramps and other impacted intersections (see
Section II-B, Environmental Analysis, Item 4 ) .
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #8.A. )
5. . Long-term Project Traffic
Impact - Freeway construction may result in modification
to the local circulation system.
EIR Mitigation - EIR Supplements for future phases of
development on the site should re-evaluate and update
traffic impacts, especially those resulting from freeway
modification.
Commission Recommended - Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #3 .C. )
C. Flood Hazards and Drainage
1. . Stormwater Runoff
Impact - The site will be covered with paved surfaces
when fully developed; and the runoff coefficient will
increase from 0. 2 to 0•. 8, resulting in an estimated 4x
increase in runoff volume. The increased runoff will
worsen drainage problems on the vacant parcel downstream
from the site and would carry increased' amounts of oil,
gasoline and litter. Ponding of waters downstream may
worsen mosquito control problems.
EIR .Mitigation - Additional capacity should be provided
in the new on-site culvert to accommodate peak discharge
from the 10-year storm. Grease traps should be used
on-site to intercept petroleum products before they enter
the downstream ponded area. The hydrologic study for the
property should track runoff to the Pacheco Creek
channel, and consideration should be given to improving
drainage within the downstream ponded area. Permits may
be required from the Corps of Engineers.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP and FDP are
conditioned accordingly. (PDP C/A #8.B. ; FDP C/A
#20.D. )
2. Erosion Control
Impact - The project requires grading of a 20+ acre
parcel adjacent to wetlands. During construction this is
a potential erosion/sedimentation problem.
EIR Mitigation - If the site is graded during the winter
rainy season (after October 1) the grading contract
should specify that all erosion control measures should
be in place within 24 hours of completing rough grading.
The EIR specifies the issues to be included in the
erosion control plan.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP and FDP are
conditioned accordingly. (PDP C/A #5; FDP C/A #5) .
D. Noise
1. Project Traffic Noise
Impact - With or without full project buildout, some
localities would experience noise level increases of
about 2 - 3 dB due to peak hour project traffic.
EIR Mitigation - According to the noise study, project
generated noise is less significant than freeway noise,
and project-related traffic would result in only a minor
increase. Consequently, project traffic would have a
cumulative adverse effect on noise rather than a
significant impact. If the neighborhood perceives
problems, measure could be implemented to control noise
(i.e. , restricting speeds, aggressive enforcement of laws
against faulty mufflers; construction of a noise barrier
wall along the north property line) .
Commission Recommended Mitigation - Noise impacts from
the project were largely eliminated by the deletion of
the commercial fueling facility. A masonry wall will be
constructed with Phase II improvements. (C/A #7 ) .
2. On-site Operational Noise
Impact - The Public Works Corporation Yard is too far
from the residential neighborhood to produce noticeable
noise levels. Future phases would bring repair bays and
warehouses within 300 to 400 feet of the residential
neighborhood. Intermittent daytime noises of 65 to 70
dBA could be experienced in outdoor areas of homes north
of the site (assuming no sound barrier wall were
erected) . These noises would not be noticeable, or would
be barely noticeable to a few persons.
EIR Mitigation - Since site operations represent only a
minor, cumulative impact, no mitigation is necessary.
However, site noise in combination with a road along the
north property line would warrant construction of a noise
barrier wall.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The PDP is
conditioned to require a masonry wall with Phase II
improvements. (C/A #7)
3. Construction Noise
Impact - Noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet can be
experienced during construction.
EIR Mitigation - Available measure include a) use of
construction equipment which is of quiet design, b)
installation of superior muffler systems, c) restricting
hours of construction: 8: 00 A.M. to 6: 00 P.M. , Monday
through Friday, d) eliminating unnecessary idling of
equipment, and e) using good lubrication and maintenance
practices.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #6 )
E. Air Quality
I. Short-term Effects
Impact - Fugitive dust is emitted during construction as
a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces.
EIR Mitigation - Available measures include a) spraying
with water containing a tactifier, b) covering
stockpiles, c) sweeping. streets, and d) revegetating (or
paving) graded surfaces as soon as feasible after
construction.
r
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #11 )
2. Long-term Effects
Impact - The proposed corporation yard and Phase II uses
would be a very minor, direct source of air pollution.
The daily hydrocarbon emissions from the refueling
facility are estimated to be 5 lbs. per day. The Phase I
project would include a warehouse for storage of paints,
herbicides and pesticides.
Since they would not be used on-site, their impact on air
quality is negligible. The most significant impact would
be associated with vehicular emissions. Carbon monoxide
concentrations were measured using a computer modeling
program for two intersections where traffic is heaviest
(Pacheco Boulevard/Blum Road and Blum Road/Imhoff Drive) .
The analysis indicates no significant increase. In fact,
CO concentrations are actually projected to drop at these
intersections in future years due to improved emission
controls.
EIR Mitigation - The refueling facility would be required
to install air pollution control equipment to reduce
hydrocarbon emissions. No other mitigation measures are
required.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The need for air '
pollution control equipment still applies to the County
fueling facility. (C/A #12)
3. Regional Effects
Impact - Project traffic along with cumulative growth
throughout the Bay Region impacts the air basin. The Bay
Area did not meet the national ambient air quality
standards by the end of 1987, as specified in the Clean
Air Act.
EIR Mitigation - Regional impacts are mitigated by
existing governmental programs (Federal emission
standards for new cars, DMV "smog" tests, BAAQMD permit
procedures.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - No action required.
F. Cultural Resources
Impact - There is potential for buried prehistoric
cultural resources on the site.
EIR Mitigation - The construction contract should specify
that if prehistoric materials are ulhcovered during
development of the property, all work within 100 feet of
the find should be stopped. The County should then
:retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the
significance of the find and prepare a letter report that
documents the field investigation and presents mitigation
measures that are deemed necessary.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #13 )
G. Geology and Grading
1. Grading
IM12act - The entire site would be mass-graded to create a
pad for buildings and parking spaces.
EIR Mitigation - Grading and drainage plans should be
prepared for the entire site prior to approval of Phase I
construction. Once the overall concept is established,
the County can determine if it is practical to grade the
site in phases.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP is
conditioned accordingly. (C/A #15 )
2. Groundshaking
Impact - The site is in an area where "very strong" to
"violent" groundshaking is anticipated in the event of a
Richter magnitude 7.0 earthquake originating on the
Concord Fault.
EIR Mitigation - The design and construction of the
proposed development should consider the probable high
lateral forces induced by the anticipated groundshaking
and lateral acceleration at the site. A slope stability
analysis should be performed for all high or steep slopes
that are proposed, whether for cut or fill. The
buildings should be designed by qualified design
professionals to ensure satisfactory performance.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - The FDP requires a
soil, geology and foundation report for review by the
County Planning Geologist. (C/A #16 )
3. Liquefaction
Impact - Liquefaction is the transformation of a granular
material from a solid state to a liquid state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. It has
produced abundant and sometimes catastrophic ground
failures during earthquakes, and hence mist be considered
in assessing seismic risks or hazards. A preliminary
assessment of liquefaction potential was provided by the
County' s geotechnical consultant, who inferred the
potential was low. However, the preliminary opinion was
based on limited data.
EIR Mitigation - Simplified methods • of analyzing
liquefaction potential have been developed by Professor
Seed of U.C. Berkeley and his students. Analysis of
samples from various depths and several localities across
the site is needed to confirm/modify • these preliminary
conclusions.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - See above comments.
(C/A #16)
4. Bedrock Fault
Impact - According to mapping of the U.S. Geological
Survey, a bedrock fault crosses the northwest corner of
the site. Although the fault is not active, if it
exists, it could cause foundation or slope stability
problems.
EIR. Mitigation - The geotechnical engineers for the
project should determine if the site is crossed by a
fault. If so, they should comment on the need for
special foundation or slope stabilization measures.
Commission Recommended Mitigation - See above comments.
(C/A #16 )
H. Biologic; Resources
1. Fish and Game
Impact - The project represents a cumulative loss of open
space land adjacent to wetlands. Moreover the site is
crossed by a man made channel that provides 'a reparian.
habitat. The proposed grading and development would
result in culverting this creek.
EIR Mitigation - Channel work falls under the
jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and
Game, who have responsibility for protecting wildlife
habitat values. When specific plans are available to
show what channel work is proposed on-site, copies should
be forwarded to Fish and Game, who have permit-granting
authority.
Staff Analysis - The FDP is conditioned accordingly.
(Advisory Notes)
r
LV/res.doc