HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07191988 - 3.5 (2) N04740 RP as A18
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum, made and entered into by and between the United States of
America, acting by and through the Department of the Navy (hereinafter called
"Navy") and the County of Contra Costa, State of California (hereinafter
called "County"), concerns the parties understanding of their respective
positions regarding the closure of portions of Port Chicago Highway, Main
Street and Waterfront Road, (hereinafter called "Roads") for the purpose of
meeting safety requirements in the operation of the Navy's Naval Weapons
Station, Concord, California, (hereinafter called "Station").
1 . The County agrees to conduct proceedings, pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code Section 8300 et seq. , to determine whether the public's
interest in portions of Port Chicago Highway, Main Street and
Waterfront Road, as delineated on the sketch marked Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof, should be vacated. The Navy
agrees to pay all fees and expenses for processing the
abandonment/vacation, amending the County's General Plan and
completing any required environmental review.
2. Upon a determination by the County that the public's interest in the
Roads should be vacated, the County shall , concurrently with the
Navy's payment to the County of the compensation specified in
paragraph 8 below, execute and deliver to the Navy a recordable
quitclaim deed to the United States of America of all the County's
right, title and interest in and to the rights of way/easements for
the Roads. The quitclaim deed shall be delivered to the Navy in
accordance with the date established in paragraph 8 below. The
quitclaim deed shall be subject to all easements reserved for
existing, in-use utilities.
3. The Navy agrees that the County may retain sub-surface rights under
the Roads abandoned/vacated only for the purpose of granting easements
to utility companies to install , maintain, and replace existing or
future underground electrical lines, underground natural gas lines,
underground sewer lines, underground water lines, telephone,
telegraph, cable 7.V. , drainage facilities, and underground liquid
fossil fuel lines (i .e. oil , gasoline); provided_, however, that the
written approval of the Commander, Western Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, San Bruno, California, will be obtained by County
prior -to issuance of any such easement. The Navy reserves the right
to refuse installation of any utility lines that is not of the type
described above, or whose installation would not be in strict
compliance with all federal , state or county laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations or, codes or for which above ground structures would be
required (e.g. unrefined oil heaters), or for which frequent
maintenance checks or operating procedures would have to ,be performed
inside Navy boundaries. All such easements granted by the County
shall provide that the easement shall be subject to the Navy's right
to establish and enforce security and safety regulations, and
procedures and restrictions for ingress and egress to the easement
area.
M624708RPHA78
4. Upon completion of the County's official abandonment/vacation of the
Roads , the Roads shall become privately-owned roads and the Navy shall
issue a Right of Way Lease to the County for the abandoned roads,
permitting County to lease the Roads for use by the general public for
the period requested by the County, but not to exceed five years from
the date of the official abandonment/vacation. The lease will be for
no monetary consideration, but will require that the County maintain
the Roads as privately-owned roads, pursuant to the Streets and
Highways Code Section 969.5. During the term of the lease, the Navy
shall have the right, with the concurrence of the County, to detour
traffic in connection with any Navy construction project affecting the
Roads.
5. County shall indemnify and hold harmless Navy from the County's share
of liability arising from the use of Roads by the general public
caused by the negligence or willfull misconduct of County, its
officers or employees. The Navy shall be responsible for damage,
injury, death or loss arising from the actions by Navy or its
employees in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act. In the
event the Navy undertakes construction on or adjacent to • the Roads,
the Navy agrees to include in the construction contract language: (1 )
requiring the contractor(s) to provide comprehensive general liability
insurance and vehicular insurance naming the County, its officers and
employees as additional insureds in an amount and form which the Navy
normally requires for its construction projects; and (2) requiring the
contractor(s) to, indemnify the 'County, its officers and employees to
the same extent as the contractor indemnifies the Navy.
6. Nothing in this agreement is •intended to affect the legal liability of
either party to third , parties by imposing any standard of care
different from that' imposed by law.
7. Upon actual closure of the Roads by Navy, the Navy shall grant
emergency access to the Roads by law enforcement, fire, and other
emergency vehicles, subject to the approval of the Commanding Officer
of the Station. Publicservice and commercial utility crews of
agencies with utility lines in the Tidal Area shall be granted access
to the Roads as stipulated in existing or amended easements or right
of. way agreements, where appropriate. In addition, should that
portion of State Route 4 adjacent to the Roads become blocked due to
earthquake, major accident, chemical spill or other catastrophic
cause, the Navy shall permit vehicular traffic through the Naval
Weapons Station, Concord, as a detour during the period of such
blockage, subject to approval of the Commanding Officer of the
Station. Procedures for gaining access will be specified in
interagency agreements.
8. Concurrently with the County's delivery to the Navy of the quitclaim
deed under paragraph 2, the Navy agrees to pay the County $5 million
to cover the cost of mitigating the impact of the abandonment/vacation
of the Roads. The payment of $5 million is subject to authorization
and appropriation of the funds by Congress. The County's use of the
compensation shall not be restricted or limited in any manner, so long
*62 4 7 4 81 R PbM A-7-8
as the funds are used directly or indirectly to mitigate
transportation impacts from closure of the Roads. If the funds
specified in this paragraph have not been appropriated and tendered to
the County by March 31 , 1991 , unless further extensions by mutual
agreement, the County shall not be obligated to deliver a quitclaim
deed to the Roads to the Navy and any abandonment/vacation -of the
Roads previously approved by the County shall be automatically revoked.
9. . This Memorandum shall become effective only if' approved and executed
by both parties by 21 June 1988 and shall continue in effect until
terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA UNITEDT'ATES, A14ERICA.
Re*RBARA
d; By:
CHARLES J WILLIAMS
ByDirector, Real Estate
NEUST DTER Division,;°'Real Estate
Deputy Director for Contracting Officer,
Transportation .Planning Western Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering
Command
Approved
j� f
By:
PHILIP BATCHELOR
County. Administrator
CONCURRENCE:
OK
Commanding Offic
Naval Weapons Sta ion
Concord, California
FORM APPROVED:
VICTOR J. WESTMAN
COUNTY COUNSEL
Deputy
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 1
Adopted this Order on July 19, 1988 by the following vote: -
AYES: See votes on documents for T. lA and T. 1B
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
-------------------------------------------------------------=-------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Joint Public Hearing Of The Contra Costa County Board Of
Supervisors And The Contra Costa County Redevelopment
Agency To Consider An Amendment To The County General Plan,
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan,
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan, The
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Approval, Considera-
tion of The Environmental Impact Report Supplement, And
Other Actions Related Thereto In the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area.
The Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1988 continued to this date
the hearing of the Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Agency
of Contra Costa County to consider an amendment to the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan; and
This being the time heretofore noticed for a hearing before the
Board of Supervisors for a hearing to consider amending the County
General Plan, the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and to
consider approval of a request to rezone the subject property to
Planned Unit District (P-1) with a preliminary development plan, and
to consider a supplemental Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station area and actions related thereto.
Chairman Schroder called to order the joint meeting of the Board
of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County.
Supervisors/Commissioners Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder were
present. Supervisor/Commissioner Powers was absent.
Chairman Schroder opened the public hearing and explained the
purpose of the hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment
( 6-87-CO) , the Specific Plan Amendment ( 1987-3 ) , the rezoning
application and preliminary development plan ( 2743-RZ) , the Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report
Supplement for the Pleasant Hill BART Station area.
Chairman Schroder explained that the Board of Supervisors and the
Redevelopment Agency are composed of the same members and that they
sit in a dual capacity for the joint hearing.
Chairman Schroder asked that those wishing to give testimony fill
out a speaker request card.
Chairman Schroder advised that persons giving testimony would be
doing so under oath administered by the Clerk of the Board and that a
Court Reporter was present.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, gave the staff ,
presentation and commented on the request by the Planning Commission
before the Board today to certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report Supplement before them, adopt the General Plan Amendment, adopt
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Amendment and adopt the
rezoning/preliminary development plan 2743-RZ for a proposed project.
He commented that the final development plan was not before the Board
at this time but would go to the Planning Commission at a later date
should the Board approve the proposed project before them today and
the applicant meet the requirements of the conditions being applied.
He commented on the changes involved in the General Plan Amendment and
the Specific Plan Amendment. Mr. Wandry described the amendment site;
and advised that the applicant would explain the details of the
project proposal.
In answer to a question by Supervisor Schroder on the use of the
Board' s jobs/housing balance policy, Mr. Wandry commented on the
retail use, the day-care center availability, and the use of BART.
James Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Director, commented on the
purpose of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan being twofold,
the addition of territory and the revision of the fiscal limits
contained within the Redevelopment Plan to accommodate the addition of
this new area. He commented that the basis for amending the plan is
to enable the County and the Agency to promote the development of high
density affordable housing that is essential for the effective
redevelopment of the project area in order to allow it to achieve a
jobs/housing balance and to realize the affordable housing goals for
low and moderate income that the agency is obligated to address, and
the need for eminent domain in order for this particular project to go
forward. He also commented on tax increment projections for the
amendment area, and the pass through agreement with the Consolidated
Fire Protection District; and added that based on projection, the
addition of this amendment will add approximately 37 million dollars
to the property tax that would be collected from the total area, and
that amount in addition to the amount from the existing project area
would be sufficient for the agency not only to carry out its
redevelopment program but also to repay the debts that it has incurred
to date.
Polly Marshall, Goldfarb & Lipman, Redevelopment Agency Special
Counsel, noted that the hearing is a continuation of the public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan which was noticed for July 12, 1988
and also a hearing on the General Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan
Amendment, the rezoning and preliminary development plan approval and
testimony may also be taken on the Environmental Impact Report
Supplement and the relocation plan before the Board. She requested
that the Report on the Plan, the EIR supplements, the staff
documentation and other relevant documents and correspondence that she
presented to the Clerk be incorporated into the record. She also
noted that notice of this hearing was mailed to property owners by
certified mail and to taxing agencies and was also published once a
week for three successive weeks in the Contra Costa Times, and notice
was also published for the General Plan and Specific Plan portions of
the hearing, and affidavits of publication and mailing had been
furnished to the Clerk.
Aulene Joseph, Assistant Clerk, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors, administered the oath to all individuals present today
desiring to give testimony.
The Chairman inquired if the Clerk had any communication or data
to be read into the record at the present time. The Clerk responded
that there had been none filed with the Clerk, other than that
submitted by Polly Marashall at the beginning of this hearing.
The following people appeared to speak:
Richard Fordiani, 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, the
applicant in the Park Regency proposal, submitted approximately 1700
petitions in favor of the project and letters of support from the
Chambers of Commerce of Concord, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill. He
also addressed the jobs/housing balance proposed by the project.
Evelyn Munn, Vice-Mayor, City of Walnut Creek, presented a March
7, 1988 letter from Charlotte Flynn, Chief of Planning, City of Walnut
Creek, on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement, Park
Regency Project, and addressed concerns of the City of Walnut Creek
including housing affordability, density, building heights, senior
housing, the expansion of the study area, the revised site plan,
traffic, parking, and mitigation. She commented that the City of
Walnut Creek believes that the County should not be considering
further development in this area until it can accurately describe what
is already committed, it can analyze traffic impacts of this
development and it can show how these impacts can be mitigated before
approving additional projects in this area.
Ron Kilmartin, 41 Juana Court, Walnut Creek, commented he did not
oppose conversion of area 3 to multiple dwellings but he found it a
considerable inconvenience to his family' s life at this time. He
opposed approval of the draft relocation plan and the involvement in
any way of the Redevelopment Agency in the entire project. He urged
the Board to approve the General and Specific plans, reject the draft
relocation plan in its entirety, and to instruct the Redevelopment
Agency to stay out of the program completely, suggesting that County
supervision of the developer should be within the purview of the
Building Inspection Department and the Planning Department. He urged
the Board not to allow condemnation of owner occupied property, to
require the Planning Department to permit no removal of existing or
new construction anywhere in the area until the developer has obtained
legal ownership of all parcels in the development, that it insure that
all resident homeowners are allowed to take their proposition 13
benefits with them regardless of whether they are over or under 55,
and to direct the developer to negotiate in good faith the purchase of
properties with all homeowners who have not accepted his proposal.
Carole Haes, 1475 North Broadway, #440, Walnut Creek,
representing Landon Properties, addressed the issue of protection for
older buildings in the area with additional landscaping, and expressed
the desire to have as a condition of approval the right to approve of
the landscaping along the adjoining property area.
Perfecto Villarreal, 3133 Estudillo Street, Martinez, Executive
Director of the County Housing Authority, expressed the ,great need for
affordable housing in Central Contra Costa County especially in the
area being proposed and encouraged the Board to approve the General
Plan Amendment that is being proposed.
Chairman Schroder requested Perfecto Villarreal to communicate
with the City of Walnut Creek and quantify what the affordable housing
aspects are in the proposed project and to invite them to work with
the Housing Authority to develop similar plans in the City of Walnut
Creek.
B. Sanders, Housing Alliance, commented on issues including
homelessness and the lack of affordable housing in Central Contra
Costa County.
Lauren Fickett, former Associate Superintendent, Mt. Diablo
School District, representing Mt. Diablo School District, commented on
a letter he sent to Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Project Manager, dated
June 23, 1988, expressing concerns relative to the effect of the
Pleasant Hill BART Project on the District and requested that there be
more meetings to resolve these concerns.
Supervisor McPeak responded to Mr. Fickett' s comments, and noted
that she had watched with interest the discussions that have taken
place between Concord and the Mt. Diablo School District and that she
has specifically refrained from having the County and its agencies
requests to be put ahead of the school district in those
considerations.
Chuck Beesley, 1330 Concord Avenue, Concord, Mosquito Abatement
Distict, commented that the District is not in opposition to the
project but expressed concerns relative to long term financing and
loss of revenues.
Leslie S. Pricer, P.O. Box 475, Palm Desert, representing Contra
Costa Mosquito Abatement District, spoke on the concerns of the
District and appealed to the Board for consideration of a pass through
agreement.
Walter Bond, 400 Holiday Hills Drive, Martinez, submitted a
speaker card indicating support for Park Regency but did not speak.
Eric Hasseltine, 2380 Salvio Street, #303, Concord, representing
Urban Holdings Inc. , the applicant for the project, spoke in favor of
the project.
John Kelly, 181 Elena Drive, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of the
project.
Elaine Schneider, 31 Juana Court, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of
the project.
Dara L. Schur, 1017 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond, representing
Contra Costa Legal Services, spoke in favor of the proposed project.
Jerry Patchen, 185 Cypress Pt. Way, Moraga, spoke in favor of the
approval of the project.
Thomas Cooke, 101 Howard Street, San Francisco, representing
Sedway Cooke Associates, spoke in favor of approval of the project.
Mr. Fordiani spoke in rebuttal.
Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the concern
expressed relative to retaining the Proposition 13 rights by property
owners in the area.
Mr. Fordiani responded that those area residents who wish to stay
in the County can keep their Proposition 13 benefits.
Jim Kennedy added that it would be required that the Agency take
title in order for the seller to qualify for those Proposition 13 tax
benefits so just for that reason alone the Agency would have to be
involved.
Polly Marshall noted that a letter had been received from Betty
Stevens in opposition in addition to Mr. Kilmartin' s letter and that
Mr. Kennedy had also received a couple of responses.
Supervisor McPeak questioned the traffic generated from the
project negatively impacting the traffic projections and studies that
were submitted as a part of the review.
Jim Kennedy responded that the same traffic consultant was used
and it had been determined that the Park Regency would have no
discernible effect upon operations of any of the intersections of the
area.
Supervisor McPeak requested further assurance that there is no
traffic being added to the intersections that have already been
studied that would force the levels of service higher than the studies
that were submitted.
Mr. Kennedy responded affirmatively.
Supervisor Torlakson, addressing the concern expressed by Carole
Hayes, urged the fullest possible landscaping that would esthetically
buffer and make a nice transition between the existing residents and
the new proposed residents.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised that .he
would work with Ms. Hayes relative to her concerns.
Jim Kennedy spoke in rebuttal on several issues including the
concerns of the Mt. Diablo School District and the Mosquito Abatement
District.
No one expressing any objections, the public hearing was closed.
Supervisor McPeak complimented the residents of the area, Jim
Kennedy, the Redevelopment Agency, Counsel and the staff of the
Community Development Department and the developer and his team for
having worked cooperatively over several months to bring forward what
she considers a very fine project and a major addition to this
particular area. She commented on the inappropriateness of the
request by the City of Walnut Creek to defer action on the proposed
project or reduce density. She commented additionally on the
jobs/housing balance, the child care center being planned in
conjunction with the Contra Costa Centre Association, the appropriate
tax increment ceiling for the Redevelopment Agency, and indicated her
willingness to move approval of the project, the Redevelopment Plan,
the Relocation Plan and the Amendment to the General Plan and other
appropriate actions.
Before requesting staff restate the appropriate motion,
Supervisor McPeak pointed out that before the Board are 25 conditions
of approval by the Planning Commission. She proposed three additional
conditions: 1) 18d. request the Community Development Department to a.
determine what percentage of the $2406 per unit should be attributed
to the regional mitigation program, b. negotiate with the applicant an
additional amount if any to meet the equivalent of . 50 per square foot
for regional mitigation assessed against office space in the area ; 2)
26 . upon the request of the county and upon the completion of
negotiations of a satisfactory tax sharing agreement, the applicant
shall initiate and/or support annexation to the City of Pleasant Hill;
3) 27. Before the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
participate with the Contra Costa Centre Association in jointly
implementing the public information program approved by the Pleasant
Hill BART Station planning and the benefits of jobs/housing balance.
The Board discussed the proposed additional conditions expressing
disagreement with condition 26.
Supervisor McPeak suggested placing proposed condition 26 on hold
and approving 18d. , and making condition 27 condition 26 .
On recommendation of Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ORDERED that:
Resolution No. RA 88-10, Certifying Review and Consideration of
the EIR Supplement, Making Certain Findings Required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, and Stating Overriding Considerations in
the Approval and Adoption of an Amended Redevelopment Plan for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station area is ADOPTED;
Resolution No. RA 88-11, Authorizing Execution of Fiscal
Agreement with Consolidated Fire Protection District is ADOPTED;
Resolution No. RA 88-12, Adopting Relocation Plan for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project-Subarea 3 is
ADOPTED;
Resolution No. RA 88-13, Adopting the Amended and Restated
Replacement Housing Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project is ADOPTED;
On recommendation of Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that:
Resolution No. 88/460, Certifying Review and Consideration of the
EIR Supplement, Making Certain Findings Required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, and Stating Overriding Considerations in
the Approval and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan
Amendment, Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Approval, and Amended
Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station area is ADOPTED;
Resolution No. 88/461, Approving General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO;
Approving Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment
1987-3 ; Approving Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan 2743-RZ
for Park Regency is ADOPTED;
Ordinance No. 88-54, approving rezoning of amendment area and
preliminary development plan is ADOPTED;
Ordinance No. 88-58, adopting an Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of
the State of California is ADOPTED.
Please refer to, the individual documents on file in the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors office for the individual item votes.
(hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the miutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
_
G
PHIL.M HiR, Clerk of the Board
Orig. Dept. • Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator
cc: Community Development Department
Redevelopment Agency By U , Deputy
County Counsel
T. 1
t A. 1
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on July 19 , 1988 A. by the following vote
AYES: Commissioners Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. RA 88-10
SUBJECT: Certifying Review and Consideration of the EIR
Supplement, Making Certain Findings Required by
the California Environmental Quality Act, and
Stating Overriding Considerations in the Approval
and Adoption of an Amended Redevelopment Plan for
the. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency' RESOLVES that:
The Agency has prepared and submitted for consideration by the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors an Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Redevelopment Project (the "Amended Redevelopment Plan" ) .
As the entity responsible for carrying out the Amended
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency is a "Responsible Agency"
within the definitions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ,
hereafter "CEQA" ) , the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA
( 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15000 et. seg. , hereafter the
"State CEQA Guidelines" ) , and the County' s and Agency' s
Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (the "Local Guidelines" ) . As
a Responsible Agency, the Agency is taking the actions set
forth in this Resolution.`
An EIR Supplement (the "EIR Supplement" ) has been prepared for
use in considering the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment
Plan and related approvals . The EIR Supplement builds upon
the Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan certified by the Board by
Resolution No. 83-805, dated June 7, 1983, and upon the
Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Redevelopment
Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment
" Project certified by the Board by Ordinance No. 84-30, dated
July 10, 1984 . The EIR Supplement consists of the documents
described in Section II of the attached Exhibit A, which
is incorporated in this Resolution by this. reference.
As more fully set forth in Section II of the attached
Exhibit A, the EIR Supplement has been prepared in accordance
with the requirements and procedures of CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines .
By Resolutions No. 37-'1988 and No. 39-1988 adopted on June 28,
1988, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission recommended
the certification of the EIR Supplement with accompanying
findings generally in the form of the attached Exhibit A.
A joint public hearing was held by the Agency and the .Board on
July 19, 1988 on the Amended Redevelopment Plan and related
approvals, and on the EIR Supplement, following notice duly ,
and regularly given as required by law. All interested
persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object
thereto were heard, and the EIR Supplement and all comments
and responses thereto were considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency hereby finds and certifies that the EIR
Supplement has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the, Local Guidelines; that the EIR
Supplement adequately addresses the environmental issues of
the Amended Redevelopment Plan; and that the Agency has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR
Supplement prior to approving and carrying out the Amended
Redevelopment Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency in conjunction with the
Board, hereby identifies the significant effects, adopts the
mitigation measures, makes the findings, and declares the
statement of overriding considerations set forth in' detail in
the attached Exhibit A. The statements, findings and
determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above
certified EIR Supplement and other information available to
the Agency as more fully set forth in Section III of Exhibit
A, and are made in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092 , and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines .
1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an actIdn taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supeors n.the date shown.
ATTESTED.
PHIL BA*HELC6, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By 0 , J4114 A
Deputy
cc: Community. Development- Department
Redevelopment Agency
County Counsel
County Administrator
All Other Distribution via
Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. RA 88-10
08/03/88
#B090A/B32001
EXHIBIT A
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The Project under consideration consists of- the
development of a high density multifamily residential
project of not more than 892 dwelling units, together with
ancillary commercial, retail and community facilities of
approximately 21 ,000 square feet. The Project is located on
12 .37 acres of land in the northwest section of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area, including Sub Area 3 and
portions of Sub Areas 1 and 4 (the "Project Site") . The
Project Site is interior to the block bounded by Oak Road,
Coggins Drive and Las Juntas Way and includes all of the
properties fronting on Elena Court, Elena Drive and
Juana Court.
Implementation of the Project will require the following
approvals and actions (collectively referred to in this
document as the "Project Approvals") :
A. Approval by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa (the "Board") of an amendment to the Contra
_.eCosta County General Plan (the "General Plan") to change the
General Plan land use designation for the Project Site to
"BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density" and "Retail" ,
and to make certain related revisions to� the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. This approval is in the form of-
General Plan Amendment #6-87-0O3 and is hereinafter referred
to as the "General Plan Amendment'.' .
B. Approval by the Board of an amendment to the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan") to
change the Specific Plan land use designation for the Project
Site to "Multiple Family Residential" and "Mixed Use" , and to
make related revisions to the Urban Design Policy Program and
the Site Requirements Matrix of the Specific Plan. This
approval is in the form of Specific Plan Amendment
#1987-3 (SP) , and is hereinafter referred to as the "Specific
Plan Amendment" .
C. Approval by the Board of an amendment to the County
Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Project Site to "P-1 , Planned
Unit Development District" and approval by the Board of the
Preliminary Development Plan for the Project (with conditions
of approval) . These approvals are in the form of County File
#2743-RZ , and are hereinafter referred to as the
"Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan" .
-1-
D. Approval by the Board, and implementation by the
Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") , of an
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the "Amended
Redevelopment Plan") . The Amended Redevelopment Plan would
amend and restate the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill
.BART Station Area Redevelopment Project, adopted by the Board
by Ordinance No. 84-30 , dated July 10 , 1984 (the "Initial
Redevelopment Plan") . The Amended Redevelopment Plan would
add approximately 10 .5 acres of the Project Site to the
adjacent existing Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Existing Project Area") . The
area to be added to the Existing Project Area through the
Amended Redevelopment Plan is hereinafter referred to as the
"Amendment Area" . (The remaining 1.87 acres of the 12.37 acre
Project Site is already within the Existing Project Area. )
The Amended Redevelopment Plan would also change the land use
designations for the Project Site to be consistent with the
land use designations in the General Plan Amendment and , the
Specific Plan Amendment; would revise certain financial
provisions of the redevelopment program to enable Agency
assistance in financing development of the Project, as needed;
and would make certain other technical revisions to the
Initial Redevelopment Plan.
The Contra Costa County Planning Commission (the
"Planning Commission") will provide recommendations to the
Board and the Agency regarding the Project and the Project
Approvals.
II . CEQA COMPLIANCE
An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Board
for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan by
Resolution No. 83-805 , dated June 7 , 1983 (the "Specific Plan
EIR") . An Environmental Impact Report Supplement was
certified by the Board for the Initial Redevelopment Plan by
Ordinance No. 84-30 , dated July 10 , 1984 (the "Initial
Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement") .
An EIR Supplement has been prepared for the Project and
the Project Approvals (the "EIR Supplement") . The 'kIR
Supplement uses information contained in the Specific Plan EIR
and the Initial Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement to the
maximum extent possible, and provides supplemental information
and analysis necessary to enable the Board, the Agency, and
the Planning Commission to make sound decisions on the Project
and the Project Approvals.
The EIR Supplement consists of:
A. The Specific Plan EIR, 'incorporated by reference;
-2-
B. The Initial Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement,
incorporated by reference;
C. The Draft EIR Supplement, dated January, 1988 (the
"DEIR") ; and
D. The Responses to Comments, dated June 17, 1988 , which
contains comments on the DEIR, responses to such
comments, and appendices related to supplemental
traffic studies (the - "Response Document") .
E. Letter from Darwin Myers Associates, dated July 1 ,
1988 .
The EIR Supplement has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for .�
Administering the California Environmental Quality Act. The
County of Contra Costa (the "County") has served as "Lead
Agency" , and the Agency has served as a "Responsible Agency"
in preparing the EIR Supplement.
Preparation of the EIR Supplement began in September,
1987 with the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation to all interested and affected agencies. On
January 29 , 1988 , a Notice of Completion of the DEIR was
published in the Contra Costa Times. The DEIR was
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review on January 29 ,
1988 (SCH #87091516) . The DEIR comment period closed on
March 10 , 1988 .
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
DEIR on February 23 , 1988 . Following the public hearing and
receipt of written comments on the DEIR, the Response
Document was prepared.
The DEIR was submitted to the Board, the Agency and the
Planning Commission on May 3 , 1988 , and the Response Document
was submitted to the Planning Commission on June 23 , 1988 and
to the Board and the Agency on June 28 , 1988 .
On June 23 , 1988 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the Project and the Project Approvals , and on June
28 , 1988 , the Planning Commission considered, and submitted
its recommendation to the Board and Agency on, the Project,
the Project Approvals, and the EIR Supplement. The Planning
Commission's recommendations with respect to the EIR
Supplement are based on the findings and analysis set forth in
this document.
On July_l g, 1988 , the Board and the Agency considered and
took action upon the Project, the Project Approvals, and the }
EIR Supplement. In connection with these actions, the Board
and the Agency considered certification of the EIR `
-3-
Supplement. The actions of the Board and the Agency are
based, in part, on the findings and .analysis set forth in this
document.
III . THE RECORD
The Record of the Board, the Agency, and the Planning
Commission relating to the Project, the Project Approvals, the
EIR Supplement, and the findings and analysis set forth in
this document include:
A. The General Plan Amendment and accompanving staff
reports;
B. The Specific Plan Amendment and accompanying staff
reports; s
C. The Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan (with
conditions of approval) and accompanying staff
reports;
D. The Amended Redevelopment Plan;
E. The Report on the Amended Redevelopment Plan,
prepared by the Agency and submitted to the Board on
May 3 , 1988;
F. The EIR Supplement (as described in Section II
above) ;
G. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Board,
the Agency, and the Planning Commission during public
hearings on the Project, the Project Approvals, and
the EIR Supplement; and
H. Matters of common knowledge to the Board, the Agency,
and the Planning Commission, including without
limitation:
1 . The General Plan;
2. The Specific Plan;
3. The County Zoning Ordinance;
4 . The Initial Redevelopment Plan; and
5 . Other adopted policies and ordinances of the
County.
IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The EIR Supplement identified 24 potentially significant
environmental effects attributed in part to the Project and
the Project Approvals. These potentially significant
environmental effects, as well as proposed mitigation
-4-
measures, are discussed in detail in Sections II and III
of the DEIR and in the Response Document, and are summarized
at the beginning of the DEIR. Sections II and III of
the DEIR and the Response Document also provide an analysis
of whether the proposed mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen each of the significant environmental
effects identified in the DEIR and the Response Document.
Each potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the DEIR and the Response Document, the
proposed mitigation measures for that effect, and the findings
with regard to that effect are discussed in Section V below.
V. FINDINGS
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant .F
environmental effects of the Project and the Project
Approvals, the Project and the Project Approvals are approved
as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
California Administrative Code Sections 15091, 15092 , and
15093 . As required by the aforementioned references , the
following findings are made for which there is substantial
evidence in the record.
A. LAND USE IMPACTS
1 . Retail Improvements
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The proposed
size and site for retail commercial development
will draw customers from outside the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area, adding to
congested traffic and parking conditions.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Limit retail use to
neighborhood-serving retail and personal service
types of uses subject .to the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator; (ii) Control hours
of operation for the retail/service uses,
delivery truck schedules, and development design
to maintain compatibility with surrounding uses
and limit traffic impacts; and (iii) Require
study of shared parking plan prior to final
development plan approval and, if indicated by
the study, reduce size of retail development at
time of Final Development Plan approval.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in Section
-5-
A- 1 - (a) above will be avoided or substantially
lessened by adoption of these mitigation measures.
2. High Density Multiple Family Land Use
The EIR Supplement discusses a number of potential
traffic, displacement, parking, and visual
impacts related to the high densitymultiple
family land use planned for the Project Site.
Findings regarding these impacts are set forth in
Sections V.B through V.E below.
B. MUNICIPAL SERVICE IMPACTS
[The Summary of significant environmental effects at the
beginning of the DEIR discusses "general" municipal service
impacts. This impact is separated into a discussion of 4
separate municipal service impacts for purposes of making
findings. ]
1 . Fire Protection
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Increased
density of development will increase demand for
fire protection services.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Require the Agency to assist
in the funding and siting of the new fire station
proposed to be built along the planned Bancroft
extension to Monument Boulevard; and (ii)
Require the Agency to enter into a fiscal
agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33401 (b) whereby tax increment revenue
will be passed through to the Contra Costa
County Consolidated Fire District.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B.1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures.
2. Sewer Service
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. According to
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
("CCCSD") , mains on the perimeter of the site
may not have adequate remaining capacity to serve
the residential development proposed for the
Project Site.
-6-
(b) Mitigation. CCCSD has initiated a capacity
study to determine if the offsite mains have
capacity to carry the additional waste water
generated by a high-density multiple family:
residential project on the Project Site. If the
study indicates capacity is inadequate, the
Project developer will be required to agree to
provide additional sewer system capacity at the
time of Final Development Plan approval.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on 'the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B.2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
3 . Water
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Existing
water mains may not have adequate capacity to
serve the Project Site.
(b) Mitigation. At the time of Final Development
Plan approval, the developer of the Project Site
will be required to provide any additional
on-site and off-site water service improvements
required to service the development, as
determined by the Contra Costa Water District.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B.3 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
4 . Parks and Open Space
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
development of the Project will increase demand
for parks and open space by Project residents.
(b) Mitigation. Require the Project developer to
comply with the County Parklands Dedication
ordinance, which currently requires payment of
park dedication fees of $400 per unit. Funds
generated by these fees can be utilized to assist
in purchasing and improving nearby park sites.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby. adopted. Based on the information and
-7-
e
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding ,is made that the significant
environmental impact identified in B.4 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
C. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
1 . Displacement of Existing Households
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
redevelopment of the Project Site with a high
density multifamily residential development
will result in the elimination of 36
single-family residences, and therefore the
displacement of at least 41 households.
(b) Mitigation. As required by law, the Agency
will adopt a Relocation Plan if the Redevelopment
Plan Amendment is adopted.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in C.1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
D. ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN IMPACTS
1 . Visual Impact
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The density
and height of Project buildings may create a
"canyon-like" visual effect.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Through design review and the
Final Development Plan approval process, require
liberal use of dense landscaping and special
paving materials in the Project and other
architect and design details to ensure compliance
with County visual and design standards; and
(ii) Require building setbacks appropriate to
height of buildings.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant .
environmental effect identified in D.1. (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures.
-8-
2 . Surrounding Views
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. (i) The
Project will be visible from I-680 , Oak Road, and
Las Juntas Way, in contrast to the existing
single family residential neighborhood which is
not visible from these vantage points; (ii)
Suburban views from residential developments
adjacent to the Project will be replaced by view
of an urban project consisting of a complex of
five-story buildings; and (iii) Some long range
views of the Briones Hills will be obstructed.
(b) Mitigation. Through the Final Development Plan
approval process, require site design that will
maximize view impacts, such as locating one story
buildings along road frontages.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effects identified in D.2 . (a) above
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened at
this time, and certain economic, social, and
other considerations make infeasible certain of
the project alternatives identified in the
DEIR, as discussed in Section VII
(Alternatives) below. This impact will therefore
be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of' this document.
3 . Residential Lighting
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The design
concept for the Project lacks clear
articulation of planned lighting in the area.
Insufficient exterior lighting of access roads
and interior pedestrian paths could diminish
nighttime safety.
(b) Mitigation. Require the developer to submit a
lighting plan for review and approval at the time
of Final Development Plan approval.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in D.3. (a) above
will be avoided or 'substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
-9-
r
4 . Retail Use
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The proposed
retail shopping center may create conditions of
heavy traffic movement, parking overflow, litter,
glare and noise.
(b) Mitigations. As discussed in subsection A. 1
above, retail uses shall be limited to
neighborhood-serving and personal service types
of uses , subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator; hours of operation,
delivery, and development design will be
controlled; and a parking study will be performed
prior to final development plan approval. The
size of the retail component of the Project will
be reduced, if so recommended by the parking .�
study.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, and the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in D.4 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures.
5 . Earthquake Hazards
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. If a large
earthquake occurs nearby, some Project buildings
could be damaged by groundshaking and the secondary
effects of groundshaking, including disruption of
utilities and fire.
(b) Mitigation. Require submission of a preliminary
geology, soil, and foundation report, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits for review
and approval by the County Planning Geologist. The
report shall include an. evaluation of the potential
for earthquake-induced damage to structures and other
improvements. Grading and building plans shall
implement recommendations of the approved report.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is hereby
adopted; however, based on the information and
analysis contained in the- EIR Supplement, the finding
is made that the significant environmental effect
identified in D.5. (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened at this time and that specific
economic, social, and other considerations make
infeasible certain of the project alternatives
identified in the DEIR 'as discussed in Section VII
below. This impact will therefore be discussed in
-10-
Section VI (Summary of Unavoidable Significant
Environmental Effects) and Section VIII (Statement of
Overriding Considerations) of this document.
E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS
1 . Cumulative Effects
(a) Significant Environmental Effects . Even with
the road improvements that are currently planned
for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, nine
intersections in this area would operate at Level
of Service E or F (for one or both peak hours)
upon buildout of the currently approved
projects. The addition to these intersections of
new traffic generated by the Project (estimated
at 638 to 1295 peak hour trips per day) would
have a cumulative impact on what will be severely
congested roadways and intersections.
Intersections anticipated to operate at Level of
Service F would experience some additional delay
and backup from traffic added by the Project,
however, traffic generated by the Project is not
projected to significantly reduce the level of
service at any intersection.
(b) Mitigation. Require Project developer to pay a
Specific Plan traffic mitigation fees, to be
contributed to a fund utilized to build
transportation improvements in the area on an
as-needed basis. In 1988 these fees are $2,406
per dwelling unit and $4 .41 per square foot of
commercial development. These amounts are
increased annually by the construction component
of the Consumer Price Index.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental- effect identified in Section
E. 1 . (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time and specific economic,
social, and other considerations make infeasible
the alternatives identified in the DEIR, as
discussed in Section VII (Alternatives) below.
This impact will therefore be discussed in
Section VI (Summary of Unavoidable Significant
Environmental Effects) and Section VIII
(Statement of Overriding Considerations) of this
document.
-11-
2 . Local Circulation and Parking
(a) Significant Environmental Effects. (i)
Circulation and safety problems will be created
by right-angle parking proposed for the
childcare facility; (ii) Access to Wayside
Lane will encourage through traffic to drive
through the Project; and (iii) Pedestrian use
of Project "spine road" will present a safety
hazard.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Require Project Final
Development Plan to include drive-through loop
circulation for drop-off and pick-up of children
at the childcare facility with parallel parking
or internal parking area; (ii) Require Final
Development Plan to include sidewalk and bike
path or lane along Project "spine road" ; (iii)
Require Project internal roadway improvements to
be constructed substantially in accordance with
design recommendations contained in the June 1988
Park Regency Traffic Impact Study prepared by
Abrams Associates; and (iv) Require Project
final development plan to include emergency
access road barrier on eastern side of Project
site , allowing only pedestrian, bicycle, and
emergency access to the Project from Wayside Lane.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in E.2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures.
F. NOISE IMPACTS
1 . Ambient Noise Levels
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Households
residing in the Project will experience
significant ambient noise produced by traffic on
Oak Road and Interstate 680.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Reduce arterial volumes by
encouraging the use of alternatives to the
automobile, such as car pools and public transit;
(ii) Enforce California Vehicle Code
prohibitions against faulty or modified loud
exhaust systems (Sections 27150 and 27151) in
conjunction with other normal patrol duties by
peace officers; and (iii) Through building permit
-12-
approval process, require use of high quality
architectural design and construction practices
which ensure interior noise levels in the Project
will meet the interior 45 dB CNEL limits,
including but not limited to the use of high
quality windows with a minimum STC rating of 22 .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in F. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures.
2. Construction Noise
(a) Significant Environmental. Effect. Construction
activities will produce intermittent noise.
(b) . Mitigation. Through the Final Development Plan
approval process, measures will be required. to
limit construction noise, such as the
installation of masonry walls around the Project
perimeter during the initial phase of
construction, the use of construction equipment
of quiet design, restriction of hours. of
construction from 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through
Friday, the elimination of unnecessary idling,
and the use of good maintenance and lubrication
procedures.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in F.2. (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
G. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
1 . Construction Dust Emissions
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Dust
emissions will be generated during the
construction of the Project.
(b) Mitigation. Through the Final Development Plan
approval process, watering and other dust control
measures will be required on construction sites.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
-13-
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in G. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
2 . Long Term Air Quality Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effects . (i) The
8-hour federal carbon monoxide standard may
exceeded at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road
intersection (this potential impact exists with
or without the development of the Project) ; and
(ii) Countywide vehicular emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides may increase by
.01% and .04% respectively, interfering with
maintenance of federal ozone standards in future .�
years.
(b) Mitigation. Construct traffic flow
improvements with funds generated by traffic
mitigation fee.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effects identified in Section
G.2 . (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time and specific economic,
social and other considerations make infeasible
certain of the Project alternatives identified in
the DEIR, as discussed in Section VII
(Alternatives) below. These impacts will
therefore be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
1. Removal of Speciman-Sized Oak Tree
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. A
specimen-size valley oak with a trunk diameter of
56 inches and a total height of over 50 feet
would be removed with development of the Project,
as currently proposed. The tree is an important
aesthetic feature and biotic resource of the
area, although declining in general condition.
(b) Mitigation. Prior to approval of the Final
Development Plan for the Project, a licensed
aborist shall perform a study which
-14-
investigates the health and viability of the
specimen-size valley oak and the feasibility of
its preservation. If preservation is feasible,
this will be required at the time of Final ,
Development Plan approval, and measures will be
required to protect the tree from construction
and development impacts and to maximize it health.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in H. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
2 . Removal of Trees Along Creek Channel
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Existing
trees along creek channel may be removed in the
course of development of the Project.
(b) Mitigation. Require preservation of existing
major trees along creek channel (those with trunk
diameters larger than nine inches) .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in H.2. (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
I . DRAINAGE IMPACTS.
1 . Surface Runoff
(a) Significant Adverse Impact. Surface runoff
from the site will contain detergents, grease,
oil, litter, and other substances. Such
imparities are not toxic to fish and wildlife in
concentrations common to suburban development.
However, they do constitute a minor, adverse
cumulative impact.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Require on-site oil and grease
traps to be included in the Project; and (ii)
Require maintenance practices to minimize
pollutants in surface run-off, such as regular
street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and
pavement repair. .
-15-
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in I.1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
J. CUMULATIVE, GROWTH-INDUCING, AND ENERGY USE IMPACTS
1 . Cumulative Impacts
(a) Impacts. In addition to the Project, a number
of other current and anticipated projects in the
vicinity will contribute to local environmental
change. These other projects include -�
approximately 3 million square feet of office
space, a 10-story hotel and buildout of the
County-approved multi-family residential projects
in the Specific Plan Area and vicinity. The
cumulative effects of these other projects
(related to surface runoff, noise, vehicular
emissions and traffic volumes) , in combination
with the- effects of a high density multi-family
project on the Project Site, are identified in
the EIR Supplement as considerable.
(b) Mitigation. See mitigation measures outlined
above with respect to individually identified
significant environmental effects.
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the EIR Supplement, the finding is
made that the significant environmental effect
identified in J.1 . (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened at this time and that
specific economic, social, and other
considerations make infeasible certain of the
project alternatives identified in the DEIR as
discussed in Section VII below. This impact will
therefore be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
2 . Growth-Inducing Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Development
of the Project will add approximately 892
apartment units and a maximum of 18 ,500 square
feet of retail commercial development to the
Project Site. Population of the Project Site
will increase from approximately 100 to more than
-16-
1000 persons. No growth-inducing impacts are
expected to occur outside of the Project Site,
except that the demand for retail shopping in the
surrounding area will increase as a result of
development of the Project.
(b) Mitigation. None proposed, as growth in the
Project Area is a specific goal of the Project
and Project Approvals.
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the EIR Supplement, the finding is
made that the significant environmental effect
identified in J.2 . (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened and that specific
economic, social, and other considerations make
infeasible certain of the project alternatives
identified in the DEIR, as discussed in Section
VII (Alternatives) below. This impact is
therefore discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) below.
3. Energy Use Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Development of
the site would involve the direct use of energy for
construction and the indirect use of energy for
production materials. Also, long-term energy input
will be required for the operation of households,
operation of public utilities, maintenance of project
facilities , and operation of automobiles.
(b) Mitigation. None .Proposed
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the ETR Supplement, the significant
environmental effect identified in J.3 . (a) above
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened at this
time, and specific economic, social, and other
considerations make impossible certain of the project
alternative identified in the DEIR, as discussed in
Section VII (Alternatives) below. This impact will
therefore be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects) and
Section VIII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
of this document.
-17-
VI. SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following significant environmental effects of the
Project and Project Approvals are identified in the EIR
Supplement as unavoidable:
1 . Additional peak hour vehicle trips in the range of
638 to 1295 peak hour trips per day would be added to
the local circulation system, with a total of
approximately 7 ,000 total additional trips per day,
including vehicular., transit, and walking trips .
2 . Development of the Project will alter views of the
Project Site and will obstruct some long range views
of the Briones Hills.
3 . Potential earthquake-caused damage is unavoidable.
If a large earthquake occurs nearby, some buildings
could be damaged by groundshaking and the secondary
effects of groundshaking (including disruption of
utilities and fire) .
4 . Long term air quality impacts related to the
cumulative effect of vehicular emissions .
5 . Cumulative impacts related to increases in surface
runoff, noise levels, vehicular emissions, and
traffic volumes.
6 . Growth-inducing impacts within the Project Site.
7. Development of the Project Site will involve the
direct use of energy for construction and the
indirect use of energy for production materials.
Also, long-term energy input will be required for the
operation of households , operation of public
utilities, maintenance of project facilities, and
operation of automobiles.
These significant environmental effects may occur despite
the adoption of all mitigation measures related to these
impacts that were identified in the EIR Supplement'. No
mitigation measures identified in the EIR Supplement have been
rejected as infeasible due to specific economic, social, other
. considerations .
VII . FINDINGS ON THE FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROJECT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The EIR Supplement discusses several alternatives to the
Project as authorized by the Project Approvals , the
adoption' of which would, in some cases, avoid the
-18-
significant environmental effects listed in Sections V and VI
above. Based on the discussion of alternatives in the EIR
Supplement and upon additional information about potential
alternatives contained in the Record outlined in Section, III
above, the following findings are made regarding the
feasibility of the substantive alternatives to the Project.
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The "no project"alternative would retain the existing
single family residential medium density designation for the
portion of the Project Site that is in the Specific Plan Sub
Area 3 . The remainder of the Project Site in Specific Plan
Sub Area 1 would remain commercial/office. The Project Site
is currently developed into 36 single family residences and
three shallow lots that are designated for office use fronting
on Oak Road. Retaining the current designations would reduce
the traffic and other impacts that would be associated with a
more intense use of the Project Site, including noise, air
quality and visual effects, along with reducing the demand for
urban services.
The disadvantage of this alternative is that it
represents an inefficient use of land that is within walking
distance of BART and 3 .5 million sq. ft. of office space.
If office workers do not have the opportunity for housing in
the BART station area they would be forced to commute, either
by mass transit or private automobile. Also the opportunity
to house large numbers of commuters within walking distance of
the BART system would be lost.
In summary, the "No Project" alternative would not
provide the significant benefits of the Project as detailed in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in
Section VIII below. As a result, the County would fail to
achieve major adopted policy goals and objectives relating to
achievement of a jobs/housing balance.
For these reasons, it is concluded that adoption of the
"No Project" Alternative would contradict established goals
for development in the Project Area and would not meet the
County' s established community development goals and
policies. It is therefore found that this alternative is
infeasible pursuant to California Administrative Code Section
15091 (c) (3) .
B. HOUSING MIX AND DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
(The following analysis addresses the alternatives
identified as D. and G. in the DEIR)
Several alternatives to the Project could be considered
involving changes in the housing mix and housing density of
the proposed Project.
-19-
a
The housing unit mix of the Project could be adjusted to
emphasize smaller or larger units (in terms of number of
bedrooms) . For instance , one alternative would be to increase
the number of studio and one-bedroom units. This alternative
could generate more units (up to 1 ,000 on the Project Site)
using the same building footprint (or building coverage) as
the Project proposal. However, such an alternative would be
less attractive to small families and would be less
advantageous in meeting the housing needs of the major centers
being established in the Project Area and Central Contra Costa
County.
A second alternative related to housing unit mix would
involve a greater emphasis on larger units (two bedroom or
larger units) . More larger units would, however, generate
greater traffic and traffic-related problems of the type
identified in the EIR Supplement, and would also create an
impact on area schools, as larger units would attract more
families with school-age children. Also, it would be more
difficult to employ limited redevelopment financial resources
to maintain affordable housing costs to low-and very
low-income households for a significant portion of such larger
units.
In summary, these alternative housing mixes would be
considerably less advantageous than the proposed Project in
meeting the County' s goal of improving the jobs/housing
balance in the Project Area and the greater Central Contra
Costa County community while, at the same time, minimizing the
adverse environmental impacts of the Project and promoting
housing affordability. For these reasons, it is concluded
that various modified housing mix alternatives would be
inconsistent with established goals for development of the
Project Area, and would not meet the County' s established
housing and community development goals and policies. It is
therefore found that the various housing mix alternatives are
infeasible pursuant to California Administrative Code Section
15091 (c) (3) .
With respect to housing density, possible alternative
projects range from two-story garden apartments (22
units/acre) to ten story towers, similar to urban apartment
buildings found in San Francisco. These alternatives could
yield between approximately 260 and 1600 units, respectively.
In comparison, the Project density range proposed by the
potential Project developer is 600-1 ,000 units, and the
maximum density permitted as a condition of
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan approval is 892
units--in the mid-range of the two extreme density
alternatives outlined above.
Garden apartments at a density of 22 units/acre are
typicallywood-frame buildings of the style that have been
traditionally developed in Contra Costa County. This density
-20-
is far too low to be consistent with the objectives of the.
General P1an, .Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan to improve
the jobs/housing balance in Central Contra Costa County, to
provide accessible housing opportunities for the growing,
number of Project Area employees, and to maximize the
utilization of the BART System by creating high-density
housing developments in proximity to BART stations (see
Section VIII for a further statement of these policy
considerations.) . Also, a low density garden apartment project
would be economically infeasible given prevailing land costs
in the Project Area, and would make the provision of long-term
affordable housing units to low- and very low-income
households extremely costly and difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, net Project densities in excess of the
98 units/acre proposed for the Project by the developer and
permitted as the maximum Project Site density pursuant to the
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan conditions would
significantly exacerbate the adverse impacts related to
traffic circulation, air quality, energy consumption
aesthetics, and other environmental conditions already
identified in the EIR Supplement. In addition, the height and
bulk of residential towers necessitated by such an increased
housing density alternative would almost certainly be
unacceptable to property owners and residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods. The marketability of such
high-density rental housing in Contra Costa County is also
questionable.
In summary, these alternative housing densities would be
considerably less advantageous than the proposed Project in
meeting the County's goal of improving the jobs/housing
balance in the Project Area and the greater Central Contra
Costa County community while, at the same time, minimizing the
adverse environmental impacts of the Project and promoting
housing affordability. For these reasons, it is concluded
that various modified housing density alternatives would be
inconsistent with established goals for the Project Area, and
would not meet the County' s established housing and community
development goals and' objectives. It is therefore found that
the various housing density alternatives are infeasible
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15091 (c) (3) .
C. MODIFIED RETAIL COMPONENT ALTERNATIVE
[The following analysis addresses the alternatives
identified as B and C in the DEIR)
The inclusion of retail/commercial development in the
Project will increase traffic and parking impacts of the
Project. Thus, retail/commercial use on the Project Site can
only be justified if it is designed to primarily serve the
Specific Plan area, thereby decreasing vehicle trips by
residents and workers in the sub area.
-21-
Any retail/commercial use of the Project Site should be
ancilliary to the primary use of multifamily housing.
This implies that the retail should be of a small size, and
that its architecture, signing, lighting, and landscaping
should be compatible with and enhance the primary use. A
disadvantage of the proposed retail site along Oak Road is
that it is in the northwest corner of the area which is to be
served. Its highly visible location at a freeway on-ramp
suggests that the retail would attract customers from outside
the Specific Plan area. Moreover, the relatively large size
(18 ,500) square feet) is too great to be considered an
ancilliary use.
The DEIR discusses alternatives which modify the
proposed retail component of the Project, ranging from a
changed location of the retail component to reduction in the
size of retail development, to elimination of retail use
altogether. This alternative is, in part, adopted as part of
the Project Approvals. The conditions of approval of the
Preliminary Development Plan for the Project require that
retail uses be limited to neighborhood-serving retail and
personal services types of uses which are subject to the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Hours of
operation for the retail/service uses, delivery truck
schedules , and design details will be controlled in the course
of this review to maintain compatibility with surrounding uses
and to limit traffic impacts. In addition, a parking study is
required prior to approval of the final development plan for
the Project. If the study indicates that proposed parking is
inadequate to serve the retail component, the size of the
retail development will be reduced at the time of Final
Development Plan approval.
Notwithstanding the fact that this alternative is, in
part, adopted through the Project Approvals, the significant
environmental effects discussed in Section VI above are still
expected to occur and are therefore further discussed in
Section VIII below (Statement of Overriding Considerations) .
D. SENIOR HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
Two of the proposed buildings included within the Project
could be designed to accommodate ambulatory seniors. This
would include creating a dining room and parlor area for
seniors. Parking for senior housing would be reduced to
0 .5/unit.
An advantage of senior housing is that it generates
significantly less traffic than does standard residential
development. Moreover, seniors would be close to BART and bus
service. The disadvantage of this use is that housing in the
BART station area has been intended to locate workers close to
employment centers and BART.
-22-
This alternative has, in part, been adopted through the
Project Approvals. The Preliminary Development Plan for the
Project includes the option that two buildings will be
designed as senior housing. A final determination on the
inclusion of senior housing in the Project will be made at the
time of Final Development Plan approval and during the Agency
process for negotiation and execution of a Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Project developer.
Notwithstanding the fact that this alternativeis, in
part, adopted through the Project Approvals, the significant
environmental effects discussed in Section VI above are still
expected to occur and these impacts are therefore further
discussed in Section VIII below (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) .
E. CHILDCARE ALTERNATIVE
As proposed, the childcare facility included in the
Project will accommodate approximately 60 children. The
childcare structure would be 2650 sq. ft. Parking would
consist of seven spaces for staff, and a shared drop-off and
pick-up area. A facility. of this size would be adequate to
accommodate the pre-school aged child population of the
Project, but it would not be of sufficient size to serve the
broader community.
If the childcare component of the project were
increased to 135 children, the childcare structure would be
a maximum of 6200 sq. ft. Parking for the larger facility
would consist of approximately sixteen spaces for staff and 10
spaces for drop-off and pick-up. A facility of this size
would be able to accommodate much of the childcare needs of
the neighborhood.
This alternative has, in part, been adopted. The
conditions of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for
the Project require the Project developer to comply with the
County Childcare Ordinance and to coordinate the planning of
the center with the Contra Costa Centre Association' s
childcare program. Pursuant to the conditions of approval
of the Preliminary Development Plan, the final size of the
childcare center will not be less than the capacity required
based on the needs assessment study and in no case will be
less than 60 children.
Notwithstanding the fact that this alternative is adopted
through the Project Approvals, the significant environmental
effects discussed in Section VI above are still expected to
occur and are therefore further discussed in Section VIII
below (Statement of Overriding Considerations) .
-23-
VIII . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable
significant environmental effects of the Project and the
Project Approvals which are summarized in Section VI above, it
is hereby determined pursuant to California Administrative
Code Section 150.93 , that the benefits of the proposed Project
outweigh these unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and
the Project Approvals should be made.
The Project and the Project Approvals are hereby adopted
based on the following overriding considerations and benefits
set forth in the Record:
A. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals,
will implement important County goals and policies set forth -�
in the General Plan to improve the jobs/housing balance in
Central Contra Costa County. The Project, consisting of
development of a major high density multifamily residential
development with supporting commercial and community
facilities, will substantially increase living opportunities
for workers in close proximity to the significant existing and
anticipated job base in the Central Contra Costa County
area. The resulting improvement in the jobs/housing balance
will reduce the length of commute trips into, out of and
through Central Contra Costa County and will have a
corresponding positive impact on County-wide problems of
traffic, air pollution and energy consumption.
B. More particularly, the Project, as authorized by the
Project Approvals, will provide highly accessible, quality
housing for employees of the major employment center currently
being established within the immediately adjacent Existing
Project Area. The Project will provide walking-distance
housing to a significant segment of the employees of the
estimated 3 ,000 ,000 square feet of commercial facilities that
will be located in the Existing Project Area at final
build-out. The Project represents the closest such
opportunity to provide high density housing in proximity to
the Existing Project Area employment center.
C. Further, the Project, as authorized by the Project
Approvals, will provide quality, high density housing
immediately adjacent to the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
Residents of the Project who are not employed in the immediate
vicinity will be able to walk to the Pleasant Hill BART
Station and use the BART system for commute travel, thus
further alleviating County-wide traffic, and attendant air
pollution and energy consumption, problems. High density
residential development of the Project Site will thereby
maximize the transportation benefits of the BART system, in
Contra Costa County.
-24-
D. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals,
will maximize .the use of existing or proposed public
improvements and public infrastructure being constructed in
and adjacent to the Existing Project Area through the
redevelopment program. Development of high density
residential facilities on the Project Site constitutes a more
efficient use of existing and planned public improvements and
infrastructure than would comparable development in most other
undeveloped or underdeveloped locations in the County, which
typically lack such improvements and infrastructure.
E. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals,
will enable the County and the Agency to stimulate development
of a significant number of dwelling units that will remain
available at affordable housing cost to low- and very
low-income households for an extended duration. The
development of such affordable housing in a central location, -�
accessible to work, transit, commercial, and community
facilities, will significantly promote the goals and policies
of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
F. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals,
will provide a resource for meeting the Agency' s relocation
and replacement housing obligations for the entire
redevelopment program, including the relocation and
replacement housing obligations arising from redevelopment of
the Existing Project Area as well as the Amendment Area.
Relocation of residents and replacement of removed housing
units at the Project Site, in immediate proximity to the
location from which the units are removed, will minimize
disruption of community housing resources.
06/27/88
CEQARES/B32001
-25-
,mss' r
T. 1
. A. 2
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, rAT TL-On T.TT7%
Adopted this order on July 19, 1988 , 1988 , by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. RA-88- 11
SUBJECT: Authorization of Execution . of Fiscal Agreement
with the Consolidated Fire Protection District
and Making Certain Required° Findings in
Connection with Such Agreement
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency RESOLVES THAT:
By Ordinance No. , 84-30 dated July 10, 1984 , the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa adopted the
Redevelopment Plan for Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project establishing an initial project area
(hereinafter, the "Initial Project Area") .
The Agency has prepared for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station 'Area Redevelopment Project
(hereinafter, the "Amended Plan") , `which,. among other matters,.
would add territory to the Initial Project Area: (such
additional territory is hereinafter referred to as the
Amendment Area) . The Amended Plan provides for a continuing
program of redevelopment (the "Project") within the overall
Project Area (containing both the Initial Project Area and the
Amendment Area) .
The Amended Plan calls for the division and allocation of tax
increment revenue to the Agency pursuant to"Health and Safety
Code Section 33670.
The Consolidated Fire Protection District (hereinafter the
"District") is an "affected taxing entity" within the meaning
of Health and Safety Code Section 33353 . 2 in that the District
receives tax revenue upon property located within the
Amendment Area.
Pursuant to meetings and discussions between the Agency and
the District, the Agency has determined that the payment of
tax increment revenue (attributable to increases in assessed
valuation of property in the Amendment Area) to the District
as set forth below is necessary to alleviate the burden and
detriment caused to the District by the Amended Plan and the
addition of the Amendment Area to the Project Area.
Based on the foregoing and on the information and analysis
contained in the Report on the Amended Plan prepared by the
Agency and submitted to the Board pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33352 , it is reasonable to conclude that
implementation of the Project and the method of tax increment
financing set forth in the Amended Plan would cause a
significant financial burden or detriment to the District
unless appropriate mitigation measures are taken.
-1-
Health and Safety Code Section 33401 and Part VII of the
Amended Plan authorize the Agency to make payments to any
taxing agency necessary to alleviate a significant financial
burden or detriment. Agency staff has prepared a fiscal
agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") with the District, which
is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and by this reference
incorporated herein. -- ----- -""
The Agreement calls for the Agency to pay to the District one
hundred percent (100%) of the tax increment revenue which
would have been received by the District if all of the
property tax revenues from the Amendment Area had been
allocated to all the affected taxing agencies without regard
to the division of taxes pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33670.
The Agency desires to enter into the Agreement in order to
alleviate-_the_:=significant- financial--.burden: or- detriment that
would otherwise be incurred by the District due to the
implementation of. the Project and the Amended Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED- that based ` on the information
set forth above and-_in -the--Report on -the- Amended Plan, and on
information presented to the Board and the Agency, the Agency
hereby--finds. that ,implementation of. the Project and the
Amended Plan would cause a significant financial burden or
detriment to the District.. in the absence of appropriate
- - -
:measuresi - and h
mitigationtat-the payments contemplated by the
Agreement -are necessary;_tovallev2ate the- potential.. financial
burden .or-. _BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency hereby approves the
Agreement in: substantially the form-attached hereto. as
Attachment - 1 and.- the _payments_ contemplated by- the Agreement,
and :auihorizes._and d rects •:the: Executive--Director to execute
the Agreement on. behalf of the Agency, ,_with.- such changes
therein,. as .the Executive Director may.. approve, _ such - approval
to be conclusively -evidenced by -the execution-and- delivery of
_. _
the Agreement. by the Executive.-Director
- - - - - -- 1 hereby certify that this is a trueand correct copy o
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Redevelopment Agenc on the date shown.
-ATT
.. .. _ _.. . .ESTEDc
PHIL ATC LOR,Agency Secretary
9
cc: Redevelopment Agency - -- By Deputy
= Community Development Dept. -
County" Counsel
County Administrator
Consolidated Fire Protection Dist.
06/28/88
RES/88/B32001
-2-
RA-88-11
u
or equity to contest the preparation, adoption, or validity of
the Amended �Plan and the implementation of the Project
contemplated to be undertaken pursuant to the Amended Plan. The
District further declares its support for the efforts of the
Agency and the County of Contra Costs in connection with the
preparation, adoption and implementation of the Amended Plan.
Section' 11 . Litigation Regarding Agreement. In the event
litigation is initiated attacking the validity of this
Agreement_, each party shall in good .faith defend and seek to
uphold the Agreement.
Section 12. Entire Agreement'. . This Agreement constitutes
` the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subjects
covered herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed as of the
date first above written.
DISTRICT AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED ,FIRE .PROTECTION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By: By:
Its: Its:
r. Approved as to form:
Victor J. Westman
County Counsel
By.
Deputy
#011A/B32001
-10-
s
reduction shall be treated as an advance by the District which
.shall be repaid by the Agency. The unpaid principal balance
thereof shall bear interest at the rate ,paid by the State of
California Local Agency Investment Fund or its successor
entity. The advances and accrued interest shall be repaid as
promptly. as possible, and in any event the Agency shall use all
Tax Increment Revenue legally available to repay such advances
and accrued interest.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be
effective only if the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
adopts an ordinance adopting the Amended Plan, and the,
boundaries of the Amendment Area as described in the adopted .
Amended Plan are substantially those boundaries described in the
attached Exhibit A. In the event litigation is initiated
attacking the validity of the proposed Amended Plan, the Project
or the ordinance adopting the Amended Plan, the provisions of
, this Agreement shall remain in full. force and effect unless a
judgment becomes final which declares the Amended Plan, the
Project or the ordinance invalid, in which case this Agreement
shall become null and void.
Section 10. Elimination of Financial Burden; No Contest of
Plan. The .District acknowledges and agrees that the payments
to be made to the District and the actions . to be undertaken by
the Agency pursuant to this Agreement will effectively eliminate
any financial burden or detriment that would otherwise be caused
by the adoption of the Amended Plan and implementation of the
Project. In consideration of such payments and actions , the
District agrees to forego any right: or remedy it may have in law
-9-
(such as the Health and Safety Code Section 33334 . 2 Housing Set
Aside requirement) . The Agency' s obligation to pay such
additional amount to the District shall be subordinate to the
Agency' s obligation to pay debt service on its long-term
indebtedness and its statutorily created obligations.
(c) In the event that in any Fiscal Year the subordination
provided for in this Section 7 results in a reduction in the
amount otherwise payable to the~District pursuant to this
. Agreement, then such reduction shall be treated as an advance by
the District which shall, be repaid by the Agency. The unpaid
principal balance thereof shall bear interest at the rate paid
y by the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund or its
successor entity. : The advances and accrued interest shall be
repaid as promptly as possible, and in any event the Agency
shall use all Tax Increment Revenue legally, available to repay
such advances and accrued interest.
Section 8. Decrease in Tax Increment Revenue. In the
event that in any' Fiscal Year the amount consisting of the total
-;-of a) the amount of the Agency' s debt service on long-term
indebtedness, plus b) amounts necessary to discharge the
Agency' s statutorily created obligations (such as the Health and
Safety Code Section 33334 .2 Housing Set Aside requirement) , plus
c) the amounts due under this Agreement exceed the actual amount
of Tax Increment Revenue payable to the Agency pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33670, then the amount the Agency
pays the District pursuant to this Agreement for that Fiscal
Year may be reduced by .the amount necessary to pay in full such
debt service and such statutorily created obligations. Any such
-8-
r�
District which shall be repaid by the Agency. The unpaid
principal balance thereof shall bear interest at the rate paid
by the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund or its
successor entity. The advances and accrued interest shall be
repaid as .promptly as possible, and in any event Agency shall
use all Tax Increment Revenue available to it to repay such
advances and accrued interest, after payment of principal and
interest on the indebtedness to which the subordination applies
and payment of any other obligations which are superior to the
Agency' s obligations under this Agreement (such as the Health
and Safety Code Section 33334 . 2 Housing Set Aside requirement) .
.Section 7. Increases in Share.,
(a) The parties recognize that the District Share could be
increased by amendment to existing State law. Therefore, it is
agreed that, in the event the Agency desires to incur long-term
indebtedness to be secured by Tax ]Increment Revenue, the Agency
may project its Tax Increment Revenue and incur such long-term
indebtedness based upon the pro .rata amount payable to the
District pursuant to this Agreement: based upon State law in
existence at the time such long-term indebtedness is incurred.
(b) In the event State law is amended after the Agency has
incurred such long-term indebtedness to increase the amount of
the Tax Increment Revenue that would be payable to the -District
in .accordance with this Agreement, then such additional amount
shall be payable to the District in accordance with this
Agreement unless the Agency needs such additional amount to
avoid a default or condition of default on such long-term
indebtedness or to discharge its statutorily created obligations
-7-
(a) The Agency may request the District to subordinate its
rights to payment under .,this Agreement to allow the Agency to
pledge all or any portion of the Tax Increment Revenue otherwise
payable to the District under this Agreement in order to secure
repayment of Agency long-term indebtedness incurred for the
Project. For the purposes of- this Agreement, "long=term" shall
mean in excess of five years. The District agrees to comply
with such requests to subordinate and to execute all documents
necessary to effectuate . such subordination, provided that the
Agency first demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
District, the Agency's anticipated ability to repay such
indebtedness incurred for .the Project without demand being made
on the payment due the . District under the terms of this
Agreement. Such demonstration by Agency shall show that the
subordinate funds will be used in the cash-flow of the financing
only for additional security (debt service coverage) and that
Agency tax increment funds will be adequate; over the term of
the indebtedness, to pay 100% of actual debt service on the
indebtedness,; to pay the Agency' s obligations under this
Agreement, and to pay any other obligations of the Agency
whether statutory or contractual which are or would be superior
to the Agency' s obligations under this Agreement. Any such
. demonstration shall include, without limitation, revenue
forecasts and debt service schedules.
(b) In the event that, as a result of the provisions of
this Section 6 , the payments to the District are reduced below
the amount otherwise payable to it pursuant to this Agreement,
then such reductions shall be treated as an advance by the
-6-
.y
request of the Agency, the County Auditor-Controller shall send
the Agency the supporting information and calculations used to
determine the amounts paid to the District.
Section 4 . Limitations on Payments . - Notwithstanding any
other provision in this Agreement, no payments shall be made to
the District by the Agency:
(a) .Which would exceed the amount, annually, that the
District would have otherwise received from property taxes from
the Amendment Area had the Amended Plan not been adopted; or
(b) The receipt of which would cause the District to
violate .its .expenditure limitations under Article XIII-B of
the California Constitution; or
(c) Which would be contrary to the provisions of Health and
Safety Code Section 33401 or violate any ,.other provision of the
Community Redevelopment Law or the laws of the State of;
California.
Any excess, amounts under subsections (a) , (b) , or _(c) above
shall be retained by the Agency for distribution, in the
Agency' s sole discretion, to other taxing entities or for the
purposes of paying indebtedness incurred by the Agency in.
carrying out the Amended Plan..
Section 5 . No, Payments with .R.espect to Initial Project
Area. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to `require,
and the Agency shall have no obligation to make , any payments to
the 'District with respect to any amount of tax revenue allocated
and paid to the Agency at any time attributable to increases in
assessed value of property in the Initial' Project Area.
Section 6 . Subordination.
-5-
Amendment. Area pursuant to Part VII . D. 3) (b) of the Amended
Plan.
(b) "District Share" means the proportionate amount of Tax
Increment Revenue that the District would have received if there
were no provision in the Amended Plan for the allocation of Tax
Increment Revenue to the Agency.
(c) "Fiscal Year" means the period commencing on July 1 and
ending on the succeeding June 30 .
Section 2 . Payments to District. The Agency shall pay
to the District a portion of the Tax Increment Revenue received
by the Agency as follows :
Beginning in Fiscal Year 1989-90 and continuing until the
expiration of the Amended Plan, the Agency shall pay to the
District the District Share.
Section .3 . Indebtedness of Agency; Method of Payment.
The Agency agrees that .it will claim the amounts it is
obligated to pay to the District pursuant to Section 2 on its
Statement of Indebtedness filed with the County
,;,, Auditor-Controller pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33675. To facilitate. administration of payments pursuant to
this Agreement, the Agency and the District agree that in lieu
of the County' Auditor-Controller making payments to the Agency
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 and the Agency
then making payments pursuant to this Agreement to the District,
the County Auditor-Controller may withhold from the amount to be
paid to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33670 the amounts to be paid to the District pursuant to this
Agreement and pay such amounts to the District directly. At the
-4-
l�
shall instead be allocated and paid to the respective taxing
agencies, including the District.
(i) The Agency ,has determined that, in addition to the
allocation of certain tax revenues to the District in accordance
with Part VII. D. 3) (b) of the Amended Plan, payments ,of tax
increment revenue to the District as set for.th .below are
,.necessary to alleviate the burden and detriment. caused to the
District by the Amended Plan and the addition of the Amendment
Area to the overall Project Area.
(j) In consideration of this Agreement setting forth the
obligations of the Agency, the District is foregoing the right
to contest the adoption of the Amended Plan and the addition of
the Amendment Area to the overall Project Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows:
Section 1 . Definitions. In addition to the terms
defined in the Recitals to this Agreement, the terms set forth
in this section shall have the following meanings :
(a) "Tax Increment Revenue" means the property tax revenue
allocated to and received by the Agency pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33670 (b) and Part VII. D. of the Amended
Plan attributable to increases in the assessed value of the
property within the Amendment Area above the assessed value of
property within the Amendment Area as shown on the 1987-88
assessment roll the base year roll for the Amendment Area) . It
is expressly understood and agreed that Tax Increment Revenue
does not include any amounts payable directly to the affected
taxing agencies, including the District, with respect to the
-3-
II
the term "Project Area" or "overall Project Area" means both the
Initial Project Area and 'the Amendment Area together. ,
(c) The {Amended Plan provides for the implementation of a
project of redevelopment (the. "Project") within the Project Area.
(d) The Amended Plan provides for . "tax increment financing"
in that ad valorem taxes levied on the taxable property within
the Amendment Area are to be allocated pursuant ,to California
Constitution Article XVI , Section 16 and -Health and Safety
Code Section 33670.
(e) The .District is a taxing agency with territory located
within the Amendment Area. Upon adoption of the Amended Plan by
ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County,
the territory of the District within the Amendment Area will be -
subject to the tax increment financing provisions of the Amended
Plan.
(f) Meetings have been held by the parties at which the
District . has expressed concern over the fiscal impact of the
Amended Plan and the burden or detriment it - anticipates
experiencing because of the allocation of tax increment monies
to implement , the .Amended Plan.
(g) Health and Safety Code Section 33401 (b) provides that
the Agency may pay to any affected taxing agency an amount of
money"which in: the Agency' s determination is necessary to
alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to any taxing
agency by the Amended Plan.—
.(h) Part VII. D. 3) (b) of the Amended Plan provides that
certain amounts of tax revenue otherwise allocable to the Agency
-2-
ATTACHMENT 1
FISCAL AGREEMENT FOR AMENDED PLEASANT HILL BART
STATIONAREAREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(Consolidated Fire .Protection District)
This is an Agreement between the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") , and the Consolidated Fire
Protection District (the "District") , executed as of this
day of , 1.988 .
RECITALS
Each of the parties enters this Agreement in awareness of
the following facts:
(a) By Ordinance No. 84-30 dated July 10, 1984 , the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa adopted the
Redevelopment Plan for Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project (the "Initial. Plan") establishing an
initial project area (the "Initial Project Area") .
(b) The Agency has prepared for consideration by the Board
of Supervisors an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Amended Plan") , which, among other matters, would add 'territory
to the Initial Project Area. The territory to be added to the
Initial Project Area by the Amended. Plan is referred to; in this
Agreement as the "Amendment Area" , and is more specifically
described in the attached Exhibit A which is incorporated in
this Agreement by this reference. As used in this Agreement,
-1-
J
EXHIBIT "A"
'description of A^iendinent Area
.. All that real property situate in an unincorporated area or Contra
Costa County, California , described. as follows:
References are to Subdivision Maps. filed at the Recorder' s Office of
said County.
_ All of that portion of "Estrella Rancho" recorded June 17, 1953 in Map
Book 50 at page 48, that lies Ditside of "Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment
Project" boundary adopted January 31 , 1984 by County Board of Supervisors'
Resolution 0 84174.
And all of Tract No. 539-2 "Estrella Rancho - Unit No. 2" filed March
12, 1954 in Map Book 53 at page 15.
Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 5 (50 1.1 48); thence along the
east line of Lots 5, 4, and 3 (50 M 48), South 060 38' 56" test 277 feet, to
the southeast corner of Lot 3; thence along the south line of Lot 3 and its
westerly prolongation, North 830 21' 04" blest 175.37 feet, to the west line
i of Elena Drive (5D M 48); thence along said west line in a general southerly
direction 71 feet, more or less , to the southeast corner of Lot 6 (50 11 48)
being a point on the boundary of "Estrella Rancho" ; thence along said
boundary South 850 38' 56" West 37.2 feet, North 230 20' 34" west 58.51
feet, North 490 49' 12" blest 64.45 feet, North 590 20' 55". West 211.3 feet,
North 880 09' 35" best 94.87 feet, north 440 01' 10" .lest 99.88 feet, North
730 51' blest 49.09 feet, North 180 20' 17" Nest 71.93 feet, and North 060
.31' 20" East 177.48 feet, to the northwest corner of "Estrella Rancho" ,
being also the southwest corner of "Estrella Rancho - Unit No. 2 (53 1-1 15)";
thence along the boundary of "Estrella Rancho - Unit No. 2" , North 060 37'
20" East 268.02 feet, South 890 20' 19" East 753.54 feet, and South 060 33'
56" West 406 feet, to the southwest corner (53 M 15) , being also the point
of beginning.
Containing 10.37 acres, more or less.
j T. 1
7;1- A.3
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on July 19, 1988 by the following vote
AYES : Commissioners Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. RA-88-12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Adoption of Relocation Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Project - Subarea 3
The Contra Costa County. Redevelopment Agency RESOLVES THAT:
On July 10, 1984 , by Ordinance No. 84-30, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors (the "Board" ) adopted the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the "Project" ) .
On July 19, 1988 , by Ordinance No.88-58 , the Board will
consider adoption of the Amended and Restated Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33411
and 33411 . 1 , the Agency must prepare a feasible method or plan
for the relocation of all families and persons to be
temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities
in the .Project Area and for nonprofit local community -
institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced from
facilities actually used for institutional purposes in the
Project Area. The Board must insure that such method or plan
shall provide that no persons or families of low and moderate
income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable
housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such
displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the
v
time of their displacement.
Pursuant to the Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title
25, Section 6000 et. sec . ) (the "State Relocation
Guidelines" ) , prior to proceeding with any activity that will
result in displa'cement, a Relocation Plan must be prepared by
the Agency and submitted for approval to the Board (State
Relocation Guidelines Section 6038) .
By Resolution No. 84-r7_- , adopted on February 14, 1984 , the
Agency adopted the State Relocation Guidelines for Board and
Agency implementation of the California Relocation Assistance
Act.
Pursuant to State Relocation Guidelines Section 6038 , Agency
staff has prepared a Relocation Plan (the "Relocation Plan" )
for that portion of the Project Area generally known as
"Subarea 3" , in which the Agency proposes to undertake
activities that will require certain relocation of residents
and businesses. The Relocation Plan is incorporated in this
Resolution by this reference.
Pursuant to the State Relocation Guidelines Sections
6120-6138, the Agency has determined that comparable
replacement housing may not be available, without the use of
-1-
r �
Agency funds, for four households to be relocated. Therefore,
pursuant to State Relocation Guidelines Section 6124, the
Agency has prepared a Last Resort Housing Plan which is
contained in Section X. of the Relocation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency hereby approves and adopts the Relocation
Plan (including the Last Resort Housing Plan) and submits the
Relocation Plan for consideration and approval by the Board
pursuant to State Relocation Guidelines Sections 6038 and
6120-6138 .
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Redevelopment Agency on the date shown.
ATTESTED: _U� --I.9��---
0 7/14/8 8 pHi BAT ddEL04,Agency Secretary
RELOCATE/B32001
u
By I 16M Deputy
cc: Redevelopment Agency
Community Development Dept.
County Counsel
County Administrator
All other distribution via
Redevelopment Agency
-2-
RA-88-12
$- T. 1
A. 4
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on July 19, 1988 , by the following vote
AYES: Commissioners Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. RA-88-13
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Adoption of Amended and Restated Replacement Housing
Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency RESOLVES THAT:
On July 10, 1984, by Ordinance No. 84-30 , the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors (the "Board" ) adopted the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan" ) for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment
Project.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section
33413 (a) , whenever dwelling units housing persons and families
of low or moderate income will be removed from a redevelopment
project area, a redevelopment agency must make available,
within four years of removal of such units, an equal number of
replacement dwelling units at affordable housing cost within
the territorial jurisdiction of the redevelopment agency.
On March 12 , 1985, by Resolution No. 85=`5 , in anticipation of
the displacement of approximately 25 dwelling units from the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project Area,
the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency adopted a
Replacement Housing Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Redevelopment Project (the "Initial Replacement Housing
Plan" ) .
The Agency has prepared for adoption by the Board an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Redevelopment Project (the "Amended Plan" ) which,
among other matters, adds additional territory (the "Amendment
Area" ) to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment
Project Area. It is anticipated that an additional 26
dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate
income may be removed from the Amendment Area as a result of
the redevelopment program.
Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 33413 . 5,
the Agency has prepared an Amended and Restated Replacement
Housing Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project which amends and updates the Initial
Replacement Housing Plan. A copy of the Amended and Restated
Replacement Housing Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
by this reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency hereby approves and adopts the Amended
and Restated Replacement Housing Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Project.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
07/14/88 Redevelopmen gency on the date shown.
cc: Redevelopment Agency ATTESTED:
Community Development Dept. pHi _BAT ELOR,Agency Secretary
County Counsel j_
County Administrator o
All other distribution via BY Deputy
Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. RA-88-13
EXHIBIT A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AMENDED AND RESTATED . REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN
FOR THE PLEASANT .HILL BART STATION AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
By Ordinance No. 84-30 dated July 10 , 19841- the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Contra- Costa adopted the
Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project establishing an initial project area
(the "Initial Project Area") .
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Amended Plan"') ., which, among other matters, would add
territory to,. the Initial Project Area. The territory to be
added to the Initial Project Area by the Amended Plan is
referred to in this document as the "Amendment Area" . As used
in this document, the term "Project Area" or "overall Project
Area" means both the Initial Project Area and the Amendment
Area together.. ,
The Amended Plan provides for the implementation of a
program of redevelopment (the "Project") within the Project
Area.
Pursuant to Agency Resolution No. RA 85/5 dated March
12 , 1985, the Agency adopted a Replacement Housing Plan (the
"Initial Replacement Housing Plan") for the Initial Project
Area. The Initial Replacement Housing Plan determined that 25
dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate
income will be removed from the Initial Project Area in
implementation of the Project, and set forth a plan for
replacing such removed dwelling units.
Based on information set forth in the "Relocation Plan
for Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, Area 3" dated
May, 1988 and other information available to the Agency, the
Agency has determined that an additional 26 dwelling units
housing persons and families of. low or .moderate income will be
removed from the Amendment Area in implementation of the
Project. Thus, a combined total of 51 dwelling units housing
persons and families of low or moderate income will be removed
from the overall. Project Area in implementation of the Project.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (a) , the
Agency must make available an equal number` of replacement
dwelling units at affordable housing cost within the Project
Area or within the territorial jurisdiction of the Agency
within four years of removal of dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income.
-1-
This Amended and Restated. .Repl.acemenIt Housing 'Plan (the "
"Amended Replacement Housing .Plan") amends and. replaces. the
Initial Replacement Housing Plan. This Amended Replacement
Housing Plan has been prepared in fulfillment of the specific
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section .33413 . 511; and
outlines. the manner in which the Agency proposes to meet its
statutory replacement housing obligations with respect to the
above-identified' -51 dwelling units
1 . Location of Replacement Housing '`Units. The 51
replacement dwellings will be constructed in the Amendment
Area, as part of an approximately 892 unit rental housing
project, (the ', Housing Development")' proposed to be developed
by a private housing developer . (the "Developer") to be
selected by the Agency following adoption' of .the Amended
Plan. The Developer will be selected by ,the Agency in
accordance with the provisions of the Amended Plan and the
Agency's adopted Rules for Owner Participation and -Business.
Tenant Preference. Following selection, the Developer and the
Agency will enter into a Disposition and -Development Agreement
(the "DDA") to specify the standards, procedures and.
obligations of the parties for development of the• Housing
Development, including requirements that `a portion, of the
dwelling units in the Housing Development; be constructed and*
made,-available to persons and families of. low and moderate
income in fulfillment of the Agency's replacement housing
obligation.
2. Number of Affordable Housing .Units To Be
Constructed. As detailed in the "Report on Proposed
Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Project" dated June, . 1988 (the
"Report on the Amended Plan") , not :Less than 90 of all
residential units to be constructed in the Housing
Development,, or approximately 79 units, will be available at
affordable housing cost to low income households (persons and
families whose gross incomes do not exceed _80% of the area
median income) . Not less than an additional 6% of all
residential units to be constructed in the Housing
Development', or approximately an additional 55 units , will
Tbe. available at affordable housing cost to very low income
households (persons -and. families whose gross incomes do not
exceed 50% of the .area median income) .
Thus , a total of not less than approximately 134
residential units to be constructed within the Housing
Development will be available at affordable housing cost to
persons and families of low. or moderate income. (These ',units
are hereinafter referred to as the "'Affordable Low and Very
Low Income Units" . ) The Affordable Low and Very Low Income
Units constitute a replacement housing resource well in
excess. of the Agency' s statutory replacement housing
obligation of 51 dwelling units.
_2-
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (c) , the
Agency will require', by recorded covenants enforceable against
the Developer. and its successors, . t'hat the Affordable Low and
Very Low Income units remain available at affordable housing
cost to households within the applicable income groups for a
period of not less than the duration of the land use controls
of the Amended Plan.
3. Financing. Part III of the Report on the Amended -
Plan details an adequate means of financing ,the Housing
Development, including the dwelling units within the Housing
Development to be constructed in fulfillment ,of the Agency' s
replacement.housing obligation. The Report on the Amended
Plan is incorporated in this Amended Replacement Housing Plan
by this reference.
In brief, it is anticipated that . the Housing Development
will be financed through a combination of private debt and
equity, and public resources . The private debt and equity
financing to be obtained by the Developer may include
conventional construction and permanent loans, tax-exempt
multifamily revenue bond financing, tax credit syndication,
and other sources of debt and equity to be obtained by the
Developer. The private sources of debt and equity to be
obtained by the Developer are anticipated. to be sufficient to
finance development of the market rate rental units in the
Housing Development and a portion of the cost, of development
of the Affordable Low and Very Low Income Units..
As documented in Part III of the Report on the Amended
Plan, it is anticipated that public support will be necessary
to finance a portion of the development cost of the Affordable
Low and Very Low Income Units. The Agency proposes to make
available tax increment revenue generated within the Amendment
,Area,, to the extent necessary, to finance the difference
between the development cost of the Affordable Low and Very
. . Low Income Units and the portion of such development cost that
can be financed from private debt and equity sources. Part
III of the Report on the Amendment Plan clearly documents.
that . the Agency will have sufficient tax increment revenue
from the Amendment Area to finance any such development cost
gap,
Pursuant to the DDA to be executed between the Agency and
the Developer, ' the Developer will be required to submit for
Agency approval a financing plan detailing the specific
sources of private and public financing that will be used to
develop the Housing Development. The DDA will require
submission and approval of such a financing plan as a
pre-condition for commencement of the Housing Development
and removal of existing dwelling units from the Amendment Area.
Based on this analysis, including the analysis contained
in Part III of the Report on the Amended Plan, it is
-3-
reasonable to determine that an adequate means exists- for
financing the Housing Development, including the dwelling
units to be constructed in the Housing Development in
fulfillment of .the Agency' s replacement housing obligation.
4 : Article XXXIV Approval. Development of the
replacement housing in the Housing Development does not
require approval of the voters pursuant to Article XXXIV of
the California Constitution. This finding is based on the
. .following analysis.
Article XXXIV requires approval of the _ electorate; only
when a state public body develops, constructs or acquires a
low-rent housing project. In the first instance, the Housing
Development will not constitute a low-rent housing project
requiring an Article XXXIV election. The Legislature has
enacted the Public Housing Implementation Law (Health and
Safety Code Section 37000 'et. sec „ ) to interpret and
implement Article XXXIV. Health and Safety Code Section
37001 (a) (1) states that the term "low-rent housing project in
Article XXXIV does not apply to any development that is
privately-owned housing, does not receive any ad valorem
property tax exemption, and in which not �more than 49% 'of the
dwelling units in which development are occupied by .persons of
low income. .
As described above, it is anticipated that the Housing
Development will be developed and owned by a private developer
who will receive no property tax exemption. Further,, as
previously described,, only approximately `15% of the dwelling
units in the Housing Development will be °required- by the
Agency to be available to low and very low income
households. It is anticipated . that the remaining 850 of the
units will be available at market rates and will not be
limited to occupancy by low income persons .
Further, it is anticipated that the financing of the
Housing Development will be structured in ,a manner that will
not constitute development, construction,;; or acquisition
of :the Housing Development by the Agency ",or any other state
body. The Public Housing Election Implementation Law sets
forth a number of exceptions by which any Agency participation
in the financing of the Housing Development can be structured
so as to avoid the- applicability. of an Article XXXIV
election. Therefore, on this basis as well, the voter
approval requirement of Article XXXIV iso inapplicable.
5. Timetable. As ,documented in Part III of the
Report on the Amended Plan, the Housing Development is
, proposed to be constructed in three roughly equal phases of
approximately 300 units each in 1990 , 1992 , and 1994 . Thus,
the first two phases of the Housing Development, comprising
nearly 600 units, will be developed within less than four
years of the date of removal of existing dwelling units from
-4-
the Amendment Area (currently planned for late 1988 or early
1989) . Further, at least 300 units will be developed by 1990,
within four years of .the removal of dwelling units from the
Initial Project Area (which occurred primarily in 1986).
Given this timetable for development of the Housing
Development, the Agency has a reasonable means to ensure,
through the DDA, that the requisite number of replacement
dwelling units will be constructed in the first two phases to.
meet the Agency' s timing obligations for replacement of units
removed from both the Initial Project Area and the Amendment
Area.
06/28/88
#B057/B32001
-5-
T. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on July 19, 1988 by the following vote
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES : None .
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 88/460
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Certifying Review and Consideration of the EIR
Supplement, Making Certain Findings Required by
the California Environmental Quality Act, and
Stating Overriding Considerations in the Approval
and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan Approval, and Amended
Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that:
An EIR Supplement (the "EIR Supplement" ) has been prepared for
use by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County (the
"Board" ) in considering the following approvals (the "Project
Approvals" ) in connection with the proposed development of a
high density multifamily residential project of not more
than 892 dwelling units together with ancillary commercial,
retail and community facilities (the "Project" ) on 12 . 37 acres
of land in the northwest section of the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Specific Plan Area (the "Project Site" ) :
1 . Adoption of General Plan Amendment #6-87-CO (the
"General Plan Amendment" ) ;
2 . Adoption of Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan
Amendment #1987-3 (SP) (the "Specific Plan
Amendment" ) ;
3 . Approval of rezoning of the Project Site and the
Preliminary Development Plan for the Project
pursuant to County File #2743-R2 (the
"Rezoning/Preliminary Development Approval" ) ; and
4 . Approval of Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan
for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment
Project (the "Amended Redevelopment Plan" ) .
The Project, the Project Site and the Project Approvals
are more fully described in Section I of the attached
Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference.
The EIR Supplement builds upon the Environmental Impact
Report for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Pian
- certified by the Board by Resolution No. 83/805, dated June 7 ,
1983 , and upon the Environmental Impact Report Supplement
for the Redevelopment Plan for - the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Redevelopment Project certified by the Board by Ordinance
No. 84-30, dated July 10, 1984 . The EIR Supplement consists
of the documents described in Section II of the attached
Exhibit A.
As more fully set forth in Section II of the attached
Exhibit A, the EIR Supplement has been prepared in accordance
with the requirements and procedures of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et. seq. , hereafter "CEQA" ) , the Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA ( 14 Cal . Admin. Code Sections 15000
et. seg. , hereafter the "State CEQA Guidelines" ) , and the
County' s Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (the "Local
Guidelines" ) .
By Resolutions No. 37-1988 and No. 39-1988 adopted on June 28,
1988, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission recommended
the certification of the EIR Supplement with accompanying
findings generally in the form of the attached Exhibit A.
A joint public hearing was held by the Board and the Contra
Costa County Redevelopment Agency on July 19, 1988 on the
Project the Project Approvals, and the EIR Supplement,
following notice duly and regularly given as required by law.
All interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon
or object thereto were heard, and the EIR Supplement and all
comments and responses thereto were considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors hereby finds and certifies that the EIR
Supplement has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines; that the EIR
.Supplement adequately addresses the environmental issues of
the Project and the Project Approvals; and that the Board has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR
Supplement prior to approving the Project and the Project
Approvals .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby identifies the
significant effects, adopts the mitigation measures, makes the
findings, and declares the statement of overriding
considerations set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A.
The statements, findings and determinations set forth in
Exhibit A are based on the above certified EIR Supplement
and other information available to the Board as more fully
set forth in Section III of Exhibit A, and are made in
compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092 , and 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines .
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supero ors n the date shown.
-:
ATTESTED:PHIL I)AT EL ,-Clerk o3 the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
CC: Community Development Department o
n0.4i'm a ia,.County Counsel �Y � O� Deputy
County Administrator
All other distribution via
Community Development
Resolution No. 88/460
08/03/88
#(B090/B32001
EXHIBIT A
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The Project under consideration consists of the
development of a high density multifamily residential
project of not more than 892 dwelling units ,' together with
ancillary commercial, retail and community facilities of
approximately 21 ,000 square feet. The Project is located on
12 .37 acres of land in the northwest section of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area , including Sub. Area 3 and .
portions of Sub Areas 1 and 4 (the "Project Site") . The
Project-Site- is interior -to' the block bounded by Oak Road,
Coggins Drive and Las Juntas Way and includes all of the
properties fronting on Elena Court, Elena Drive and
Juana Court.
Implementation of the Project will require the following
approvals and actions (collectively referred to in this
document as the "Project Approvals") :
A. Approval by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa (the "Board") of an amendment to the Contra -
Costa County General Plan (the "General Plan") to change the
General Plan land use designation for the- Project Site to
."BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density" and "Retail" ,
and to make certain related revisions to the Circulation
fElement of the General Plan. This approval is in the form of
d General Plan Amendment #6-87-CO, and is hereinafter referred
to as the "General Plan Amendment" .
B. . Approval by the Board of an amendment to the Pleasant
Hill BART Station. Area Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan") to
change the Specific Plan land use- designation for the Project
Site to "Multiple Family Residential" and "Mixed Use" , and to
make related revisions to the Urban Design Policy Program and
the Site Requirements Matrix of the Specific Plan. This
approval is in the form of Specific Plan Amendment
#1987-3 (SP) , and is hereinafter referred to as the "Specific
Plan Amendment" .
C. ' Approval by the Board of an amendment to the County
Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Project Site to "P-1 , Planned
Unit Development District" and approval by the Board of the
Preliminary Development Plan for the Project (with conditions
of approval) . These approvals are in the form of County File`
#2743-RZ , and are hereinafter referred to as the
"Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan" .
-1-
D. Approval by the Board, and implementation by the
Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") , of an
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the "Amended
Redevelopment Plan" ) . The Amended Redevelopment Plan would
amend and restate the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Redevelopment :Project, adopted by the Board
by Ordinance No. 84-30 , dated July 10 , 1984 (the "Initial
Redevelopment Plan" ) . The Amended Redevelopment Plan would
add approximately 10 .5 acres of 1:he Project Site to the
adjacent existing Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Existing. Project Area" ) . The
area to be added to the Existing Project Area through the
Amended Redevelopment Plan is hereinafter referred to as the
"Amendment Area" . (The remaining 1 .87 acres of the 12 . 37 acre
Project Site is already within-the Existing Project Area. )
The Amended Redevelopment Plan would also change the land use
designations for the Project Site to be consistent with the
land use designations in the General Plan Amendment and the
Specific Plan Amendment; would revise certain financial
provisions of the redevelopment program to enable Agency
assistance in financing development of the Project, -as needed;
and would make certain other technical revisions to the.
Initial Redevelopment Plan.
The Contra Costa County Planning Commission (the
"Planning Commission" ) will provide recommendations to the
Board and the Agency regarding the Project and the Project
Approvals.
II. CEQA COMPLIANCE
An' Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Board
for the' Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan by
Resolution No. 83-805 , dated June 7 , 1983 (the "Specific Plan
EIR") . An Environmental Impact Report Supplement was
certified by the Board for the Initial Redevelopment Plan by
Ordinance No. 84-30 , dated July 10 ,, 1984 (the "Initial
Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement") .
An EIR Supplement has been prepared for the Project and
the Project Approvals (the "EIR Supplement") . The EIR
Supplement uses information contained in the Specific Plan EIR
,,and the Initial Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement to the
maximum extent possible, and provides supplemental information
and analysis necessary to enable the Board, the Agency , and
the Planning Commission to make sound decisions on the Project
and the Project Approvals.
The EIR Supplement consists of:
A. The Specific Plan EIR, 'incorporated by reference;
-2-
B. The Initial Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement,
incorporated by reference; ,
C. The Draft E'IR"Supplement,P dated January, 1988 (the
"DEIR".) ; and
D. The Responses to Comments , dated June, 1.7 , 1988 , which
contains comments on the DEIR, responses to such
comments, and appendices related to supplemental
traffic .studies (the "Response Document") .
E. Letter from Darwin Myers Associates, dated July 1,
1988
The EIR Supplement has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , the State
CEQA Guidelines , and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for
Administering the .California Environmental Quality Act. The
,,. County of Contra Costa (the "County") has served as "Lead
Agency" , and the Agency has served as a "Responsible Agency"
in preparing the EIR Supplement.
Preparation of the EIR .Supplement began in, September,
1981 with the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation to all interested and affected agencies. On
January 29 , 1988, a Notice of Completion of the DEIR was
published in the Contra Costa Times. The DEIR was
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review on January 29 ,
1988 (SCH #87091516) . The DEIR comment period closed on
March 10 , 1988 . '
The .Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
DEIR on February 23 ,1988 . Following the public hearing and
receipt of. written comments on the DEIR, the Response
Document was prepared.
The DEIR was submitted to the Board, the Agency and the
Planning Commission on May 3 , 1988 , and the . Response Document
was submitted to the Planning Commission on June 23 , 1988 and
to the Board and the Agency on June 28 , 1988 .
On June 23 , 1988 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the Project and the Project Approvals, and on June
28 , 1988 , the Planning Commission considered, and submitted
its recommendation to the Board and Agency on, the Project, `
the Project Approvals , and the EIR Supplement. The Planning
Commission' s recommendations with respect to the EIR
Supplement are based on the findings and analysis set forth in
this document.
On July lq-;, 1988 , the Board and the Agency considered and
took action upon the Project, the Project Approvals , and the
EIR Supplement. In connection with these actions , the Board
and the Agency 'considered certification of the EIR
-3-
Supplement. The ' actions .of the Board and the Agency are
based, in part, on the findings and analysis set forth in this
document.
III . THE RECORD
The Record of the Board, the Agency, and the Planning
Commission relating to the Project, the Project Approvals , the
EIR Supplement, and the findings and analysis set forth in
this document include:
A. The General Plan Amendment and accompanying staff
reports;
B The Specific Plan Amendment and accompanying staff
reports;
C. The Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan (with
conditions of approval) and accompanying staff
report's;
D. The Amended Redevelopment: Plan;
E. The Report on the Amended Redevelopment Plan
prepared by the Agency and submitted to the Board on
May 3 ,. 1988;
F. The EIR Supplement (as described in Section I,l
above) ;
G. Documentary and oral evidence received by the'. Board,
the Agency, and .the Planning Commission during .public
hearings. on the Project, the Project Approvals, and
the EIR Supplement; and
H. Matters of common knowledge to the Board, the-. Agency,
and the Planning Commission, including without
limitation:.
1 . The General Plan;
2 . The Specific Plan;
3 . The County ,Zoning Ordinance;
4 . The Initial Redevelopment Plan; and
5 . Other adopted policies and ordinances of the
County.
IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The EIR Supplement identified 24 potentially significant
environmental effects attributed in part to the Projectland
the Project Approvals. These potentially significant
environmental. effects , as well as proposed mitigation
-4-
measures , are discussed in detail in Sections II and III
of the DEIR and in the Response Document, and are summarized
at the beginning of the DEIR. Sections II and III of
the DEIR and the Response Document also provide an analysis
of whether the proposed mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen each of the significant environmental
effects identified in the DEIR and the Response Document.
Each potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the DEIR and the Response Document, the
proposed mitigation measures for that effect, and the findings
with regard to that effect are discussed in Section V below.
V. FINDINGS
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
environmental effects of -the Project and the Project
Approvals; the Project and the Project Approvals are approved
as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
California Administrative Code Sections 15091, 15092 , and
15093 . As required by the aforementioned references , the
following findings are made for which there is substantial
evidence in the record.
A. LAND USE IMPACTS
1 . Retail Improvements
.,, (a) Significant Environmental Effect. The proposed
size and site for retail commercial development
will draw customers from outside the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area, adding to
congested traffic and parking conditions .
(b) Mitigations. (i) Limit retail use to
neighborhood-serving retail and personal service
types of uses subject to the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator; (ii) Control hours
of operation for the retail/service uses ,
delivery truck schedules, and development design
to maintain compatibility with surrounding uses
and limit traffic impacts; and (iii) Require
study of shared parking plan prior to final
development plan approval and, if indicated by
the study, reduce size of retail development at
time of Final Development Plan approval .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement , the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in Section
-5-
A.1 - (a) above will be avoided or substantially
lessened by adoption of these mitigation measures .
2. High Density Multiple Family Land Use
The EIR Supplement discusses a number of potential
traffic, displacement, parking, and visual
impacts related to the high densitymultiple
family land use planned :for the Project Site.
Findings regarding these impacts are set forth in
Sections V.B through V.E below.
B. MUNICIPAL SERVICE IMPACTS
[The Summary of significant environmental effects at the
beginning of the DEIR discusses "general" municipal service
impacts . This impact is separated into a discussion of 4
separate municipal service impacts for purposes of making
findings. )
1 . Fire Protection
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Increased
density of development will increase demand for
fire protection services.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Require the Agency to assist
in the funding and siting of the new fire station
proposed to be built along the planned Bancroft
extension to Monument Boulevard; and (ii)
Require the Agency to enter into a fiscal
agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33401 (b) where=by tax increment revenue
will be passed through to the Contra Costa
County Consolidated Fire District.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is° .`:made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures .
2 . Sewer Service
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. According to
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
("CCCSD") , mains on the perimeter of the site
may not have adequate remaining capacity to serve
the residential development proposed for the
Project Site.
-6-
1
(b) Mitigation. dCCSD has initiated a capacity
study to determine if the offsite mains have
capacity.,to carry the.,,,.additj.onal waste water
generated by a high-density multiple family
. residential project on the Project Site. If the
study indicates capacity is inadequate , the
Project developer will be required to agree to
provide additional sewer system capacity at the
time of Final Development Plan approval .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B. 2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
3 . Water
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Existing
water mains may not have adequate capacity to
serve the Project Site.
(b) Mitigation. At the time of Final Development
Plan approval , the developer of the Project Site
will be required to provide any additional
ori-site and off-site water service improvements
required to service the development, as
t
determined by the Contra Costa Water District.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in B. 3 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened .by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
4 . Parks and OpenM,,Space
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
development. of the Project will increase demand
for parks and open space by Project residents .
(b) Mitigation. Require the Project developer to
comply with the County Parklands Dedication
ordinance, which currently requires payment of
park dedication fees of $400 per unit. Funds
generated by these fees can be utilized to assist
in purchasing and improving nearby park sites .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
-7-
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that: the significant
environmental impact: identified in B. 4 . (a) above
will be avoided or :substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure .
C. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
1 . Displacement of Existing Households
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The
redevelopment of the Project Site with a high
density multifamily residential development
will result in the elimination of 36
single-family residences , and therefore the
displacement of at least 41 households.
(b) Mitigation. - As required by law, the Agency
will adopt a Relocation Plan if the Redevelopment
Plan Amendment is adopted.
(c). Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in C. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
D. ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN IMPACTS
1 . Visual Impact
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The density
and height of Project buildings may create a
"canyon-like" visual effect.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Through design review and the
Final Development Plan approval process , require
liberal use of dense landscaping and special
paving materials in the Project and other
architect and design details to ensure compliance
with County visual and design standards; and
(ii) Require building setbacks appropriate to
height of .buildings .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
. finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in D. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures .
-8-
2 . Surrounding Views
(a) Significant. Environmental Effect. (i) The
Project will be visible from I-680 , Oak Road, and
Las Juntas Way, in contrast to the existing
single family residential neighborhood which is
not visible from these vantage points; (ii)
Suburban views from residential developments
adjacent to the Project will be replaced by view
of an urban project consisting of a complex of
five-story buildings; and (iii) Some long range
views of the Briones Hills will be obstructed.
(b) Mitigation. Through the Final Development Plan
approval process , require site design that will
maximize view impacts, such as locating one story
buildings along road frontages.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effects identified in D.2 . (a) above
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened at
this time , and certain economic , social , and
other considerations make infeasible certain of
- the project alternatives identified in the
DEIR, as discussed in Section VII
(Alternatives) below. This impact will therefore
be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
3 . Residential Lighting
(a) Significant Environmental_ Effect. The design
concept for the Project lacks clear
articulation of planned lighting in the area.
Insufficient exterior lighting of access roads
and interior pedestrian paths could diminish
nighttime safety.
(b) Mitigation." Require the developer to submit a
lighting plan for review and approval at the time
of Final Development Plan approval.
(c) Findina_ . The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in D. 3 . (a) above
will be avoided or 'substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure .
-9-
4 . Retail Use
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. The proposed
retail shopping center may create conditions of
heavy traffic movement, parking overflow, litter,
glare and noise.
(b) Mitigations. As discussed in subsection A. 1
above , retail uses shall be limited to
neighborhood-serving and personal service types
of uses , subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator; hours of operation,
delivery, and development design will be
controlled; and a parking study will be performed
prior to final development planapproval. The
size of the retail component of the Project will
.be reduced, if so recommended by the parking
study.
(c) Finding. The above :mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, and the
finding is made that the significant -
environmental effect identified in D. 4 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures .
5 . Earthquake Hazards
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. If a large
earthquake occurs nearby,, some Project buildings
could be damaged by groundshaking and the secondary
effects of groundshaking, including disruption of
utilities and fire.
(b) Mitigation. Require submission of a preliminary
geology, soil , and foundation report, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits for review
and approval by the County Planning Geologist. The
report shall include an evaluation of the potential
for earthquake-induced damage to structures and other
improvements. Grading and building plans shall
implement recommendations of the approved report.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is hereby
adopted; however, based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the finding
is made that the significant environmental effect
identified in D. 5 . (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened at this time and that specific
economic , social , and other considerations make
infeasible certain of the project alternatives
identified in the DEIR -as discussed in Section VII
below. This impact will therefore be discussed in
-10-
Section VI (Summar''rof Unavoidable Significant
Environmental Effects) and Section VIII (Statement of
Overriding Consideration.s:). .:of this document.
E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS
I . Cumulative Effects
(a) Significant Environmental Effects . Even with
the road improvements that are currently planned
for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, nine
intersections in this area would operate at Level
of Service E or F (for one or both peak hours)
upon buildout of the currently approved
projects. The addition to these intersections of
new traffic generated by the Project (estimated
at 638 to 1295 peak hour trips per day) would
have a cumulative impact on what will be severely
congested roadways and intersections .
Intersections anticipated to operate at Level of
Service F would experience some additional delay.
and backup from traffic added by the Project,
however, traffic generated by the Project is not
projected to significantly reduce the level of
service at any intersection.
(b) Mitigation. Require Project developer to pay a
Specific Plan traffic mitigation fees , to be
contributed to a fund utilized to build
transportation improvements in the area on an
as-needed basis. In 1988 these fees are $2 , 406
per dwelling unit and $4 .41 per square foot of
commercial development. These amounts are
increased annually by the construction component
of the Consumer Price Index.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is.
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is;,made that the significant
environmental effect identified in Section
E. 1 . (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time and specific economic ,
social, and other considerations make infeasible
the alternatives identified in the DEIR, as
discussed in Section VII (Alternatives) below.
This impact will therefore be discussed in
Section VI (Summary of Unavoidable Significant
Environmental Effects) and Section VIII
(Statement of Overriding Considerations) of this
document.
-11-
2 . Local Circulation and Parking -'
(a) Significant Environmental ,Effects .. (i)
Circulation and safety problems will be created
by right-angle parking proposed for the
chi.ldcare .facility; (ii) Access to Wayside
Lane will encourage -through traffic to drive
through the Project; and (iii) Pedestrian use
of Project "spine road" will present a safety
hazard.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Require Project Final
Development Plan to include drive-through loop
circulation for drop--off and pick-up. of children
at the childcare facility with parallel parking
or internal parking area; (ii) Require Final
Development Plan to include sidewalk and bike
path or lane along Project "spine road" ; (iii)
Require Project internal roadway improvements to
be constructed substantially in accordance with
design recommendations contained in the June 1988
Park Regency Traffic Impact Study prepared by
Abrams Associates; and (iv) Require Project
final development plan to include emergency
access road barrier on eastern side of Project
site , allowing only pedestrian, bicycle, and
emergency access to the Project from Wayside Lane.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information, and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in E. 2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures .
F. NOISE IMPACTS
1 . Ambient Noise Levels
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Households
residing in the Project will experience
significant ambient noise produced by traffic on
Oak. Road and Interstate 680`.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Reduce arterial volumes by
encouraging the use of alternatives to the
automobile , such as czar pools and public transit;
(ii) Enforce California Vehicle Code
prohibitions against faulty or modified loud
exhaust systems (Sections 27150 and 27151) in
conjunction with other normal patrol duties by
peace officers; and (iii) Through building permit
-12-
approval proce"ss , require use of high quality
architectural design and construction practices
which ensure interior noise levels in the Project
will meet the interior 45 dB CNEL limits ,
including but not limited to the use of high
quality windows with a minimum STC rating of 22 . .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measures are
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in F. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures .
2 . Construction Noise
(a) Significant -Environmental Effect. Construction
activities will produce intermittent noise.
(b) Mitigation. Through the Final. Development Plan
approval process, measures will be required to
limit construction noise , such as the
installation of masonry walls around the Project
perimeter during the initial phase of
construction, the use of construction equipment
of quiet design, restriction of hours of
construction from 8 AM to' 6 PM, Monday through
Friday, the elimination of unnecessary idling ,
and the use of good maintenance and .lubrication
procedures.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in F.2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
-:4
G. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS'
1 . Construction Dust Emissions
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Dust
emissions will be generated during the
construction of the Project.
(b) Mitigation . Through the Final Development Plan
approval process , watering and other dust control
measures will be required on construction sites .
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
-13-
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in G. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of this mitigation measure.
2 . Long Term Air Quality Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effects . (i) The
8-hour federal carbon monoxide standard may be
exceeded at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road
intersection (this potential impact exists with
or without the development of the Project) ; and
(ii) Countywide vehicular emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides may increase by
,01% and . 04% respectively, interfering with
maintenance of federal ozone standards in future
years.
(b) Mitigation. Construct traffic flow
improvements with funds generated by traffic
mitigation fee.
(c) Finding. 'The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted; however, based on the information
and analysis contained in the EIR supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effects identified in Section
G.2 . (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time and specific economic,
social and other considerations make infeasible
certain of the Project alternatives identified in
the DEIR, as discussed in Section VII
(Alternatives) -below. These impacts will
therefore be discussed in -Section VI (Surmary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
1 . Removal of Speciman-Sized Oak Tree
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. A
specimen-size valley oak with a trunk diameter of
56 inches and a total height of over 50 feet
would be removed with development of _the Project ,
as currently proposed,. The tree is an important
aesthetic feature and biotic resource of the
area, although declining in general condition.
(b) Mitigation. Prior to approval of the Final
Development Plan for the Project, a licensed
aborist shall perform a study which
-14-
investigates the health and viability of the
specimen-size valley oak and the feasibility of
its preservation. -,-If preservation is feasible ,
this will be required at the time of Final
Development Plan approval, and measures will be
required to protect the tree from construction
and development impacts and to maximize it health.
(c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in H. 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
2. Removal of Trees Along Creek Channel
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Existing
trees along creek channel may be removed in the
course of development of the Project.
(b) Mitigation. Require preservation of existing
major trees along creek channel (those with trunk
diameters larger than nine inches) ..
(c'), Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Based on the information and
analysis contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in H.2 . (a) above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
I. DRAINAGE IMPACTS.
1 . Surface Runoff
(a) Significant Adverse Impact. Surface runoff
from the site will contain detergents , grease ,
oil, litter, and other substances. Such
imparities are not toxic to fish and wildlife in
concentrations common to suburban development.
However, they do constitute a minor, adverse
cumulative impact.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Require on-site oil and grease
traps to be included in the Project; and (ii)
Require maintenance practices to minimize
pollutants in surface run-off , such as regular
street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and
pavement repair .
-15-
(c) Findina. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted. Bared on the information and
analysis, contained in the EIR Supplement, the
finding is made that the significant
environmental effect identified in I . 1 . (a) above
will be avoided or .substantially lessened by the
adoption of this mitigation measure.
J. CUMULATIVE, GROWTH-INDUCING, AND ENERGY USE IMPACTS
1 . Cumulative Impacts
(a) Impacts. In addition to the Project, a number
of other current and anticipated projects in the
vicinity will contribute to local environmental
....change. .These other projects include
approximately 3 million square feet of office
space, a 10-story hotel and buildout of the
County-approved multi-family residential projects
in the Specific Plan Area and vicinity. The
cumulative effects of these other projects
(related to surface :runoff, noise , vehicular
emissions and traffic volumes) , in combination
with the effects of a high density multi-family .
project on the Project Site , are identified in
the EIR Supplement as considerable.
(b) Mitigation. See mitigation measures outlined
above with respect to individually identified
significant environmental effects.
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the EIR Supplement, the finding is
made that the significant environmental effect
identified in J.1 . (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened at this time and _that
specific economic, social , and other
considerations make infeasible certain of the
project alternatives identified in the DEIR as
discussed in Section VII below. This impact will
therefore be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
i
2 . Growth-Inducing Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Development
of the Project will add approximately 892
apartment units and a maximum of 18 , 500 square
feet of retail commercial development to the
Project Site . Population of the Project Site
will increase from approximately 100 to more than
-16-
1000 persons. `'No growth-inducing .. impacts are
expected to occur outside of the Project Site ,
except .that - the demaria` for retail shopping in the
surrounding area will increase as a result of
development of the Project.
(b) -Mitigation. None proposed; as growth in the
Project Area is a specific goal of the Project
and Project Approvals .
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the EIR Supplement, the finding is
made that the significant environmental effect
identified in J.2 . (a) above cannot beavoided or
substantially lessened and that specific
economic, social, and other considerations make
infeasible certain of the project alternatives
identified in the DEIR, a•s discussed in Section
VII (Alternatives) below. This impact is
therefore discussed 'in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects)
and Section VIII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) below.
3. Energy Use Impacts
(a) Significant Environmental Effect. Development of
the site would involve the direct use of energy for
construction and the indirect use of energy for
•, production materials. Also, long-term energy input
will be required for the operation of households ,
operation of public utilities, maintenance of project
facilities , and operation of automobiles .
(b) Mitigation. None Proposed
(c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis
contained in the EI'R Supplement, the significant
environmental effect identified in J. 3 . (a) above
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened at this
time , and specific economic , social, and other
considerations make impossible certain of the project
alternative identified in the DEIR, as discussed in
Section. VII (Al`ternatives) below. This, impact will
therefore be discussed in Section VI (Summary of
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects) and
Section VIII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
of this document. .
-17-
VI . SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following significant environmental effects of the
Project and Project Approvals are identified in the EIR
Supplement as unavoidable :
1 . Additional peak hour vehicle trips in the range of
638 to 1295 peak hour trips per day would be' added to
the local circulation system, with a total of
approximately 7 ,000 total additional trips per day,
including vehicular, transit, and walking trips .
2 . Development of the Project will alter views of the
Project Site 'and will obstruct some long range views
of the Briones Hills.
3 . Potential earthquake-caused damage is unavoidable.
Ifa large earthquake occurs nearby, some buildings
could be damaged by groundshaking and the secondary
effects of groundshakin'g . (including disruption of.
utilities and fire) .
4 . Long term air quality impacts related to the '
cumulative effect of vehicular emissions .
5 . Cumulative impacts ,related to increases in surface
runoff, noise' levels, vehicular emissions , and
traffic volumes.
6 . Growth-inducing impacts urithin - the Project Site.
7. Development of the Project Site will involve the
direct use of energy for construction and the .
indirect use of energy for production materials .
Also, long-term energy input will be required for the
operation of households , operation of public
utilities, maintenance of project facilities , and
operation of automobiles.
These significant environmental effects may occur despite
the adoption of all mitigation measures ,,related to these
impacts that were identified in the EIR Supplement. No
mitigation measures identified in the EI`R Supplement have been
rejected as infeasible due to specific economic, social , other
considerations .
VII . FINDINGS ON THE FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROJECT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The EIR Supplement discusses several alternatives to the
Project as authorized by the Projekt Approvals , the
adoption of which would, in some cases ,. avoid the
-18-
significant environmental effects listed in Sections V and VI
above. . Based on the discussion of alternatives in the EIR
Supplement and upon additionallnformation about potential
alternatives contained in the Record outlined in Section III
above, the following findings are made regarding the
feasibility of the substantive alternatives to 'the Project.
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The "no project" alternative would retain the existing
single family residential medium density designation for the
portion of the Project Site that is in the Specific Plan Sub
Area 3 . The remainder of the Project Site in Specific Plan
Sub Areal would remain" commercial/office. The Project Site
is currently developed into 36 single family residences and ,
three shallow lots. that pare designated for office use fronting
on Oak Road. Retaining the current designations would reduce
the traffic and other impacts that would be associated with a
more intense use of the Project Site, including noise , air
quality and visual effects, along with reducing the demand for
urban services
The disadvantage of this alternative is that it
represents an inefficient use of land that is within walking
distance of BART and 3 .5� million sq. ft. of office space .
If office workers do not have the :opportunity for housing in
the BART station area they would be forced to commute, either
by mass transit or private automobile . Also the opportunity
to house large numbers of commuters within walking distance of
the BART system would be lost.
In summary, the "No Project" alternative would not
provide the significant benefits of the Project, as detailed in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in
Section VIII below. As a result, the County, would fail to
achieve major adopted policy goals and objectives relating to
achievement of a jobs/housing balance.
For these reasons, it is concluded that adoption of the
"No Project" Alternative would contradict established goals
for development in the Project Area and would not meet the
County' s established community development goals and
policies. It is therefore found that this alternative is
infeasible pursuant to California Administrative Code Section -
15091 (c) (3) ,
B. HOUSING MIX AND DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
[The following analysis addresses the alternatives
identified as D. and G. in the DEIR]
Several alternatives to the Project could "be considered
involving changes in. the. housing mix and housing density of
the proposed Project.
-19-
The housing .unit mix of the Project could be adjusted to
emphasize smaller or larger units (in terms, of number,,
" of
bedrooms) . For instance , one alternative would be tojincrease
the number of studio and one-bedroom units . This alternative
could generate more units (up to 1,000 on the Project� Site)
using the same building footprint (or building coverage.) as
the Project proposal. However, such an alternative would be
less attractive to small families and would be less I'
advantageous in meeting the housing needs of the major centers
being established in the Project Area and Central Contra Costa
County
A second alternative related to housing unit mix 'would
involve a .greater emphasis on larger units (two bedroom or
larger units) . More larger units would, however, generate
greater traffic and traffic-related problems of the type
identified in the EIR Supplement, and would also create an
impact on area schools , as • larger units would attractmore
families with school-age children. Also, it would be ,more
difficult to employ limited redevelopment financial resources
to maintain affordable housing costs to low-and very !1
low-income households for a significant portion of such larger
units.
In summary, these -alternative housing mixes wouldcbe
considerably less advantageous than the proposed Proje';ct in
meeting 'the County' s goal of improving the jobs/housing
balance in the Project Area and the greater Central Contra
Costa County community while, at the same time, minimizing the ,
adverse environmental impacts of the Project and promoting
housing affordability. For these :reasons, it is concluded
that various modified .housing mix alternatives would be
inconsistent with established goals for development of. the
Project Area, -and would not meet the County' s established
housing and community development goals and policies . ' It is
therefore found that the various housing mix alternatives are
.,,.infeasible pursuant to ,California Administrative Code Section
15091 (c) (3) .
With. respect to housing densii:v, possible alternative
projects range from two-story garden apartments (22
units/acre) to ten story towers, similar to urban apartment
buildingsfound in San Francisco. These alternatives could
yield between approximately 260 and 1600 units, respectively.
In comparison , the Project density range proposed by the
potential Project developer is 600-1 ,000 units , and the
maximum density permitted as a condition, of
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan approval is 892
units--in the mid-range- of the two extreme density
alternatives outlined above .
Garden apartments at a density of 22 units/acre are
typically wood-frame buildings of the style that have been
traditionally developed in Contra Costa County. This density
-20-
Yeo,
is far too low to be consist°ent. with the objectives of the
General Plan, Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan to improve
the jobs/housing balance - in Centtil Contra Costa County, to
provide accessible housing opportunities for the growing
number of . Project Area employees , and to maximize the
utilization of the BART System by creating high-density
housing developments in proximity to BART stations (see
Section VIII for a further statement of these policy
considerations) . Also, a low density garden apartment project
would be economically infeasible given prevailing land costs
in the .Project Area, and would make - the provision of long-term
affordable housing units to low- and very low-income
households extremely costly and difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, net Project densities in excess of the
98 units/acre proposed for the Project by the developer and
permitted as the maximum Project Site density pursuant to the
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan conditions would
significantly exacerbate the adverse impacts related to
traffic circulation, air quality, energy consumption
aesthetics , and other environmental conditions already
identified in the EIR Supplement. In addition, the height and
bulk of residential towers necessitated by such an increased
housing density alternative would almost certainly be
unacceptable. to property owners and residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods. The marketability of such
high-density., rental housing in Contra Costa County is also
questionable.
In, summary, these alternative housing densities would be
considerably less advantageous than the proposed Project in
meeting the County' s goal of improving the jobs/housing
balance in the Project Area and the greater Central Contra
Costa County community while, at the same time, minimizing the
adverse environmental impacts of the Project and promoting
housing affordability. For these reasons , it is concluded
that various modified housing density alternatives would be
inconsistent with established goals for the Project Area , and
would not meet the County' s established housing and community
development goals and objectives . It is therefore found that
the various housing density alternatives are infeasible
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15091 (c) (3) .
C. MODIFIED RETAIL COMPONENT ALTERNATIVE
(The following analysis addresses the alternatives
identified as B and C in 'the DEIR1
The inclusion of retail/commercial development in the
Project will increase traffic and parking impacts of the
Project. Thus, retail/commercial use on the Project Site can
only be justified if it is designed to primarily serve the
Specific Plan area, thereby decreasing vehicle trips by
residents and workers in the sub area.
21-
Any retail/commercial use of the Project Site should be
ancilliary to the primary use of .multifamily housing.,
This implies that the retail should be of a small size , and
that its architecture , signing, lighting, and landscaping
should be compatible with and enhance the primary use. A
disadvantage of the proposed retail site along Oak Road is
that it is in the northwest cornea of the area which is to be
served. Its highly visible location at .a freeway on-ramp
suggests that the retail would attract customers from outside
the Specific Plan area. Moreover , the 'relatively large size
(18 ,500 ) square feet) is too great to be considered an
ancilliary use.
The DEIR discusses alternatives which modify the :
proposed retail component of the Project, ranging from a
changed location of the retail component to reduction , in the
size of retail development, to elimination of retail use
altogether. This alternative is , in part, adopted as ;;part of
the Project Approvals. The conditions of approval of 'the
Preliminary Development Plan for the Project require that
retail uses be limited to neighborhood-serving retail and
personal services types of uses which are subject to the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Hours of
operation for the retail/service uses , delivery truck ;
schedules , and design details will be controlled in the course
of this review to maintain compatibility with surrounding uses
and to limit traffic impacts. In addition, a parking study is
required prior to approval of the final development plan for
the Project. If the study indicates that proposed parking is
inadequate to serve the retail component, the size of the
retail development will be reduced at the time of Final
Development Plan approval.
Notwithstanding the fact that this alternative is , in
part, adopted through the Project Approvals , the significant
environmental effects discussed in Section VI above are still
'expected to occur and are therefore further discussed in
Section VIII below (Statement of Overriding Considerations) .
D. SENIOR HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
Two of the proposed buildings included within the. Project
could be designed to accommodate ambulatory seniors . This
would include creating a dining room and parlor area for
seniors . Parking for senior housing would be reduced to
0 . 5/unit.
An advantage of senior housinc; is that it generates
significantly less traffic than does standard residential
development. Moreover, seniors would be close .to BART and bus
service . The disadvantage of this use is that housingl'in the
BART station area has been intended to locate workers close to
employment centers and BART.
-22-
C
a�4
This alternative has , ih part, been adopted through the
Project Approvals . , The Preliminary Development Plan for the
Project includes the option that, two buildings will be
designed as. senior housing. A final determination on the
inclusion of 'senior housing in. the Project will be made at the
time of Final Development Plan approval and during the Agency
process for negotiation and execution of a Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Project developer.
Notwithstanding the fact that this alternative is , in
part, adopted through the Project Approvals , the significant
environmental effects discussed in Section VI above are still
expected to . occur. and these impacts are therefore further
discussed in Section VIII below (Statement of Overriding
. Considerations) .
E. CHILDCARE ALTERNATIVE
' As proposed, the childcare facility included in the
Project. will accommodate approximately 60 children. The
childcare structure would be 2650 sq. ft. Parking would
consist of seven spaces for staff, and a shared drop-off and
pick-up area. A facility of this size would be adequate to
accommodate the pre-school aged child population of the
Project, but it would not be of sufficient size to serve the
broader community.
If the childcare component of the project were
increased to 135 children, the childcare structure would be
a maximum of 6200 sq. ft. Parking for the larger facility
would consist of approximately sixteen spaces for staff and 10
spaces for drop-off and pick-up. A facility of -this size
would be able to accommodate much of the childcare needs of
the neighborhood.
This alternative has , in part, been adopted. The
`conditions ,of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for
.the Project require the Project .developer to- comply with the
County Childcare Ordinance and to coordinate the planning of
the center with the Contra Costa Centre Association' s
childcare program. Pursuant to the conditions of approval
of the Preliminary Development Plan, the final size of the
childcare center. will not be less than the capacity required
based on the needs assessment study and in .no case will be
less than 60 ` children.
Notwithstanding - the fact that this alternative is adopted
through the Project Approvals , the significant environmental
effects discussed .in Section VI above are still expected to
occur and are therefore further discussed in Section VIII
below (Statement of Overriding Considerations) .
-23-
]V
VIII . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable
significant environmental effects of the Project and _ the
Project Approvals which are summarized in Section VI above, it
is hereby determined pursuant to California Administrative
Code Section 15093 , that the benefits of the proposediProject
outweigh these unavoidable adverse environmental effects , and
the Project Approvals should be made.
The Project and the Project Approvals are hereby; adopted
based on the following- overriding considerations and benefits
set forth in the Record:
A. The Project, as authorized by the. Project Approvals ,
will implement important County goals and policies set forth
in the Generyal Plan to improve the jobs/housing balance in
Central Contra Costa County. The Project, consistingliof
development of a major high density multifamily residential
development with supporting commercial and community
facilities, will substantially inc:rease, living opportunities
for workers in close proximity to the significant existing and
anticipated job base in the Central Contra Costa County
area. The resulting improvement in the jobs/housing balance
will reduce the length of commute trips , into, out and
through Central Contra Costa County and will have a
corresponding positive impact on County=wide problemsj�:Iof
traffic, air pollution and energy consumption.
B. More particularly, the Project, as authorized by the
Project Approvals, will provide highly accessible , quality
housing for employees of the major employment center currently
being established within the immediately adjacent Existing
Project Area. The Project will provide walking-distance
housing to a significant segment of the employees of the.
estimated 3 ,000 ,000 square feet of commercial facilities that
will be located in the Existing Project Area at final ,'
build-out. The Project represents the closest such
opportunity to provide" high density housing in proximity to
the Existing Project Area employment center.
C. Further, the Project, as authorized by the Project
Approvals , will provide 'quality, high density housing
immediately adjacent to the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
Residents of the Project who are not employed in the immediate
vicinity will be able to walk to the Pleasant Hill BART
Station and use the BART system for commute travel , thus
further alleviating County-wide traffic , and attendant air
pollution and energy consumption, problems . High density,
residential development of the Project Site will thereby
maximize the transportation bene_fits. of the BART system in
Contra Costa County.
-24-
D. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals ,
will maximize the use of existing or proposed public
improvements and public infrastructure being constructed in
and adjacent to the Existing Project Area through the
redevelopment program. Development of high density
residential facilities on the Project Site constitutes a more
efficient use of existing and planned public improvements and
infrastructure than would comparable development in most other
undeveloped or underdeveloped locations in the County, which
typically lack such improvements and infrastructure.
E. The Project, as authorized by the 'Project Approvals ,
will enable the County and the Agency to stimulate development
of a significant number of dwelling . units that will remain
available at affordable housing cost to low- and very
low-income households for an extended duration. The
development of such ,affordable housing in a central location,__
accessible to work, transit, commercial, and community
facilities, will significantly promote the goals and policies
of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
F. The Project, as authorized by the Project Approvals,
will provide a resource for meeting the Agency' s relocation
and replacement housing obligations for the entire
redevelopment program, including the relocation and
replacement housing obligations arising from redevelopment of
the Existing Project Area as well as the Amendment Area.
Relocation of residents and replacement of removed housing
units at the Project Site, in immediate proximity to the
location from which the units are removed, will minimize
disruption of community housing resources.
06/27/88
CEQARES/B32001
-25-