Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 09181984 - 84-561 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Re: Denial of appeals to Orinda ) RESOLUTION NO. 84/561 Area Planning Commission' s ) approval and approval by the ) r Board of Development Plan ) 3055-82 , Variances and Final ) Environmental Impact Report ) for The Crossroads, Orinda ) ----------------------------------- The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: The three (3) appeals to the Orinda Area Planning Commission' s approval of Development Plan, variances and Final Environmental Impact Report are denied. Development Plan 3055-82, as revised, parking variance, height variance, signage variance and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Crossroads, Orinda are approved and granted subject to the Board' s conditions of Approval for Development Plan 3055-82 set out in Exhibit "A" hereto and based upon the following findings : I . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS: 1 . Following submission of applications for approval of Development Plan 3055-82 and included parking, height and signage variance requests for the redevelopment of a city block in central Orinda involving the removal of existing improvements and construction of a one-to-four-story building complex above three (3) levels of sub-surface parking (the "Project") , an Initial Study for the Project was prepared and it was determined that an environmental impact report was required to be prepared for the Project. Based upon such Initial Study and further information and evidence, the scope of the environmental impact report was properly formulated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June, 1983, (the "Draft EIR") was prepared by Steven D. Billington, M.C.R.P. under the direction of the Contra Costa County Planning Department. 3 . Copies of the Draft EIR were circulated to the appropriate agencies and made available to the public prior to July 1 , 1983 . 4 . After completion of the Draft EIR, the Notice of Completion was given on July 13, 1983 , by mailing the same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations , and individuals. Such agencies , organizations and individuals were all of the persons entitled to such notice pursuant to Section -1- RESOLUTION NO. 84/561 00202 15085 (c) , (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. Additional notices were given by publication and posting in accordance with Section 15085 (d) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. 5. Public hearings on the Draft EIR were conducted by the Orinda Area Planning Commission (the "Commission") on July 25 and August 29 , 1983 wherein comments of the general public were received orally by the Commission. Additional written comments of members of the general public and governmental agencies were received prior to and after such hearing. 6 . Subsequently, Steven D. Billington for the Contra Costa County Planning Department prepared Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volumes 1 and II , dated February, 1984 (the "Responses to Draft EIR Comments") incorporating and responding to all written and oral comments previously received on the Draft EIR. 7 . Copies of the Responses to Draft EIR Comments were made available to the general public and public agencies to the extent required by the CEQA Guidelines. 8 . On February 16 , 1984 , the Commission conducted a further public hearing on the Draft EIR and Responses to Draft EIR Comments . At that time, the Commission formally certified these documents as the Final EIR, and certified that said Final EIR was adequate for the Project. 9 . On April 5, 1984 and April 17 , 1984 , the Commission held public hearings on the Project wherein oral testimony was received from representatives of responsible agencies and the general public . Following said hearings, the Commission approved the Development Plan for the Project, with conditions (DP 3055-82) , and granted variances from height, parking and signage standards in the C-B Zoning District. The Commission thereupon adopted its Findings Relative to Approval of Development Plan, Variances, and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Crossroads , Orinda (the "Commission's Findings") . None of the written evidence filed and no person speaking at the public hearings before the Commission raised any objection to the adequacy of the Final EIR or the procedures followed in certifying its completion. 10 . Following the appeals to this Board of the Commission' s decision, filed by the Orinda Association, by the Friends of the Orinda Theater, and by the applicant, the Board has conducted additional hearings on the Project , on May 29 , June 26, July 24 , August 7, and August 21 , 1984 . None of the written appeals or evidence filed and no person speaking at the public hearings before this Board raised any objection to the -2- 00203 RESOLUTION NO. 84/,50/ adequacy of the Final EIR or the procedures followed in certifying its completion. 11 . The within findings of this Board (the "Findings") , have been prepared and adopted in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. 12 . From and after preparation of the Draft EIR, (a) no changes have been made in the Project which require any revisions to the Final EIR; (b) no significant or substantial changes have occurred in any of the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken which could result in involvement of any new significant environmental impact not covered in the Final EIR; and (c) no new information of any importance to the Project has become available , including without limitation (i) information which would show that the Project, as approved, would have significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR, (ii) information that significant effects previously found to exist will become more severe under the Project, as approved, than as discussed in the Final EIR; (iii) information that mitigation measures previously found feasible have become infeasible; or (iv) information that other alternatives or mitigation measures exist which were not considered in the Final EIR. The Final EIR is complete, adequate and in full compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act , CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations , and all proceedings for the environmental review process and preparation of the Final EIR have been conducted and completed in full compliance with the policy and the specific requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations . 13 . In connection with the appeals from the Commission' s decision, the Applicant has submitted certain changes in the Project design in response to concerns evidenced by this Board and members of the public and this Board has required changes in the conditions of approval , and has held duly noticed public hearings with respect to such changes . The Board has approved such changes in the interest of finally resolving all issues posed by the appeals without unnecessary duplication of effort, time and expense to the County of Contra Costa, the applicant, and all interested parties, ' and finds that the record, as a whole, provides ample information upon which to make the within Findings in connection with the resolution of these appeals. Accordingly, the Board finds that further hearings before the Commission are neither necessary nor appropriate under County ordinances or other applicable law, and that the Board' s decision concerning the Project is a final disposition of all matters raised in the appeals and of all matters pertaining to the Final Environmental Impact Report, the variances and the -3- RESOLUTION NO. 84/.5�/ 00204 development plan approval. As generally set out in Paragraph I (12) above, the Board specifically finds that the changes in the Project design made by the Applicant are not changes which require revisions or supplements to the Final EIR; but constitute mitigation measures most of which are discussed in the Final EIR. 14 . From and after the date of the Initial Study, the Project has been a single Project for purposes of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines . All changes in the Project after the initial application either have been proposed by the applicant in direct response to the identification of and need to mitigate or avoid specific negative environmental effects of the Project as originally proposed or as approved by the Commission, or have been imposed by the County of Contra Costa for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding entirely the significant adverse environmental effects of the Project as proposed or as revised by the applicant. 15 . All of the foregoing hearings and proceedings were conducted under and in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the County of Contra Costa, statutes of the State of California, and Guidelines of the Resources Agency of the State of California, including without limitation, all requirements of published, posted and mailed notices pursuant to all of the foregoing ordinances, statutes and guidelines. 16 . The environmental review process has been carried out with full and adequate opportunities for review and comment by members of the public and interested public agencies . No person or agency has been deprived of full and fair opportunity and ample time to comment on each document comprising the Final EIR or the Project and all revisions thereto. 17 . The Board hereby denies each of the three (3) appeals based upon the foregoing findings and the findings which follow, and approves the revised Project as it has been redesigned to conform with this Board' s requirements, including the variances and the development plan. II . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT The Final EIR (as defined above) identifies a number of significant environmental effects of the Project and recommends specific mitigation measures for each of such effects. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Board hereby makes the following findings with respect to such significant effects: 1 . Zoning: The Draft EIR, pages 5 and 83 noted that with the exceptions of building height and off-street -4- Q 0 2 05 RESOLUTION NO. 84/,561 parking the proposed Project is consistent with the property " development standards of the C-B Zoning District in which the Project is located. The Board, in Section VI of these Findings , has determined that the height of the Project is acceptable for a number of architectural design and overall community economic vitality reasons and has determined that a grant of a variance would not be a special privilege, would not set an adverse precedent and would not have a significant impact on the surrounding area. In addition, the Board finds that the effect of the height variance is mitigated by the imposition of Condition 2 in the Board' s Conditions , a copy of which is attached to these Findings as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. That Condition requires that at least ninety (90) days prior to application for a building permit the applicant shall submit detailed development plans which, among other things, shall include revised elevations and roof plans which will incorporate additional sloping roofs on the Bryant`Way frontage which shall bring the roof line of that portion of the Project down to the top of the third level. The Board further finds that the final revised design of the Project reducing the number of stories from five to four levels over parking, has further mitigated the impact of the height variance. The Board finds that said mitigation measures are fully implemented by Condition 2 and by the revised Project design presented to the Board in these appeals, and that for the reasons set out in Section IV of these Findings the grant of a height variance is justified. 2. General Plan: The Board has found that the Project, as approved, is consistent with the General Plan (see Section VII of these Findings) . Although the Draft EIR properly pointed out at page 85 that interpretation of mixed land use consistency with the general plan is beyond the scope of the EIR, it also concluded on pages (i) and 84-85 that the Project office space was inconsistent with certain general plan policies, and identified this as a significant environmental effect. Under the findings relative to general plan consistency (Section VIII , below) , the Board has concluded that the EIR' s conclusion was taken into account and that the Project, as approved, is consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the Board finds that the mitigation measure referred to in the Draft EIR, pages (i) through (ii) relative to general plan consistency are not necessary, that the Project, as a whole, has only a minor adverse effect, if any, upon the general plan policies pertaining to limitations of office development, and that this effect is outweighed by the effects of the Project which effectively promote other policies of the general plan including enhancement of the community by improvement of the aesthetic appearance, retail shopping convenience, and economic base of the community. -5- RESOLUTION NO. 84/56/ nn {n�* 002.00 3 3 . Sewer Facilities Relocation: The Draft EIR at pages 6 and 86 noted that the construction of the Project' s suLzuLfacc parking garage would require relocation of the sewer mains in Bryant Way which would have two significant effects. First, it was possible that the relocation of the sewer mains would require removal of all or a portion of the existing trees and shrubs along the north side of Bryant Way. Second, additional vegetation might have to be removed in the future to provide repair vehicle access to service the sewer mains since adequate roadway access would not be available. The Board finds that these significant adverse effects have been fully mitigated in the revised Project as approved on appeal , by eliminating intrusion onto the portion of the Bryant 'Way right-of-way in which the sewer facilities are located . These revisions have completely eliminated the effect of the Project on sewer relocation, as recommended in the Draft EIR, and accordingly that the alternative mitigation measures previously imposed by the Commission in its previous condition 19 is no longer necessary or appropriate. 4 . Archaeology: The Draft EIR at pages 9 and 87 note that based upon its location the Project site is in an area of high archaeological sensitivity and, therefore, the potential exists for significant impact on archaeological sites which might be encountered during development. The Board finds that said significant environmental impact is fully mitigated by the imposition of Condition 3 of the Conditions which requires the applicant to retain an archaeologist to examine the site during various stages of Project earth work and to provide specific mitigation measures should archaeological materials be encountered. Based upon the implementation of said condition all significant archaeological effects caused by the Project will be avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. 5. Noise: As noted by the Draft EIR at page 87, two significant noise effects will be encountered or caused by the Project. First, the Project buildings will be exposed to high exterior noise levels resulting from Highway 24 and the BART facilities which may result in exterior noise levels on the order of 65 to 75 dB CNEL. Second, while the Project is being built the noise generated by construction activities during certain phases of construction may be 20-40 dB CNEL in excess of current levels at the Project site. This latter effect is also discussed in letters from David L. Corwin, M.D. and Charles M. Salter P.E. dated December 21 , 1983, and December 28 , 1983 , respectively. These noise effects have been significantly reduced by increasing the setback of the Project from Highway 24 , and therefore mitigation of these effects is not required. -6- RESOLUTION NO. 84/S'6/ 00207 The Board finds that all of the significant adverse noise effects of the Project are fully mitigated by the imposition of Condition 4 which sets construction standards on windows, doorways and other openings in the vicinity of Highway 24 and requires that construction equipment be muffled and maintained in good mechanical condition; that noisy construction operations be limited to day time hours and that, where practical, a program be established for the utilization of quieter construction equipment such as back hoes, motor graders and nail guns . The Board finds that with the implementation of such mitigation measures, all significant adverse noise effects caused by the Project will be avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. 6 . Urban Design/Project Design: The Draft EIR notes on page 87 and the Commission found, that the Project, as approved by the Commission, substantially met the Design Guidelines for the Orinda Central Business District. The Board further finds that the revised Project, as approved by the Board, substantially meets the Design Guidelines . The Draft EIR further notes that the density, building mass and height of the Project are of such scope that the Project may be inconsistent with the General Plan and the Design Guidelines in terms of "low lying" architecture, village character and compatibility with adjacent development. The Board' s findings relative to consistency with the General Plan and with the C-B District zoning contained in Sections VI and VII , below, are incorporated herein. Board finds that any residual adverse impacts caused by the scope of the Project are further mitigated by the design of the Project which locates the largest part of the Project with the greatest mass and height in the northeast corner adjacent to Highway 24 . This results in the logical organization of the building mass with the Project stepping down to a two-story height in the southern portions of the Project. In addition, extensive use of open spaces , courtyards, articulated design, and arcades provide visual penetration from the exterior of the Project, and reduce the apparent mass of the Project. In addition, the following are measures which mitigate the remaining residual adverse effects of the size and scope of the Project. a. The largest portion of the Project with the greatest mass and height is located at the northeast corner of the Project site. This impact is reduced by the removal of a floor level of the Project as revised on appeal and approved by the Board. Condition 2 further requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant submit detailed plans showing revised elevations and the utilization of sloping roofs in the northern corner of the Project and along Bryant'Way to decrease the visual size and height of the Project. -7- RESOLUTION NO. 841,5-61 00208 b. The revised Project further mitigates the most significant impact of the Project, which the EIR identified as the height and scale of the Project as viewed from the adjacent freeway and BART, by removing it from the Bryant Way right-of-way so that it no longer abuts the freeway. c. Condition 9 requires that any outdoor use of the site be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator to determine the effect of the use on Project esthetics. d. The applicant is required by Condition 10 to retain a tree specialist to be on the site at any time construction will occur in the vicinity of the oak tree at Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to insure that this tree will be preserved to continue to contribute to the village character of the Crossroads area. e. Condition 12 requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit a plan for landscape maintenance and tenant improvement design control including building standards shall be submitted to the county. f. Condition 15 requires that all glazing on the Project shall be done with transparent glass to maximize the visual penetration of structures. g. Condition 17 requires that a sign program be prepared and submitted for review and recommendation by the Commission. h. The applicant is required to provide additional landscaping between the parking lot and the adjacent streets and the retaining walls at the northerly end of the Project shall be softened and berms or low landscape walls shall be provided at Brookwood Road. These requirements are contained in Condition 20. i. Condition 23J requires that all utility distribution services be installed underground. j . The Draft EIR on page 99 suggests as a mitigation measure the requirement that applicant provide a bond to insure that the quality of finished materials, landscaping, street furniture will actually be provided at the level proposed. The Board finds that in lieu of a bond Condition 22 requires that applicant retain Sandy & Babcock through the duration of the design and construction phase to insure that the approved design concept is achieved. The Board finds that all of such mitigation measures are fully implemented by the Conditions and that based -8- RESOLUTION NO. 84/S61 00209 upon such implementation all significant urban design/project design impacts caused by the Project will be either completely avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. 7 . Cultural/Historical Resources: As noted on page 99 of the Draft EIR, the author of that document feels the removal of the Orinda Theatre and the Wells Fargo/American Trust Bank Building will cause a significant impact because of the loss of structures with important cultural/historic value in general . The Board finds that mitigation alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on pages 99 and 100 of the Draft EIR and as more exhaustively proposed in Section 7 of Volume 2 of the Responses to Comments are infeasible and undesirable due to the adverse effect such mitigation measures would have on the excellent design and conception of the Project and upon the opportunity the Project affords to enhance the overall ambiance and vitality of the surrounding retail area. The Board finds that the significant adverse impact is mitigated by conditions 5 and 21 (B) of the conditions which require that prior to applying for a building permit the applicant present a study in detail of how to preserve as many of the Orinda Theatre and American Trust Bank Building' s interior items as possible, which items shall be preserved and used or displayed in the new facility or offered to a historical society. In addition, a complete color photographic record of the buildings is to be made available to the public in book or pamphlet form. The Board finds that said conditions fully implement the recommended mitigation measures and that based upon such implementation all significant cultural/historic adverse impacts are avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. Further mitigation is both unnecessary and undesirable for reasons set forth in Section VII , clause 8 , of these Findings and by reason of the overriding considerations set forth in Section V of these Findings. 8 . Traffic/Circulation: (a) Delays on Northbound Camino Pablo: The increased delay on northbound Camino Pablo traffic due to increased left turns from Camino Pablo to Brookwood Road (impact 1 , Draft EIR, page 102) is fully mitigated by conditions 23 (D) (1) , (2) , and (3) . The Board notes that the mitigation measures imposed by the referenced conditions of approval include all of the recommendations denominated "project mitigation" as well as the mitigation denoted "area mitigation" with respect to impact 1 on page 102 of the Draft EIR. (b) Left Turn Conflicts at Brookwood/Camino Pablo Intersection: Impact number 2 identified on page 102 of the Draft EIR, involving increased left turn conflicts and safety problems at the Brookwood Road/Camino Pablo intersection =9- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,5'6/ 00210 resulting from increased southbound to eastbound left turns onto Brcckw.,od is fully mitigated by condition number 23 (D) (5) , which follows the Draft EIR recommendation requiring a modification of the existing signal system to provide a separate left turn phase. (c) Congestion on Brookwood Frontage and Brookwood/Moraga Way Intersection: The impacts identified as numbers 3 and 4 on page 102 of the Draft EIR are adequately mitigated by the imposition of condition 23 (D) (2) , which requires a modification of striping on westbound Brookwood Road to provide for a separate right hand turn lane and further study of Brookwood Road as a one-way street, by Conditions 12 and 21 (C) , requiring a parking plan and delivery plan, and by the revised Brookwood Road parking lot entrance (which was redesigned after preparation of the Draft EIR to reduce congestion and backup into Brookwood Road) , and by the redesigned Project, which retains Bryant Way as a potential element of a revised circulation plan and freeway access pattern in the Orinda Crossroads area. The "minimum required mitigation" for Impact No. 4 , namely, the placement of stop signs at the Moraga 'Way/Brookwood intersection, is not necessary in that the principal source of increased congestion (turns into the Moraga ,Way garage entrance) has been eliminated by relocating the garage entrance to Bryant'*Way. Although the Commission found that the other mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR to address Impacts 3 and 4 were infeasible and undesirable, the Board believes that such improvements may in the future become feasible and desirable if appropriate funding becomes available for a restructuring of traffic patterns and freeway access in the area, that the effect of this Project is reduced to acceptable levels by the above-referenced conditions and revisions , that the area-wide impacts on the intersection are adequately mitigated by leaving open the option for further improvements as well as the the requirement that the Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed to improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area, and that all significant effects relative to the Brookwood/Camino Pablo intersection and the Brookwood frontage therefore are mitigated and reduced to acceptable levels. The establishment of Bryant Way as a two-way street cut through to Camino Pablo would allow for making Brookwood Road a one-way street, as proposed by the Draft EIR. The extension of Bryant'Way to Camino Pablo would not, however, resolve the primary source of congestion at the Moraga Way/Brookwood Road intersection and along Moraga 'Way, which is the use by northbound commuters of Moraga Way as a route from northbound Camino Pablo to the eastbound Highway 24 onramp. This problem exists without regard to the present Project. Unless Moraga'Way were made one-way so as to preclude such commuter use -10- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,x/ 00211 of Moraga Way, existing congestion levels would be essentially unaffected by the conversion of Brookwood Road to a one-way street and the cutting through of Bryant Way to Camino Pablo. The EIR consultant' s recommendation that the Bryant ,Way extension and conversion of Brookwood Road to one-way traffic occur without converting Moraga Way to a one-way street, the Board finds, would probably exacerbate existing traffic problems in the area by complicating existing traffic patterns near the freeway while producing no tangible benefits. The Orinda Association alternative, calling for the conversion of both Moraga Way and Brookwood Road to one-way streets , is found to be of potential value although it may reduce the visibility and ease of access to merchants located on Moraga Way and would require substantial improvements and relocations of other streets in the vicinity. The adverse effects and costs of these improvements may not be justified for the benefits obtained, and the Board believes further study is warranted before any particular remedy for existing problems is selected. This particular Project, in any event, has not caused the problems which the Orinda Association plan and the EIR consultant' s plan seek to address , and contributes only incrementally to the congestion of Brookwood Road and Moraga' Way; this incremental effect of the project is fully mitigated by condition 23 (E) requiring that the Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed to improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area. The revised Project, as approved by this Board, preserves and improves the existing traffic pattern while leaving all potential routes available for future use if they become necessary. The Commission has required, and the Board concurs , that a further study of the potential for conversion of Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to one-way traffic should be made, and such conversion may occur at a later date. The Board has expanded the matters to be studied to include revised freeway access patterns , realignment of the Moraga'Way/Brookwood/Camino Pablo/Camino Encinas intersection and the extension of Bryant'Way through to Camino Pablo. The Board finds that this condition has the potential to further mitigate traffic and circulation problems involving Moraga Way and Brookwood as well as surrounding streets. The Board finds that the Bryant'Way extension may be necessary to such future improvements as may be undertaken to correct existing circulation problems involving Moraga 'Way and Brookwood Road. Conversion of Brookwood Road and Moraga Way to one-way traffic to eliminate northbound commuter traffic use of Moraga'Way for access to the eastbound Highway 24 onramp could still be accomplished without the Bryant Way extension, but the revised Project, as approved, also allows for use of Bryant 'Way -11- RESOLUTION NO. 84/�J / 00212 in anv such restructuring. The Bryant'Way extension may not be a desirable addition for purposes of providing a direct onramp from Camino Pablo onto eastbound Highway 24 because several properties and businesses along Bryant Way easterly of Moraga way would continue to require access along Bryant'Way, as would Bates Boulevard. Diversion of commuter traffic from Moraga Way to an eastbound onramp for Highway 24 could also be accomplished by provision for a left turn onto the existing hook-type onramp presently accessible only to southbound Camino Pablo vehicles . The Bryant Way extension could also result in conflicting traffic patterns and potentially exacerbate congestion at the Bryant Way/Moraga Way intersection. Nonetheless, the Board believes it is appropriate to retain Bryant Way, contrary to the Commission' s findings . Accordingly, the Board finds that Impacts 3 and 4 are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, that further mitigation measures concerning existing traffic conditions to which this project incrementally contributes are reduced to acceptable levels by the requirement that the Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed to " . improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area, and the further studies described above, and that while the specific mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and by other commentators with respect to traffic and circulation Impacts 3 and 4 are presently infeasible for economic reasons, for socio-political reasons involving the interests of other property owners and businesses in the area, and for traffic engineering reasons, that the Project, as approved by this Board, reserves all future options to the maximum extent feasible. . (d) Congestion at Moraga Way/Bryant Way Intersection: Impact Number 5 on page 102 of the Draft EIR, pertaining to congestion at the Moraga'Way/Bryant Way intersection due to the proposed garage entrance/exit, is fully mitigated and eliminated by the redesigned project, as approved by the Board, which relocates the garage entrance/exit to Bryant Way and eliminates the Moraga Way entrance/exit. The truck dock/loading facility is further required to be relocated and/or removed under Conditions 12 and 21 (C) , which require that the applicant submit for approval by the Commission a plan for operation of the parking facility and develop a feasible plan for deliveries to the northerly structure. In addition, the retention of Bryant Way makes feasible the area-wide mitigation measures referred to in the Draft EIR, at such time, if any, as such circulation improvements are needed for public convenience and safety in the Orinda Crossroads area. (e) Congestion at Moraga`Way/Camino Pablo Intersection: Impact Number 6 referenced on page 103 of the Draft EIR is satisfactorily mitigated by the requirement that the -12- RESOLUTION NO. 841561 Q 0 21 3 applicant contribute to the fair share of costs of off-site traffic improvements including signalization of this inter- section by agreeing to make the Project part of an assessment district (Condition 23 (E) ) . This impact is also mitigated by the requirement that Moraga Way be widened to Overhill Drive, although this was not referenced in the Draft EIR. The remaining area mitigation impacts are mitigated to the extent appropriate for this Project by the requirement that Applicant agree to make the Project part of a traffic and circulation assessment district (condition 23 (E) ) , and by the requirement that the Project not intrude into the Bryant Way right of way on the north side, except at the corner of Moraga Way and Bryant'Way, leaving Bryant `Way available to be incorporated in future area-wide circulation improvements, as found above. (f) Congestion at Camino Pablo/Brookwood: The Area Impact identified as Impact Number 7 on page 103 of the Draft EIR is adequately mitigated by the requirement that the Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed to improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area. As found above, the Project, as approved, does not prevent the making of the appropriate improvements to the Brookwood Road/Camino Pablo/Camino Encinas intersection at such time as they become necessary or convenient. (g) Open Parking Lot: Impact Number 8 on page 103 of the Draft EIR, pertaining to potential congestion in the open parking lot and backup onto Brookwood Road from delivery trucks is satisfactorily mitigated by the revised design of the parking lot contained in the Commission' s approved Development Plan and retained in the revised Project as approved by this Board, and is further mitigated by the requirement that the applicant provide a parking plan and delivery plan (Conditions 12 and 21 (C) ) . (h) General Impact: The foregoing mitigation measures adequately mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of the Project upon traffic and circulation in the Orinda Crossroads Area. The Board finds that the impact of the Project on traffic and circulation is insubstantial in that the revised Project, as approved by the Board, will generate only an additional 5 - 6% of traffic in the immediate area and that the Project, as approved, including the conditions pertaining to parking and traffic and circulation and that the retention of Bryant 'Way, will significantly improve traffic circulation and reduce congestion in the Orinda Crossroads Area, and in addition that it will contribute its fair share to the resolution of area-wide or cumulative problems through the requirement that the Applicant agree to make the Project part of any assessment district formed to improve traffic and circulation in the Crossroads area. In addition, the Project as approved will not affect the availability of appropriate routes and locations for future road -13- RESOLUTION NO. 84/ 561 00214 and traffic circulation improvements in the area. The Board believes that many of the projected future improvements proposed for the Bryant Way/Camino Pablo/Moraga •Way/Brookwood Road/Camino Encinas intersections are neither necessary nor fiscally or economically feasible at the present time , and that they may not provide the desired benefits on a cost-efficient basis. In any event, the revised Project, as approved by the Board, will permit the physical installation of these improvements if and when it becomes appropriate to do so. (i) In preparation of these findings, the Board has closely reviewed the traffic/circulation study prepared by the author of the Draft EIR, the applicant' s study prepared by JHK & Associates , and the comments of the Orinda Association contained in Volume I of Responses to Comments and the analysis prepared by the EIR consultant concerning the Orinda Association mitigation alternatives contained in Volume II of Responses to Comments , as well as Department of Public Works staff reports dated August 24 , 1983 , March 22, 1984, March 28 , 1984 , and July 24 , 1984 . 9 . Parking: The Draft EIR at page 105 notes that there will be two categories of significant adverse impact from the Project on parking. a. On-Site Parking: It is estimated that the number of proposed on-site spaces would be sufficient to permit weekday, daytime operation of the proposed offices, retail shops and restaurant/lounge . However, it is noted that the proposed theatre use and community facility could result in an overload of the proposed parking on the site. The Board finds that the revised Project, as approved by the Board, has the same on-site parking demands and impacts as the original Project as approved by the Commission. The Board further finds that this adverse impact has been mitigated by the deletion from the Project of the proposed community facility and by the provisions of conditions 6, 12 , 18 and 21 (C) , which limit the daytime operations of the theatre, require the submission and approval of a plan for operation of the parking facilities, including the number of parking spaces to be issued to office tenants, and require the submission and approval of a detailed plan for theatre operations indicating the method of timing films and meeting parking needs during daytime hours , respectively. b. Off-Site Parking: As proposed, the Project would have eliminated approximately 20 public parking spaces along Bryant'Way, Moraga'Way and Brookwood Road. The Commission finds that this adverse impact has been substantially avoided through the revised Project as approved by the Board, which retains parking along Bryant Way, and is further mitigated by the Board' s retention of Condition 7 which requires the -14- RESOLUTION NO. 841,5-61 ®0 2 1 5 applicant to replace any street parking lost as a result of the Project with free on-site parking'. c. In General: The Board has reviewed exhaustive information concerning the parking provided for the Project. The Findings contained in Section VI , Part A, below, are incorporated herein. The Board finds that the parking provided by the Project is adequate , and that any residual parking impact resulting from the Project will be eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels through implementation of the parking plan required under the Conditions . 10 . Drainage: The Draft EIR at page 105 examines the effects on downstream drainage of the Project and concludes that there are two areas of adverse impact. a . A potential incapacity of the downstream system specifically including the drainage under Highway 24 and the effects of Project runoff on that system. b. The potential for overflow from San Pablo Creek and subsequent flooding of the Project' s subsurface parking. The Board finds that the revised Project design including additional subsurface parking does not materially increase nor affect the potential adverse impact identified in the Draft EIR and further finds and determines that these significant adverse impacts are mitigated by the imposition of Condition 8 which requires a study for review and approval by the zoning administrator of a detailed drainage study; Condition 13C which requires a certification by a civil engineer of elevations and drainage facilities; Condition 23G which requires compliance with the applicable sections of the county code relating to drainage; and Condition 23I which requires proof to the Public 'Works Department, Land Development Division of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site drainage improvements. The Commission finds that all of such mitigation measures are fully implemented by the appropriate conditions mentioned above. Based upon such implementation all significant drainage impacts caused by the Project will be avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. III . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROJECT The Draft EIR at pages (iv) and 108 notes the possible growth-inducing aspects of the approval of the Project. The EIR author felt that, because of its location on the other -15- RESOLUTION 15-RESOLUTION NO. 84/,SG/ 00216 side of Highway 24 from a relatively large existing office project, the proposed project would set a precedent for development of the area as an area/regional business center. The Draft EIR points out that additional sites in the central Orinda area lend themselves towards redevelopment on a scale equal to this Project. It further contends that the project "reinforces" a trend away from local community services to area wide or regional services . It states that later such projects, in all probability, would not have such a high proportion of commercial uses as are afforded the community in this Project. The Board finds that the Project has a local and community orientation rather than an area-wide or regional orientation, and does not exacerbate the trend which the EIR author contends is ongoing in Orinda. The Board further finds that the Project will not cause a growth-inducing impact upon the community, due to the commitment of the County planning staff, the Commission, and this Board to apply sound, professional planning principles and judgments to any future applications for development and to treat all such applications on a case-by-case basis. The Board incorporates herein the findings contained in Section VII , below, relating to general plan consistency. The Board finds that the Project is fully consistent with the General Plan and with the Orinda Central Business District Design Guidelines. In considering any additional application for development or redevelopment projects , the County will require that those projects be deemed equally meritorious. It may be that other developers , recognizing the locational advantages afforded by Central Orinda for office development, will consider the possibility of regional or area-wide projects in Orinda. The Board believes , however, that such developers , when apprised of the facts , and circumstances surrounding approval of this Project , and the highly beneficial effects of this Project in redeveloping a prominent, visually unaesthetic site into a locally-oriented, mixed-use development providing substantial benefits to a declining retail area, will recognize that the County' s approval of this Project does not signal encouragement of such regionally-oriented projects nor office development generally in the Orinda area. It is unlikely that any such project could be sited in Orinda consistent with the general plan, zoning and design standards imposed by the County in the Orinda area in any event. Accordingly,- the Board finds that the alleged growth-inducing impact of the Project is insignificant. IV. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR at page 109 sets forth and analyzes three alternatives to the Project, as proposed. In addition, -16- RESOLUTION 16-RESOLUTION NO. 84/,S;/ 0 0 2 17 Section VII of Volume II of Responses to Comments at page 67 , purports to set forth a specific variation of the third discussed alternative. The Board makes the following findings relative to these alternatives: A. "No Pro 'ect" Alternative: The Board finds that the "no Project" alternative is in easi a and hereby rejects that alternative. The Board has determined in these findings that the Project is fully consistent with General Plan, applicable zoning, and the advisory Orinda Central District Design Guidelines. The Project, with its terraced, articulated building design including extensive pedestrian access and exterior visual penetration, enhances and benefits the Orinda Crossroads area in a number of respects. The Board finds that the Project incorporating all of the beneficial aspects discussed in these Findings is preferable to the continuation of the Project site in its present condition consisting of uncoordinated, obsolete buildings and parking lots which presents an unattractive appearance to the main entrance to the Orinda community. In addition, the Draft EIR in its section on Economics beginning on Page 63 , stresses the beneficial effect the Project will have upon public revenue generation. The adoption of the "No Project" alternative would result in the continuation of the Project site in an unattractive condition and the loss of a substantial amount of the potential increased public revenue from the Project. B. Development in Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning: The Draft EIR lists as a second project alternative the development of the site "in conformance with general plan policies and the standards of the C-B zoning district, retaining the same basic design concept as that proposed. . . . " The Board has found in Sections VI and VII of these Findings that the Project, in fact, is in full compliance with the General Plan policies and with all applicable zoning standards, once the requested variances have been granted. Thus the Board further finds and declares that alternative B listed on page 109 is not an appropriate alternative to the proposed Project but is, in fact, the Project as approved. The Commission .further finds that the alternative of a Project designed so as not to exceed an average height of 35 feet is an undesirable and infeasible alternative since the design features which make this Project unique and desirable for the Orinda area would have to be forfeited and the resulting Project would be an obtrusive, uninteresting and much less desirable Project. The Board incorporates herein the findings made in Sections VI and VII relative to the height variance and general plan consistency. 'While the Project could be redesigned -17- RESOLUTION NO. 841,-6-61 00218 and developed in such a way that the height of the project would rct eNceed the height limits established by the applicable zoning ordinance, the Board finds that such a Project would be unacceptable for aesthetic and design reasons, and therefore is infeasible. C. Development Retaining Historic Buildings: The Draft EIR at pages 109 through 114 and Section VIZ of Volume II of Responses to Comments present alternatives to the Project in which the Orinda Theatre and American Trust Bank Buildings would be retained and incorporated as a part of the Project. For the same reasons set out in Part B, above, the Board finds that this alternative is undesirable and infeasible and rejects it. As determined elsewhere in these Findings, the Board finds that any cultural and historic value of the theatre and bank buildings can be fully and completely retained by the mitigation measures discussed in that section of the EIR. The retention of one or both of the buildings in question would simply create design problems and complexities . Resolving these design problems would result in a much less attractive Project design which, on balance , would not be desirable for the Orinda area and would elevate the importance of the Orinda Theatre as a cultural and historic resource in a manner disproportionate to its age, aesthetic character and value. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED The Draft EIR at page 96 sets forth four environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. The Board makes the following findings relative to those and any other unavoidable adverse environmental effects: A. Specific Adverse Environmental Effects: The Draft EIR sets forth the following as specific adverse environmental effects which are unavoidable if the Project is implemented: 1. Establishment of a precedent for similar development in the Central Orinda area. 2. Cumulative increases in traffic, ambient noise level, energy consumption and demand for public services and facilities. 3. Cumulative increase in potential fire hazard. 4 . Cumulative increases in degradation of downstream water quality and in air pollution. -18- RESOLUTION NO. 841561 002,19 The Board has found herein that any precedent established for similar development in the Central Orinda area would be minimal or nonexistent. The County shall consider any further proposals for development on a case-by-case basis and shall apply to such proposals the same standards that have been applied to this Project. Any further development would have to be found consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, applicable zoning ordinances and the Orinda Central Area Design Guidelines. The EIR makes clear and the Board herein finds that to the extent of any of the adverse effects listed in Part V, Paragraph A2-4 , above, would be slight, and they are found to be insignificant. B. Statement of Overriding Considerations: With regard to the adverse environmental effects set out in A above and any other adverse environmental effects not fully mitigated by the conditions of approval of this Project, the Board has balanced the benefits of the Project against such unavoidable environmental risks and effects and makes the following statement of overriding considerations: 1 . Approval of the Project will give a source of proximate employment to more Orinda area residents than presently enjoyed. 2. The project will substitute a coordinated, well-designed, aesthetically appealing complex for an area of uncoordinated, haphazard buildings and structures. The Project will present a much more attractive entry point for the Orinda area than currently exists. 3 . The Project will complement and develop the village character of the Central Orinda area by implementing a village concept of European style and design combining a number of land uses in an extremely creative way, all to the benefit of the Orinda area. 4 . The Project will provide to the Orinda area a wide range of retail and commercial services which will provide residents with a greater selection in day-to-day shopping and commercial activities . 5 . The Project will provide substantially increased public revenues at very little increase in public expenditures. 6 . The Project will provide significant off-site traffic and circulation improvements all to the benefit of the entire area. -19- RESOLUTION NO. 84/��,/ 00220 7 . The Project enhances the entire retail area in the vicinity of the site,. promoting pedestrian access and shopping convenience for Orinda residents, thereby promoting the policies and goals of the General Plan and the C-B zoning district. VI . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO VARIANCES FROM C-B ZONING REQUIREMENTS A. Parking Variance: Parking required under the strict application of Chapter 82-16 of the Contra Costa Code would be 785 spaces. The revised Project as approved by the Board includes a total of 451 on-site parking spaces , as did the previous design approved by the Commission. Approximately 40% of the parking spaces included in the approved Project design are compact spaces whereas the parking ordinance makes no allowance for compact spaces. The Board has approved the parking design for the Project and affirms the granting of a variance from the ordinance parking requirements permitting the Project to include only 451 spaces including compact spaces . With respect to this variance, the Board finds the following: 1 . The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The County regularly permits the substitution of compact parking spaces for normal sized spaces, in many cases without specifically granting a variance for that purpose; the reduced size of modern automobiles since adoption of the parking ordinance in 1966 , as a result of the energy crisis and governmental limitations upon gasoline consumption, have made the provisions of the zoning ordinance with respect to parking space size obsolete. The reduced number of parking spaces does not constitute the grant of a special privilege in that other properties in the same vicinity and land use district have not been developed with a mixed use concept of the nature embodied in this Project. The variety of office uses, retail uses, and restaurant and theatre uses in the Project allows for the adoption of a parking plan to accommodate the peak-hour parking demands of the various uses on a staggered basis . The proximity of the Project to the adjacent BART station will result in reduced parking demand particularly for office uses, and this has been the basis for a number of similar parking variances in other areas of the County and in Orinda for sites adjacent to BART, both in the same zoning classification and in other zoning classifications . 2. Special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, location and surroundings -20- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,J o Q 2 2 i would cause the strict application of the parking ordinance to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The existing developed properties within the community of Orinda, in general, have been developed without adequate parking, typically at times predating the adoption of the parking ordinance. The Project, by contrast, as approved by this Board, provides ample parking for its own uses while retaining the present on-street parking on surrounding streets including Bryant Way for public use , and through use of a public parking plan contribution to the overall availability of parking in the community. The pedestrian walkways in the Project integrate it with the surrounding retail area and can be expected to promote shopping in other stores by persons initially parking in the Project for purposes of utilizing on-premises stores and services . The special circumstances applicable to this Project site, including particularly the adjacent BART station and the staggered peak hour parking demands of the various uses in the Project, as well as the overall improvement of the parking supply in the vicinity, make a variance appropriate. The peculiar location of the subject property, its visual prominence , and the present unsightly nature of the Project site call for a design economically supported by a mixed-use building to improve the aesthetic appearance of this highly visible access point into Orinda. To require additional parking would reduce the ability of the Project to provide open courtyards , visual penetration, articulated building design with multiple elevations, and a general feeling of openness and pedestrian-dominated access . The allowance of compact spaces is consistent with the County' s policy and interpretation of the parking ordinance as permitting compact spaces for other similarly sized projects both within the unincorporated county and in other jurisdictions within the County. To deny the variance would deprive the subject property of the same benefits which are extended to other properties with respect to parking requirements both inside the C-B district in the vicinity and in other areas and zoning districts. Strict application of the parking ordinance would create an unnecessary economic hardship and design difficulties which would substantially impair use and improvement of the Project site by the applicant and cause a loss of benefits to the community resulting from the Project. i 3 . The variance as to parking substantially meets the intent and purpose of the off-street parking ordinance and the C-B zoning district, which is to assure adequate parking space located off street for the parking of vehicles to meet the needs of persons employed at or making use of facilities in the Project. The Board finds ample support in parking studies and evaluations for the variance granted in this case and through the required submittal of a parking plan (Conditions 12 and 21 (C) ) will assure adequacy of parking space and operations. -21- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,56/ 00222 4 . The variance from the technical req»irPments of the parking ordinance, as such, is in the nature of a variance from a construction or building code, the purpose of which is to achieve an overall harmony of design, appearance, public safety, convenience and benefit. The Project as approved will achieve such harmony, convenience and benefit while complying to the extent feasible with the parking ordinance. Variances from the parking ordinance under Contra Costa Code Section 82-16 . 024 are not required strictly to conform to standards applicable to other types of variances under County ordinances, although the Board finds that even if such other standards were applicable, the variance for parking is nonetheless proper. The variance for parking is consistent with the policies of the County in granting variances from the requirements of the parking ordinance. B. Height Variance: The Board has affirmed the grant of a variance from the height limitations imposed by Section 84-49 .802 , with the revisions in the Project height and design submitted after the Commission' s action. The Board finds that although the 35-foot height limitation imposed by Section 84-49 . 802 is defined differently from the definition of building height contained in Section 82-4 . 214 , nonetheless the approved revised Project design requires a variance from the C-B zoning ordinance. The specific variance is for the revised Project design submitted by the applicant prepared by Sandy and Babcock, architects, dated August, 1984 , including all approved design details thereof with respect to exterior and interior elevations , roof design, building articulation, provision of courtyards, and footprint and location of the building on the site, as well as Condition 2 of the Conditions (pertaining to revised roof designs on the Moraga Way Highway 24 frontage) . The Board has not permitted the grant of a variance to permit construction to any arbitrary uniform height level, but rather to permit construction of this particular design varying from one to four levels above subterranean parking without regard to the 35-foot limitation. The Board makes the following additional findings with respect to the height variance granted: 1 . The height variance authorized does not constitute the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the C-B zoning district in which the property is located. Height and other similar variances have been granted by the County on several occasions in the Project vicinity based upon the particular design considerations , and in such cases are granted not as special privileges but in conformity with the general policy of the County to encourage attractive designs in keeping with the surroundings and the general purposes of the zoning district within which a Project is located. Such variances are -22- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,5;(,/ ©Q 2 2 3 appropriate in the Central Business District in order to enable applicants to conform with the Orinda Central Business Design Guidelines and to create architectural designs meeting the desired aesthetic and design standards of the community. In other cases, variances were denied because, in the County' s judgment, the particular site could be designed developed and used, without adverse consequences, in strict compliance with the zoning ordinance and design guidelines. The Board and the Commission have reviewed designs for this Project which could be accommodated without a variance as to height, containing the same or greater space devoted to the same uses as are included in the approved Project, and have found that such designs , although complying with the specific height limitation imposed in the C-B district, would be unacceptable from an aesthetic and community character standpoint, despite the lack of need for variance for such alternative projects. The Project site poses unusual design difficulties primarily because it does not share the semi-rural environment of other parts of Orinda, and the grant of a variance to accommodate an appealing resolution of these design difficulties does not constitute a grant of a special privilege. 2 . Due to the special circumstances and design problems applicable to the subject property arising from its size and proximity to the adjacent freeway and heavily-travelled Camino Pablo, a strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. The design difficulties posed by the Project location are not shared by other properties in the vicinity, many of which are screened from the adjacent freeway by this Project site and will benefit from the buffering effect of the building masses of this Project adjacent to the freeway along Bryant Way. Although a small portion of the C-B district adjacent to the Project also suffers from the same difficulties arising from the adjacency of the freeway, the other parcels are improved with automotive-accessed uses suited to their location. This particular parcel is the largest area so exposed and the present Project seeks to enhance the pedestrian character of a major portion of the Central Business District, including both the Project site and adjacent areas. The unique character of this site, bounded by a freeway and potential freeway on-ramp (Bryant Way) on one side and by a major thoroughfare (Camino Pablo) on another side, calls for a terraced design such as that approved, permitting for a shifting of density to improve the overall design and welfare of uses within the Project and on adjacent properties. Protection against the noise, exhaust fumes and visual obtrusiveness of the freeway cannot be accomplished effectively with vegetation. The approved design allows for an orientation of the Project toward other established retail areas within the vicinity of the Project, necessitating an articulated, terraced design with courtyards and with the building masses -23- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,,5&/ 0®224 shifted toward the freeway to provide buffering for the lowor.-leire] areas and open areas of the Project against noise and visual pollution. This design allows portions of the Project to match the scale of nearby and adjacent properties while avoiding the adverse consequences of strict conformity to the height limitation. Other properties within the same district could be developed to the full height limitation of 35 feet without suffering the adverse affects caused for this site by the freeway, and the variance is necessary to enable this Project site to enjoy the same levels of uses that could be developed in these other areas within the same district while preserving an acceptable design in the public interest. The semi-rural character of other portions of Orinda is not shared by this particular site, given its adjacency to the freeway and BART, and the variance is appropriate to enable this site to blend into and be compatible with other parts of the community within the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and to achieve the same levels of use and enjoyment permitted to these other properties. 3 . The variance granted will substantially meet the intent and purpose of the C-B district within which the Project site is located. The general purpose of the district is to enhance and stabilize the retail sales and personal services activities within central areas and to foster development of even more attractive, higher quality retail shopping areas, creating more concentrated, easily accessible retail shopping and personal services in central areas for the benefit of businesses and consumers alike. The office uses in the Project are specifically permitted by the terms of the C-B district, as well as by the General Plan (see Part VII, below) . The office spaces are relatively small and can be expected to attract the types of businesses referred to in the 0-1 District ordinance; which governs office uses in the C-B District.. The Project enhances the visual quality, convenience and diversity of local business establishments and replaces a large area of a block which is primarily devoted to paved parking areas and outdated structures with a carefully integrated mixed-use Project enhancing the opportunities for pedestrian use and accessibility of the entire Orinda Crossroads area in keeping with the overall village character of the Project vicinity. Although the overall height and bulk of the Project is substantial, the careful roof treatments and articulated design provide for a building oriented to a human scale. The height variance, as granted, allows for a design which improves the attractiveness, comfort and convenience of the Project both to its office users and its retail customers. 4. The Board further finds that the C-B district height limitation as applied and interpreted by the County in connection with other projects and the present Project is not the predominant purpose of the C-B district and that the primary concern is the acceptability of design and orientation of -24- RESOLUTION NO. 84/_,5j�/ 00225 projects to the surrounding area. This policy is implemented, in the specific vicinity of this Project, through the Orinda Central Business Area Design Guidelines previously adopted by the Commission with which the Board finds the Project complies in all substantial respects. The dominant purpose of the C-B district is not to impose narrow and immutable height/bulk/density limitations but to encourage retail and office enhancement and distinguished architecture of the nature embodied in the Project as approved. The Guidelines specifically contemplate varying heights and roof treatments to the end of producing an acceptable design, as provided in this Project. The granting of the subject variance will not establish an inappropriate precedent for the C-B district or the vicinity of the Project in that future projects will have to be considered on their own terms . Other sites within the same district and the general vicinity do not pose the same design constraints as exist on this site and, in addition, no similar sites available for redevelopment are large enough to enable a developer to provide the substantial amenities and improvements to the general retail district as are afforded by the present Project site and approved Project design. 5. Although the variance with respect to height enables portions of the structure to exceed an average height of 35 feet above grade, and to reach a height of 64 feet above the Bryant Way elevation, the Board finds that the proper interpretation of the height limitation is to allow interior portions of the structure to exceed an average height of 35 feet measured at the midpoint of exterior walls and that the variance granted is not the equivalent of a 25 foot height variance. The Board further finds that the variance does not, as such, increase the allowable intensity of the use made on the subject parcel but rather has been granted to enable the developer to construct a Project conforming with the advisory Orinda Central Business District Design Guidelines; a project conforming to the zoning height limitation, parking requirements and other standards with the same or greater intensity of use and square footage could be accommodated on the site, at the expense of providing an attractive design and configuration. The Project, as approved, is compatible with the scale of surrounding uses through the use of appropriate roof treatments , articulated structures , open courtyards and terrace designs incorporated into the approved design on the basis of which the variance was granted by the Commission and the revised design under which the Board has affirmed the granting of the variance. The magnitude of the height variance has been reduced by the revised Project approved by this Board, including the removal of the fifth level of the building, the reduced height of the elevator tower, and the reduced height along Moraga Way. The overall average height, which has been reduced to approximately 50 feet as revised, is substantially the same as the height of the existing Orinda Theater on the site (50 feet) , and the highest point of the -25- RESOLUTION NO. 84/,5'/ 00240 Project (the elevator and clock tower, at 64 feet) is substantially lower than the highest point of the existing Orinda Theater (79 feet) . C. Signage Variance: The Project as approved includes a variance from the specific requirements of Chapter 88-8 of the Contra Costa Code pertaining to signs, as required by the terms of Section 84-49. 14 regarding C-B districts. The variance granted is from requirements of Section 88-8 .604, which requires that signs shall be located only on those walls with buildings fronting on a street. This requirement is inappropriate to the Project as designed, in that several retail and office uses will front upon interior courtyards of the Project. Although free public pedestrian access to the Project will be afforded by the pedestrian-oriented design, in many cases such signage is expected not to be visible from the public streets and therefore could be exempt from the limitations of Section 88-8.604 by reason of the terms of Clause (4) of Section 88-4 . 1202 pertaining to signs which cannot be seen from a public street or adjacent property. The Board finds that it is more appropriate in this particular Project to develop a coordinated, well-conceived signage program for the entire Project and for tenants of the Project, as required in the terms of the Conditions 17 and 21 (E) , than to require strict compliance with the terms of Section 88-8.604. The Board further finds that a variance is appropriate and properly granted in this case, where the Project can be administered under a coordinated sign program for the businesses involved; a variance may be granted in such circumstances without making the findings set forth under Section 26-2.2006 , under the accepted interpretation of Section 88-8 . 2612. VII . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Board finds that the approvals required for this Project (the variances and the approval of a development plan pursuant to Section 84-49. 1802) are not required by County ordinances or applicable state law to be based upon a finding of consistency with the general plan. However, because of the substantial public controversy which has existed over this particular Project, the Board feels it is appropriate to consider and make findings with respect to the consistency of this Project with the general plan. The Board finds that the Project, as approved, is consistent with the policies, goals and standards of the general plan. The Project site is designated in the Orinda General Plan, 1973 for community shopping. All goals and principles of the General Plan relating to the proposed Project site are met by the Project concept and design as approved. In this regard, the Board makes the following additional findings: -26- RESOLUTION NO. 84/S(,,/ 00227 1 . The goal of providing for commercial development of sufficient area and location to serve existing and anticipated development within the planning area, adequately served by transportation facilities and properly buffered from nearby residential areas , is appropriately satisfied by the Project as designed. The Project will supply a much needed infusion of locally-oriented retail shopping facilities which Orinda previously lacked, on a central site conveniently located to local traffic patterns in a central business area segregated from residential uses . 2 . The principle that business development in the Orinda planning area should be limited to neighborhood and community service and retail types of uses and that regional commercial developments should not be permitted is satisfied by the Project as approved. The retail businesses provided will be oriented to the needs of the community and will provide a well designed environment for shopping, substantially upgrading the quality and image of the surrounding retail area. They are not of such a size as to attract regionally-oriented "anchor tenants, " and the Project does not create a regional or area-wide shopping center in Orinda. The office uses are compatible with the general business neighborhood, provide an economic base to enable integration of a shopping facility into the Project, and thereby enhance the overall retail and community service purposes of the General Plan. 3 . The principle that the central business area - should be improved to create better pedestrian orientation and more adequate parking is served by the Project which includes ample parking including some public parking, which preserves on-street parking, and which provides a focal point where shoppers can park and from which they can walk to other nearby retail and service establishments designed, overall, to enhance public pedestrian use of private courts and landscaped areas within the Project and to provide convenient pedestrian walks integrating the Project into the adjacent retail area. Portions of the Project have been designed to include retail space with street frontage entrances similar in nature and facade scale to those of nearby retail uses on other properties, such as on the opposite side of Brookwood Road, thereby providing a transition of pedestrian-accessed shopping on portions of the Project adjacent to other retail areas while providing a natural transition for pedestrian access into the interior portions of the Project. Because of the proximity of the Project to a major thoroughfare, Camino Pablo, and to Highway 24 , it cannot be expected that retail shopping pedestrian access should be encouraged on these two sides of the Project. Neither Bryant Way nor the northern end of Moraga Way, both of which are immediately adjacent to the freeway, provides a comfortable pedestrian environment, and if Bryant Way is converted to provide freeway -27- RESOLUTION NO. 841 ,561 00228 access from Camino Pablo, it will be even less suitable for pedestrian use. Therefore, it is appropriate that vehicular access to the parking areas of the Project be oriented to Bryant Way, away from Moraga Way, as has been required by the staff and this Board in the revised Project, as approved. The terraced, articulated building design with numerous pedestrian access points along Moraga Way and Brookwood Road allows for ease of access from neighboring retail and business areas while buffering the Project and neighboring properties from the adjacent freeway and thereby, overall, enhances the pedestrian character of the neighborhood. 4 . The principle that a limited amount of locally-oriented new office space should be provided for the central business area that complements existing land uses is properly served by the provision for approximately 65, 000 square feet of office space, taking into account the conditions imposed by the Board in approving the Project. The County has required a plan for building standards for tenants to insure unified design control of tenant improvements. The Board finds that the general plan policies contemplate land developments which serve local needs and permit a limited amount of commercial office space which complements retail and service uses in the central business district . The provision of office space in the Project provides an economic base for an integrated mixed-use Project which will convert an under-utilized site into an attractive area for shopping and eating, and with the provision of landscaped outdoor spaces convenient to pedestrian access , will provide an ideal location for public use of the private open space which has been integrated into the Project. Sporadic redevelopment of the existing nine parcels which compose the Project site would not necessarily match the quality of design, convenience, and provision of amenities provided by this Project, and could be expected to leave the block largely undeveloped, unsightly and paved over for parking for an extended period of time. Although the specific tenants which will occupy commercial office space in the Project are not yet known, there is every reason to expect that the tenants will serve primarily local or community needs, and an integrated office and mixed-use Project ambiance will enhance the attractiveness of the Project to local as well as other commercial office users. The fact that the Crossroads area is zoned C-B, which specifically permits executive, administrative, legal , engineering and accounting offices is indicative of a desire for a mix of uses in the interpretation of the general plan. The office spaces incorporated in the design are relatively small and cannot be expected to attract primarily large, regional or subregional office users of the type discouraged by the general plan. Rather, use by existing Orinda businesses, businesses whose owners or senior management personnel reside in Orinda, attorneys , accountants, insurance -28- RESOLUTION NO. 84/510/ agents , brokers, architects, and similar community-based businesses is likely to be encouraged in the Project. 5 . The Board believes that a project which includes mixed commercial and retail/service type uses, such as this Project, cannot be evaluated for conformity with the general plan' s primary goal of enhancing locally-oriented shopping solely on the basis of the proportionate amount of square footage devoted to office use. This Project, by furnishing locally-oriented retail shopping facilities subsidized by office space, directly serves the primary goal of promoting development of retail outlets. 6 . The general plan designated land use for the Project site , community shopping, is properly served by the Project. The Project will provide a convenient center for a number of retail establishments integrated into the surrounding business neighborhood as well as serving office users of the Project. Although the specific uses to be included within the concept of community shopping uses were not completely identified in the general plan, the general plan emphasizes serving everyday needs of local customers, as well as providing for a wider variety of goods and services than the traditional neighborhood shopping center provides. Although the Project includes a number of commercial spaces and the specific tenants are unknown, the Project does not approach the concept or size of a regional or county-wide shopping center, which would be contrary to the intent of the general plan. The Project can be expected to attract tenants who will provide a much-needed enhancement of shopping for Orinda residents. The size of retail spaces provided in the Project is not of such a nature as to attract large "anchor tenants" which would attract shoppers from outside of the community in large numbers, and therefore it is reasonable to expect the commercial users to cater primarily to local needs. 7. The general plan goal that the appearance of the central business area, especially the main entrance to Orinda, should be made more attractive, is ideally served by the Project as approved. The Project site constitutes the most visible entrance point into Orinda and in its present undeveloped condition, with several obsolete buildings and a large, unattractive parking area, presents an appearance of blight upon entrance into the Crossroads area. The revised Project, as approved by the Board, will provide an architecturally distinguished building in keeping with the village character of Orinda and will drastically improve the quality and appearance of the central business area. 8 . The general plan objective of preserving areas and structures of historic significance where feasible is particularly difficult to reconcile in this particular case with -29- RESOLUTION NO. 841561 00230 the other goals and objectives of the general plan pertaining to the central business area of Orinda. Although the Orinda Theatcr/11-1.,n erica:. Trust Bank building complex in the view of a substantial portion of the community is an important cultural value and provides a 43-year old focal point for this relatively new community, opinions differ both among experts and among citizens as to its cultural and historic significance. The retention of the theatre would preserve a resource of questionable value at the expense of numerous other policies and values. It is clear that the existing building structure, viewed from a number of vantage points, is not aesthetically appealing, and does not compare with the type of architecture which the General Plan, the C-B District zoning, and the Orinda Central Business District Design Guidelines seek to engender. The General Plan does not provide that the existing Orinda Theater/American Trust Bank building is one of the specific cultural or historical structures to be preserved. The Board finds that the principal elements of the Orinda Theater/American Trust Bank building complex which possess cultural and historic significance are adequately preserved through the provision in the Project conditions of approval requiring a study for the preservation of interior items of the building, and that preservation of the entire structure is not feasible or desirable taking into account all of the policies and goals of the general plan. 9 . The General Plan stresses the retention of the central business district' s village character as a most important aspect. The Project, as approved, through the terraced design, the numerous courtyards and pedestrian areas, the varying levels and articulated structure, and sloping roofline, provides an ideal example of a relatively large Proj'ect on the human scale in keeping with the architectural standards and objectives of the community and will enhance the village character of the community. The Project, as approved, will substantially mitigate and correct the adverse consequences for the Crossroads area which resulted from construction of Highway 24 in the 19501s, and will return to the Crossroads area of Orinda some of the ambiance and charm which was irrevocably lost, by buffering the remainder of the area from the freeway. 10. The general plan goal that in the business district development should be encouraged that is of "low line" architecture complementary to existing development and terrain is satisfied by the Project as approved. Although portions of the Project include relatively high elevations , the highest points of the Project are considerably lower than the highest points of existing structures on the site. The adjacency of the Project to the freeway calls for a shifting of building masses to the freeway side with a terraced design allowing for protection of interior portions of the Project and adjacent properties to the -30- RESOLUTION NO. 84/5,6/ 00231 south and east from the noise and unsightliness of the freeway. The terracing of the Project and the required roof treatments and landscaping will reduce the apparent height of the structures and where the Project fronts on existing retail streets, such as Brookwood Road, the scale of the building is compatible with the scale of buildings on the opposite sides of the street. An exception to this is along Moraga Way toward the freeway end of the Project, and the higher building structure is justified for aesthetic and buffering purposes so that the Project, as a whole, can provide the shielding benefits and reduction of apparent scale. This portion of the Project has been improved in the revised design approved by this Board, which removes the main vehicular access point to Bryant Way, enhancing the pedestrian character of Moraga Way, and which has lowered the height of the Moraga Way elevation to four stories at the corner of Bryant Way. From an architectural and design standpoint, the Project will be complementary to existing development, although there is little existing harmony or continuity of design principles in the adjacent developed areas of the central business district. 11 . The Project as approved by the Commission called for acquisition by the applicant of the Bryant Way right-of-way and construction of a portion of the Project in the existing right-of-way, eliminating Bryant Way as an element of the circulation pattern in Orinda. Any possible inconsistency with the General Plan circulation element has been removed through the revised Project design approved by the Board, which retains Bryant Way as part of the circulation pattern in Orinda, which does not alter existing street patterns except by improving circulation, and which foreclose no future options for improved circulation in the area. 12 . The Project, as approved, will not conflict with the Scenic Routes Element of the general plan. The Project, with the revised Bryant Way and Moraga Way roof treatment required by the conditions imposed by the Commission and incorporated into the revised design approved by this Board, will significantly enhance the visual character of the site. The Scenic Routes Element contemplates that existing development and view corridors should be taken into account in defining the scenic corridor and that the primary concern is not to provide a clear zone or a setback requirement but to maintain the qualities desired along a Scenic Route. This purpose is served by the Project, and the overall effect is to enhance the view from Highway 24. Although the Project will somewhat impair clear views of more southerly hills from Highway 24, the Board finds that this effect is insignificant, that the primary view obstructed will be of the existing hodge-podge of business district development, and that the overall effect is to enhance scenic views consistent with the goals of the Scenic Route Element. The revised Project approved by the Board is set back -31- RESOLUTION NO. 841,561 00232 further from the freeway than as approved by the Commission, due to the retention of Bryant Way, and has been lowered by one floor along the Bryant Way right-of-way. These revisions have minimized intrusion into the scenic corridor, and the overall effect of the Project is to enhance views from the freeway and BART station. VIII. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The approval of a development plan required by Section 84-49 . 1802 , is found to be appropriate based upon the approved design. In this connection the Board makes the following findings: 1 . The Project as approved will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county or of the community within which the Project is located. 2 . The Project as approved will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county or in the community within which the Project is located. 3 . The Project as approved will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county or the community within which the Project is located. 4 . The Project as approved will not adversely affect the policies and goals set forth in the general plan. 5 . The Project as approved will not create a nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6 . The Project as approved will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood within which the Project is located. 7. The Project site constitutes a unique area posing extremely difficult design problems which have been fully addressed and resolved through the approved design. 8 . The Board's findings with respect to consistency with the purpose of the zoning district, the general plan, the mitigation of significant environmental effects, and all of the other portions of these findings are incorporated herein. 9 . The Project is not one for which a land use permit is required under the terms of Section 84-49 .404 of the Zoning Ordinance and the foregoing findings 1 through 8 are made -32- RESOLUTION NO. 8 4/..SG% 00233 despite the lack of any legal requirement therefor, in response to the substantial public controversy which has surrounded the consideration of this Project. IX . MISCELLANEOUS: 1 . ' In addition to the foregoing specific findings, the Board incorporates by reference the applicable portions of the staff reports, special reports and studies, oral testimony, Final EIR, resolutions , Conditions of Approval , and the applicant' s submittal , all relating to Development Plan 3055-82 . 2 . It is the intent of the Board that the foregoing Findings be considered as an integrated whole, and whether or not any subdivision of these Findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these Findings , that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these Findings . All of the foregoing constitute Findings by this Board, whether or not any particular sentence or clause states that it is a finding. 3 . The within Findings are based upon the Commission' s Findings, with modifications, corrections, additions and deletions made to conform these Findings to the decision of the Board, to reflect modifications in the Project as finally approved by the Board, and to reflect facts, evidence and testimony contained in the entire administrative record, including but not limited to that presented in hearings on the Project before the Board. These Findings nonetheless constitute the independent findings of the Board in all respects, and not a mere endorsement of the Commission's findings. The Board further has considered all comments, criticisms and challenges concerning the Commission' s Findings made by the appealing parties and other interested parties , whether presented to the Board orally or in writing, and finds that the Commission' s Findings were supported by the administrative record, when adopted, or if not, that either those findings are supported by the administrative record as augmented in hearings before the Board, or that the Findings of this Board have revised the Commission' s Findings and that to the extent the Board' s findings differ from the Commission' s findings they are supported by said augmented record. The Board finds that the within Findings, as finally revised and adopted by the Board, are supported in all respects by substantial evidence on the record, and constitute the Findings of this Board for all purposes. -33- RESOLUTION NO. 84/\5'6/ 0 234 4 . The Planning Director is hereby directed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning the actions and approvals taken and granted herein. PASSED and ADOPTED on September 18 , 1984 , by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors Powers , McPeak, Torlakson NOES : Supervisor Fanden 1 hereby certify th,-t this Is a true and correct copy of ABSENT• Supervisor Schroder an actio:; taken and catered on v s rniRu ;cs of the Board of Sue visor, on the date snot'•,-,, cc: Public Works Department ATTEST[: Planning Department Ph!L SATO;!.._i OH '`- C: r: of ha i `JErd County Counsel 01 Supervicors and Ccurhp Administrator County Administrator Orinda Association Friends of the Orinda Theatre By � , Deputy Crossroads Associates -34- RESOLUTION NO. 84/561 0023;)