HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09181984 - 2.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Re: Denial of appeals to Orinda ) RESOLUTION NO. 84/561
Area Planning Commission' s )
approval and approval by the )
Board of Development Plan )
3055-82 , Variances and Final )
Environmental Impact Report )
for The Crossroads, Orinda )
-----------------------------------
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
The three (3) appeals to the Orinda Area Planning
Commission' s approval of Development Plan, variances and Final
Environmental Impact Report are denied. Development Plan
3055-82 , as revised, parking variance, height variance, signage
variance and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Crossroads, Orinda are approved and granted subject to the
Board' s conditions of Approval for Development Plan 3055-82 set
out in Exhibit "A" hereto and based upon the following findings:
I . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS:
1 . Following submission of applications for
approval of Development Plan 3055-82 and included parking, height
and signage variance requests for the redevelopment of a city
block in central Orinda involving the removal of existing
improvements and construction of a one-to-four-story building
complex above three (3) levels of sub-surface parking (the
"Project") , an Initial Study for the Project was prepared and it
was determined that an environmental impact report was required
to be prepared for the Project. Based upon such Initial Study
and further information and evidence, the scope of the
environmental impact report was properly formulated in accordance
with the CEQA Guidelines.
2. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated
June, 1983 , (the "Draft EIR") was prepared by Steven D.
Billington, M.C.R.P. under the direction of the Contra Costa
County Planning Department.
3. Copies of the Draft EIR were circulated to the
appropriate agencies and made available to the public prior to
July 1 , 1983 .
4. After completion of the Draft EIR, the Notice
of Completion was given on July 13, 1983 , by mailing the same
directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations , and
individuals. Such agencies, organizations and individuals were
all of the persons entitled to such notice pursuant to Section
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/561 00202
15085 (c) , (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. Additional notices were
given by publication and posting in accordance with Section
15085 (d) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines.
5. Public hearings on the Draft EIR were conducted
by the Orinda Area Planning Commission (the "Commission") on
July 25 and August 29 , 1983 wherein comments of the general
public were received orally by the Commission. Additional
written comments of members of the general public and
governmental agencies were received prior to and after such
hearing.
6 . Subsequently, Steven D. Billington for the
Contra Costa County Planning Department prepared Responses to
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volumes 1 and II ,
dated February, 1984 (the "Responses to Draft EIR Comments")
incorporating and responding to all written and oral comments
previously received on the Draft EIR.
7 . Copies of the Responses to Draft EIR Comments
were made available to the general public and public agencies to
the extent required by the CEQA Guidelines.
B . On February 16 , 1984 , the Commission conducted
a further public hearing on the Draft EIR and Responses to Draft
EIR Comments. At that time, the Commission formally certified
these documents as the Final EIR, and certified that said Final
EIR was adequate for the Project.
9 . On April 5, 1984 and April 17 , 1984 , the
Commission held public hearings on the Project wherein oral
testimony was received from representatives of responsible
agencies and the general public . Following said hearings, the
Commission approved the Development Plan for the Project, with
conditions (DP 3055-82) , and granted variances from height,
parking and signage standards in the C-B Zoning District. The
Commission thereupon adopted its Findings Relative to Approval of
Development Plan, Variances, and Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Crossroads, Orinda (the "Commission' s Findings") .
None of the written evidence filed and no person speaking at the
public hearings before the Commission raised any objection to the
adequacy of the Final EIR or the procedures followed in
certifying its completion.
10. Following the appeals to this Board of the
Commission' s decision, filed by the Orinda Association, by the
Friends of the Orinda Theater, and by the applicant, the Board
has conducted additional hearings on the Project , on
May 29, June 26, July 24, August 7, and August 21, 1984. None of
the written appeals or evidence filed and no person speaking at
the public hearings before this Board raised any objection to the
-2- 00203
RESOLUTION NO. 841,56/
adequacy of the Final EIR or the procedures followed in
certifying its completion.
11 . The within findings of this Board (the
"Findings") , have been prepared and adopted in accordance with
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
12 . From and after preparation of the Draft EIR,
(a) no changes have been made in the Project which require any
revisions to the Final EIR; (b) no significant or substantial
changes have occurred in any of the . circumstances under which the
Project is being undertaken which could result in involvement of
any new significant environmental impact not covered in the Final
EIR; and (c) no new information of any importance to the Project
has become available , including without limitation (i)
information which would show that the Project, as approved, would
have significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR,
(ii) information that significant effects previously found to
exist will become more severe under the Project, as approved,
than as discussed in the Final EIR; (iii) information that
mitigation measures previously found feasible have become
infeasible; or (iv) information that other alternatives or
mitigation measures exist which were not considered in the Final
EIR. The Final EIR is complete, adequate and in full compliance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County
ordinances and regulations , and all proceedings for the
environmental review process and preparation of the Final EIR
have been conducted and completed in full compliance with the
policy and the specific requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and all applicable
Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations .
13 . In connection with the appeals from the
Commission' s decision, the Applicant has submitted certain
changes in the Project design in response to concerns evidenced
by this Board and members of the public and this Board has
required changes in the conditions of approval, and has held duly
noticed public hearings with respect to such changes . The Board
has approved such changes in the interest of finally resolving
all issues posed by the appeals without unnecessary duplication
of effort, time and expense to the County of Contra Costa, the
applicant, and all interested parties, ' and finds that the record,
as a whole, provides ample information upon which to make the
within Findings in connection with the resolution of these
appeals. Accordingly, the Board finds that further hearings
before the Commission are neither necessary nor appropriate under
County ordinances or other applicable law, and that the Board' s
decision concerning the Project is a final disposition of all
matters raised in the appeals and of all matters pertaining to
the Final Environmental Impact Report, the variances and the
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,56/ 00204
development plan approval. As generally set out in Paragraph
I (12) above, the Board specifically finds that the changes in the
Project design made by the Applicant are not changes which
require revisions or supplements to the Final EIR; but constitute
mitigation measures most of which are discussed in the Final EIR.
14 . From and after the date of the Initial Study,
the Project has been a single Project for purposes of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines . All -changes in the Project after the
initial application either have been proposed by the applicant in
direct response to the identification of and need to mitigate or
avoid specific negative environmental effects of the Project as
originally proposed or as approved by the Commission, or have
been imposed by the County of Contra Costa for the purposes of
mitigating or avoiding entirely the significant adverse
environmental effects of the Project as proposed or as revised by
the applicant.
15 . All of the foregoing hearings and proceedings
were conducted under and in accordance with all applicable
ordinances of the County of Contra Costa, statutes of the State
of California, and Guidelines of the Resources Agency of the
State of California, including without limitation, all
requirements of published, posted and mailed notices pursuant to
all of the foregoing ordinances, statutes and guidelines.
16 . The environmental review process has been
carried out with full and adequate opportunities for review and
comment by members of the public and interested public agencies .
No person or agency has been deprived of full and fair
opportunity and ample time to comment on each document comprising
the Final EIR or the Project and all revisions thereto.
17 . The Board hereby denies each of the three (3)
appeals based upon the foregoing findings and the findings which
follow, and approves the revised Project as it has been
redesigned to conform with this Board' s requirements, including
the variances and the development plan.
II . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE OF
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
The Final EIR (as defined above) identifies a
number of significant environmental effects of the Project and
recommends specific mitigation measures for each of such effects.
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Board hereby makes the
following findings with respect to such significant effects:
1 . Zoning: The Draft EIR, pages 5 and 83 noted
that with the exceptions of building height and off-street
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 841S61 002005
parking the proposed Project is consistent with the property
development standards of the C-B Zoning District in which the
Project is located. The Board, in Section VI of these Findings ,
has determined that the height of the Project is acceptable for a
number of architectural design and overall community economic
vitality reasons and has determined that a grant of a variance
would not be a special privilege, would not set an adverse
precedent and would not have a significant impact on the
surrounding area. In addition, the Board finds that the effect
of the height variance is mitigated by the imposition of
Condition 2 in the Board' s Conditions , a copy of which is
attached to these Findings as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein
by this reference. That Condition requires that at least ninety
(90) days prior to application for a building permit the
applicant shall submit detailed development plans which, among
other things, shall include revised elevations and roof plans
which will incorporate additional sloping roofs on the Bryant `Way
frontage which shall bring the roof line of that portion of the
Project down to the top of the third level. The Board further
finds that the final revised design of the Project reducing the
number of stories from five to four levels over parking, has
further mitigated the impact of the height variance. The Board
finds that said mitigation measures are fully implemented by
Condition 2 and by- the revised Project design presented to the
Board in these appeals, and that for the reasons set out in
Section IV of these Findings the grant of a height variance is
justified.
2. General Plan: The Board has found that the
Project, as approved, is consistent with the General Plan (see
Section VII of these Findings) . Although the Draft EIR properly
pointed out at page 85 that interpretation of mixed land use
consistency with the general plan is beyond the scope of the ETR,
it also concluded on pages (i) and 84-85 that the Project office
space was inconsistent with certain general plan policies, and
identified this as a significant environmental effect. Under the
findings relative to general plan consistency (Section VIII,
below) , the Board has concluded that the EIR' s conclusion was
taken into account and that the Project, as approved, is
consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the Board finds
that the mitigation measure referred to in the Draft EIR, pages
(i) through (ii) relative to general plan consistency are not
necessary, that the Project, as a whole, has only a minor adverse
effect, if any, upon the general plan policies pertaining to
limitations of office development, and that this effect is
outweighed by the effects of the Project which effectively
promote other policies of the general plan including enhancement
of the community by improvement of the aesthetic appearance,
retail shopping convenience, and economic base of the community.
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/561
0020
3. Sewer Facilities Relocation: The Draft EIR at
pages 6 and 86 noted that the construction of the Project' s
slizuLfacr parking garage would require relocation of the sewer
mains in Bryant Way which would have two significant effects.
First, it was possible that the relocation of the sewer mains
would require removal of all or a portion of the existing trees
and shrubs along the north side of Bryant Way. Second,
additional vegetation might have to be removed in the future to
provide repair vehicle access to service the sewer mains since
adequate roadway access would not be available.
The Board finds that these significant adverse
effects have been fully mitigated in the revised Project as
approved on appeal, by eliminating intrusion onto the portion of
the Bryant 'Way right-of-way in which the sewer facilities are
located . These revisions have completely eliminated the effect
of the Project on sewer relocation, as recommended in the Draft
EIR, and accordingly that the alternative mitigation measures
previously imposed by the Commission in its previous condition 19
is no longer necessary or appropriate.
4 . Archaeology: The Draft EIR at pages 9 and 87
note that based upon its location the Project site is in an area
of high archaeological sensitivity and, therefore, the potential
exists for significant impact on archaeological sites which might
be encountered during development.
The Board finds that said significant environmental
impact is fully mitigated by the imposition of Condition 3 of the
Conditions which requires the applicant to retain an
archaeologist to examine the site during various stages of
Project earth work and to provide specific mitigation measures
should archaeological materials be encountered. Based upon the
implementation of said condition all significant archaeological
effects caused by the Project will be avoided or reduced to
acceptable levels.
5. Noise: As noted by the Draft EIR at page 87,
two significant noise effects will be encountered or caused by
the Project. First, the Project buildings will be exposed to
high exterior noise levels resulting from Highway 24 and the BART
facilities which may result in exterior noise levels on the order
of 65 to 75 dB CNEL. Second, while the Project is being built
the noise generated by construction activities during certain
phases of construction may be 20-40 dB CNEL in excess of current
levels at the Project site. This latter effect is also discussed
in letters from David L. Corwin, M.D. and Charles M. Salter P.E.
dated December 21 , 1983, and December 28 , 1983 , respectively.
These noise effects have been significantly reduced by increasing
the setback of the Project from Highway 24 , and therefore
mitigation of these effects is not required.
-6-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,5'E/ Q 0 2 0 7
The Board finds that all of the significant adverse
noise effects of the Project are fully mitigated by the
imposition of Condition 4 which sets .construction standards on
windows, doorways and other openings in the vicinity of Highway
24 and requires that construction equipment be muffled and
maintained in good mechanical condition; that noisy construction
operations be limited to day time hours and that, where
practical, a program be established for the utilization of
quieter construction equipment such as back hoes, motor graders
and nail guns . The Board finds that with the implementation of
such mitigation measures, all significant adverse noise effects
caused by the Project will be avoided or reduced to acceptable
levels .
6 . Urban Design/Project Design: The Draft EIR
notes on page 87 and the Commission found, that the Project, as
approved by the Commission, substantially met the Design
Guidelines for the Orinda Central Business District. The Board
further finds that the revised Project, as approved by the Board,
substantially meets the Design Guidelines . The Draft EIR further
notes that the density, building mass and height of the Project
are of such scope that the Project may be inconsistent with the
General Plan and the Design Guidelines in terms of "low lying"
architecture, village character and compatibility with adjacent
development. The Board' s findings relative to consistency with
the General Plan and with the C-B District zoning contained in
Sections VI and VII, below, are incorporated herein. Board finds
that any residual adverse impacts caused by the scope of the
Project are further mitigated by the design of the Project which
locates the largest part of the Project with the greatest mass
and height in the northeast corner adjacent to Highway 24 . This
results in the logical organization of the building mass with the
Project stepping down to a two-story height in the southern
portions of the Project. In addition, extensive use of open
spaces , courtyards, articulated design, and arcades provide
visual penetration from the exterior of the Project, and reduce
the apparent mass of the Project. In addition, the following are
measures which mitigate the remaining residual adverse effects of
the size and scope of the Project.
a. The largest portion of the Project with
the greatest mass and height is located at the northeast corner
of the Project site. This impact is reduced by the removal of a
floor level of the Project as revised on appeal and approved by
the Board. Condition 2 further requires that prior to the
issuance of a building permit the applicant submit detailed plans
showing revised elevations and the utilization of sloping roofs
in the northern corner of the Project and along Bryant`Way to
decrease the visual size and height of the Project.
-7-
RESOLUTION NO. 841S-61 00208
b. The revised Project further mitigates the
most significant impact of the Project, .which the EIR identified
as the height and scale of the Project as viewed from the
adjacent freeway and BART, by removing it from the Bryant Way
right-of-way so that it no longer abuts the freeway.
c. Condition 9 requires that any outdoor use
of the site be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator
to determine the effect of the use on Project esthetics.
d. The applicant is required by Condition 10
to retain a tree specialist to be on the site at any time
construction will occur in the vicinity of the oak tree at
Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to insure that this tree will be
preserved to continue to contribute to the village character of
the Crossroads area.
e. Condition 12 requires that prior to the
issuance of a building permit a plan for landscape maintenance
and tenant improvement design control including building
standards shall be submitted to the county.
f. Condition 15 requires that all glazing on
the Project shall be done with transparent glass to maximize the
visual penetration of structures.
g. Condition 17 requires that a sign program
be prepared and submitted for review and recommendation by the
Commission.
h. The applicant is required to provide
additional landscaping between the parking lot and the adjacent
streets and the retaining walls at the northerly end of the
Project shall be softened and berms or low landscape walls shall
be provided at Brookwood Road. These requirements are contained
in Condition 20.
i. Condition 231 requires that all utility
distribution services be installed underground.
j . The Draft EIR on page 99 suggests as a
mitigation measure the requirement that applicant provide a bond
to insure that the quality of finished materials, landscaping,
street furniture will actually be provided at the level proposed.
The Board finds that in lieu of a bond Condition 22 requires that
applicant retain Sandy & Babcock through the duration of the
design and construction phase to insure that the approved design
concept is achieved.
The Board finds that all of such mitigation
measures are fully implemented by the Conditions and that based
-8-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/S'G/
0020
upon such implementation all significant urban design/project
design impacts caused by the Project will be either completely
avoided or reduced to acceptable levels.
7. Cultural/Historical Resources : As noted on
page 99 of the Draft EIR, the author of that document feels the
removal of the Orinda. Theatre and the Wells Fargo/American Trust
Bank Building will cause a significant impact because of the loss
of structures with important cultural/historic value in general .
The Board finds that mitigation alternatives 1 , 2 and 3 on pages
99 and 100 of the Draft EIR and as more exhaustively proposed in
Section 7 of Volume 2 of the Responses to Comments are infeasible
and undesirable due to the adverse effect such mitigation
measures would have on the excellent design and conception of the
Project and upon the opportunity the Project affords to enhance
the overall ambiance and vitality of the surrounding retail area.
The Board finds that the significant adverse impact is mitigated
by conditions 5 and 21 (B) of the conditions which require that
prior to applying for a building permit the applicant present a
study in detail of how to preserve as many of the Orinda Theatre
and American Trust Bank Building' s interior items as possible,
which items shall be preserved - and used or displayed in the new
facility or offered to a historical society. In addition, a
complete color photographic record of the buildings is to be made
available to the public in book or pamphlet form.
The Board finds that said conditions fully
implement the recommended mitigation measures and that based upon
such implementation all significant cultural/historic adverse
impacts are avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. Further
mitigation is both unnecessary and undesirable for reasons set
forth in Section VII , clause 8, of these Findings and by reason
of the overriding considerations set forth in Section V of these
Findings.
8 . Traffic/Circulation:
(a) Delays on Northbound Camino Pablo: The
increased delay on northbound Camino Pablo traffic due to
increased left turns from Camino Pablo to Brookwood Road (impact
1 , Draft EIR, page 102) is fully mitigated by conditions 23 (D)
(1) , (2) , and (3) . The Board notes that the mitigation measures
imposed by the referenced conditions of approval include all of
the recommendations denominated "project mitigation" as well as
the mitigation denoted "area mitigation" with respect to impact 1
on page 102 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Left Turn Conflicts at Brookwood/Camino
Pablo Intersection: Impact number 2 identified on page 102 of
the Draft EIR, involving increased left turn conflicts and safety
problems at the Brookwood Road/Camino Pablo intersection
=9-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/56/
002J-0
resulting from increased southbound to eastbound left turns onto
Brockw3od is fully mitigated by condition number 23 (D) (5) , which
follows the Draft EIR recommendation requiring a modification of
the existing signal system to provide a separate left turn phase.
. (c) Congestion on Brookwood Frontage and
Brookwood/Moraga'Way Intersection: The impacts identified as
numbers 3 and 4 on page 102 of the Draft EIR are adequately
mitigated by the imposition of condition 23 (D) (2) , which requires
a modification of striping on westbound Brookwood Road to provide
for a separate right hand turn lane and further study of
Brookwood Road as a one-way street, by Conditions 12 and 21 (C) ,
requiring a parking plan and delivery plan, and by the revised
Brookwood Road parking lot entrance (which was redesigned after
preparation of the Draft EIR to reduce congestion and backup into
Brookwood Road) , and by the redesigned Project, which retains
Bryant Way as a potential element of a revised circulation plan
and freeway access pattern in the Orinda Crossroads area.
The "minimum required mitigation" for Impact
No. 4 , namely, the placement of stop signs at the Moraga
'Way/Brookwood intersection, is not necessary in that the
principal source of increased congestion (turns into the Moraga
Way garage entrance) has been eliminated by relocating the garage
entrance to Bryant`Way. Although the Commission found that the
other mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR to address
Impacts 3 and 4 were infeasible and undesirable, the Board
believes that such improvements may in the future become feasible
and desirable if appropriate funding becomes available for a
restructuring of traffic patterns and freeway access in the area,
that the effect of this Project is reduced to acceptable levels
by the above-referenced conditions and revisions, that the
area-wide impacts on the intersection are adequately mitigated by
leaving open the option for further improvements as well as the
the requirement that the Applicant agree to make the Project part
of any assessment district formed to improve traffic and
circulation in the Crossroads area, and that all significant
effects relative to the Brookwood/Camino Pablo intersection and
the Brookwood frontage therefore are mitigated and reduced to
acceptable levels.
The establishment of Bryant Way as a two-way
street cut through to Camino Pablo would allow for making
Brookwood Road a one-way street, as proposed by the Draft EIR.
The extension of Bryant'Way to Camino Pablo would not, however,
resolve the primary source of congestion at the Moraga
Way/Brookwood Road intersection and along Moraga 'Way, which is
the use by northbound commuters of Moraga Way as a route from
northbound Camino Pablo to the eastbound Highway 24 onramp. This
.problem exists without regard to the present Project. Unless
Moraga'Way were made one-way so as to preclude such commuter use
-10-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,56/ 0021
of Moraga Way, existing congestion levels would be essentially
unaffected by the conversion of Brookwood Road to a one-way
street and the cutting through of Bryant Way to Camino Pablo.
The EIR consultant' s recommendation that the BryantlWay extension
and conversion of Brookwood Road to one-way traffic occur without
converting Moraga Way to a one-way street, the Board finds, would
probably exacerbate existing traffic problems in the area by
complicating existing traffic patterns near the freeway while
producing no tangible benefits.
The Orinda Association alternative, calling
for the conversion of both Moraga Way and Brookwood Road to
one-way streets , is found to be of potential value although it
may reduce the visibility and ease of access to merchants located
on Moraga Way and would require substantial improvements and
relocations of other streets in the vicinity. The adverse
effects and costs of these improvements may not be justified for
the benefits obtained, and the Board believes further study is
warranted before any particular remedy for existing problems is
selected. This particular Project, in any event, has not caused
the problems which the Orinda Association plan and the EIR
consultant' s plan seek to address , and contributes only
incrementally to the congestion of Brookwood Road and Moraga'Way;
this incremental effect of the project is fully mitigated by
condition 23 (E) requiring that the Applicant agree to make the
Project part of any assessment district formed to improve traffic
and circulation in the Crossroads area. The revised Project, as
approved by this Board, preserves and improves the existing
traffic pattern while leaving all potential routes available for
future use if they become necessary.
The Commission has required, and the Board
concurs , that a further study of the potential for conversion of
Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to one-way traffic should be made,
and such conversion may occur at a later date. The Board has
expanded the matters to be studied to include revised freeway
access patterns, realignment of the Moraga'Way/Brookwood/Camino
Pablo/Camino Encinas intersection and the extension of Bryant'Way
through to Camino Pablo. The Board finds that this condition has
the potential to further mitigate traffic and circulation
problems involving Moraga Way and Brookwood as well as
surrounding streets.
The Board finds that the Bryant'Way extension
may be necessary to such future improvements as may be undertaken
to correct existing circulation problems involving Moraga 'Way and
Brookwood Road. Conversion of Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to
one-way traffic to eliminate northbound commuter traffic use of
Moraga'Way for access to the eastbound Highway 24 onramp could
still be accomplished without the Bryant Way extension, but the
revised Project, as approved, also allows for use of Bryant'Way
-11-
RESOLUTION NO. 84kjo// 00212
in any such restructuring. The Bryant 'Way extension may not be a
desirable addition for purposes of providing a direct onramp from
Camino Pablo onto eastbound Highway 24 because several properties
and businesses along Bryant Way easterly of Moraga way would
continue to require access along Bryant`Way, as would Bates
Boulevard. Diversion of commuter traffic from Moraga Way to an
eastbound onramp for Highway 24 could also be accomplished by
provision for a left turn onto the existing hook-type onramp
presently accessible only to southbound Camino Pablo vehicles .
The Bryant Way extension could also result in conflicting traffic
patterns and potentially exacerbate congestion at the Bryant
Way/Moraga Way intersection. Nonetheless, the Board believes it
is appropriate to retain Bryant Way, contrary to the Commission' s
findings.
Accordingly, the Board finds that Impacts 3
and 4 are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, that further
mitigation measures concerning existing traffic conditions to
which this project incrementally contributes are reduced to
acceptable levels by the requirement that the Applicant agree to
make the Project part of any assessment district formed to "
improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area, and the
further studies described above, and that while the specific
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and by other
commentators with respect to traffic and circulation Impacts 3
and 4 are presently infeasible for economic reasons, for
socio-political reasons involving the interests of other property
owners and businesses in the area, and for traffic engineering
reasons , that the Project, as approved by this Board, reserves
all future options to the maximum extent feasible. .
(d) Congestion at Moraga Way/Bryant Way
Intersection: Impact Number 5 on page 102 of the Draft EIR,
pertaining to congestion at the Moraga'Way/Bryant Way
intersection due to the proposed garage entrance/exit, is fully
mitigated and eliminated by the redesigned project, as approved
by the Board, which relocates the garage entrance/exit to Bryant
Way and eliminates the Moraga Way entrance/exit. The truck
dock/loading facility is further required to be relocated and/or
removed under Conditions 12 and 21 (C) , which require that the
applicant submit for approval by the Commission a plan for
operation of the parking facility and develop a feasible plan for
deliveries to the northerly structure. In addition, the
retention of Bryant Way makes feasible the area-wide mitigation
measures referred to in the Draft EIR, at such time, if any, as
such circulation improvements are needed for public convenience
and safety in the Orinda Crossroads area.
(e) Congestion at Moraga 'Way/Camino Pablo
Intersection: Impact Number 6 referenced on page 103 of the
Draft EIR is satisfactorily mitigated by the requirement that the
-12-
RESOLUTION NO. 841ST,,/ 0021
applicant contribute to the fair share of costs of off-site
traffic improvements including signalization of this inter-
section by agreeing to make the Project part of an assessment
district (Condition 23 (E) ) . This impact is also mitigated by the
requirement that Moraga Way be widened to Overhill Drive,
although this was not referenced in the Draft EIR. The remaining
area mitigation impacts are mitigated to the extent appropriate
for this Project by the requirement that Applicant agree to make
the Project part of a traffic and circulation assessment district
(condition 23 (E) ) , and by the requirement that the Project not
intrude into the Bryant Way right of way on the north side,
except at the corner of Moraga Way and Bryant'Way, leaving Bryant
`Way available to be incorporated in future area-wide circulation
improvements, as found above.
(f) Congestion at Camino Pablo/Brookwood:
The Area Impact identified as Impact Number 7 on page 103 of the
Draft EIR is adequately mitigated by the requirement that the
Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment
district formed to improve traffic and circulation in the
Crossroads area. As found above, the Project, as approved, does
not prevent the making of the appropriate improvements to the
Brookwood Road/Camino Pablo/Camino Encinas intersection at such
time as they become necessary or convenient.
(g) Open Parking Lot: Impact Number 8 on
page 103 of the Draft EIR, pertaining to potential congestion in
the open parking lot and backup onto Brookwood Road from delivery
trucks is satisfactorily mitigated by the revised design of the
parking lot contained in the Commission' s approved Development
Plan and retained in the revised Project as approved by this
Board, and is further mitigated by the requirement that the
applicant provide a parking plan and delivery plan (Conditions 12
and 21 (C) ) .
(h) General Impact: The foregoing mitigation
measures adequately mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of
the Project upon traffic and circulation in the Orinda Crossroads
Area. The Board finds that the impact of the Project on traffic
and circulation is insubstantial in that the revised Project, as
approved by the Board, will generate only an additional 5 - 6% of
traffic in the immediate area and that the Project, as approved,
including the conditions pertaining to parking and traffic and
circulation and that the retention of Bryant 'Way, will
significantly improve traffic circulation and reduce congestion
in the Orinda Crossroads Area, and in addition that it will
contribute its fair share to the resolution of area-wide or
cumulative problems through the requirement that the Applicant
agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed
to improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area. In
addition, the Project as approved will not affect the
availability of appropriate routes and locations for future road
-13-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/ 561
00214
and traffic circulation improvements in the area. The Board
believes that many of the projected future improvements proposed
for the Bryant Way/Camino Pablo/Moraga 'Way/Brookwood Road/Camino
Encinas intersections are neither necessary nor fiscally or
economically feasible at the present time , and that they may not
provide the desired benefits on a cost-efficient basis. In any
event, the revised Project, as approved by the Board, will permit
the physical installation of these improvements if and when it
becomes appropriate to do so.
(i) In preparation of these findings, the
Board has closely reviewed the traffic/circulation study prepared
by the author of the Draft EIR, the applicant' s study prepared by
JHK & Associates , and the comments of the Orinda Association
contained in Volume I of Responses to Comments and the analysis
prepared by the EIR consultant concerning the Orinda Association
mitigation alternatives contained in Volume II of Responses to
Comments , as well as Department of Public Works staff reports
dated August 24, 1983, March 22, 1984, March 28, 1984, and
July 24 , 1984 .
9 . Parking: The Draft EIR at page 105 notes that
there will be two categories of significant adverse impact from
the Project on parking.
a. On-Site Parking: It is estimated that the
number of proposed on-site spaces would be sufficient to permit
weekday, daytime operation of the proposed offices, retail shops
and restaurant/lounge . However, it is noted that the proposed
theatre use and community facility could result in an overload of
the proposed parking on the site. The Board finds that the
revised Project, as approved by the Board, has the same on-site
parking demands and impacts as the original Project as approved
by the Commission. The Board further finds that this adverse
impact has been mitigated by the deletion from the Project of the
proposed community facility and by the provisions of conditions
6 , 12 , 18 and 21 (C) , which limit the daytime operations of the
theatre, require the submission and approval of a plan for
operation of the parking facilities , including the number of
parking spaces to be issued to office tenants, and require the
submission and approval of a detailed plan for theatre operations
indicating the method of timing films and meeting parking needs
during daytime hours, respectively.
b. Off-Site Parking: As proposed, the
Project would have eliminated approximately 20 public parking
spaces along Bryant'Way, Moraga`Way and Brookwood Road. The
Commission finds that this adverse impact has been substantially
avoided through the revised Project as approved by the Board,
which retains parking along Bryant Way, and is further mitigated
by the Board' s retention of Condition 7 which requires the
-14-
RESOLUTION NO. 841,5-61 00215
applicant to replace any street parking lost as a result of the
Project with free on-site parking.
c. In General: The Board has reviewed
exhaustive information concerning the parking provided for the
Project. The Findings contained in Section VI , Part A, below,
are incorporated herein. The Board finds that the parking
provided by the Project is adequate , and that any residual
parking impact resulting from the Project will be eliminated or
reduced to acceptable levels through implementation of the
parking plan required under the Conditions.
10 . Drainage: The Draft EIR at page 105 examines
the effects on downstream drainage of the Project and concludes
that there are two areas of adverse impact.
a . A potential incapacity of the downstream
system specifically including the drainage under Highway 24 and
the effects of Project runoff on that system.
b. The potential for overflow from San Pablo
Creek and subsequent flooding of the Project' s subsurface
parking.
The Board finds that the revised Project
design including additional subsurface parking does not
materially increase nor affect the potential adverse impact
identified in the Draft EIR and further finds and determines that
these significant adverse impacts are mitigated by the imposition
of Condition 8 which requires a study for review and approval by
the zoning administrator of a detailed drainage study; Condition
13C which requires a certification by a civil engineer of
elevations and drainage facilities; Condition 23G which requires
compliance with the applicable sections of the county code
relating to drainage; and Condition 23I which requires proof to
the Public 'Works Department, Land Development Division of the
acquisition of all necessary rights of entry permits and/or
easements for the construction of off-site drainage improvements.
The Commission finds that all of such
mitigation measures are fully implemented by the appropriate
conditions mentioned above. Based upon such implementation all
significant drainage impacts caused by the Project will be
avoided or reduced to acceptable levels.
III . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GROWTH-INDUCING
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
The Draft EIR at pages (iv) and 108 notes the
possible growth-inducing aspects of the approval of the Project.
The EIR author felt that, because of its location on the other
-15-
RESOLUTION NO. 841,56,/ 00216
side of Highway 24 from a relatively large existing office
project., the proposed project would set a precedent for
development of the area as an area/regional business center. The
Draft EIR points out that additional sites in the central Orinda
area lend themselves towards redevelopment on a scale equal to
this Project. It further contends that the project "reinforces"
a trend away from local community services to area wide or
regional services . It states that later such projects, in all
probability, would not have such a high proportion of commercial
uses as are afforded the community in this Project.
The Board finds that the Project has a local and
community orientation rather than an area-wide or regional
orientation, and does not exacerbate the trend which the EIR
author contends is ongoing in Orinda.
The Board further finds that the Project will not
cause a growth-inducing impact upon the community, due to the
commitment of the County planning staff, the Commission, and this
Board to apply sound, professional planning principles and
judgments to any future applications for development and to treat
all such applications on a case-by-case basis. The Board
incorporates herein the findings contained in Section VII , below,
relating to general plan consistency. The Board finds that the
Project is fully consistent with the General Plan and with the
Orinda Central Business District Design Guidelines. In
considering any additional application for development or
redevelopment projects , the County will require that those
projects be deemed equally meritorious . It may be that other
developers , recognizing the locational advantages afforded by
Central Orinda for office development, will consider the
possibility of regional or area-wide projects in Orinda. The
Board believes , however, that such developers, when apprised of
the facts, and circumstances surrounding approval of this
Project , and the highly beneficial effects of this Project in
redeveloping a prominent, visually unaesthetic site into a
locally-oriented, mixed-use development providing substantial
benefits to a declining retail area, will recognize that the
County' s approval of this Project does not signal encouragement
of such regionally-oriented projects nor office development
generally in the Orinda area. It is unlikely that any such
project could be sited in Orinda consistent with the general
plan, zoning and design standards imposed by the County in the
Orinda area in any event. Accordingly,- the Board finds that the
alleged growth-inducing impact of the Project is insignificant.
IV. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Draft EIR at page 109 sets forth and analyzes
three alternatives to the Project, as proposed. In addition,
-16-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,J6/ 00217
Section VII of Volume II of Responses to Comments at page 67 ,
purports to set forth a specific variation of the third discussed
alternative. The Board makes the following findings relative to
these alternatives:
A. "No Pro 'ect" Alternative: The Board finds
that the "no Project" alternative is in easi a and hereby
rejects that alternative. The Board has determined in these
findings that the Project is fully consistent with General Plan,
applicable zoning, and the advisory Orinda Central District
Design Guidelines. The Project, with its terraced, articulated
building design including extensive pedestrian access and
exterior visual penetration, enhances and benefits the Orinda
Crossroads area in a number of respects. The Board finds that
the Project incorporating all of the beneficial aspects discussed
in these Findings is preferable to the continuation of the
Project site in its present condition consisting of
uncoordinated, obsolete buildings and parking lots which presents
an unattractive appearance to the main entrance to the Orinda
community.
In addition, the Draft EIR in its section on
Economics beginning on Page 63, stresses the beneficial effect
the Project will have upon public revenue generation. The
adoption of the "No Project" alternative would result in the
continuation of the Project site in an unattractive condition and
the loss of a substantial amount of the potential increased
public revenue from the Project.
B. Development in Conformance with the
General Plan and Zoning: The Draft EIR lists as a second project
alternative the development of the site "in conformance with
general plan policies and the standards of the C-B zoning
district, retaining the same basic design concept as that
proposed. . . . " The Board has found in Sections VI and VII of
these Findings that the Project, in fact, is in full compliance
with the General Plan policies and with all applicable zoning
standards, once the requested variances have been granted. Thus
the Board further finds and declares that alternative B listed on
page 109 is not an appropriate alternative to the proposed
Project but is, in fact, the Project as approved. The Commission
further finds that the alternative of a Project designed so as
not to exceed an average height of 35 feet is an undesirable and
infeasible alternative since the design features which make this
Project unique and desirable for the Orinda area would have to be
forfeited and the resulting Project would be an obtrusive,
uninteresting and much less desirable Project.
The Board incorporates herein the findings
made in Sections VI and VII relative to the height variance and
general plan consistency. 'While the Project could be redesigned
-17-
RESOLUTION NO. 841 .56/ 00219
and developed in such a way that the height of the project would
nct exceed the height limits established by the applicable zoning
ordinance, the Board finds that such a Project would be
unacceptable for aesthetic and design reasons, and therefore is
infeasible.
C. Development Retaining Historic Buildings:
The Draft EIR at pages 109 through 114 and Section VII of Volume
II of Responses to Comments present alternatives to the Project
in which the Orinda Theatre and American Trust Bank Buildings
would be retained and incorporated as a part of the Project. For
the same reasons set out in Part B, above, the Board finds that
this alternative is undesirable and infeasible and rejects it.
As determined elsewhere in these Findings , the Board finds that
any cultural and historic value of the theatre and bank buildings
can be fully and completely retained by the mitigation measures
discussed in that section of the EIR. The retention of one or
both of the buildings in question would simply create design
problems and complexities . Resolving these design problems would
result in a much less attractive Project design which , on
balance , would not be desirable for the Orinda area and would
elevate the importance of the Orinda Theatre as a cultural and
historic resource in a manner disproportionate to its age,
aesthetic character and value.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED
The Draft EIR at page 96 sets forth four
environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is
implemented. The Board makes the following findings relative to
those and any other unavoidable adverse environmental effects:
A. Specific Adverse Environmental Effects: The
Draft EIR sets forth the following as specific adverse
environmental effects which are unavoidable if the Project is
implemented:
1 . Establishment of a precedent for similar
development in the Central Orinda area.
2. Cumulative increases in traffic, ambient
noise level, energy consumption and demand for public services
and facilities.
3. Cumulative increase in potential fire
hazard.
4 . Cumulative increases in degradation of
downstream water quality and in air pollution.
-16-
RESOLUTION NO. 841561 00219
The Board has found herein that any precedent
established for similar development in the Central Orinda area
would be minimal or nonexistent. The County shall consider any
further proposals for development on a case-by-case basis and
shall apply to such proposals the same standards that have been
applied to this Project. Any further development would have to
be found consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, applicable zoning ordinances and the Orinda Central Area
Design Guidelines. The EIR makes clear and the Board herein
finds that to the extent of any of the adverse effects listed in
Part V, Paragraph A2-4 , above, would be slight, and they are
found to be insignificant.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations: With
regard to the adverse environmental effects set out in A above
and any other adverse environmental effects not fully mitigated
by the conditions of approval of this Project, the Board has
balanced the benefits of the Project against such unavoidable
environmental risks and effects and makes the following statement
of overriding considerations:
1 . Approval of the Project will give a source
of proximate employment to more Orinda area residents than
presently enjoyed.
2 . The project will substitute a coordinated,
well-designed, aesthetically appealing complex for an area of
uncoordinated, haphazard buildings and structures. The Project
will present a much more attractive entry point for the Orinda
area than currently exists.
3 . The Project will complement and develop
the village character of the Central Orinda area by implementing
a village concept of European style and design combining a number
of land uses in an extremely creative way, all to the benefit of
the Orinda area.
4 . The Project will provide to the Orinda
area a wide range of retail and commercial services which will
provide residents with a greater selection in day-to-day shopping
and commercial activities .
5 . The Project will provide substantially
increased public revenues at very little increase in public
expenditures.
6 . The Project will provide significant
off-site traffic and circulation improvements all to the benefit
of the entire area.
-19-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/J( / 00220
7 . The Project enhances the entire retail
area in the vicinity of the site, promoting pedestrian access and
shopping convenience for Orinda residents, thereby promoting the
policies and goals of the General Plan and the C-B zoning
district.
VI . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO VARIANCES FROM C-B
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
A. Parking Variance: Parking required under the
strict application of Chapter 82-16 of the Contra Costa Code
would be 785 spaces . The revised Project as approved by the
Board includes a total of 451 on-site parking spaces , as did the
previous design approved by the Commission. Approximately 40% of
the parking spaces included in the approved Project design are
compact spaces whereas the parking ordinance makes no allowance
for compact spaces.
The Board has approved the parking design for the
Project and affirms the granting of a variance from the ordinance
parking requirements permitting the Project to include only 451
spaces including compact spaces . With respect to this variance,
the Board finds the following:
1 . The variance does not constitute a grant
of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district
in which the subject property is located. The County regularly
permits the substitution of compact parking spaces for normal
sized spaces, in many cases without specifically granting a
variance for that purpose; the reduced size of modern automobiles
since adoption of the parking ordinance in 1966 , as a result of
the energy crisis and governmental limitations upon gasoline
consumption, have made the provisions of the zoning ordinance
with respect to parking space size obsolete. The reduced number
of parking spaces does not constitute the grant of a special
privilege in that other properties in the same vicinity and land
use district have not been developed with a mixed use concept of
the nature embodied in this Project. The variety of office uses,
retail uses , and restaurant and theatre uses in the Project
allows for the adoption of a parking plan to accommodate the
peak-hour parking demands of the various uses on a staggered
basis. The proximity of the Project to the adjacent BART station
will result in reduced parking demand particularly for office
uses, and this has been the basis for a number of similar parking
variances in other areas of the County and in Orinda for sites
adjacent to BART, both in the same zoning classification and in
other zoning classifications .
2. Special circumstances applicable to the
subject property because of its size, location and surroundings
-20-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,,1-;6/ 00A42i
would cause the strict application of the parking ordinance to
deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use
district. The existing developed properties within the community
of Orinda, in general , have been developed without adequate
parking, typically at times predating the adoption of the parking
ordinance. The Project, by contrast, as approved by this Board,
provides ample parking for its own uses while retaining the
present on-street parking on surrounding streets including Bryant
Way for public use , and through use of a public parking plan
contribution to the overall availability of parking in the
community. The pedestrian walkways in the Project integrate it
with the surrounding retail area and can be expected to promote
shopping in other stores by persons initially parking in the
Project for purposes of utilizing on-premises stores and
services . The special circumstances applicable to this Project
site, including particularly the adjacent BART station and the
staggered peak hour parking demands of the various uses in the
Project, as well as the overall improvement of the parking supply
in the vicinity, make a variance appropriate. The peculiar
location of the subject property, its visual prominence , and the
present unsightly nature of the Project site call for a design
economically supported by a mixed-use building to improve the
aesthetic appearance of this highly visible access point into
Orinda. To require additional parking would reduce the ability
of the Project to provide open courtyards, visual penetration,
articulated building design with multiple elevations , and a
general feeling of openness and pedestrian-dominated access . The
allowance of compact spaces is consistent with the County' s
policy and interpretation of the parking ordinance as permitting
compact spaces for other similarly sized projects both within the
unincorporated county and in other jurisdictions within the
County. To deny the variance would deprive the subject property
of the same benefits which are extended to other properties with
respect to parking requirements both inside the C-B district in
the vicinity and in other areas and zoning districts. Strict
application of the parking ordinance would create an unnecessary
economic hardship and design difficulties which would
substantially impair use and improvement of the Project site by
the applicant and cause a loss of benefits to the community
resulting from the Project.
3 . The variance as to parking substantially
meets the intent and purpose of the off-street parking ordinance
and the C-B zoning district, which is to assure adequate parking
space located off street for the parking of vehicles to meet the
needs of persons employed at or making use of facilities in the
Project. The Board finds ample support in parking studies and
evaluations for the variance granted in this case and through the
required submittal of a parking plan (Conditions 12 and 21 (C) )
will assure adequacy of parking space and operations.
-21-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/,56/ 00222
4 . The variance from the technical
req»irPments of the parking ordinance, as such, is in the nature
of a variance from a construction or building code, the purpose
of which is to achieve an overall harmony of design, appearance,
public safety, convenience and benefit. The Project as approved
will achieve such harmony, convenience and benefit while
complying to the extent feasible with the parking ordinance.
Variances from the parking ordinance under Contra Costa Code
Section 82-16 . 024 are not required strictly to conform to
standards applicable to other types of variances under County
ordinances, although the Board finds that even if such other
standards were applicable, the variance for parking is
nonetheless proper. The variance for parking is consistent with
the policies of the County in granting variances from the
requirements of the parking ordinance.
B. Height Variance: The Board has affirmed the
grant of a variance from the height limitations imposed by
Section 84-49 . 802, with the revisions in the Project height and
design submitted after the Commission' s action. The Board finds
that although the 35-foot height limitation imposed by Section
84-49. 802 is defined differently from the definition of building
height contained in Section 82-4 . 214 , nonetheless the approved
revised Project design requires a variance from the C-B zoning
ordinance. The specific variance is for the revised Project
design submitted by the applicant prepared by Sandy and Babcock,
architects, dated August, 1984 , including all approved design
details thereof with respect to exterior and interior elevations,
roof design, building articulation, provision of courtyards , and
footprint and location of the building on the site, as well as
Condition 2 of the Conditions (pertaining to revised roof designs
on the Moraga Way Highway 24 frontage) . The Board has not
permitted the grant of a variance to permit construction to any
arbitrary uniform height level, but rather to permit construction
of this particular design varying from one to four levels above
subterranean parking without regard to the 35-foot limitation.
The Board makes the following additional findings
with respect to the height variance granted:
1 . The height variance authorized does not
constitute the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the C-B
zoning district in which the property is located. Height and
other similar variances have been granted by the County on
several occasions in the Project vicinity based upon the
particular design considerations , and in such cases are granted
not as special privileges but in conformity with the general
policy of the County to encourage attractive designs in keeping
with the surroundings and the general purposes of the zoning
district within which a Project is located. Such variances are
-22-
RESOLUTION NO. 8 4/.S�(,/ 00223
appropriate in the Central Business District in order to enable
applicants to conform with the Orinda Central Business Design
Guidelines and to create architectural designs meeting the
desired aesthetic and design standards of the community. In
other cases, variances were denied because, in the County' s
judgment, the particular site could be designed developed and
used, without adverse consequences, in strict compliance with the
zoning ordinance and design guidelines. The Board and the
Commission have reviewed designs for this Project which could be
accommodated without a variance as to height, containing the same
or greater space devoted to the same uses as are included in the
approved Project, and have found that such designs , although
complying with the specific height limitation imposed in the C-B
district, would be unacceptable from an aesthetic and community
character standpoint, despite the lack of need for variance for
such alternative projects. The Project site poses unusual design
difficulties primarily because it does not share the semi-rural
environment of other parts of Orinda, and the grant of a variance
to accommodate an appealing resolution of these design
difficulties does not constitute a grant of a special privilege.
2 . Due to the special circumstances and
design problems applicable to the subject property arising from
its size and proximity to the adjacent freeway and
heavily-travelled Camino Pablo, a strict application of the
zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the
identical land use district . The design difficulties posed by
the Project location are not shared by other properties in the
vicinity, many of which are screened from the adjacent freeway by
this Project site and will benefit from the buffering effect of
the building masses of this Project adjacent to the freeway along
Bryant Way. Although a small portion of the C-B district
adjacent to the Project also suffers from the same difficulties
arising from the adjacency of the freeway, the other parcels are
improved with automotive-accessed uses suited to their location.
This particular parcel is the largest area so exposed and the
present Project seeks to enhance the pedestrian character of a
major portion of the Central Business District, including both
the Project site and adjacent areas. The unique character of
this site, bounded by a freeway and potential freeway on-ramp
(Bryant Way) on one side and by a major thoroughfare (Camino
Pablo) on another side, calls for a terraced design such as that
approved, permitting for a shifting of density to improve the
overall design and welfare of uses within the Project and on
adjacent properties. Protection against the noise, exhaust fumes
.and visual obtrusiveness of the freeway cannot be accomplished
effectively with vegetation. The approved design allows for an
orientation of the Project toward other established retail areas
within the vicinity of the Project, necessitating an articulated,
terraced design with courtyards and with the building masses
-23-
RESOLUTION
23-RESOLUTION NO. 8 4/J5'lo/ 00224
shifted toward the freeway to provide buffering for the
]nv? r-leve] areas and open areas of the Project against noise and
visual pollution. This design allows portions of the Project to
match the scale of nearby and adjacent properties while avoiding
the adverse consequences of strict conformity to the height
limitation. Other properties within the same district could be
developed to the full height limitation of 35 feet without
suffering the adverse affects caused for this site by the
freeway, and the variance is necessary to enable this Project
site to enjoy the same levels of uses that could be developed in
these other areas within the same district while preserving an
acceptable design in the public interest. The semi-rural
character of other portions of Orinda is not shared by this
particular site , given its adjacency to the freeway and BART, and
the variance is appropriate to enable this site to blend into and
be compatible with other parts of the community within the same
zoning district and in the vicinity, and to achieve the same
levels of use and enjoyment permitted to these other properties.
3 . The variance granted will substantially
meet the intent and purpose of the C-B district within which the
Project site is located. The general purpose of the district is
to enhance and stabilize the retail sales and personal services
activities within central areas and to foster development of even
more attractive, higher quality retail shopping areas, creating
more concentrated, easily accessible retail shopping and personal
services in central areas for the benefit of businesses and
consumers alike. The office uses in the Project are specifically
permitted by the terms of the C-B district, as well as by the
General Plan (see Part VII, below) . The office spaces are
relatively small and can be expected to attract the types of
businesses referred to in the 0-1 District ordinance; which
governs office uses in the C-B District.. The Project enhances
the visual quality, convenience and diversity of local business
establishments and replaces a large area of a block which is
primarily devoted to paved parking areas and outdated structures
with a carefully integrated mixed-use Project enhancing the
opportunities for pedestrian use and accessibility of the entire
Orinda Crossroads area in keeping with the overall village
character of the Project vicinity. Although the overall height
and bulk of the Project is substantial, the careful roof
treatments and articulated design provide for a building oriented
to a human scale. The height variance, as granted, allows for a
design which improves the attractiveness, comfort and convenience
of the Project both to its office users and its retail customers.
4. The Board further finds that the C-B
district height limitation as applied and interpreted by the
County in connection with other projects and the present Project
is not the predominant purpose of the C-B district and that the
primary concern is the acceptability of design and orientation of
-24-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/-,5;/,/ 00225
projects to the surrounding area. This policy is implemented, in
the specific vicinity of this Project, through the Orinda Central
Business Area Design Guidelines previously adopted by the
Commission with which the Board finds the Project complies in all
substantial respects. The dominant purpose of the C-B district
is not to impose narrow and immutable height/bulk/density
limitations but to encourage retail and office enhancement and
distinguished architecture of the nature embodied in the Project
as approved. The Guidelines specifically contemplate varying
heights and roof treatments to the end of producing an acceptable
design, as provided in this Project. The granting of the subject
variance will not establish an inappropriate precedent for the
C-B district or the vicinity of the Project in that future
projects will have to be considered on their own terms . Other
sites within the same district and the general vicinity do not
pose the same design constraints as exist on this site and, in
addition, no similar sites available for redevelopment are large
enough to enable a developer to provide the substantial amenities
and improvements to the general retail district as are afforded
by the present Project site and approved Project design.
5. Although the variance with respect to
height enables portions of the structure to exceed an average
height of 35 feet above grade, and to reach a height of 64 feet
above the Bryant Way elevation, the Board finds that the proper
interpretation of the height limitation is to allow interior
portions of the structure to exceed an average height of 35 feet
measured at the midpoint of exterior walls and that the variance
granted is not the equivalent of a 25 foot height variance. The
Board further finds that the variance does not, as such, increase
the allowable intensity of the use made on the subject parcel but
rather has been granted to enable the developer to construct a
Project conforming with the advisory Orinda Central Business
District Design Guidelines; a project conforming to the zoning
height limitation, parking requirements and other standards with
the same or greater intensity of use and square footage could be
accommodated on the site, at the expense of providing an
attractive design and configuration. The Project, as approved,
is compatible with the scale of surrounding uses through the use
of appropriate roof treatments , articulated structures , open
courtyards and terrace designs incorporated into the approved
design on the basis of which the variance was granted by the
Commission and the revised design under which the Board has
affirmed the granting of the variance. The magnitude of the
height variance has been reduced by the revised Project approved
by this Board, including the removal of the fifth level of the
building, the reduced height of the elevator tower, and the
reduced height along Moraga Way. The overall average height,
which has been reduced to approximately 50 feet as revised, is
substantially the same as the height of the existing Orinda
Theater on the site (50 feet) , and the highest point of the
-25-
RESOLUTION NO. 841.5-/
00226
Project (the elevator and clock tower, at 64 feet) is
substantially lower than the highest point of the existing Orinda
Theater (79 feet) .
C. Signage Variance: The Project as approved
includes a variance from the specific requirements of Chapter
88-8 of the Contra Costa Code pertaining to signs, as required by
the terms of Section 84-49. 14 regarding C-B districts . The
variance granted is from requirements of Section 88-8.604, which
requires that signs shall be located only on those walls with
buildings fronting on a street. This requirement is
inappropriate to the Project as designed, in that several retail
and office uses will front upon interior courtyards of the
Project. Although free public pedestrian access to the Project
will be afforded by the pedestrian-oriented design, in many cases
such signage is expected not to be visible from the public
streets and therefore could be exempt from the limitations of
Section 88-8.604 by reason of the terms of Clause (4) of Section
88-4 . 1202 pertaining to signs which cannot be seen from a public
street or adjacent property. The Board finds that it is more
appropriate in this particular Project to develop a coordinated,
well-conceived signage program for the entire Project and for
tenants of the Project, as required in the terms of the
Conditions 17 and 21 (E) , than to require strict compliance with
the terms of Section 88-8.604. The Board further finds that a
variance is appropriate and properly granted in this case, where
the Project can be administered under a coordinated sign program
for the businesses involved; a variance may be granted in such
circumstances without making the findings set forth under Section
26-2. 2006 , under the accepted interpretation of Section
88-8 . 2612 .
VII . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The Board finds that the approvals required for
this Project (the variances and the approval of a development
plan pursuant to Section 84-49. 1802) are not required by County
ordinances or applicable state law to be based upon a finding of
consistency with the general plan. However, because of the
substantial public controversy which has existed over this
particular Project, the Board feels it is appropriate to consider
and make findings with respect to the consistency of this Project
with the general plan. The Board finds that the Project , as
approved, is consistent with the policies, goals and standards of
the general plan. The Project site is designated in the Orinda
General Plan, 1973 for community shopping. All goals and
principles of the General Plan relating to the proposed Project
site are met by the Project concept and design as approved. In
this regard, the Board makes the following additional findings:
-26-
RESOLUTION NO. 8 41,56/ 00227
1 . The goal of providing for commercial
development of sufficient area and location to serve existing and
anticipated development within the planning area, adequately
served by transportation facilities and properly buffered from
nearby residential areas , is appropriately satisfied by the
Project as designed. The Project will supply a much needed
infusion of locally-oriented retail shopping facilities which
Orinda previously lacked, on a central site conveniently located
to local traffic patterns in a central business area segregated
from residential uses .
2 . The principle that business development in the
Orinda planning area should be limited to neighborhood and
community service and retail types of uses and that regional
commercial developments should not be permitted is satisfied by
the Project as approved. The retail businesses provided will be
oriented to the needs of the community and will provide a well
designed environment for shopping, substantially upgrading the
quality and image of the surrounding retail area. They are not
of such a size as to attract regionally-oriented "anchor
tenants, " and the Project does not create a regional or area-wide
shopping center in Orinda. The office uses are compatible with
the general business neighborhood, provide an economic base to
enable integration of a shopping facility into the Project, and
thereby enhance the overall retail and community service purposes
of the General Plan.
3 . The principle that the central business area
should be improved to create better pedestrian orientation and
more adequate parking is served by the Project which includes
ample parking including some public parking, which preserves
on-street parking, and which provides a focal point where
shoppers can park and from which they can walk to other nearby
retail and service establishments designed, overall, to enhance
public pedestrian use of private courts and landscaped areas
within the Project and to provide convenient pedestrian walks
integrating the Project into the adjacent retail area. Portions
of the Project have been designed to include retail space with
street frontage entrances similar in nature and facade scale to
those of nearby retail uses on other properties, such as on the
opposite side of Brookwood Road, thereby providing a transition
of pedestrian-accessed shopping on portions of the Project
adjacent to other retail areas while providing a natural
transition for pedestrian access into the interior portions of
the Project. Because of the proximity of the Project to a major
thoroughfare, Camino Pablo, and to Highway 24 , it cannot be
expected that retail shopping pedestrian access should be
encouraged on these two sides of the Project. Neither Bryant Way
nor the northern end of Moraga Way, both of which are immediately
adjacent to the freeway, provides a comfortable pedestrian
environment, and if Bryant Way is converted to provide freeway
-27-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/ ,!!576/
00228
access from Camino Pablo, it will be even less suitable for
pedestrian use. Therefore, it is appropriate that vehicular
access to the parking areas of the Project be oriented to Bryant
Way, away from Moraga Way, as has been required by the staff and
this Board in the revised Project, as approved. The terraced,
articulated building design with numerous pedestrian access
points along Moraga Way and Brookwood Road allows for ease of
access from neighboring retail and business areas while buffering
the Project and neighboring properties from the adjacent freeway
and thereby, overall, enhances the pedestrian character of the
neighborhood.
4 . The principle that a limited amount of
locally-oriented new office space should be provided for the
central business area that complements existing land uses is
properly served by the provision for approximately 65, 000 square
feet of office space, taking into account the conditions imposed
by the Board in approving the Project. The County has required a
plan for building standards for tenants to insure unified design
control of tenant improvements. The Board finds that the general
plan policies contemplate land developments which serve local
needs and permit a limited amount of commercial office space
which complements retail and service uses in the central business
district . The provision of office space in the Project provides
an economic base for an integrated mixed-use Project which will
convert an under-utilized site into an attractive area for
shopping and eating, and with the provision of landscaped outdoor
spaces convenient to pedestrian access , will provide an ideal
location for public use of the private open space which has been
integrated into the Project. Sporadic redevelopment of the
existing nine parcels which compose the Project site would not
necessarily match the quality of design, convenience, and
provision of amenities provided by this Project, and could be
expected to leave the block largely undeveloped, unsightly and
paved over for parking for an extended period of time. Although
the specific tenants which will occupy commercial office space in
the Project are not yet known, there is every reason to expect
that the tenants will serve primarily local or community needs,
and an integrated office and mixed-use Project ambiance will
enhance the attractiveness of the Project to local as well as
other commercial office users . The fact that the Crossroads area
is zoned C-B, which specifically permits executive,
administrative, legal, engineering and accounting offices is
indicative of a desire for a mix of uses in the interpretation of
the general plan. The office spaces incorporated in the design
are relatively small and cannot be expected to attract primarily
large, regional or subregional office users of the type
discouraged by the general plan. Rather, use by existing Orinda
businesses, businesses whose owners or senior management
personnel reside in Orinda, attorneys , .accountants, insurance
-28-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/5!0%
00229
agents , brokers, architects, and similar community-based
businesses is likely to be encouraged in the Project.
5 . The Board believes that a project which
includes mixed commercial and retail/service type uses, such as
this Project, cannot be evaluated for conformity with the general
plan' s primary goal of enhancing locally-oriented shopping solely
on the basis of the proportionate amount of square footage
devoted to office use. This Project, by furnishing
locally-oriented retail shopping facilities subsidized by office
space , directly serves the primary goal of promoting development
of retail outlets.
6 . The general plan designated land use for the
Project site, community shopping, is properly served by the
Project. The Project will provide a convenient center for a
number of retail establishments integrated into the surrounding
business neighborhood as well as serving office users of the
Project. Although the specific uses to be included within the
concept of community shopping uses were not completely identified
in the general plan, the general plan emphasizes serving everyday
needs of local customers, as well as providing for a wider
variety of goods and services than the traditional neighborhood
shopping center provides . Although the Project includes a number
of commercial spaces and the specific tenants are unknown, the
Project does not approach the concept or size of a regional or
county-wide shopping center, which would be contrary to the
intent of the general plan. The Project can be expected to
attract tenants who will provide a much-needed enhancement of
shopping for Orinda residents. The size of retail spaces
provided in the Project is not of such a nature as to attract
large "anchor tenants" which would attract shoppers from outside
of the community in large numbers , and therefore it is reasonable
to expect the commercial users to cater primarily to local needs.
7. The general plan goal that the appearance of
the central business area, especially the main entrance to
Orinda, should be made more attractive, is ideally served by the
Project as approved. The Project site constitutes the most
visible entrance point into Orinda and in its present undeveloped
condition, with several obsolete buildings and a large,
unattractive parking area, presents an appearance of blight upon
entrance into the Crossroads area. The revised Project, as
approved by the Board, will provide an architecturally
distinguished building in keeping with the village character of
Orinda and will drastically improve the quality and appearance of
the central business area.
8 . The general plan objective of preserving areas
and structures of historic significance where feasible is
particularly difficult to reconcile in this particular case with
-29-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/S6/ 0,02:,0
the other goals and objectives of the general plan pertaining to
the central business area of Orinda. Although the Orinda
Treater/America:. Trust Bank building complex in the view of a
substantial portion of the community is an important cultural
value and provides a 43-year old focal point for this relatively
new community, opinions differ both among experts and among
citizens as to its cultural and historic significance. The
retention of the theatre would preserve a resource of
questionable value at the expense of numerous other policies and
values. It is clear that the existing building structure, viewed
from a number of vantage points, is not aesthetically appealing,
and does not compare with the type of architecture which the
General Plan, the C-B District zoning, and the Orinda Central
Business District Design Guidelines seek to engender. The
General Plan does not provide that the existing Orinda
Theater/American Trust Bank building is one of the specific
cultural or historical structures to be preserved. The Board
finds that the principal elements of the Orinda Theater/American
Trust Bank building complex which possess cultural and historic
significance are adequately preserved through the provision in
the Project conditions of approval requiring a study for the
preservation of interior items of the building, and that
preservation of the entire structure is not feasible or desirable
taking into account all of the policies and goals of the general
plan.
9 . The General Plan stresses the retention of the
central business district' s village character as a most important
aspect. The Project, as approved, through the terraced design,
the numerous courtyards and pedestrian areas, the varying levels
and articulated structure, and sloping roofline, provides an
ideal example of a relatively large Project on the human scale in
keeping with the architectural standards and objectives of the
community and will enhance the village character of the
community. The Project, as approved, will substantially mitigate
and correct the adverse consequences for the Crossroads area
which resulted from construction of Highway 24 in the 19501s, and
will return to the Crossroads area of Orinda some of the ambiance
and charm which was irrevocably lost, by buffering the remainder
of the area from the freeway.
10 . The general plan goal that in the business
district development should be encouraged that is of "low line"
architecture complementary to existing development and terrain is
satisfied by the Project as approved. Although portions of the
Project include relatively high elevations , the highest points of
the Project are considerably lower than the highest points of
existing structures on the site. The adjacency of the Project to
the freeway calls for a shifting of building masses to the
freeway side with a terraced design allowing for protection of
interior portions of the Project and adjacent properties to the
-30-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/5K/
00231
south and east from the noise and unsightliness of the freeway.
The terracing of the Project and the required roof treatments and
landscaping will reduce the apparent height of the structures and
where the Project fronts on existing retail streets, such as
Brookwood Road, the scale of the building is compatible with the
scale of buildings on the opposite sides of the street. An
exception to this is along Moraga Way toward the freeway end of
the Project, and the higher building structure is justified for
aesthetic and buffering purposes so that the Project, as a whole,
can provide the shielding benefits and reduction of apparent
scale. This portion of the Project has been improved in the
revised design approved by this Board, which removes the main
vehicular access point to Bryant Way, enhancing the pedestrian
character of Moraga Way, and which has lowered the height of the
Moraga Way elevation to four stories at the corner of Bryant Way.
From an architectural and design standpoint, the Project will be
complementary to existing development, although there is little
existing harmony or continuity of design principles in the
adjacent developed areas of the central business district.
11 . The Project as approved by the Commission
called for acquisition by the applicant of the Bryant Way
right-of-way and construction of a portion of the Project in the
existing right-of-way, eliminating Bryant Way as an element of
the circulation pattern in Orinda. Any possible inconsistency
with the General Plan circulation element has been removed
through the revised Project design approved by the Board, which
retains Bryant Way as part of the circulation pattern in Orinda,
which does not alter existing street patterns except by improving
circulation, and which foreclose no future options for improved
circulation in the area.
12. The Project, as approved, will not conflict
with the Scenic Routes Element of the general plan. The Project,
with the revised Bryant Way and Moraga Way roof treatment
required by the conditions imposed by the Commission and
incorporated into the revised design approved by this Board, will
significantly enhance the visual character of the site. The
Scenic Routes Element contemplates that existing development and
view corridors should be taken into account in defining the
scenic corridor and that the primary concern is not to provide a
clear zone or a setback requirement but to maintain the qualities
desired along a Scenic Route. This purpose is served by the
Project, and the overall effect is to enhance the view from
Highway 24. Although the Project will somewhat impair clear
views of more southerly hills from Highway 24 , the Board finds
that this effect is insignificant, that the primary view
obstructed will be of the existing hodge-podge of business
district development, and that the overall effect is to enhance
scenic views consistent with the goals of the Scenic Route
Element. The revised Project approved by the Board is set back
-31-
RESOLUTION NO. 841,561 00232
further from the freeway than as approved by the Commission, due
to the retention of Bryant Way, .and has been lowered by one floor
along the Bryant Way right-of-way. These revisions have
minimized intrusion into the scenic corridor, and the overall
effect of the Project is to enhance views from the freeway and
BART station.
VIII. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The approval of a development plan required by
Section 84-49 . 1802 , is found to be appropriate based upon the
approved design. In this connection the Board makes the
following findings:
1 . The Project as approved will not be detrimental
to the health, safety and general welfare of the county or of the
community within which the Project is located.
2 . The Project as approved will not adversely
affect the orderly development of property within the county or
in the community within which the Project is located.
3. The Project as approved will not adversely
affect the preservation of property values and the protection of
the tax base within the county or the community within which the
Project is located.
4 . The Project as approved will not adversely
affect the policies and goals set forth in the general plan.
5. The Project as approved will not create a
nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or
community.
6 . The Project as approved will not encourage
marginal development within the neighborhood within which the
Project is located.
7. The Project site constitutes a unique area
posing extremely difficult design problems which have been fully
addressed and resolved through the approved design.
8 . The Board's findings with respect to
consistency with the purpose of the zoning district, the general
plan, the mitigation of significant environmental effects, and
all of the other portions of these findings are incorporated
herein.
9 . The Project is not one for which a land use
permit is required under the terms of Section 84-49.404 of the
Zoning Ordinance and the foregoing findings 1 through 8 are made
-32-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/J(-,-/ 00233
despite the lack of any legal requirement therefor, in response
to the substantial public controversy which has surrounded the
consideration of this Project.
IX . MISCELLANEOUS:
1 . ' In addition to the foregoing specific findings,
the Board incorporates by reference the applicable portions of
the staff reports , special reports and studies, oral testimony,
Final EIR, resolutions , Conditions of Approval, and the
applicant' s submittal , all relating to Development Plan 3055-82 .
2 . It is the intent of the Board that the
foregoing Findings be considered as an integrated whole, and
whether or not any subdivision of these Findings fails to
cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision
of these Findings , that any finding required or permitted to be
made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter
shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these
Findings . All of the foregoing constitute Findings by this
Board, whether or not any particular sentence or clause states
that it is a finding.
3 . The within Findings are based upon the
Commission' s Findings, with modifications, corrections , additions
and deletions made to conform these Findings to the decision of
the Board, to reflect modifications in the Project as finally
approved by the Board, and to reflect facts, evidence and
testimony contained in the entire administrative record,
including but not limited to that presented in hearings on the
Project before the Board. These Findings nonetheless constitute
the independent findings of the Board in all respects, and not a
mere endorsement of the Commission's findings. The Board further
has considered all comments, criticisms and challenges concerning
the Commission' s Findings made by the appealing parties and other
interested parties, whether presented to the Board orally or in
writing, and finds that the Commission's Findings were supported
by the administrative record, when adopted, or if not, that
either those findings are supported by the administrative record
as augmented in hearings before the Board, or that the Findings
of this Board have revised the Commission' s Findings and that to
the extent the Board' s findings differ from the Commission' s
findings they are supported by said augmented record. The Board
finds that the within Findings , as finally revised and adopted by
the Board, are supported in all respects by substantial evidence
on the record, and constitute the Findings of this Board for all
purposes.
-33- nn
RESOLUTION NO. 84/S6/ 00234
• 4 . The Planning Director is hereby directed to file
with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning the
actions and approvals taken and granted herein.
PASSED and ADOPTED on September 18 , 1984, by the following
vote :
AYES: Supervisors Powers , McPeak, Torlakson
NOES : Supervisor Fanden
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
ABSENT• Supervisor Schroder an actio:: taken and cztered on tiC�4iR JiES Of the
Board c;��kPerviscrs on the date silowl-J.
cc : Public Works Department ATTESTED:
Planning Department pNi`
•,.- •LOH, C:�r:' a' the i��arA
County Counsel 01 Superv;-ors and Ccurty Administrator
County Administrator
Orinda Association
Friends of the Orinda Theatre By Deputy
Crossroads Associates
-34-
RESOLUTION NO. 84/561 00235
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3055-82
1 . The application for Development Plan is approved
subject to revised plans submitted to the Planning Department and
dated received on August 9 , 1984 , and subject to the
Barton-Aschman 'Report on Parking Requirements ' of April 1984,
subject to the following conditions .
2 . At least 90 days prior to application for a
building permit applicant shall submit detailed development plans
indicating all revisions that result from the conditions of
approval . Plans shall include the following:
- Materials and color samples for all exterior
finishes
- Plans for each level indicating floor areas
- Location, size and design of all exterior lighting
- Location and fencing of .any exterior refuse areas
- Location and design of utility entrys
- Design, color and materials of walkways, stairs,
curbs , etc .
- Landscaping plan including terrace landscaping and
details of planters and outdoor furnishings,
landscaping around perimeter of Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District pumping facility
- Revised elevations and roof plan showing final
design modifications
3 . Applicant shall retain an archaeologist to examine
the site during various stages of project earthwork and to
provide specific mitigation measures in the event that
archaeological materials are encountered.
4 . Applicant shall provide noise attenuation measures
as follows :
A. Interior Noise (Based on typical building
construction and use of double-pane thermal glazing, for windows
within 50 feet of the Highway 24 frontage and those having a
direct or side view of the freeway) :
1 ) In offices , install double-pane glazing
with two 3/16th-inch lights having minimum spacing of 1-inch
between lights , or other glazing having a Sound Transmission
Class (STC) rating of at least 36 .
2) In the proposed 4th floor restaurant,
install double-pane glazing having two 3/16-inch lights with a
minimum spaces of 1/2-inch between lights , or other glazing
having an STC rating of at least 32 .
00236
(The window glass specified above is based on
a ratio of glass-to-exterior wall area of 1 : 2. If smaller areas
of windows are used in exterior walls, the composite
sound-insulation rating of the glass and wall will be increased. )
3) All exterior doors and any operable
windows (exposed as described above) should be fully
weatherstripped. Where feasible , exterior doors to the offices
and the restaurant , which open directly to the freeway, should be
avoided , or a vestibule should be provided. If any penetrations
are required in the building shell for conduit, pipes , etc. , all
clearance spaces around the penetrations , and any joints, should
be caulked with a non-hardening compound, to form an airtight
seal.
a. Maintain construction equipment in
good mechanical condition and assure that appropriate mufflers
are used.
b. Schedule noisy construction operations
for selected daytime hours , such as 7 :00 a.m. to 7 :00 p.m. , to
avoid more sensitive periods. This should include truck hauling
operations .
c. As practical, establish a program for
using less noisy equipment for certain operations : scrapers
instead of loaders, for earth removal; backhoes for backfilling,
instead 'of bulldozers or loaders; motor graders instead of
bulldozers , for final grading; nail guns instead of manual
hammering, for general construction.
5 . Applicant shall provide a detailed study of how to
preserve as many of the Orinda Theatre and American Trust Bank
building' s interior items as possible. These items shall be
preserved and used or displayed in the new facility. If interior
items of historic interest cannot be incorporated into the
building then they shall be offered to an appropriate historical
society. (Environmental mitigation measure #7 (c) ) . A complete
color photographic record of the building to be made available to
the public in book or pamphlet form.
6 . Daytime operation of the theatre shall be
restricted to weekends except for the showing of children' s films
during holiday periods . (Environmental mitigation measure #9 . )
7 . Applicant shall provide free off-street parking to
replace any on-street parking lost as a result of the project.
(Environmental mitigation measure #9 . )
8 . Prior to approval of building permits applicant
shall provide a study for the review and approval of the Zoning
-2- ).
0023'7
I 7f,--
Administrator . The study shall consider the following and
provide mitigation measures where needed.
A. Capacity of the downstream system and effects
of project runoff .
B . Potential for overflow from San Pablo Creek
and subsequent flooding of the project' s subsurface parking.
C. Drainage alternativesto minimize parking
garage flooding.
9 . Any outdoor uses on the site shall be reviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator to determine the effect of
the use on aesthetics, circulation, noise and any potential
conflicts with other uses .
10 . Applicant shall retain a tree specialist to be on
the site at any time construction will occur in the vicinity of
the Oak tree at Brookwood Road and Moraga 'Way.
11 . Prior to issuance of building permits applicant
shall indicate the means by which the project has been brought
into compliance with the East Bay Municipal Utility District
water conservation guidelines .
12 . Prior to issuance of building permits applicant
shall submit a plan for operation of the parking facility and
shall develop a feasible plan for deliveries to all structures.
Applicant shall provide an operation plan for maintaining
building landscaping and for developing building standards for
tenants to insure a unified design control consistent with the
approved application. Include discussion of the number of
parking permits to be issued to office tenants .
13 . Comply with the requirements of the Building
Inspection Department as follows:
A. Grading permit will be required.
B. A soil engineer shall be required to control
grading work and to submit a final report .
C . A civil engineer shall be required to certify
elevations and drainage facilities.
14 . Comply with the requirements of the County Health
Department.
A. Sewage disposal serving the properties
concerned in this Development Plan shall be provided by the
JDff Q
-3- 00238
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The sewers located
within the boundaries of the properties concerned in this
Development Plan should become an integral part of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District' s sewerage collection system.
B. Water supply serving the properties concerned
shall be by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Such water
distribution system located within the boundaries of the
properties concerned in this Development Plan should become an
integral part of the East Bay Municipal Utility District' s
overall water distribution system.
C . Department of Health Services-Environmental
Health' s approval of plans is required for any proposed theatre
snack bar and any other proposed food establishment .
15 . Glazing shall be done with transparent glass to
maximize visual penetration of structures.
16 . Applicant shall work with Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District to develop a plan for exterior finishes which
will be compatible with the new structures . Prior to completion
of the new structures applicant shall be responsible for
providing any exterior finishes as per agreement with Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District.
17 . Applicant shall provide a sign program for review
and recommendation by the Orinda Area Planning Commission. The
sign program shall provide detailed information regarding theatre
signs , directory signs and any signs identifying the site as a
whole. The sign program shall include guidelines which will be
made available to any retail or office tenant which describe
acceptable sizes, locations, numbers, colors and materials of
individual signs. Limitations on temporary and/or window signs
shall be clearly stated. Guidelines shall indicate that sign
permits are required by Contra Costa County and should be
obtained prior to the placement of any new sign.
18 . Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for theatre
operation indicating the method of timing films and meeting
parking needs during the daytime hours .
19.. Detailed landscaping, irrigation and maintenance
plans shall be submitted to the Commission for review and
recommendation prior to issuance of a building permit.
20 . Additional landscaping shall be provided between
the parking lot and the adjacent streets. In particular, the
retaining walls at the northerly end shall be softened, berms
and/or low landscaped wall (s) shall be provided at Brookwood Road
and between the parking lot and the mini-park and consideration
-4- UD �� Q 00239
shall be given to plantings along the fencing bounding the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District facility.
21 . In view of the magnitude and sensitivity of this
application to the downtown area, the Commission shall review and
make recommendations to the Planning Director on the following
items prior to the issuance of a building permit. All submittals
from the applicant shall be made at least 90 days prior to
application for a building permit.
A. All items in Condition #2 (Final Design
Review)
B. Feasibility study for Condition #5 (Theatre
Artifacts)
C. Study for Condition #12 (Operation and
Maintenance Plan)
D. Final design for Conditions #16 and 20
E. Sign program per Condition #17
F. Public Works Condition #23.D2, D4 and D5
(Further Traffic Mitigations) .
22 . Applicant shall retain Sandy & Babcock and David
Gates through the duration of design and construction of the
project to insure that the approved design concept is achieved.
23 . Comply with the requirements of the Public Works
Department as follows:
A. Diagonal parking shall be retained along
Moraga' Way, and an 8-foot street level setback shall be provided
from the Moraga Way property line.
B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits
affecting the vacated portion of Bryant Way, legal rights shall
be acquired therefor.
C. Reconstruct the Moraga 'Way/Bryant'•Way
intersection to provide enough street area for truck and car
U-turns around the island. This shall include a drop-off area
for BART patrons .
D. Improve traffic circulation in the downtown
area by:
1 . Widening the Highway 24 eastbound offramp
to three lanes for a distance of at least 250 feet .
-5- slD o D� Q 00240
i
2. Modify the striping on westbound Brookwood
Road to provide for a separate right-turn lane. Further study
shall be made by the Public 'Works Department regarding the
conversion of Brookwood Road to one-way eastbound prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3 . Widen the south side of Camino Pablo in
the vicinity of Camino Encinas and Moraga Way by 2 to 4 feet and
stripe for two full lanes to Overhill Road. This shall include a
transition back to one lane south of Overhill Road.
4 . Widen northbound Camino Pablo south of
Brookwood to provide for three through lanes . This shall include
acquisition of the necessary right of way and restriping of the
Liquor Barn lot, and reconstructing the existing curb
approximately 7 feet to the east along the frontage of the
existing Liquor Barn property. A new landscape strip shall be
provided to replace the existing landscape.
5 . Modify the existing signal system at
Brookwood/Camino Pablo to provide for a separate left-turn phase
onto Brookwood Road . Further study shall be made by Public Works
regarding the benefit of signal modernization including emergency
vehicle preemption equipment prior to the issuance of: a building
permit.
E. Applicant shall consent to allow the placing, without
protest, of the real property constituting the project into an assessment -
district formed to improve traffic and circulation conditions in the Orinda'
Crossroads Area.
F. Provide a minimum 8-foot sidewalk on Brookwood
Road and Moraga'-Way. Face of curb on Moraga Way shall be located
at the existing property line. Sidewalks shall be constructed in
dedicated rights of way or easements .
G. In accordance with Section 82-2 .014 of the
County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the
requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
H. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the
property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining
across the sidewalk or on driveways.
I . Furnish proof to the Public 'Works Department ,.
Land Development Division, of the acquisition of all necessary
rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of
off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements .
-b-
00
2 _
J. Install all new utility distribution services
underground ._
K . Submit improvement plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Land
Development Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review
and applicable lighting fees . These plans shall include any
necessary traffic signing and striping plans for review by the
County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Land Development
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 improvement agreement with Contra Costa
County and post the bonds required by the agreement to guarantee
completion of the work.
L. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public
Works Department, Land Development Division, for construction of
driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Camino
Pablo, Brookwood Road and Moraga Way.
M. An encroachment permit for construction within
the State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through
the Public 'Works Department, Land Development Division.
The following statements are not conditions of
approval , however the applicant should be aware of these comments
prior to attempting to secure building permits .
A. Orinda Fire Protection District requirements:
1 . The entire complex shall be sprinklered, UBC,
Chapter 38 , Section 3802 , Contra Costa County 1979 Edition.
s �`D
-7-
0024.2