The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07191988 - T.1 T. 1 B.2,3,4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 19 , 1988 by the following vote: i *AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder 1. NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Powers *ABSTAIN• 13`upbrvisor Fanden abstained on conditions 18D and 26 (Exhibit F) SUBJECT: PARK REGENCY: Resolution. No. 88/461 Approving General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO; Approving Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3(SP) ; Approving Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan 2743-RZ; for development of the subject property under a Planned District (P-1 , Planned Unit Development District) . WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors received a memo from the Director of Community Development Department transmitting the . following: 1. The EIR Supplement for General Plan Amendment ( 6-87-CO) , Specific Plan Amendment ( 1987-3 (SP) ) , Redevelopment Plan Amendment, Park Regency Rezoning and Preliminaryy Development Plan, ( 2743-RZ) as described in Resolution No. 88/460 2. Staff ' s Report on proposed General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO dated June 23 , 1988. 3 . Staff' s Report on proposed Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3(SP) dated June 23 , 1988. 4. Staff ' s Supplemental Report on proposed Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3(SP) dated June 23 , 1988. 5. Staff ' s Report on proposed Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan #2743-RZ dated June 23 , 1988. 6. Contra Costa County Planning Commission „-,ResdIUtion No`. 36-1988 recommending adoption of General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO. 7. Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-1988 recommending adoption of Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3 (SP) . 8. Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 38-1988 recommending approval of Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan 2743-RZ. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. � the Board of Supervisors cer- tified the Final EIR Supplemned�t� for General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO, Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3 (SP) , Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 2743-RZ on July 19, 1988 , and made findings as required by CEQA. WHEREAS, after notice lawfully given for General Plan Amend- ment, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning -and Preliminary Development Plan, public hearings on each item were held July 19 , 1988 at 9: 30 A.M., in the Board of Supervisors chambers in Martinez, California; 6 Park Regency 2 Resolution No. 88/461 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the recom- mendations of Staff, the action of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, and the testimony and documents referenced here and during the July 19 , 1988 hearing; NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, CERTIFIES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO---is hereby approved as recommended by the County Planning Commission on June 28 , 1988, and the findings shown in Exhibit A (attached) are hereby adopted. _ The General Plan map and text ( 6-87-CO) approved this day (July 19, 1988 ) are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 2. Specific Plan Amendment Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amend- ment, 1987-3(SP) is hereby approved as recommended by the County Planning Commission on June 28, 1988, and the findings shown in Exhibit B (attached) are hereby adopted. The Specific Plan map and text ( 1987-3 (SP) ) approved this day (July 19 , 1988 ) are attached hereto as Exhibit E. 3 . Park Regency Project: Rezoning and Preliminary Develop- ment Plan 2743-RZ are hereby approved as recommended by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on June 28, 1988, with modified Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 19 , 1988 (attached as Exhibit, F) , and the findings shown in Exhibit C (attached) are hereby adopted. The following additional findings are made: a) The applicant proposed to start construction during 1989 which is within two and one-half year period specified; b) That the Preliminary Development Plan is consis- tent with, will implement and substantially com- plies with the County General Plan as amended by 6-87-CO; c) The proposed Park Regency project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desir- ability and stability, will be in harmony with and compatible to the , surrounding neighborhoods, community and their uses. For the project uses proposed, community need has been demonstrated. The , proposed project, which will include 892 rental condominium units and may include a senior housing component, will help to improve . the jobs/housing balance within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area by providing a high concentration of housing near office development within the BART Station area. It will also maximize the opportu- nity for convenient public transit use by locat- ing a high density residential project near the BART Station. The preliminary development plan for the Park Regency project reflects architectur- al and design merit. Resolution 88/461 Park Regency 3 Resolution No. 88/461 d) The proposed retail component of the Park Regency project will serve the neighborhood which consists of residential and office developments. The traf- fic and circulation impacts associated with the retail center have been adequately analysed in the Final EIR Supplement. Traffic impacts will be obviated or mitigated through presently projected improvements and by provisions in the plan for proper access (entry and exit on Oak Road) and by internal provisions for circulation and parking. Prior to final development plan approval a study of the proposed shared parking arrangement will be submitted to the County Planning Commission for review to ensure the adequacy of the parking plan. The development will be an attractive and effi- cient retail center which will fit harmoniously into the Park Regency mixed use development project and the surrounding area, and will not adversely affect the adjacent office/commercial developments or surrounding neighborhood. The retail center is restricted to neighborhood serv- ing retail types of uses. e) The Park Regency project is a mixed use develop- ment which integrates high density residential development with a project/neighborhood serving retail center and a childcare facility. The project is planned to provide a mix of uses on the site in order to meet the daily needs of project residents in a convenient manner and to minimize the need for automobile usage. The project site' s proximity to the Pleasant Hill BART Station will also help to maximize the opportunity for conve- nient public transit use. The project will also help to improve the jobs/housing balance by siting a high density residential project near to the office development within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. The project design incorporates sig- nificant landscaped open areas and a variety of recreational amenities. The building design for the project reflects architectuai;-meri..t- and quali- ty building materials will be employed. As such the development reflects a harmonious and inte- grated plan for development. JH/df F2:park-reg.bdo I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Superv, ors on the date shown. cc: Community Development Department ATTESTED: County Counsel PHIL t3QT HEL , Clerk of the Ba�,rd of supervisors and County Administrator County Administrator Public works Assessor ByOAIM , Deputy Urban Holdings, Inc. Resolution 88/461 EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 36-1988 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING 'COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (6-87-CO) FOR THE PARR REGENCY SITE IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA, .CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WHEREAS, all of the procedures . of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Contra -Costa County Guidelines to implement this act have been met through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Supplement to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Environmental -Impact Report, WHEREAS, all of the necessary findings relative to the California Environmental Quality Act are made and attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Significant Environmental Impacts, Findings of Fact; and Statement of Overriding Considerations, " WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly published, noticed and. held on June 23 , 1988, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, 6-87-CO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ,RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County _ Planning Commission at- a regularly scheduled public hearing on' June 28, 1988, makes the following findings and recommendations on the matter: 1) That the General Plan be amended as reflected in the Findings Maps to redesignate the subject property from Single Family Residential-Medium Density, Office and BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density, to BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density and Retail. .2) That the Circulation Element of the General Plan be amended to . eliminate the collector or public street. shown therein leading from Coggins Drive -to the,•eastern border of the subject- property. A bicycle and pedestrian path shall be. identified at this. location, leading to the interior of the subject property. Emergency vehicle access will also be provided at .this point. 3 ) The proposed changes in the General Plan land use designations for the subject property are compatible with the land use designations and uses on surrounding properties. 4) The proposed changes in the General Plan land use designations are consistent with the objectives of the Pleasant 'Hill BART Page 2 Resolution No. 36-1988 Station Area Specific plan to provide a high concentration of housing (and office) development around the BART Station,, to improve the jobs/housing balance, and to maximize the opportunity for public transit use. 5) On the basis of the Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement traffic study it has been. concluded that the designated collector in the Circulation Element leading from Coggins Drive to the interior of the subject site is unnecessary and unwarranted given the site' s access from Las Juntas Way and Oak Road. Further, access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles will be provided at this point on the eastern border .of the subject site. 6) By reference and. incorporation the findings relative to the California Environmental Quality Act attached hereto as Exhibit A are included. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission at its meeting held on June 23, 19880, approved and recommended to the Board of Supervisors the approval of General Plan Amendment 6-87-CO, for the Park Regency site in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area, as identified in the Findings Maps. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was by motion of the Planning Commission. on Thursday, June 23 , 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Davis, Aiello, Nimr, Whitney, Feliz NOES: Commissioners - NONE ABSTAIN: ! Commissioners - NONE ABSENT: Commissioners - Rccornero, Best I, George C. Feliz, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission of Contra Costa County, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on June 23 , 1988, and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted on June 28 , 1988 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Whitney, Feliz. NOES: Commissioners - Kathleen Nimr. Page 3 Resolution No. 36-1988 ABSTAIN: Commissioners None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Aiello, Best, Davis . C ai man 'he County Planning omm ssion,% ounty of Contra Costa, State of C ifornia ATTEST: cretar o the County Planning Commissi n, County of Contra Costa, State of California " • s• FINDINGS MAP: ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BOUNDARY OF AMENDMENT l AREA d t!►l►nrr nrr� r r rnnnrMillrr n '• -,- I t 1 19 . •• • aaw arr•a•••r a•.••.•.••. i i �/•'`�.t` :: •war••!••.•.•..•••••••• � .. � •ra•a a.a•aa••a.•••• ♦• aa••••w••aa a•••..a•.•• 7 ��• ••ar••aaa!••.a+a•••r ..� ..♦ ••••••!••i.• LAS 1{{wzAS WAV za :. •��:sem•'.•• R•j• •�s• �•' `• ^tom •..• +' •,•s i•�.• Q �:•�' r ;per •�,V► r :1 s:••� + O•� w «.• �' Cwt a'•.�,-��+� .'� 1'•=600' 0 Iry 1111111 111E, �1 TREAT- lLVO. >49 ♦ 1 - x �;,�,,• F •`-; 9 GENERAL. PLAN AREA t:u• launauunuruurnrr IWINU WWWWwwall LEGEND BART Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density = Mixed Use :.. . BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density ' „�- Utility/Open Space Corridors •y;, .w -'`= Single Family Residential-Medium Density ;,�,.�;.,� Public/Semi-Public Office IIIIIIII U 11�� JI 11 I 111111 pUuul .a�sis��t�t�s��si�ss�s�>•��YWY�. 1�saaasaaaaaa�a��sa�aaaaaaaaaa► EMISSION i i 'fi ■wa■■r ■Mowat ra■■aar Y■■■■N. � H it �•� :. Ml . (i 'ss=s cssi Ph sig i-ii : == 1 = I 96 gas ap- ong � ■■u.uwu Em • a 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 PlanArea, 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 Element of the General Plan. This approval is in the form of 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 ' .r 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 11P-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"),e,,.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 thelProject . 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 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 291 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 '�.9, 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:vforth 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 .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 ETR 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 i 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 r 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 sig+nificant -a 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- t 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 plannedfor 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�lenvironmental 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 ofmaking 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 33441 (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. willbe avoided or substantially lessened by -41 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. 1 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 s (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 insthe 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) ofthis 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 safet q y. _ (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- 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 . p re ort shall include an evaluation of thepotential : for earthquake-induced damage to structures and 'other improvements. .Grading and building plans shall •implemen.t .recommendations of the approved report (c) Finding. The above mitigation measure is,, -hereby adopted; however, based on the informatioand 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'Iinfeasible 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. -ll- 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 -t Development Plan toinclude 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 I . 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 findingis made that the significant--",. -, g 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. f (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,' Speci:mah 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 fea�s-ibility of its preservation. If preservation i,s. f.easible, 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 H1 . (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 4. (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Surface runoff . from the site will contain detergents',,. grease, ,, =. oil other 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- a i (c) Finding. The. above mitigation measure 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, -t 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.l . (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. Thisjimpact will r 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 r.l -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 -t identified in the DEIR, as discussedSin 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 Im2acts (a) Significant Environmental Effect. Development of the site would involve the direct use ofdenergy 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, maintenan ,"e of project facilities, and operation of automobiles . (b) Mitigation. None Proposed (c) Finding. Based on the information and analysis contained . in the EIR 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- 5 CI 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 walkingdistance 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'Ifail 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 ad}us-ted to emphasize smaller or larger units (in terms of_numbei of bedrooms) . For instance, one alternative would be to increase the number of studio and one-bedroom units. Thisl 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. ' ts range from two-storY .garden a artments. (22Pro7ec z , . .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,:i 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- is far too low to be consistent with the objectives Q€- the General Plan, 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 station's (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, mi:nimizing .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 itis 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 ofretail 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.-PIan 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 0 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,.. Preiiminary 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 15093 , 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 Hi11 ,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- S D. The Project, . as authorized by the Project App-rovals, will maximize the use of existing or proposed public " r 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 I CEQARES/$32001 -25 EXHIBIT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 37-1988 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA. COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PARK REGENCY SITE IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION, AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (1987-3(SP) ) , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WHEREAS, all of the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Contra Costa County Guidelines to implement .this act have been met through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Supplement to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,' and WHEREAS, all of the necessary findings relative to the California Environmental Quality Act are made and attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Significant Environmental Impacts, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, " Whereas, a public hearing was duly published, noticed and held on June 23 , 1988, to consider the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, 1987-3 (SP)., NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the tontra..Costa County Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing on June 28, 1988, makes the following findings and recommendations on the matter: 1) That the proposed amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan under 1987-3 (SP) are consistent with the County General Plan as amended by 6-87-CO. 2) That the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan be ; amended as reflected- in the Findings Map to change the land use designation for the subject property from Commercial/Office,: Single Family Residential� and..;Multiple .Family Residential to- : .,,.Mixed Use and Multiple Family Residential Corresponding..changes _ to. the Land .Use Matrix and text in the Specific Plan will be made 3) That the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan be amended to change the building height restrictions for the subject property to allow 4 stories as a permissible height and up to 6 stories as a conditional height. By reference and incorporation the findings relative to the California Environmental Quality 'Act attached hereto as Exhibit -.A are included. Page 2 Resolution No. 37-1988 NOW •THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER`RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission at its meeting held on June 23 ,19881, approved and recommended to the Board of Supervisors the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 1987-3 (SP) , for the Park Regency site in *the' Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, . as identified in. the Findings Maps. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was by motion of the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 23 , 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners -Davis, Aiello,. Nimr, Whitney, Feliz. NOES: Commissioners None. . ABSTAIN: Commissioners -- None ABSENT: Commissioners Accornero, Best I , George C. Feliz, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on June 23 , 1988, and that this resolution was duly passed and adopted on June 28 , 1988 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commisioners = Accornero, Whitney., .Felin NOES: Commissioners' -. Kathleen Nimr. ABSTAIN: Commissioners .- None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Aiello, Best, Davis: a' rman o the County Planning Co issio County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: cre y f he County Planning ommis io County of Contra Costa, State of lifornia j •�.� • ii �tl{�11�111�III{�I� ..•*•PP •��s��rrrrvtrrKrrr �taia~iiii�a a�•+�❖ ••.t•.••...s ry.•. �tPoPto �tttt tAtltt•ttP•!�••t.M, p1 -------------------------------- ------ I11U111{11111111 :•;:;.� ,,••,, ,.•,• • ••••••-.,.,••••• O .r i111111111111111� ,.•�, -.••. •,� IMR ...••••• . • .. t•tt•• �.t«.t•rt rrtt>«•t-;•,•tPt.P;'.t•, 1111111111111111► «.P.•��:r,••••«« •••«««•. . •ti..;� ►*1.1.1.1!:�.�.� 1 ,P ;..� III��It11�i IIS i1�11111,11.� a1� i � • i ! 11 A i Wei tiff Kiec .O❖.❖ -- •s��•i� •!••i•iii~iir••sii .i ii'��i i••i��•�•ii+i+i • !•i••��•i•++ �+'.•i��•ii� '•+•ii's�••irs•i•i•is�i�is••+!"f+•� ••1 ir•�•.••+ �.�•i-!!•.�i rr r•1 r•�+•moi.•.'�1••••••'r❖. i iiOri«M i�•�••�r• �r��r�• •i��••••w•��• •+•++w� •f�++I i�•r•�•�!•.•jam+�•i's.•�, E • +ir�.i•+its s"• •::��%i!"�•w �•i��i• iwiii' � •�• ♦•• �•i• ri i• a 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 l 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 Element of the General Plan. This approval is in the form of 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 roject Site to "Multiple Family Residential"='and ."Mixed;. Use" , :.;and to ' make related revisions to `the Urban Design ,Policy Program andf . �t � 'the; Site .Requirements,.Mat rix .of the Specific-Plan. :This approval is in the form of..,Specific.� Plan Amendment at ° '-#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 arehereinafter referred to as the "Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan" . -1- . s ` 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 CBART 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 4. 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") r`hf tr�x ^� sAn`EIR Supplement Chas -been`prepared for' the Project -`and xi3 iT. " {_e dip hts:5.? a.+ .. ;.theProject: Approvals°2(the e"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 supplementalinformation 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 Y, On June ,23, -1988 :the Planning'Cominssion helds a `pukilic. , , hearing .on the .Proj'ect _and the`:Project Approvals, . and on June `.281 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 19.;:; 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 Axe= r 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 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 4f 1. The General Plan; r Y y �2-. ..The Speci,fic.,Plan; 3. The County. Zoning Ordinance, 4. The Initial. Redevelopment Phan; 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 r 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 es , x p Y p _ of o eration for the retail/service us deliver truck schedules, and develo ment design to, maintain; compatibility: with surrounding uses oxiand limit:;:traffic impacts; and (iii) ' Require study of'.shared parking. plan"prior tofinal - 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 avoidedor substantially lessened by adoption of these mitiga=tion 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 j 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 r : finding is made that.. the -significant , "ff environmental "effect .identifled.,_in .:B I.. (a) atbOVe` " r be avoided- or ,h wt 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 ontheperimeter 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 C capacity to carry the additional waste water generated, by a high-density multiplefamily 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 2c. r {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 -K h paving .materials. in the-` Project and other ;}{,t y : architect. and: design;.,details -to, ensure -compliance ' s ' "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. l.. (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: r t i.. (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- 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 wil1 . s b6"'reduced, if so recommended :by the parking, s t 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 issuanceof 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 "a 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 Consideration's) of this document. -11- �f 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 ahe 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 l 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 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 h � b� ani � .: _ rincrease by 01$ and04$ resPectvel interfering with r 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 bf 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 AlongCreek Channel +rz P ., t (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. . J -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" ,rR -: ry�x approximately 3' million square feet of office =`Y 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 r, Y economic,, social, -and other..considerations F �r ;A infeasible 'certain of"-the project alternatives :identified in. the DEIR as "discussed :i Se tion 4 , 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 EIR 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. �f -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: t1 . 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. pit r ' ,. � •' ' '" - _ '4`' 4� i+ b t.. _ .:j, `4 3 Potential earthquake-caused damage Is .vnavoidable.. 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 I would remain commercial/office. The Project. Site. ; is currently developed into 36 single family-;residences and_.- three shallow lots that:are :designated ;forfoffice -,use �,frontsng ' f on Oak Road }Retaining the :current= designations would: re"duce:- the- traffic and other impacts that would be associated with a - more` intenseuse `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 ,housinq 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 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 t greater ,traffic and traffic-related problems-,.of. the-, type`;, identified, in the"-EIR Sup plement, '.-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 typically wood-frame buildings of the style that have been l traditionally developed in Contra Costa County. This density -20- is far too low to be consistent with the objectives- of the General Plan, 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 bythe developer .and permittedas the maximumProject Site,.density,"pursuant to the; a r# °� , Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan conditions would r, `significantly exacerbate the adverse impacts related to ....F:4 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 l questionable-. l 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 -ion-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 ,:lodation of .the. retail component to,-reduction in. the y ifs size ofretail development, . to elimination'of retail: use' -� F � x.'`° Atogether. ,;`.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 proposedparking 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 alternative is,Iin 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 t F t y t As proposed, the childcare facility included 'in the Project will accommodate approximately 60 children. The childcare structure would be 265.0 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) . J -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 15093 , 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,` YY, 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 l 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 programa 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,dn ,a ,central. location,`Ys ,accessible to'work transit, commercial,; and -community 'facilitxes'-'.Vill. significantly promote. the goal 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- EXHIBIT C�� RESOLUTION NO. 38-1988 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECO14MENDATIONS ON THE REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2743-RZY FOR THE PARR REGENCY SITE IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Urban Holdings, Inc. (.Applicant) to rezone land in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area from R-10 to P-1, Planned Unit Development District, accompanied by a request for preliminary development plan approval was received by the Community Development Department on July 16, 1987; and WHEREAS, all of the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and .the Contra Costa County Guidelines' to implement this act have been met through the preparation of an Environmental. Impact Report Supplement to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, WHEREAS, all of the necessary findings relative to the California Environmental Quality Act are made and attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Significant Environmental.. Impacts, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, " WHEREAS, after due notice was given, the Contra Costa County . Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan ( 27,43-RZ) on June . 23, 1988, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County , Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the .. County of Contra Costa, State of California, that the request for approval of. rezoning and preliminary development- plan made by . _ Urban Holdings,- Inc.'; be approved for change from Single Family _ Residential District (R-1.0) to Planned Unit Development. District (P-1) , and that this zoning change be made. as indicated on the findings maps entitled: Page L-14 of the County' s .1978 Zoning Map; and furthermore, that the Preliminary Development Plan filed with 2743-RZ be approved with specific conditions (Exhibit B, attached) : and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1) The rezoning and preliminary development plan are consistent with the General Plan, as amended by 6-87-CO. f Page 2 Resolution No. 38-1988 2) The rezoning and preliminary development plan are consistent. with the Pleasant Hill BART. Station Area Specific Plan; "as . amended by 1987-3 (SP) . 3) The proposed rezoning and preliminary development .plan are compatible with 'existing development in the area. 4) Conditions of approval will help to mitigatepotential adverse .. impacts on the surrounding area. 5 ) By reference and incorporation, the findings relative to the California Environmental Quality Act attached hereto as Exhibit A are included. The instructions by the Contra Costa County Planning . Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the Commission on Thursday, June 23 , 1988, by the following vote: AYES:. . Commissioners - Davis, Aiello, Whitney, Feliz, NOES: Commissioners - Nimr ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Accornero, Best.. I, George C. Feliz, Chairman of the Contra Costa County, , Planning Commission, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on June 23, 1988 ,` and this resolution was duly and regularly passed- and adopted on June 28 1988, by thefollowingvote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners- .' Accornero Whitney, Nimr, Feliz, NOES: ',,Commissioners .-., None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Best, Davis, Aiello. Page 3 Resolution No. 38-1988 ha' rman of the County Planning Co ission, County of Contra Costa, State of C lifornia ATTEST: S ary t o o y nning C issio C my of Contra Costa, State of Cali ornia EXHIBIT A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, CFINDINGS 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 Element of the General Plan. This approval is in 'the form of 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 r'F,'make related. revisions to :the .Urban Design ,Policy Program and w r - the.. he, Site ,Requirements; Matrix:::of the Specific Plan. This' r» 4a 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- S 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 r 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. 8.3-805, 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 duly 10 , 1984 -(the "Initial Redevelopment Plan EIR Supplement") jrwi int°T An EIR Supplement: has'been "prepared for the Pro3ect `and the_Project 'Approvals (the "EIR: Supplement"):. The EIR Supplement uses 'informat, 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 periodclosed 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 P.lanning. 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,-hg.:, 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 �r-e-- <, 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; 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: t 1. The. General Plan; 2 Th 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 r 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 -0 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, -1 � F delivery ruck . chedules, . and development design to_maintain .compatibility .,with` surrounding uses r_.: "° 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, In"creased 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 Fenviromental°.effect .,identified ,in ,B 1'. (a) above s ng 3 will. be avoided or. Substantially lessened by •` c '*::: SAY, �a ,T 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. u -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 i"s. 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 =� � s (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...1- 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. t (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 othera *t architect and ;design :?details• to`",ensure,.compliances; z j x r ast rs .withCounty visual and design standards; and (ii) Require building, setbacks appropriate to height of- buildings..-- (c) uildings...(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.l . (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 Y, b ,, uildings Along road"frontages "1 rl 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 I 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.l 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 b e reduced, 'if so, recommended by the parking: ri study. ." A (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 Targe 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 '"(Suinmary 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 Projec (estimated ". at 638 to 1295 peak hour rips<:per day) ::would - r+ have:a cumulative impact on"> what 'will be severely congested roadways and intersections-, ;JTntersections 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 amount's 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,,paralleT''parking internal parking area; :; (11:)`. Require. Final' ` :Development Plan to include s'idewalk' and bike path-: or -lane along Project "spine road"; 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 .V 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 n.: (a), Significant Environmental Effect. ` Construction it 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 l 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 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 s;taridardsin :future -� :1 �:. k i 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 l G..2 . (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially l 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 5,'0. 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 J -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. 1 `usx 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 1 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 u, of other current:.and anticipated projects in the vicinity will contribute to local- environmental ;- change. These other projects -Inc: -t s„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 100to 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 maker F ' 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 EIR 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, witha 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 longrange views. of the Briones Halls K 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 l 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 designations would.. reduce . .0 the traffic and ,ot11 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] s 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 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, EIR. Supplement, .and -.would`'also create an y, ;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 typically wood-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 Plan, 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 provisionrof 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 .unitsJacre_ proposed ;for:the, Project by, the, developer and permitted'.as the maximum Project Site .d"ensity .pursuant to the Rezoning/Preliminary Development" Planecondi tions. 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 l questionable. j 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 j 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 .reductim in the ik size of xetail` :development, -to elimination� of retail::use( '' -� altogether.:,'',:This -alternative is, in part, adopted as' part of 'E 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 sizeof 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. J -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 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- 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 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, . W1 imp implement,-•important County goals' 'and policies. set . forth in the to improve the jobs/housing balance in Yj 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, outof 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 ,00.0 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. r'ad# ,development of°such affordable housing,--ina centrah'location, ' , s accessible to':work transit, commercial,; and community s facilities,'.wll :significantly promote the goals and policies. of the Housing "Element of the General Plana 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 l units at the Project :Site, in immediate proximity to the J location from which the units are removed, will minimize disruption of community housing resources. 06/27/88 CEQARES/B32001 -25- :. EXiIBIT "B" ` CONDITIONSOFOF APPROVAL - Preliminary Development Plan, 2743-:RZ 1. Preliminary development plan. approval is granted for the Park Regency project as a mixed use development project which includes high density rental condominium units which may include a senior housing component, and will include a childcare center, neighborhood-serving retail use, . and onsite recreational facilities. The preliminary development plan- is ap- proved as generally shown in the site plan, elevations and other drawings and plans dated received by the Community Development Department on July 22, 1987. The project shall not exceed 892 dwelling units total . The Final Development Plan shall also reflect the conditions of approval cited below. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approv- al . The final landscape ant irrigations plans shall conform with the Coun- ty Water Conservation Policy. A letter of certification shall be submitted with the plans certifying that the plans conform with the County's Water Conservation Policy: The existing major trees along; the creek channel (trunks larger than 9 inches in diameter) shall be preserved. Enhancement landscaping for the creek channel area shall employ native plant species only. 3.- Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submit another study by a licensed arborist which investigates the health and viability of preserving the specimen-size valley oak located at 11 Juana Court. The re- port shall include an evaluation of the root crown and buttress roots of the tree, the extent of decay, the potential longevity of the tree, and the feasibility of preserving the tree. The report shall identify measures which could be taken to protect the tree from construction and development.. impacts and to maximize its health. 4.. Comply with the Parklands Dedication Ordinance. Fees will be required for the total number of dwelling units approved in the final, development plan. 5. A Final Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval which reflects the following changes;:: -A revised parking plan for the childcare center which includes a safe and convenient drive-through loop for drop-off and pick-up- of children which does not interfere with the project's circulation..flow. ' 6 Comply,,with the County Childcare Ordinance. The planning of'the childcare center shall be coordinated _with : the ..Contra Costa Centre- Association.'s {,r childcare program: .:The 'final"- size of the childcare center shal.l`;'not be less than -the capacity -required-.based on ,the .needs assessment study, and, An no case shall it have a capacity less than 60 children. 7. Retail uses shall be limited to neighborhood-serving retail and personal service types of uses subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Ad- ministrator. Hours of operation for the retail/service uses, delivery truck schedules, design details, etc. may be controlled .to maintain compat- ibility with surrounding uses and limit traffic impacts etc. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a plan for a recycling program for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. _ 2 9. The exterior appearance and design of the residential buildings. retai 1. center, childcare center and recreational buildings shall* be generally as : shown in the elevations, renderings, and plans dated received by the Commu- nity Development on July 22, 1987 and the building material and color sam- ple board submitted by the applicant dated November 2, 1987. Any design modifications required through these conditions-of approval or proposed by the applicant shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning. Commission .as a part of the final development plan application submittal. Any subsequent changes to the external appearance of any of the buildings shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 10. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary. 11. Each residential unit shall have illuminated house numbers clearly visible from the street twenty-four hours a day. 12. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and pri- or to installing subdivision improvements or filing a Final Map, submit a preliminary geology, _soil , and foundation report in accordance with Subdi- vision ordinance, Section 94-4.420, for review and approval of the Planning Geologist: The report shall evaluate the potential for earthquake-induced damage to structures, underground lines, roads or ' other improvements. . Grading and building plans shall implement recommendations of the approved report. Final Map shall cite the approved report. Record acknowledgment of the approved report concurrently with recordation of the Final Map. 13. Prior to final development plan 'approval the applicant shall submit a building shadow study for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 14. , Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submita wind study for review and approval by the Planning Commission: ..... i r Prior,to.issuance of building permits; plans shall be submitted to the Com munity. Development Department for unit numbering and approval_ of street names including all private roads and drives. Pleasant" Hill addresses are required for the project. Street names will not change across intersec- tions. 16. The final development plan shall include a sidewalk and bike path or lane along the "spine road" of the project. 17. The final development plan shall include plans for th.e emergency access road barrier on the eastern side of the site. It shall be designed to in- clude an attractive and convenient pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare. 18. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as - follows: A., A development permit application or subsequent subdivision application on the subject property will be required to comply with Titles 9 and .10 of the County Ordinance Code. B. ' Prior to issuance of Building Permits, pay the Pleasant Hill BART Spe- cific Plan Area Fee. Currently the fee is $4.41 per square foot of office/commercial development and $2406 per dwelling unit. This fee is adjusted annually using the CALTRANS Summary-Highway Construction Cost Index. C. Construct the Roadway Improvements substantially in accordance .with the recommendations , contained in the , June 1988 Park Regency Traffic Impact Study prepared by Abrams Associates. (Oak ',Road and Las Juntas Way improvements will be- constructed under Assessment District - 1983-1) . 19. Any'two bedroom units which are assigned tandem parking 'spaces shall not be converted to one bedroom or studio units. The applicant shall attempt to redesign the parking layout to reduce and/or eliminate the number of tandem spaces, prior to approval of the final development plan., 20. The phasing of the retail and childcare centers shall ,be designed to co- . incide with occupancy of the project. The phasing will' be subject to re- view as part of the final development plan. 21. A sign program shall be submitted with the final development plan applica- tion for this project.. 22. Prior to-final development approval , the applicant shall submit a study' of the shared parking plan. The report shall identify . the parking needs of the retail center. The size of the retail center may be adjusted downward.. : : as a result of the study. 23 The atpplicant, w�ll;, coordinate marketing''of the project with area employers a and work with the`Redevelopment Agency in order to reach 'a representative cross section of the community. 24. The project. shall conform with Redevelopment Law requirements regarding affordable housing. A mechanism shall be put in place to ensure the con- tinuation of the affordable housing program should the project be converted. to condominiums with individual ownership. 25. The use of parcels in the southerly portion of Sub Area 3 and 4 of the. sub- ject property are subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Admin- istrator , 4 The following requirements are not conditions of approval . However, the devel- opers should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits on this project. Building Inspection Department 1. Supervised grading permits shall . be required. 2. A preliminary soils investigation report shall be required prior to issu- ance of building permits. Department of Fish and Game 1. Any construction within the banks of the creek on site including, but not limited to, culverts, roads and bridges will require Streambed Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game and mitigation for lost hab- itat. The developer and/or his representative shall notify the Department of Fish and ,Game at P.O.Box 47, Yountville, CA 94599 of any proposed or existing construction project with the banks of the creek. 2. The developer and/or his representative shall notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, CA 94599 of any proposed activities that could substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantial alter the bed-, channel or bank of_the .str.eam. Such activities are subject to Streambed Alteration Agreements and work may not be initiated until said agreements are executed. Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District 1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County. Consolidated Fire District. (See attached letter dated September 15, 1987) . Contra Costa Water District 1. Comply with the: requirements of the - Contra Costa Water. .District (See . at tached letter. dated September 3,;,1987) a • Health Services Department=Environmental health Division 1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division (See attached letter dated Sep- tember 22,, 1987) . JH/df GenA:park-rzc.jh V Findings Map COG INS. DR. ' 40 K7 i P•1 i F r i t 'IM-47 ' R10 To PLEASANT HILL Area Rezone From—S--10 I GEORGE C. FELl2 Chair of the Contra Costa County .Plannicertif ng Commission, State of California, do �ea� THE GpUNTYS that this is a true and correct copy of PAGE 147 z N 1l"IJG MA P indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the matter of URBAN HOLDINGS. . y , Chair of. the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State.of California ATTE T c C tra Costa County tory of he Planning Commission; State of Calif. 7 PLEASANT HILL BART AREA 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I . INTRODUCTION This amendment to the County General Plan pertains to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The amendment area covers approximately twelve acres located in the interior of the block bounded by Coggins Drive, Las Juntas and Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The change places certain lands designated as Single Family Residential Medium Density and Office into BART Multiple Family Residential High Density and Retail . It deletes the collector roads shown on Wayside Lane from Coggins Drive from the Circulation Element. The location of general plan boundaries between land use categories should be ' interpreted generally and flexibly, where such interpretation will allow for an improved project design. II . LAND USE ELEMENT The land use designations referred in this amendment are defined below: BART Multiple Family Residential High Density This land allows for development at a minimum of 35 dwelling units per net acre. Development of the site will. •-r..:equ .r..e: :amendment ..ton the. . Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and will require development under a planned unit development process. Retail This land allows for project serving retail use. All proposed retail uses must be reviewed to assure that uses are designed and limited as a project-serving or local neighborhood-serving retail use to prevent .the generation of additional traffic in the area. III . CIRCULATION ELEMENT The collector road for Wayside Lane from Coggins Drive to the approximate location of Elena Court is deleted by this amendment. The addition of access into the interior of the block from Oak Road and Las Junta Way will eliminate the need for the Coggins Drive access. Pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access should be retained. MF/df . genA:phbart.mf Exhibit D PARK REGENCY PROJECT PLEASANT HILL BART AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS MAP: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BOUNDARY OF AMENDMENT AREA ul(IUrfgllflfllll AT'Ul.7. I I gr>tq Ilrlrllltltlll� M"I t mnnmm mr**—+In�H ntnfl t imp .. glllfltuhfiu PROPOSED RETAIL0 L iz WA T. PROPOSED BART MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.- =" HIGH DENSITY :j s •� �;' •,_ o 1"-600' B3 • TREAT etvo _ ` a 3 0 = U.- mu LEGEND BART Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density Mixed Use BART Multiple Family Residential-High Density - I`.; Utility/Open Space Corridors •r. -w Single Family Residential-Medium Density Public/Semi-Public Office Retail I hereby certify that this statement to I hereby certify that this amendment to the Contr Costa County General Plan was the Contra Costa County General Plan was Approve by C y Planning Commission Adopted by � eBoard of Supervisors on on JUL 1 tS Phil Batchelor,- Caerk of the Board of Superv'sors and Count Administrator 0By: Deputy -'Har-.vey t ,Brdon,_-Secretary Exhibit D PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT This amendment to the Land Use Designation and modification in building height restrictions of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan covers the approximately 12 acre area identified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan as Sub Area 3 and a portion of Sub Area 1 and Sub Area 4. This amendment is based on the judgement that high density multi-family residential and residential serving retail and child care are appropriate to the amendment area and will help to improve the jobs/housing balance within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area by providing a high concentration of housing near office development within the BART station area. It will also maximize the opportunity for convenient public transit use by locating a high density residential project near the BART station. A. Land Use Amendment The amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan redesignates the subject property from "Single Family Residential", "Multiple Family Residential " and "Commercial/Office to "Multiple Family Residential " and "Mixed Use". The interior of the site, which is presently developed with single family residences fronting on Elena Court, Juana Court and Elena Drive, are redesignated as Multiple Family Residential land use. The Specific Plan does not specify a density range ow 'limit far-chis land use category. The most westerly portion of the subject property which fronts on Oak Road is redesignated "Mixed Use" . The proposed "Mixed Use" land use designation permits uses which are considered complimentary to the multi-family residential use on the site, such as project-serving retail use. Corresponding changes in the Land Use Matrix of the Specific Plan will be made to define the -permissible and conditional land uses for the amendment area. Because the subject property includes not only Sub Area 3, but also portions of Sub Areas 1 and 4, changes are approved in the matrix under Sub Area 1 and 3. Sub Area 1 In Sub Area 1 the following types of uses are added as conditional uses subject to use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator: Convenience Retail Sales Food and Beverage Retail Sales General Retail Sales Personal and Repair Services Office Exhibit E J 2 . Sub Area 3 In Sub Area 3 single Family Dwellings are eliminated as a permissible use and Multiple Family Dwellings are added as a permissible use. B. Building Height Restrictions The amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan include changes in the building height limits which are shown in the Urban Design Policy Diagram (Figure 14 of the Specific Plan) and the Site Requirements Matrix (Figure 7 of the Specific Plan) . The Specific Plan amendments would lessen the building height restrictions in the amendment area. Four stories are allowed as permissible building height and six stories would be allowed as a conditional building height. The change in building height limits in part corresponds with the density change from single to multiple family residential use. Increased building height limits may also be allowed along a gradient as one moves closer to the freeway and to the BART Station and development intensity increases. In reviewing development proposals which fall within the proposed conditional height range (e.g. five to six stories) , consideration will be given to the following kinds of site planning and design factors: potential shading impacts, potential "wind tunnel " impacts, visual impacts and mitigating architectural features, the physical relationship to adjacent buildings or property, site layout and,b'uildin'g -:setbacks. MF/JH:plp genA:phbartsp.mf Exhibit E t • i'i t a i i•�i, �a*i3 Mt tfi � s� �11fII1�f1C11IN 1., `ii••+i❖si. r • r'�ri�rrrrv'wr�!rr. � >�`''` t�' iii Y� �•+•••.•a••• ••• •.••••..•.••• Ilfllllniflllff •'•'° *.�. • MOMMS AIIII!!!lllpll •'" l�Itti� ••�.••. •••s ••••:;ad dl iii ! • • • � • !• « p- s EXHIBIT 'T" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, - Preliminary Development Plan, 2743-RZ 1. Preliminary development plan approval is granted for the Park Regency project as a mixed use development project which includes high density rental condominium units which may include a senior housing component, and will include a childcare center, neighborhood-serving retail use, and onsite recreational facilities. The preliminary development plan is ap- proved as generally shown in the site plan, elevations and other drawings and plans dated received by the Community Development Department on July 22, 1987. The project shall not exceed 892 dwelling units total . The Final Development Plan shall also reflect the conditions of approval cited below. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approv- al . The final landscape and irrigations plans shall conform with the Coun- ty Water Conservation Policy. A letter of certification shall be submitted with the plans certifying that the plans conform with the County's Water Conservation Policy. The existing major trees along the creek channel (trunks larger than 9 inches in diameter) shall be preserved. Enhancement landscaping for the creek channel area shall employ native plant species only. 3. Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submit another study by a licensed arborist which investigates the health and viability of preserving the specimen-size valley oak located at 11 Juana Court. The re- port shall include an evaluation of the root crown and buttress roots of the tree, the extent of decay, the potential longevity of the tree, and the feasibility of preserving the tree. The report shall identify measures which could be taken to protect the tree from construction and development impacts and to maximize its health. 4. Comply with the Parklands Dedication Ordinance. " F46swi'Tl' b'e''require"d 'for the total number of dwelling units approved in the final development plan. 5. A Final Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval which reflects the following changes.: -A revised parking plan for the childcare center which includes a safe and convenient drive-through loop for drop-off and pick-up of children which does not interfere with the project's circulation flow. 6. Comply with the County Childcare Ordinance. The planning of the childcare center shall be coordinated with the Contra Costa Centre Association's childcare program. The final size of the childcare center shall not be less than the capacity required based on the needs assessment study, and, in no case shall it have a capacity less than 60 children. 7. Retail uses shall be limited to neighborhood-serving retail and personal service types of uses subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Ad- ministrator. Hours of operation for the retail/service uses, delivery truck schedules, design details, etc. may be controlled to maintain compat- ibility with surrounding uses and limit traffic impacts etc. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a plan for a recycling program for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 2 9. The exterior appearance and design of the residential buildings, retail center, childcare center and recreational buildings shall be generally as shown in the elevations, renderings, and plans dated received by the Commu- nity Development on July 22, 1987 and the building material and color sam- ple board submitted by the applicant dated November 2, 1987. Any design modifications required through these conditions of approval or proposed by the applicant shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan application submittal . Any subsequent changes to the external appearance of any of the buildings shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 10. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and- suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary. 11. Each residential unit shall have illuminated house numbers clearly visible from the street twenty-four hours a day. 12. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and pri- or to installing subdivision improvements or filing a Final Map, submit a preliminary geology, soil , and foundation report in accordance with Subdi- vision ordinance, Section 94-4.420, for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. The report shall evaluate the potential`f" earthquake-induced damage to structures, underground lines, roads or other improvements. Grading and building plans shall implement recommendations of the approved report. Final Map shall cite the approved report. Record acknowledgment of the approved report concurrently with recordation of the Final Map. 13. Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submit a building shadow study for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 14. Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submit a wind study for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 15. Prior to -issuance of building permits, plans shall be submitted to the Com- munity Development Department for unit numbering and approval of street names including all private roads and drives. Pleasant Hill addresses are required for the project. Street names will not change across intersec- tions. 16. The final development plan shall include a sidewalk and bike path or lane along the "spine road" of the project. 17. The final development plan shall include plans for the emergency access road barrier on the eastern side of the site. It shall be designed to in- clude an attractive and convenient pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare. 3 18. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. A development permit application or subsequent subdivision application on the subject property *will be required to comply with' Titles 9 and 10 of the County Ordinance Code. B. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, pay the Pleasant Hill BART Spe- cific Plan Area Fee. Currently the fee is $4.41 per square foot of office/commercial development and $2406 per dwelling unit. This fee is adjusted annually using the CALTRANS Summary-Highway Construction Cost Index. C. Construct the Roadway Improvements substantially in accordance with the recommendations contained in the June 1988 Park Regency Traffic Impact Study prepared by Abrams Associates. (Oak Road and Las Juntas Way improvements will be constructed under Assessment District 1983-1) . D. Request the Community Development Department to: 1. Determine what percentage of the $2406 fee per unit should be attributed to the regional mitigation program, and 2. Negotiate with the applicant an additional amount, if any, to meet the equivalent of the 50Q per squar'e-foot"for regional miti- gation assessed against the office space. 19. Any two bedroom units which are assigned tandem parking spaces shall not be converted to one bedroom or studio units. The applicant shall attempt to redesign the parking layout to reduce and/or eliminate the number of tandem spaces, prior to approval of the final development plan. 20. The phasing of the retail and childcare centers shall be designed to co- incide with occupancy of the project. The phasing will be subject to re- view as part of the. final development plan. 21. A sign program shall be submitted with the final development plan applica- tion for this project. 22. Prior to final development approval , the applicant shall submit a study of the shared parking plan. The report shall identify the parking needs of the retail center. The size of the retail center may be adjusted downward as a result of the study. 23. The applicant will coordinate marketing of the project with area employers and work with the Redevelopment Agency in order to reach a representative cross section of the community. 24. The project shall conform with Redevelopment Law requirements regarding affordable housing. A mechanism shall be put in place to ensure the 4 continuation of the affordable housing program should the project be con- verted to condominiums with individual ownership. 25. The use of parcels in the southerly portion of Sub Area .3 and 4 of the sub- ject property are subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Admin- istrator. 26. Before the issuance of building permits the applicant shall participate with the Contra Costa Centre Association in jointly implementing a public information program approved by the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency about the Pleasant Hill BART Station planning and the benefits of jobs/housing balance. The following requirements are not conditions of approval . However, the devel- opers should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits on this project. Building Inspection Department 1. Supervised grading permits shall be required. 2. A preliminary soils investigation report shall be required prior to issu- ance of building permits. Department of Fish and Game 1. Any construction within the banks of the creek on site including, but not limited to, culverts, roads and bridges will require Streambed Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game and mitigation for lost hab- itat. The developer and/or his representative shall notify the Department of Fish and Game at P.O.Box 47, Yountville, CA 94599 of any proposed or existing construction project with the banks of the creek. 2. The developer and/or his representative shall notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, CA 94599 of any proposed activities that could substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantial alter the bed, channel or bank of the stream. Such activities are subject to Streambed Alteration Agreements and work may not be initiated until said agreements are executed. Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District 1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. (See attached letter dated September 15, 1987) . Contra Costa Water District 1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District (See at- tached letter dated September 3, 1987) . 5 Health Services Department-Environmental Health Division 1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division (See attached letter dated Sep- tember 22, 1987) . JH/df GenA:park-rzc.jh