HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07282015 - D.6RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPEN the public hearing and ACCEPT testimony.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the decision of the County Planning Commission to approve a modification to the
preliminary and final development plan for Block C of the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Transit Village
from 100 townhouse units to 200 apartment units with 2,315 sq. ft. of commercial use, located at Coggins in the
unincorporated area of Walnut Creek. (County File DP15-3001)
4. DETERMINE there are not any significant impacts that were not previously described in the Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted October 6, 1998, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
adopted November 5, 2002, or Addendum adopted May 24, 2005; and the modifications qualify for Statutory
Exemption under Government Code Section 65457 and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4.
5. ADOPT the project Findings and Conditions of Approval for County File DP15-3001, contained in Exhibit A to
this Board order.
6. APPROVE the Modification to the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/28/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Maureen Toms,
925-674-7878
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 28, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
D. 6
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date:July 28, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to approve Development Plan #15-3001 (Block C-P.H./Contra
Costa Centre BART Transit Village
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
>
7. DIRECT the Community Development Division to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the necessary initial application deposit and fees, and is obligated to pay
supplemental costs to cover any and all expenses associated with processing the application.
BACKGROUND:
This is an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s April 28, 2015 approval of a modification of the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan which proposes to change the approved 100-unit townhouse (for-sale)
development to a 200-unit apartment (rental) project and 2,315 sq. ft. of retail space. The project proposal results
in an increase from 285,065 sq. ft. with four stories to 340,997 sq. ft. with a range from four – six stories in height.
The appeal was filed on May 6, 2015, primarily because the appellant asserts the project results in a change to the
outcome of the 2001 Charrette. The appellant is the Walden District Improvement Association.
The County’s Redevelopment Agency sponsored a design Charrette for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property
(Specific Plan Subareas 11 and 12) in 2001. The process began with a research and education phase in January
2001, followed by six days of public meetings on various topics (e.g., parking, pedestrian bridge, swim club, etc.),
presentations, open studio, review and revision of plans, and a meeting focusing on the Architectural Codes. Over
500 people participated in the Charrette process, which included over 85 hours of open public session. The
Charrette Plan developed out of the process was endorsed by the Greenbelt Alliance, Bay Area Transportation and
Land Use Coalitions, Contra Costa Council, the Contra Costa Economic Partnership and the California
Association for Local Economic Development. The Board of Supervisors received the Charrette Summary Report
in December 2001 (Attachment R of the April 28, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report). On November 5,
2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted certain results from the Charrette process, including the New Pleasant
Hill BART Station Property Codes and Architectural Standards. The Board concurrently approved the
Preliminary Development Plan for the subject site including 290,000-456,000 sq. ft. of office, 274-446
multiple-family residential units (including 50 for-sale units slated for Block C), 42,000 sq. ft. of storefront, 7,000
sq. ft. of Civic, and the expansion of the existing 1,337 space parking garage with an additional 1,477 spaces. The
Property Codes and Architectural Standards formed the basis of the Preliminary Development Plan and
Planned-Unit Zoning.
The Final Development Plan, a more defined plan for the BART property, was adopted in 2005. Three of five of
the development blocks, plus the replacement parking garage, town square, village green, and station
enhancements have all been completed, with slightly less dense development than was approved. Block C,
entitled for 100 town homes, and Block D, entitled for a 290,000 sq. ft. office building with conference space,
remain unbuilt.
The proposed project was presented to the Contra Costa Centre MAC on November 18, 2014 and January 20,
2015. The MAC neither made a recommendation to approve nor deny the project.
The project was also discussed at the Walden District Improvement Association meeting on December 8, 2014.
The majority of those present at the meeting were opposed to the proposed project.
The Planning Commission held a study session on the proposed project during the February 10, 2015 meeting.
Following a public notice to more than 900 people, including the participants of the 2001 Charrette, the County
Planning Commission considered the proposal on April 14, 2015 and continued to April 28, 2015. The Planning
Commission approved the Amendment to the Preliminary and Final Development Plan with a vote of 6-1. The
Walden District Improvement Association subsequently appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the
applications to the Board of Supervisors.
APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES TO APPEAL POINTS
1. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: In 2001, over 500 community members
participated in a “Charrette” planning process to facilitate a development plan for the 18 acre BART parking lot
after previous development plans proposed by BART and their Developer caused widespread opposition among
residents and surrounding local jurisdictions creating political gridlock.
Staff Response: This is correct.
2. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: The Charrette planning process resulted in
a Transit Village plan that met the major goals of the County, BART, Developers and the Community. The Plan
and issues it considered and resolved are discussed in a 125-page Summary Report dated October 2001, which
was submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
Staff Response: The Charrette Summary is included as “Attachment R” to the County Planning Commission April
28, 2015 staff report.
3. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015:The plan included a minimum of 50 for
sale town homes on Block C to provide a mixed use village with multifamily housing, as well as mixed tenure so
that residents would have ownership options as their families evolved. The consensus intent was to have the
transit village integrate into the larger community by having a portion of the residents have “skin in the game.”
BART was initially resistant to selling some 9% of the land. This was and remains 1.6 acres of the 18 acres of
public land involved in the project. As a result of the give and take of the planning Charrette, and in exchange for
the many advantages of the transit village plan to the County, BART, and the Developers: BART agreed.
Staff Response: The account of the 2001 Charrette is correct. As shown in the Charrette Summary, the process
and its deliverables focused on the
A. Scale of buildings,
B. Programming the Spaces, including public spaces, public uses, small retail shops, variety of housing (with
some affordable and senior facilities), mixture of uses, conference center.
C. Traffic and Parking,
D. Safety,
E. Alternatives to the car,
F. Iron Horse Trail, and
G. Natural environment.
The Board of Supervisors received the Charrette report and formally adopted the design guidelines that came out
of the Charrette process in the form of The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Codes and Architectural
Standards. The County did not take other formal action with regard to the Charrette outcome. The for-sale issue
was not the major issue of the Charrette. The Charrette process yielded important design guidelines that the
County adopted as the Property Codes and Architectural Standards. During the 2001 Charrette, the issue of
long-term ground leases versus selling property to develop for-sale housing was discussed at length. The
Charrette Summary included the following discussion on the topic:
FOR SALE VS. RENTAL HOUSING: The Charrette process identifies significant concern about for-sale vs.
rental uses. The summary report identified issues of for-sale housing at any BART station reflecting two
legitimate interests: local residents living near a BART station and the region’s taxpayers who support
BART. Any development at the Pleasant Hill BART station needs to reconcile these two interests. In 2001,
BART was willing to balance the local interests with the more regional interests by considering 50 units of
for-sale house. This approach would allow for some housing diversity in the area, while still ensuring that
BART will control enough of the site to ensure its long-term integrity as a regional transit facility.
Local residents who live around a BART station typically want new residential development in their
neighborhood to be ownership housing. Ownership housing is perceived as providing more long-term
stability to a neighborhood as well as preserving and enhancing property values.
The taxpayers who have paid for the BART system and who want transit to remain a critical part of the
region's mobility network generally wish to ensure that the land uses around BART stations remain transit
supportive and transit friendly. To support these constituents, the BART Board has adopted a strong policy
to lease, rather than sell, land around BART stations. The four main reasons for this policy are as follows:
• Control over land uses: BART's continued ability to ensure that land uses adjacent to its stations support
transit ridership and are transit friendly.
• Share in increased property values: BART's ability to share in additional revenue generated by increases
in property values and revenues created by development will help support the cost of operating the train
system and will enhance the public's investment in the BART infrastructure.
• Density: To take maximum advantage of the public's investment in BART's infrastructure, higher density
at the BART stations is preferred. In general, ownership housing is built at lower density than rental units.
• Parcelization of ownership constrains Transit Oriented Development: To build the station and supporting
infrastructure, BART and the County assembled many smaller parcels into larger parcel. Subdividing into
smaller privately owned plots (condos or town homes) reverses this effort and may limit future options.
The overall development program on the site, including the total number of residential units, does not
change significantly based on whether or not the units are for-sale or for rent. Therefore, the planning
process should focus on establishing a basic number of units to be built on the site. The ownership issue can
be resolved at a later date and through a different process that reflects these diverse interests.
4. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: Following the Charrette, a multi-page,
11x17 full cover brochure was produced to educate and advertise what the Charrette process had produced to
encourage support from the public for the development proposal. Block C was defined as including “50 for-sale”
town homes and the reasons for including home ownership were listed and discussed.
Staff Response: This is correct
5. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015:In 2002, a Preliminary Development Plan
was approved by the Board of Supervisors and included the 50 for-sale town homes facing the Iron Horse Trail
and the Apartment Blocks (A and B), commercial space across from the BART tracks and a “Civic” building on
the corner near the station.
Staff Response: The Preliminary Development Plan, approved in 2002, aligned with The New Pleasant Hill BART
Station Property Codes and Architectural Standards that were adopted concurrently. In this way, the Preliminary
Development Plan implemented the outcome of the Charrette.
6. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: In 2005, a Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA) between the Developer and the County was approved, providing entitlements to the Developer.
At the request of BART and the developer Block C was revised to 100 for sale condos, no Civic building and no
commercial use. Civic space was moved to Block A.
Staff Response: The DDA is between the Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (Authority) (also
referred to as the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which was formed by and included representatives from the
County and BART) and the Developer. It is the agreement by which the Developer is able secure to certain rights
to the property and sets forth conditions precedent to the JPA executing ground leases (for the apartment, retail,
and office properties) and a purchase agreement for the condominium parcel (Block C). The form of Ground
Leases for the apartment properties and the office property are attachments to the DDA. Approval of the DDA
permitted the Ground Leases to be executed once the conditions precedents have been fulfilled by the Developer.
The DDA also contains a schedule of development.
The Final Development Plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 2005, to refine the Preliminary
Development Plan that had been adopted in the 2002. In 2005, the condo market was doing very well, thus the
proposal for an increased number of units.
Planning for a bicycle facility, which is a civic use, is currently underway in Block B. Development of additional
civic uses are possible on any of the development blocks.
7. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: In 2006, a Purchase Agreement between
BART and the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was entered into in order to implement the sale of the BART land to
the Developer to enable the for sale condos on Block C.
Staff Response: The condo market continued to do well in 2006 when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was
approved. The Purchase and Sale Agreement provided that if certain conditions precedent to closing were fulfilled
within a fixed time frame, BART would transfer Block C to the Authority, which would transfer it to the
Developer. The parties contemplated that it would be a few years until construction could begin, because Block C
continued to be used as surface parking for BART patrons. The housing prices peaked in early 2006, then by late
2006 housing prices began to decline. The largest drop in housing prices occurred in 2008, followed by a
recession. Despite the secure entitlements, the available site and a Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Developers
were unable to develop Block C as proposed due to the economic conditions. The conditions precedent to closing
(including depositing the purchase amount into escrow) in the Purchase and Sale Agreement were never satisfied,
due to the inability to finance the project.
8. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: By 2010 other blocks and the garage in the
transit village completed, except for Blocks C and D (12 story office building). During a public celebration, an 11
x 8 advertising brochure was distributed that went into great detail describing the elements of the transit village,
including 100 for-sale condos as well as a discussion of the public financing that was involved in making this
public project using tax dollars ($59.9 million public funds and $135 million County issued bonds to facilitate
financing).
Staff Response: Financing for Blocks A, B, and E was completed by the Fall of 2008, within a month of the
housing bust that began the Great Recession. $135 million of private activity bonds were used to finance the
apartment blocks. The County issued the bonds, but the Developer makes the payments on those bonds using
project revenues. This is a conduit financing structure. The County and/or the taxpayers are not responsible for
this debt. $59.9 million of redevelopment funds (tax allocation bonds) were used to finance the reconstruction of
the parking garage, backbone infrastructure and placemaking improvements. The bonds are paid for by the tax
increment derived from the increase in property taxes from the development. The current improved property value
of Blocks A, B, and E is $168 million, resulting in $1,090,000 of property tax revenue for 2014-2015, which more
than covers the debt service for the improvements. In addition, the Developer also participated in the financing of
the parking garage.
9. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: In 2012, without public knowledge, nor
notice, the BART purchase agreement was allowed to expire.
Staff Response: The original Purchase and Sale Agreement required the closing to be no later than January 1,
2010. The First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement extended the closing to April 1, 2010 and the
Second Amendment extended the closing by two years to April 1, 2012. The Purchase and Sale Agreement
expired by its terms without closing. Another extension of the closing date was not requested because recovery of
the housing market was not in the foreseeable future. These various agreements are all public documents that were
approved in public meetings. Expiration of the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement did not require action
by any party or public notice of the expiration. After the Purchase and Sale Agreement expired, neither BART nor
the County received any viable development proposals for Block C. It remained vacant.
10. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: In 2013, the Developer and JPA entered
into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) for 180 days with two 90-day automatic extensions.
Staff Response: This is correct. The ENA recognized that changes in the market and economy since the
negotiation of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the DDA required a revised Block C development proposal.
The ENA requires that BART and the JPA negotiate with the Developer in good faith and that they not negotiate
with any entity other than Developer regarding development of Block C or solicit or entertain bids or proposals to
do so.
11. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015:On September 3, 2014 the Developer and
JPA entered into another ENA for 180 days with one 90 day extension. These ENA’s prevent consideration of
other developers who might be able to deliver the Charrette Plan.
Staff Response: In 2014, the ENA was extended. On June 11, 2015, the BART Board approved the ENA
extension and directed their Authority representative to vote to extend the ENA. The ENA is “exclusive.”
Considering another development proposal while one is still in the entitlement process is not an approach
approved by the property owner (BART). The Authority is expected to consider the extension in the coming
weeks.
12. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: The stated basis to justify the changes on
Block C is that for-sale condos are not financially feasible because the local real estate market favors rental
housing and disfavors for sale condos. Even if one accepts those reasons as valid, BART and the Developer could
build condos as agreed and then rent them until the market becomes even more positive for condos. Instead, they
are using the current hot rental market as an excuse to renege on their agreements with the community. We further
assert that pure profits should not define the decision whether to build condos, although it is our opinion they will
be feasible in the future to the County and BART.
Staff Response: In a public-private partnership, the private partner must be able to construct a project that is
financially feasible, unless public funds are available to close a funding gap. Block C does not have public
financing contributing to the project, therefore it must be feasible on its own. Neither the Developer nor any other
entity has found it feasible to develop Block C pursuant to the Final Development Plan as it was approved in
2005. The JPA hired an independent consultant to verify the Developers’ assertion of the infeasibility of the
for-sale market. The study was provided as Attachment O to the April 14, 2015 County Planning Commission
staff report and is included as an attachment to the Board Order. The conclusion of the study confirmed the
applicant’s assertion that the condo project is not feasible and that the market has not recovered enough to
construct the project as entitled.
The analysis indicates the sale prices required for financial feasibility of the Block C condominiums are above the
sale prices being achieved for the competitive projects surveyed. In order to maintain the velocity of sales to
absorb 100 to 150 condo units within a reasonable sales period, the Block C condo units would need to be
extremely price competitive. It is also recognized that a higher density, stacked flat condo development would still
be pioneering at this location, which all condo developers and investors would consider when assessing the
overall development risk profile.
Median home prices in Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have been rising in recent years but are still below peak
prices when adjusted for construction cost inflation. The condominium market data and pro forma financial
feasibility analysis described in the Analysis, which assume a prevailing wage cost premium as well as a $4
million land acquisition cost, indicates that a 100- to 150-unit condominium development on Block C is likely not
feasible based on today’s market conditions. The current market does not support the prices required to make the
condo development acceptable to investors.
The County Zoning Code provides for a process to modify a Development Plan, which is the process underway.
That process included approval by the Planning Commission, an appeal of that decision, and the hearing
underway.
13. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: This is a public, not private, project and
therefore the public’s interest should be valued by the two public agencies; yet the public has been limited to the 3
minute statement in a public hearing model. When community members asked for another Charrette on Block C
that would allow their perspective to receive full consideration or for options to be fully considered, they were told
there was no funding. The developer was never asked to fund another Charrette, even though that was how the
first one was financed.
Staff Response: The Developers prepared and followed a public outreach program, as required in the ENA. The
Developer and the public has fully participated in two Municipal Advisory Council meetings, a special meeting of
the Walden District Improvement Association, and two public hearings of the Planning Commission. In addition,
written correspondence from the community was provided to the Planning Commission as part of the staff reports
and given directly to the Commission members at the hearing.
The 2001 Charrette specified that an economic feasibility study could be done to confirm the ability of a
developer to finance a particular development. Such study has been done and it determined that the development
of Block C as specified in the Final Development Plan is not feasible. In particular, the consultant determined that
neither the 100-unit condo project, as currently approved, nor a potential 150-unit condo project, would be
feasible. That is, financing would not be available to fund either project. Another Charrette would not change the
feasibility or market conditions of Block C. In addition, going through a Charrette process is not a required
expense of other applicants seeking approval of a Final Development Plan or a modification to the plan.
14. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: Options for resolving the matter have
been ignored. The Planning Commission was asked to continue the matter to allow consideration of the following
options: a. build the 100 condo units and rent them for a specified period; b. build 50 condos and an appropriate
number of apartments in the building that BART us proposing; c. build the apartments to condo specs so they can
be converted in the future, d. build the apartments at a lower density and larger footprint to make them more
attractive as originally planned to become condos.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission considered the information received during the hearing and approved
the Modification to the Development Plan with a 6-1 vote.
15. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015:Statements by one commissioner showed
that he did not have a good understanding of the Charrette held for the transit village. He stated it was just for an
architecture and design discussion.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission was provided a summary of the Charrette (Attachment R to the April
28, 2015 Staff Report) and made their comments based on the information provided.
16. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: During the hearing, the Developer
misrepresented the nature of agreements made by BART and the developer regarding Block C, and therefore
misled the Commission. Those misrepresentations were not corrected.
Staff Response: The appeal letter does not describe what they believe to be misrepresentations. The agreements
between the County, BART and Developer include:
A. Master lease between BART and the Authority for Blocks A, B, D, and E and public areas.
B. Sublease between the Authority and the Developer for Blocks A, B, D, and E and public areas.
C. Disposition and Development Agreement between the Authority and the Developer
D. The Purchase and Sale Agreement for Block C, which expired in 2012
The entitlements include:
A. The Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning and approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 5,
2002. The Preliminary Development Plan reflects the outcome of the 2001 Charrette.
B. The Final Development Plan and the nine lot subdivision, approved by the County Planning Commission on
May 24, 2005.
17. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015:The proposal by BART and the
Developer to renege on the major issue of the public has been justified on “educated guess” economic grounds;
but no discussion of the full economics of the project have been made public. We understand that the rents for the
apartments have been higher than ever projected when the village modeling resulting in high profit to the
developer and revenues to the County and BART; but the full picture is not disclosed. How can the Planning
Commission fully assess the stated reasons for changing the DDA without being told the whole financial picture.
Where is the actual Avalon Bay pro-forma for the proposed building of Block C (as opposed to the estimated
pro-forma by Keyser Marston. What revenues to the County and BART and the profits to Avalon Bay from
Blocks A and B?
Staff Response: It is not accurate to imply that the construction of “for sale” housing was “the major” issue of the
Charrette. As discussed above, the Charrette process yielded important design guidelines that the County adopted
as the Property Codes and Architectural Standards. During the 2001 Charrette, the issue of long-term ground
leases versus selling property to develop for-sale housing was discussed at length. The Charrette Summary
included the Charrette discussion is included in Response # 3 of this report.
As for the economics, the Purchase and Sale Agreement expired by its own terms. The Developer did not proceed
with the Block C development as entitled, and no other developers have proposed alternative projects under those
entitlements. This indicates to the County and the public that the full economics of the project do not “pencil out”
for the existing entitlements on Block C. The Authority’s economic consultant, Keyser Marston Associates, did
have access to the pro-forma in the developing its feasibility analysis. Keyser Marston’s evaluation of the
financial feasibility of a development as currently entitles is based upon its own independent analysis of current
market conditions, as is Keyser Marston’s estimated pro-forma for the proposed project.
Condition of Approval #6 for the Final Development Plan is as follows: The Applicant shall obtain approval of a
subdivision application for the approximately 100 for-sale units on Lot 1/Block C, prior to issuance of a building
permit for Lot 1. Any deviation to this Condition shall be subject to a modification to the Development Plan. The
deviation to this condition and modifying the Development Plan is following the County’s procedure as identified
in the County Code, as well as Condition of Approval #6.
18. Walden District Improvement Association letter dated May 5, 2015: The argument the SB375 justifies
changing Block C as proposed is specious. The Transit Village (including Block C) was far ahead of SB 375 and,
in any case, “as is” is a great example of SB 375 goals. No other Contra Costa community has development
around the BART station that achieves the high standard set at Pleasant Hill, which has been acclaimed at the
national level.
Staff Response: Although the existing entitlement of 100 units would help meet the goals of SB 375, increasing
the number of units would better meet the SB375 goals. The SB 375 goals strongly encourage dense, multi-family
development adjacent to transit hubs, like the Pleasant Hill BART Station. The modification to the Preliminary
and Final Development Plans improves upon the sustainable characteristics of the transit village.
RECENT BART ACTION
On June 11, 2015, the BART Board of Directors considered and approved an extension of the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement between the Pleasant Hill BART Leasing Authority (BART and Contra Costa County)
and Pleasant Hill Transit Village Associated, LLC (the developer) for development of Block C. The motion to
approve the extension further stated that “The Board encourages to work with the developer to develop a
condominium overlay map in association with Block C. The additional unit count is consistent with the current
development proposal of 200 units.”
The developer stated to the BART Board they would be able to include a condominium overlay for the project. If
the Board of Supervisors wishes to include this provision into the Conditions of Approval, staff recommends the
following changes to Condition of Approval #6:
6a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall obtain the approval of the County Surveyor and
record a Certificate of Correction of SUBDIVISION 8950, designating “Lot 1” as approved for condominium
purposes for up to 200 residential condominium units and 1 commercial/retail condominium unit, pursuant to
Section 66426 and Section 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act”.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The modification to the Preliminary and Final Development Plan would not be approved and completion of the
Transit Village would be delayed unless and until both the housing market has more fully recovered, the market
for urban flat-style condominiums has been created, and the BART Board considers selling the property adjacent
to the Station. Block C, adjacent to the BART station, would be expected to remain vacant.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Appellant - Jeffrey Peckham, Walden District Improvement Association; Leo Dominguez, resident of
Walnut Creek; Steve Potter, resident of Walnut Creek; Larry McEwen, resident of Walnut Creek; Gail Murray,
BART; Aram Hodess, Plumbers & Steamfitters 159; Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council;
Donna Gerber, former District III Supervisor; Applicant - Mark Farrar, Pleasant Hill Transit Associates, LLC.
Written commentary was provided by (attached): Greg Feere (letter from Mark Farrar and Nathan Hong,
Pleasant Hill Transit Associates, LLC);Donald g. Huggins, resident of Walnut Creek; Jeff and Carlene
Valentine, residents of Walnut Creek; Donna Gerber, Contra Costa County resident. The PowerPoint slides
for this presentation were not included in the publication of the agenda. By unanimous vote of the Supervisors
present: WAIVED Better Government Ordinance 96-Hour Time Limit to allow inclusion of staff material for
this item. CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal and UPHELD the decision of the County
Planning Commission to approve a modification to the preliminary and final development plan for Block C of
the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Transit Village from 100 townhouse units to 200 apartment units
with 2,315 sq. ft. of commercial use (County File DP15-3001) ; DETERMINED there are not any significant
impacts that were not previously described in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Addendum adopted May 24, 2005; and the
modifications qualify for Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65457 and Public Resources
Code Section 21155.4; ADOPTED the project Findings and Conditions of Approval for County File
DP15-3001; ADDED Conditions of Approval: a. Developer shall contribute $24,000 annually and adjusted for
CPI for the maintenance of Walden green space area; b. Developer shall construct a community room that is a
minimum of 950 sq. ft, appropriately furnished as is common standard for this type of space, and available for
use a minimum of 8 hours per month at no charge, said use not limited to the Walden Improvement
Association; c. Developer will pay, pro-rated and adjusted for CPI, into the fund for the Resident Deputy at this
location, to commence when the Block C unit occupation begins. APPROVED the Modification to the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval; and
DIRECTED the Community Development Division to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
ATTACHMENTS
Walden District Improvement Association Appeal Letter
County Planning Commission Resolution #16-2015
4-14-2015 Planning Commission Staff Report
Findings and Conditions of Approval
4-14-2015 CPC Attachments A - Q
4-28-15 Planning Commission Staff Report
4-28-15 CPC Attachments R-S
Department of Conservation and Development
County Planning Commission
Tuesday, April 14, 2015– 7:00 .P.M.
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item # 6
Project Title:
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village-Block C
County File Numbers:
DP15-3001
Applicant/Owner:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
(BART) (Owner) and PLEASANT HILL BART TRANSIT VILLAGE
ASSOCIATES, LLC c/o MILLENNIUM PARTNERS (Applicant)
General Plan/Zoning:
Mixed Use (MU) / Planned Unit Development (P-1)
Project Location/Address: The project site is located on a 1.61 acre parcel (Block C), which is part
of the 18-acre Contra Costa Centre Transit Village, in the Pleasant
Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station Area in Central Contra Costa
County. (APN 148-221-040).
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Status:
The project is exempt per Government Code Section 65457(a), CEQA
Guidelines Section 15182, and PRC Section 21155.4. (See Section
III-C for complete CEQA information)
Project Planners: Maureen Toms (925) 674-7878
Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Complete Recommendation)
I. INTRODUCTION
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (Owner) and PLEASANT HILL
BART TRANSIT VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LLC c/o MILLENNIUM PARTNERS (Applicant),
County File #DP15-030001: The applicant requests approval of a modification to the Preliminary
(DP02-03041) and Final Development Plan (DP04-3099) eliminating Condition of Approval # 6 and
allowing an increase in the number of units for the Block C to 200 rental units. The 1.61 acre parcel is
part of the 18-acre Contra Costa Centre Transit Village, in the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre
BART Station Area in Central Contra Costa County. (APN 148-221-040).
1
II. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the County Planning Commission, having considered the environmental
documentation prepared for the project, determine there are not any significant impacts, not previously
described in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted
October 6, 1998; Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted November 5, 2002; and Addendum
adopted May 24, 2005; and the modifications qualify for Statutory Exemption under Government Code
Section 65457 and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4; and approve the Modification to the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan (Attachment A), subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. General Plan/Specific Plan: The subject site is designated Mixed-Use in the Contra Costa
County General Plan and Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (see Attachment B).
B. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Planned-Unit (P-1) Zoning District (see Attachment C).
C. CEQA Status: A Final EIR for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan was adopted
on October 6, 1998. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Preliminary Development Plan
and rezoning of the subject site was adopted November 5, 2002. Since impacts of the Final
Development Plan were addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in 2002, an
addendum to the Mitigated Negative declaration was adopted May 24, 2005 with approval of
the Final Development plan and subdivision.
Government Code Section 65457(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 exempt any
residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is
undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental
impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980. Public Resources Code Section 21155.4
exempts residential projects located within a transit priority area that have been undertaken to
implement a Specific Plan for which an EIR was completed, and are consistent with the
applicable sustainable communities strategy, from CEQA review. However, neither exemption
applies if any of the circumstances requiring the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent
EIR per section 21166 of the Public Resources Code have occurred. Here, the project is a
residential project that is consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan EIR adopted
October 6, 1998. It is also located within a transit priority area and is consistent with the
applicable sustainable communities strategy. As explained below, a subsequent or
supplemental EIR is not required; therefore, the project is exempt from further CEQA review.
A CEQA checklist (see Attachment D) has been prepared to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the Avalon Walnut Creek – Block “C” development (proposed
project) in relationship to the prior environmental review conducted for the site, including the
1998 Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan EIR, 2002 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and 2005 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis
considers whether the environmental impacts of the project have already been analyzed under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code (PRC), Section
21000, et seq.), or whether any of the circumstances requiring the preparation of a
supplemental or subsequent EIR have occurred. The environmental checklist considered
2
modifications to the Avalon Bay Walnut Creek – Block C and concluded that no new
significant impacts or substantially increased significant impacts would occur, and that no new
information of substantial importance has been made known since previous environmental
review was completed. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA.
D. Origin of Parcel: Block C is Lot 1 of Subdivision 8950, recorded on July 25, 2008 (see
Attachment E).
E. Previous Applications:
• GPA970001, approved October 6, 1998, involved amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan.
• RZ963047 was a request to rezone the site to a P-1 to allow the development of an
entertainment center and was subsequently withdrawn.
• DP023041, RZ023116, and SP2002-02, approved November 5, 2002, involved the preliminary
development plan of the BART property, rezoning the site from Single-Family Residential
Zoning District (R-15) to Planned-unit district and the amending the Specific Plan standards
related to building setbacks for the 18-acre site owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District.
• DP043099 and SD058950, approved on May 24, 2005, included the subdivision of nine lots, a
reconfiguration of the existing six parcels; and a final development plan to develop 549 multi-
family residential units; 35,590 sq. ft. of retail; 12,130 sq. ft. (10 units) of live-work/retail;
270,000 sq. ft. of commercial office; 19,400 sq. ft. of conference area; and 1,816 structured
parking spaces for the proposed uses for the entire 18-acre site owned by the San Francisco
Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
IV. AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION
The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station area consists of a mix of high-density housing,
offices, hotel and neighborhood-serving retail uses. The BART Property occupies an 18-acre site
owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) on the northeast intersection of
Oak Road and Treat Boulevard in Central Contra Costa County. The BART rail line bisects the
property on a diagonal running from the southwest to the northeast. The current uses on the BART
property include the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station and platform; an eight-story,
3,283-space expanded BART parking garage; the liner building with 33 residential units; the four - six
story Block A development with 15,601 sq. ft. of retail and 184 residential units; the four – six story
Block B building with 13,742 sq. ft. of retail, 205 residential units; and a pool. Civic space already
constructed includes the town square, the village green linking the town square to Jones Road;
increased bicycle parking at the station, enhancements at the station, and the reconfigured intermodel
bus area. The site is bordered by Treat Boulevard, on the south, Oak Road on the west, Las Juntas
Way on the north, and Jones Road on the east. The right-of way for the Iron Horse Trail is located to
the east of the site, across Jones Road. This site is essentially flat, with a slight rise from west to east.
The additional amenities of the BART Property include the grove of Oak trees at the corner of Oak
Road and Treat Boulevard, Fox Creek Park, as well as views of Mt. Diablo from the station platform
and from higher buildings, and the proximity to the Iron Horse Trail. The Walden Green and Walden
2 Landscape areas along the Iron Horse Trail to the east of the project site are additional amenities
3
partially funded through park dedication funds derived from the existing development. Maintenance of
the Walden Greenspace is also partially funded through a business agreement with the developer.
The proposed project would be constructed on Block C of the Contra Costa Centre-Pleasant Hill
BART Transit Village. Block C is one of five development blocks in the Transit Village. Block C is
bounded by the BART Station and intermodal bus area to the north; Jones Road and the Iron Horse
Trail to the east; the Village Green, Harvey Drive, and Block B to the south; and the town square on
the west. The 70,194 sq. ft. (1.61 acre) lot is also known as Lot 1 of Subdivision 8950.
V. PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant requests approval of a modification to the Preliminary (DP02-03041) and Final
Development Plan (DP04-3099) eliminating Condition of Approval # 6 and allowing an increase in the
number of units for the Block C from 100 townhouse units to 200 rental units. The proposal results in
an increase from 285,065 sq. ft. with four stories to 340,997 sq. ft. with a range from four – six stories
in height. The proposed unit sizes are smaller, therefore the area increase is 19 percent in gross area,
and not a doubling of the building size. Since not all of the approved residential units on the BART
Property were constructed (549 units approved and 422 units built.), the requested approval only
increases the total number of units allowed by the Final Development plan by 73 units. The 1.61 acre
parcel is part of the 18-acre Contra Costa Centre Transit Village, in the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa
Centre BART Station Area in Central Contra Costa County.
Block C has evolved through the planning process. Below is the progression of changes:
Block C – Preliminary Development Plan (approved 2002): A civic use, commercial space and 50
town homes wrapping the south and east edges of Block C were planned. The three-story building
shielded the internal courtyard of the residential units from train-related noise. The northern edge of
Block C was adjacent to a one-way bus intermodal and only about 20 ft. from the station. Block C, the
Village Green and the Town Square were separated by internal streets.
Block C – Final Development Plan (approved 2005): Block C evolved through the final design
process to include 2,315 sq. ft. of retail and 100 for-sale residential units. The increase in residential
units on this block is primarily due to a change in unit type to include residential flats on the first two
levels and a two-story unit type on levels three and four. The distance between the BART tracks and
the buildings on Block C increased from approximately 20 ft. to 60 ft. in the final development plan.
The bus intermodal increased to a two way configuration with bus parking on both sides of the street.
The building entrances on the north side of the Block were via an internal courtyard, instead of a street
entrance. The residential units included 26 one -bedroom units, 44 two-bedroom units, and 30 three-
bedroom units. The bedroom count of the proposal totaled 204. Block C was over-parked at 259
parking spaces to accommodate two spaces per unit as well as 59 overflow parking spaces.
Block C – Modification the Preliminary and Final Development Plan (proposed 2015): The
proposal retains the 2,315 sq. ft. retail space and includes 200 apartments. The pedestrian building
entrances are through a lobby on the town square, a lobby at the corner of Jones Road and Harvey
Drive, and a secure doorway along Coggins Drive. The lobby areas and street level units are accessible
from the perimeter of the building. In addition, the lobby and all the street level units are accessible
from the parking garage. The proposed residential units include 17 studio units, 99 one-bedroom units,
67 two bedroom units, and 17 three-bedroom units. The bedroom count of the proposal totals 284.
Block C has 246 parking spaces, which is consistent with the parking requirement in the Specific Plan.
4
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSES:
A. Contra Costa County (CCC) Public Works Department: See Attachment F-1 memo dated
February 23, 2015 and F-2 received April 2, 2015.
B. CCC Building Inspection Division: This is a large, complex project and will have to meet all
the code provisions per 2013 CBC.
C. CCC Housing Division: Inclusionary Ordinance 822-4.408 (b) exemption for projects in a
redevelopment area with redevelopment affordable housing. The affordable unit requirement
was met through the previous rental project development.
D. CCC Fire Protection District: See Attachment G letter dated February 26, 2015
E. CCC Health Services Department, Environmental Health: See Attachment H letter dated
February 6, 2015
F. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: According to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District (CCCSD) records, the project site is within CCCSD’s service area and sewer service is
available to it via an 8-inch diameter public main sewer in Coggins Drive. The proposed
project would not be expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the
wastewater system, nor interfere with existing facilities.
The developer will be required to submit full-size building plans for CCCSD to review in
advance and to pay fees and charges. The payment of capital improvement fees is required for
the development, since it will generate an added wastewater capacity demand to the sanitary
sewer system. This project will be subject to substantial capital improvement fees due to its
size. To receive an estimate of project fees and charges, the developer should promptly contact
CCCSD’s Permit Section at (925) 229-7371. Russell B. Leavitt (via email 2/4/15)
G. Contra Costa Water District: See Attachment I letter dated February 18, 2015.
H. Contra Costa Centre Municipal Advisory Council (MAC): The proposed project was
presented to the Contra Costa Centre MAC on November 18, 2014 and January 20, 2015.
Notes from the November 18, 2014 meeting are as follows: MAC member John Vallor asked
what the construction timeline would be if it proceeds. The applicant, Mark Farrar responded
that about 12 months to get design and construction permit, and 12-18 months to build. John
asked if there was any idea what the economic conditions would be for condo sales in 2017.
The Real Estate Economist, Reed Kawahara, responded that it is very difficult to forecast this,
but that it will be years in their opinion to reach financial feasibility.
John Vallor asked what were the economics of apartment development, since it was not really
addressed in the study. Reed Kawahara indicated that they are studying the apartment market
but they are relying on Millennium Partners/Avalon Bay analysis and their subsequent
proposal. The focus of their study was to evaluate the condo market. Mark Farrar concurred
5
that an apartment development is economically viable based on the current project while they
do not believe for sale is viable.
MAC member Jeffrey Peckham asked for clarification on a number of things:
• Why didn’t the study include the 235 condo unit proposal in Walnut Creek in the Saranap
neighborhood? Reed Kawahara said he would look into it, but it might be because it is lower
density.
• Why is the CAP rate discussion relevant to the study? Reed Kawahara indicated it was
comparing the profitability of a condo development to apartment development – which today
favors apartment projects.
• Why was the point being made about union labor costs affecting the feasibility of the condo
build-out – it would seem to be the same for apartments. Reed Kawahara responded this was
comparing the project build-out costs compared to projects not on the BART property, which
would not require prevailing wage – an additional challenge to any build-out project there.
• Why not eliminate the retail space if it is not profitable as noted in the study ($560,000
impact), and have more residential units. Mark Farrar indicated they felt retail space in the
location adjacent to the town plaza was a key design element to activate the plaza. Jeffrey
Peckham then suggested they build it out as residential with infrastructure for retail if it
should become ‘feasible’. Mark Farrar said they could look into that.
• Why is the current proposal for 200 units, far denser than the plan for 100 units, and to an
elevation of six stories instead of 4 in the current plan. Mark Farrar responded that four to
six stories were needed to create the density of 200 units.
• Jeffrey stated that there would be no view of Mt Diablo from the platform. In discussion, it
was determined that the platform height of 35 feet, providing viewing from approximately 40
feet, would allow views to be preserved from certain platform locations which look to the south
through the Village Plaza
Several speakers commented about the need to retain the Charrette plan of 2001, which
included ownership. The MAC neither made a recommendation to approve, nor deny the
project.
Notes from the January 20, 2015 MAC meeting are as follows:
MAC member, Lynette Busby, commented that high density housing is a needed component as
a way to get people out of their cars and onto public transit.
John Vallor commented he feels that honoring the process and historical nature of the Transit
Village land planning is important, but made no motion regarding the current proposal.
MAC member Jeffrey Peckham commented that former Supervisor Donna Gerber had written
a very thorough response to the proposal challenging it, and everyone should read it. He also
noted that, at the public meeting on this topic held on December 8th, sponsored by Walden, that
the several dozen residents who attended were polled and found to be 100% against the
proposal. No residents of the Avalon apartments attended.
Larry McEwen, representing Walden, repeated their position that the community vehemently
opposes the proposed rental development. They also challenge the report indicating that
Condos are not economically viable. He then confirmed with Maureen Toms that the comments
6
from the public meeting on December 8th hosted by Walden at County’s request will be
provided to the planning commission. He asked whether the current approved design for
Block C would block views of Mt Diablo, which Mark Farrar confirmed. Mark also said that
the proposed building would increase the Mt. Diablo view corridor from the platform. Larry
also noted that no residents of the Avalon apartments were in attendance, stating that this is
further confirmation of the need for an ownership component in the Transit Village.
Peter Duncan commented that by diminishing the number of owners there will not be many
who are willing to volunteer for government functions like the MAC.
Don Mount commented views of Mt Diablo as well as ownership were key aspects of the
agreements made in the Charrette. He then advocated for more local retail with larger spaces
be part of the design. He again brought forward the notion of a small grocery store as a good
anchor for the retail.
Rebecca Gehres asked whether the transit village got federal or state funds. Maureen Toms
indicated no, although redevelopment funds were part of the overall development, the current
phase does not have any public funding. She also asked for confirmation of the proposed cost
of Condos if they were built instead, and Maureen Toms confirmed they would run 680k –
700k. Rebecca asserted those prices were in line with the cost for other condos in the area, and
concluded by asking that the MAC reject the proposal.
I. Walden District Improvement Association: The project was presented to the Walden District
Improvement Association on December 8, 2014. Staff’s notes of the meeting with responses
are included in Attachment J.
A letter dated June 21, 2014 sent to Supervisor Mitchoff from the Walden District
Improvement Association, regarding the proposal of Block C, is attached as Attachment K.
The response to the letter is attached as Attachment L.
J. City of Walnut Creek: No comments received
K. Mount Diablo Unified School District: No comments received
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS/RESPONSES
A. Donna Gerber Comments:
December 8, 2014 (MAC Meeting): Donna Gerber introduced herself as former county
supervisor when the original project was approved.
• She facilitated the Charrette process, which was, in her words, very tough and complex. She
asserted that it was important that this was a process that resulted in compromises on all
sides, but would be an excellent transit oriented development. She believes those goals were
met in the design.
• Mixed use is hard to do because at any one time one product is easy to develop, and that’s why
developers want to do 100% of one product.
• In 2004 the transit village would have been 100% condo based upon this fact. The residents
wanted mixed use and mixed tenure, and that is what was promised in the agreements.
7
• Millennium and Avalon agreed to the project including the for-sale condominiums. Donna
feels very strongly that the project should not be altered. She asserted in conclusion that it is
fair to hold (the developers) to the Charrette agreement.
• She does not agree with the Keyser Marsten study results, when considering other studies of
where the Condo market will be in 2017 when the units come on the market. There are lots of
indicators that the condo market is recovering.
• Avalon was not part of the original agreement, nor can they build condos.
• She suggested that the JPA put out a RFP to see if there is a developer who has interest in
building the project of 100 condos, as stated in the plan.
Staff Response: The master development team is able to build condos, however, they would
not be able to secure financing to build a project that is not financial feasible. The 100 unit
condo project has not been economically feasible since the property was available for
development, over eight years ago. The claims that the condo market has returned enough to
be viable has not been substantiated. Many ownership projects that were constructed in 2004,
were underwater four years later. Several other projects built as for-sale projects are being
rented. Since the for-sale element of the Charrette agreement/Final Development Plan remains
financially infeasible, the process to amend the plan is to request approval of an amendment to
the Development Plan.
January 5, 2015 Letter from Donna Gerber: See Attachment M
Keyser Marsten Associates Response: See Attachment N
B. Rebecca Gehres
December 8, 2014 (MAC Meeting): Rebecca Gehres asked how we will get tax on rentals.
Maureen responded that tax is assessed based on property value, regardless. Rebecca asked
about 4 stories vs the current proposal of 6 stories. Reed summarized that 4 vs 6 stories is not
a big difference as it is the same construction type. She asked if something could be done to
make the windows less prison-like. Since she was referring to Block A windows, there was no
opportunity to change the design on that building.
Email from December 9, 2014: Since the current developer does not choose to honor the
building of 100 condos, can't the bid go to other builders willing to build for less profit? Some
developers may feel comfortable with a lower profit rather than the high profit Avalon desires.
Email from January 20, 2015: The proposal to build 200 apartments instead of homes directly
impacts me in the following way: my personal safety and my money. Our home is our biggest
asset and having a slum nearby will degrade its value. I'm too young to retire and sell or I
would. Six hundred rental unit will bring undesirables into my neighborhood which will
impact my personal safety. And I'm not even addressing the extra cars and traffic on the
ingress to the freeway. Please vote no.
Staff Response: The feasibility study indicates the cost to build the approved project is higher
than the return. The quality of the construction, rents charged and income of the residents (see
Section X.E. Demographics below) are factors that would indicate a quality project. The
existing rental project is occupied by professionals and maintained at a very high level. The
8
traffic report (see Section X-G of the Staff Report and Attachments Q and R), indicates the
increase in traffic from the change is not significant.
X. STAFF DISCUSSION
A. General Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning:
The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station Area is a unique area that provides many
opportunities for achieving regional goals through the development of the site. The BART Station,
which represents a substantial public investment, is an anchor for the development and is a people
generator for a major public space and future retail uses. In addition to the regional transit access from
BART and buses, the site has excellent visibility and automobile access from 1-680 and Treat
Boulevard, and pedestrian and bicycle access for the Iron Horse Trail. Following are overall goals for
the BART Station Area identified as Policy 3-108 of the General Plan:
a) increase the concentration of high intensity employment uses and affordable housing;
b) integrate housing into the area;
c) provide sufficient retail and other commercial services and public open space amenities for
station area employees, BART riders, and residents of the station area and nearby residential
and commercial uses to reduce trip chaining;
d) promote a station area appearance which will project a positive image and have high regional
and local identity;
e) achieve cooperative development actions by BART and the private sector;
f) develop areas intensively used by pedestrians at a human scale;
The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Specific Plan allows for 60 units per acre over the 12.5- acre
developable area at the transit village (area Subareas 11 and 12), for a total of 750 units. Under the
Specific Plan, there are 328 (750-422=328) units to be built until the ceiling is reached. Increasing the
unit count, as proposed, would result in a total of 622 units in Subareas 11 and 12. The Final
Development Plan contemplated a total of 549 multi-family residential units and only 422 units on
Blocks A, B, and E have been constructed, leaving 127 allowable units under the Final Development
Plan. While the proposed modification to the Development Plan would increase the number of units
by 73, it is still well below the maximum 750 units allowed by the Specific Plan.
The County sponsored a design Charrette for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property (Subareas 11
and 12) in 2001. The process began with a research and education phase in January 2001, followed by
six days of public meetings on various topics (e.g., parking, pedestrian bridge, swim club, etc.),
presentations, open studio, review and revision of plans, and a meeting focusing on the Architectural
Codes. Over 500 people participated in the Charrette process, which included over 85 hours of open
public session. The Charrette Plan, developed out of the process, was endorsed by the Greenbelt
Alliance, Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalitions, Contra Costa Council, the Contra Costa
Economic Partnership and the California Association for Local Economic Development. The Board of
Supervisors accepted the Charrette Summary Report in December 2001. The Preliminary
Development Plan for the subject site included 290,000-456,000 sq. ft. of office, 274-446 multiple-
family residential units (including 50 for-sale units), 42,000 sq. ft. of storefront, 7,000 sq. ft. of Civic,
and the expansion of the existing 1,337 space parking garage with an additional 1,477 spaces. The
Architectural Codes developed through the Charrette process became the basis of the Preliminary
9
Development Plan and Planned-Unit Zoning, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on
November 5, 2002.
The Final Development Plan, a more defined plan for the BART property, was adopted in 2005. Three
of five of the development blocks, plus the replacement parking garage, town square, village green,
and station enhancements have all been completed, with slightly less dense development than was
approved. Block C, entitled for 100 townhomes, and Block D, entitled for a 290,000 sq. ft. office with
conference space, remain unbuilt.
Following is a table showing the requirements of the Specific Plan and the subsequent approvals of the
Preliminary and Final Development Plans, as well as the current proposal’s consistency with the
Specific Plan.
Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station Area,
Block C Plan Consistency
Issue Specific Plan Preliminary
Development
Plan (Charrette
Outcome)
Final
Development
Plan
Proposed
Project
Action
Use Multi-Family with conditional
approval Retail Permitted
Community Use Permitted
Multi-Family
Housing 60'
Frontage of
Community Use
at Town Square
Multi-family
condominiums
and Retail
Multi-family
apartments and
Retail
Multi-family housing and
retail are consistent with the
Specific Plan and the
Development Plan.
Action: none required.
Parking Residential Requirements 0.75
spaces per sleeping space
minimum or 1.0 spaces per unit
minimum
1.5 spaces per unit maximum
Commercial/Office Requirements
0.5 spaces per 1,000 SF
Minimum 3.3 spaces per 1,000
SF Maximum
Refer to
Specific Plan
259 Spaces
total approved
2.0
spaces/res.
unit = 200
spaces
2.1 Retail
overflow = 59
spaces
246 spaces total
proposed (1.23
spaces/res.
unit)
Proposed Project has fewer
spaces than the
Development Plan, but it is
consistent with the Specific
Plan. 1.23 spaces per unit
would be provided, which is
within the range of spaces
per unit required by the
Specific Plan.
Action: Amendment to the
Development Plan.
Density 750 Dwelling Units Maximum for
the entire project.
Permitted Minimum Density = 35
DU/acre Maximum Density = 60
DU/acre
50 Dwelling
Units
100 Dwelling
Units
200 Dwelling
Units
Proposed Project increases
the number of units from the
Development Plan, but it is
consistent with the Specific
Plan. 750 Units allowed with
the Specific Plan Allowance.
422 units have currently
been built. There are 328
units still allowed to be built
within the Station Area Plan.
Action: Amendment to the
Development Plan.
10
Height 5 Stories (80') 7 Stories with
Conditional Approval (108')
52' 4 Stories
(47')
4-6 Stories
(55'-65' )
Proposed Project increases
the height from the
Development Plan, but it is
consistent with the Specific
Plan. The maximum height
would be 65’, well below the
80’ height limit. Conditional
approval is required to
exceed 5 stories.
Action: Amendment to the
Development Plan .
View
corridor Maintain the visual relationship
of the Station Area to the larger
natural and built setting provided
by long distance views, in
particular those of Mt. Diablo, by
protecting for views as seen from
the BART Station platform and
from future upper floor office
space throughout the Station
Area. Encourage the creation of
view corridors from the
development.
Refer to
Specific Plan
Approved
development
plan provides
minimal views
to Mt. Diablo.
Proposed plan
is consistent to
the
Development
Plan
Action: none required.
B. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART):
Subareas 11 and 12 surround the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station and are BART owned.
The BART system is a major public investment in the region. Uses of the BART-owned land
surrounding the stations have evolved from strictly parking to a mix of both public parking and transit
oriented development. The majority of the transit oriented developments on BART-owned property
have occurred through ground leases that give the public agency control over the property when the
leases expire. BART has developed the following goals as it relates to development on their properties
adjoining the stations.
• Generate new (on-going) sources of revenue
• Increase transit ridership through cooperative District-owned properties
• More effective development patterns (ie. around existing infrastructure)
• Job generating uses (offices) result in reverse commute BART riders
• Housing increases ridership without increasing parking demand
• More life at stations (eyes on the street and increased safety )
• Retaining land use control over these public assets is a priority
• Reduced regional air pollution, traffic congestion and energy consumption
During the 2001 Charrette, the issue of long-term ground leases versus selling property to develop
for-sale housing was discussed at length. The Charrette Summary included the following discussion
on the topic:
11
FOR SALE VS. RENTAL HOUSING: The Charrette process identifies significant concern about for-
sale vs. rental uses. The summary report identified issues of for-sale housing at any BART station
reflecting two legitimate interests: local residents living near a BART station and the region’s
taxpayers who support BART. Any development at the Pleasant Hill BART station needs to reconcile
these two interests. In 2001 , BART was willing to balance the local interests with the more
regional interests by considering 50 units of for-sale house. This approach would allow for some
housing diversity in the area, while still ensuring that BART will control enough of the site to ensure
its long-term integrity as a regional transit facility.
Local residents who live around a BART station typically want new residential development in their
neighborhood to be ownership housing. Ownership housing is perceived as providing more long-
term stability to a neighborhood as well as preserving and enhancing property values.
The taxpayers who have paid for the BART system and who want transit to remain a critical part of the
region's mobility network generally wish to ensure that the land uses around BART stations remain
transit supportive and transit friendly. To support these constituents, the BART Board has adopted a
strong policy to lease, rather than sell, land around BART stations. The four main reasons for this
policy are as follows:
• Control over land uses: BART's continued ability to ensure that land uses adjacent to its stations
support transit ridership and are transit friendly.
• Share in increased property values: BART's ability to share in additional revenue generated by
increases in property values and revenues created by development will help support the cost of
operating the train system and will enhance the public's investment in the BART infrastructure.
• Density: To take maximum advantage of the public's investment in BART's infrastructure, higher
density at the BART stations is preferred. In general, ownership housing is built at lower density
than rental units.
• Parcelization of ownership constrains Transit Oriented Development: To build the station and
supporting infrastructure, BART and the County assembled many smaller parcels into larger
parcel. Subdividing into smaller privately owned plots (condos or town homes) reverses this
effort and may limit future options.
The overall development program on the site, including the total number of residential units, does not
change significantly based on whether or not the units are for-sale or for rent. Therefore, the
planning process should focus on establishing a basic number of units to be built on the site. The
ownership issue can be resolved at a later date and through a different process that reflects these
diverse interests.
The outcome of the Charrette included an agreement with BART to sell Block C so that it could be
developed with for-sale housing. On May 15, 2008, BART and the Pleasant Hill BART Leasing
Authority entered into a Purchase Agreement for Block C. The Master Developer was unable to bring
a feasible project forward during the term of the Purchase Agreement. Following two amendments to
extend the term of the agreement, the Purchase Agreement expired on April 1, 2012. There has not
been a request to re-enter into the Purchase Agreement because the feasibility of a for-sale project
cannot be demonstrated.
The Master Developer has proposed a feasible project involving a rental project. As discussed above,
a ground lease is preferred by the property owner (BART). Long-term BART/public ownership and
future control of Block C, rather than 100 separate land owners adjacent to the station, is in the best
12
interest of the public agency. The proposed sub-lease for Block C would be co-terminus with the
sublease for the other blocks, which provides the ability to master plan the entire site to support transit
in the future without constraints of ownership.
C. Public Words Department Issues:
Background: The applicant requests a development permit to construct 200 apartment units and 2,300
square feet of retail space on an approximately 1.61-acre Block C parcel of the Contra Costa Centre
Transit Village. The project site is located on the west side of Jones Road, north of Harvey Drive and
southeast of Coggins Drive. The project site was previously a BART parking lot, although it is not
currently being used for parking. The proposed structure will consist of two levels of parking garage,
one level being underground; five stories on top of the two-story parking garage along Coggins Drive;
and a combination of three and four stories along Harvey Drive and Jones Road.
Traffic and Circulation: The project has direct frontage along Jones Road, which is a four lane road
with a raised median, and Coggins Drive, which is a two lane road, limited to busses only (i.e. bus
boarding area). The project is separated from Harvey Drive by a linear park and is separated from
Sunne Lane by the “Town Square.” The nearest major thoroughfare is Treat Boulevard located one
block to the south of the project location.
The driveway access to the proposed parking garage is located on Jones Road where a break in the
median and a left turn pocket exists to allow access from the northbound direction. There are two main
access points for pedestrians: one is at the southeast corner of the project site near the intersection of
Harvey Drive and Jones Road; and the other is at the “Town Square” at the southwest corner of the
project site. The units on the first level appear to also have direct access to either Jones Road or Harvey
Drive depending on the location of the unit.
It appears that most frontage improvements have already been installed with Subdivision 8950. No
additional frontage improvements are proposed with the exception of widening the existing driveway
on Jones Road to allow truck access to a proposed loading dock area just north of the proposed
driveway to the parking garage. The applicant will be conditioned to show that adequate corner site
distance is provided at the intersections of Jones Road with Coggins Drive and Harvey Drive. The
applicant has resubmitted the “Subdivision 8950 Sight Distance Exhibit” dated December 2007. This
Exhibit was not updated to reflect the proposed revised development plan which includes trees at the
southwestern corner of the Coggins Drive and Jones Road intersection. A new sight distance exhibit
will need to be submitted showing the proposed building and landscaping in order to meet the
condition of approval to provide adequate sight distance.
The application indicates that garbage and fire trucks will access the proposed development from the
surrounding streets and will not utilize the garage area. Delivery trucks will use the loading dock area
adjacent to the entrance to the parking garage and will not utilize the parking garage area. A “Garbage
Truck Operations Exhibit” has been submitted with the application. The proposed location for garbage
pickup is problematic for pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation on Jones Road. The garbage truck
will need to block the westernmost southbound lane on Jones Road for a significant amount of time to
pick up the multiple dumpsters, which will require moving each of them from the “staging area” in
front of the loading dock and positioning each for the truck to pick up. It is unclear what the delivery
truck is expected to do when the access to the loading dock is blocked by the dumpsters in the “staging
area.” If the delivery truck cannot enter the garage, the driver is likely to block the westernmost
13
southbound lane on Jones Road while they make their delivery. The garbage truck operations plan
should be revised to eliminate the need to block the travel way on Jones Road.
The original development permit DP04-3099 for this site was to construct 100 townhomes on the
project site. This proposed project doubles the planned number of dwelling units. A traffic study has
been prepared addressing the changes to the overall development plan since the original 2004 version.
The study indicated that the overall effect of changing from 100 condos to 200 apartments, when
incorporating the effects of land use changes for office and retail space, results in a less than 1%
increase in morning Peak Hour Trips and a decrease in afternoon Peak Hour Trips from the 2004
traffic analysis. The report also indicates that the proposed project level of service at the intersection of
Jones Road and Treat Boulevard and the intersection of Jones Road and Harvey Drive are equal to or
better that the Levels of Service calculated in the 2004 Traffic Analysis. The level of service
calculated for the intersection of Jones Road with Coggins Drive and the BART parking lot is lower
than the 2004 Traffic analysis; however it is not reduced from the existing condition. No traffic impact
mitigation measures are recommended by the Analysis.
Drainage: It appears that the existing project site is fairly flat. In the project site’s existing condition,
it appears that onsite drainage would sheet flow towards the north, possibly ponding on the northern
half of the project site. Multiple existing storm drains are shown on the surrounding streets. The
“Preliminary Improvement Plan” submitted shows un-sized storm drain pipes connecting into the
existing storm drain systems on the surrounding streets.
Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all stormwater entering and/or originating on
this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing
adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to an adequate natural
watercourse. The preliminary improvement plan indicates that this project intends to meet this
requirement by connecting into the existing storm drain system. The applicant will need to show that
the existing storm drain system was designed to take runoff from the site and that the proposed project
will drain to the existing storm drain system as it was planned to when the existing storm drain system
was designed.
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: The proposed project is substantially
different from the previously approved project at this site and also a new development application.
Therefore, the proposed project will be required to comply with the current requirements of the
County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County’s
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit. Under the County Ordinance and the County NPDES Permit, a Stormwater Control
Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or redevelop impervious surface area
exceeding 10,000 square feet (5,000 square feet for projects that include parking lots, restaurants,
automotive service facilities and gas stations). It appears that almost the entire 1.61-acre project site is
currently covered in impervious surface. This development permit proposes to redevelop the entire site
replacing more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface.
A preliminary SWCP has been submitted that includes a bound report and a stormwater site
plan/exhibit depicting separate drainage area and the facilities designed to treat each drainage area. The
SWCP correctly indicates that the project falls within the “Special Projects” category within the C.3
requirement and, therefore, qualifies to use non-LID treatment Systems. The SWCP indicates that the
project intends to meets C.3 requirements using “roof drain scrubber media filters” at several locations
14
on the project site. The SWCP also indicates that the roof plan is not complete and consequently the
drainage areas are approximate. The preliminary SWCP does not specify a specific non-LID treatment
system product to be used, therefore it is not possible to confirm whether or not the Contra Costa Clean
Water Program Technical Criteria for Non-LID Treatment Facilities is being met. The applicant will
need solidify its drainage areas and the non-LID treatment systems to be used in the final SWCP before
it will be deemed adequate.
The preliminary SWCP correctly indicates that the proposed project will be subject to the hydrograph
modification requirements of C.3 due to the amount of impervious surface acreage exceeding one acre.
This project intends to meet this requirement through “Option 1” listed in Appendix C of the C.3
Guidebook, which requires demonstration that the project creates no net increase in impervious surface
and that changes to drainage facilities will not increase the efficiency of drainage collection and
conveyance. The Final SWCP should include this information as well.
Annexation to a Lighting District: The subject parcel is already annexed into the L-100 lighting
district and will require no further annexation into a lighting district.
Area of Benefit Fee: The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Areas of Benefit, as adopted by the Board
of Supervisors. These fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant has
indicated that it has paid some of the required fee, but that more is owed.
Drainage Area Fee and Creek Mitigation: The applicant will need to comply with the requirements
of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Drainage Area 44B Fee
Ordinance, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building
permits. It is unlikely that Drainage Area 44B fees shall be required because the project is replacing
existing impervious surface and not creating new impervious surface.
D. Project Feasibility:
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (JPA), comprising of the County and BART, has
the leasehold interest in Blocks A, B, D, E and the non-station public spaces. The JPA hired a real
estate economist to examine the feasibility of the entitled 100-unit condo project. Keyser Marsten
Associates (KMA) was contracted for this work and their principal, Reed Kawahara performed the
analysis. This report is included in the staff report as Attachment O. The conclusion of the study
confirmed the applicant’s assertion that the condo project is not feasible and that the market has not
recovered enough to construct the project as entitled.
In order to assess whether the condominium sale prices are supportable in the current market, KMA
surveyed condominium sales in select projects they believe bracket the upper and lower end of the
range that could be expected for the Block C condominium project. There are very few condominium
projects with direct comparability to Block C because of the high density nature of the proposed
development as well as its location in the unincorporated area between Pleasant Hill and Walnut
Creek. Home values are generally higher in Walnut Creek than Pleasant Hill due in part to the more
highly rated schools and in part due to the popularity of downtown Walnut Creek as a retail, dining,
and entertainment destination. On the other hand, Block C has the advantage of its proximity adjacent
to the BART station which allows for convenient transit accessibility to downtown San Francisco,
Oakland, and other employment centers. There are also few newly developed higher density condo
developments in the local market. All else being equal, new developments sell for a premium over
15
older ones, especially if finishes, appliances, and layouts are considered. This project is also more
expensive to build because of the requirement to pay prevailing wages for the construction.
The projects included in KMA’s survey were: The Mercer, a “luxury” project in the heart of
downtown Walnut Creek; 555 YVR, a newer high density condo project near the Walnut Creek
BART station; Walden Park Condominiums, a newer townhouse-style development located off Oak
Road midway between the Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek BART stations; and Iron Horse Lofts,
immediately to the north of the BART station on Coggins and Las Juntas.
As shown in the Figure 8 chart in the Analysis, the sale prices required for financial feasibility of the
Block C condominiums are above the sale prices being achieved for all four of the competitive
projects surveyed. In order to maintain the velocity of sales to absorb 100 to 150 condo units within a
reasonable sales period, the Block C condo units would need to be extremely price competitive. It is
also recognized that a higher density, stacked flat condo development would still be pioneering at this
location, which all condo developers and investors would consider when assessing the overall
development risk profile.
Median home prices in Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have been rising in recent years but are still
below peak prices when adjusted for construction cost inflation. The condominium market data and
pro forma financial feasibility analysis described in the Analysis, which assume a prevailing wage
cost premium as well as a $4 million land acquisition cost, indicates that a 100- to 150-unit
condominium development on Block C is likely not feasible based on today’s market conditions.
The current market does not support the prices required to make the condo development acceptable to
investors.
E. DEMOGRAPHICS: Contra Costa Centre is a census-designated place (see Attachment P). A census
designated place (CDP) is a concentration of population identified by the United States Census
Bureau for statistical purposes. The 2010 United States Census reported that Contra Costa Centre had
a population of 5,364. The population density was 8,360.4 people per square mile.
There were 2,995 households, out of which 445 (14.9%) had children under the age of 18 living in
them. The average household size was 1.79. There were 1,171 families (39.1% of all households); the
average family size was 2.60. The population was spread out with 646 people (12.0%) under the age of
18, 521 people (9.7%) aged 18 to 24, 2,593 people (48.3%) aged 25 to 44, 1,187 people (22.1%) aged
45 to 64, and 417 people (7.8%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33.3 years.
In the Census-designated place, there were 3,211 housing units counted, of which 750 (25.0%) were
owner-occupied, and 2,245 (75.0%) were occupied by renters. 1,509 people (28.1% of the population)
lived in owner-occupied housing units and 3,853 people (71.8%) lived in rental housing units.
Of the 3,111 housing units identified in the census, there are 286 condo units within the immediate
transit village area. Staff began reviewing the trend of owner occupancy in the surrounding
condominium projects to determine the percentage of units that are rented versus those that are owner
occupied. The data shows that out of the existing 286 condo units in the Contra Costa Centre Area, 50
percent of the units were rented in June 2013 and by September 2014, 58 percent of the units were
rented out. When units in adjacent Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek are considered, the total units
rented totaled 72 percent in September 2014. Although these developments have homeowner
associations, most of the home owners live offsite.
16
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE JUNE 2013
name total units Owner Occ. Rental
# % # %
Iron Horse Lofts 55 29 53% 26 47%
Wayside 156 80 51% 76 49%
Fox Creek 59 26 44% 33 56%
Oak Treat Ct. 16 7 44% 9 56%
TOTAL 286 142 50% 144 50%
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE SEPT. 2014
name total units Owner Occ. Rental
# % # %
Iron Horse Lofts 55 23 42% 32 58%
Wayside 156 69 44% 87 56%
Fox Creek 59 22 37% 37 63%
Oak Treat Ct. 16 7 44% 9 56%
TOTAL 286 121 42% 165 58%
According to the American Community Survey for the period of 2009-2013, Contra Costa Centre area
had a median income of $85,202 for households. The median income for those households with
families was $107,625, increasing to $110,972 for married-couple families. The estimates for the
various household types is included in the following chart.
Annual income - 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Subject Contra Costa Centre CDP, California
Households Families Married-couple families Nonfamily households
Estimate Margin of
Error
Estimate Margin of
Error
Estimate Margin of
Error
Estimate Margin of
Error
Total 3,161 +/-267 1,348 +/-235 1,153 +/-228 1,813 +/-237
Less than $10,000 3.5% +/-2.5 2.7% +/-2.7 1.0% +/-1.5 4.7% +/-4.2
$10,000 to $14,999 6.1% +/-4.6 4.2% +/-5.5 4.1% +/-6.2 8.0% +/-6.9
$15,000 to $24,999 5.2% +/-4.1 2.4% +/-2.7 1.3% +/-2.1 7.3% +/-7.1
$25,000 to $34,999 6.3% +/-3.2 5.0% +/-4.2 3.8% +/-3.9 7.3% +/-4.7
$35,000 to $49,999 7.5% +/-3.5 6.7% +/-4.2 2.3% +/-2.8 8.6% +/-5.1
$50,000 to $74,999 16.3% +/-4.6 16.0% +/-8.2 18.7% +/-9.2 15.9% +/-6.8
$75,000 to $99,999 14.3% +/-5.0 7.8% +/-4.4 6.8% +/-4.8 18.1% +/-8.3
$100,000 to
$149,999
22.6% +/-6.2 30.1% +/-9.5 32.6% +/-10.3 17.7% +/-8.7
$150,000 to
$199,999
6.7% +/-3.4 8.0% +/-6.1 9.4% +/-7.2 5.7% +/-4.1
$200,000 or more 11.5% +/-4.3 17.1% +/-9.0 20.0% +/-10.3 6.7% +/-4.4
Median income ($) 85,202 +/-11,883 107,625 +/-11,209 110,972 +/-10,990 73,504 +/-14,993
Mean income ($) 98,238 +/-11,818 116,474 +/-19,541 N N 83,179 +/-13,291
17
F. SB 375-California Senate Bill 375: Linking Regional Plans to State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Plan Bay Area grew out of “The California Sustain-able Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008” (California Senate Bill 375, Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas
— including the Bay Area — to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. The law
requires that the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) promote compact, mixed-use commercial
and residential development. To meet the goals of SB 375, Plan Bay Area directs more future
development in areas that are or will be walkable and bikable and close to public transit, jobs, schools,
shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. Key elements of SB 375 include the following.
The law requires that the Bay Area and other California regions develop a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) — a new element of the regional transportation plan (RTP) —to strive to reach the
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target established for each region by the California Air Resources
Board. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the land
use and housing assumptions for the SCS, which adds three new elements to the RTP:
(1) a land use component that identifies how the region could house the region’s entire population over
the next 25 years;
(2) a discussion of resource and farmland areas; and
(3) a demonstration of how the development pattern and the transportation network can work together
to reduce GHG emissions.
Finally, SB 375 streamlines the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for housing and mixed-
use projects that are consistent with the SCS and meet specified criteria, such as proximity to public
transportation (see Staff Report Section III C: CEQA).
Plan Bay Area is one element of a broader California effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While
Plan Bay Area focuses on where the region is expected to grow and what transportation investments
will support that growth, Assembly Bill 32 (2006) creates a comprehensive framework to cut
greenhouse gases with new, cleaner fuels, more efficient cars and trucks, lower carbon building codes,
cleaner power generation, as well as coordinated regional planning.
The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART area is a PDA, a locally designated area within existing
community identified and approved for future sustainable and transit –based growth.
Rather than increase regional land use control, the Plan facilitates implementation by expanding
incentives and opportunities available to local jurisdictions to support growth in Priority Development
Areas (PDAs). PDA’s are typically accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and other services. Over 70
local governments have designated some 170 PDAs, which are proposed to absorb about 80 percent of
new housing and over 60 percent of new jobs on less than five percent of the Bay Area’s land.
G. Traffic:
A Traffic Analysis evaluating the proposed change for Block C was submitted February 24, 2015. The
analysis and the attachments to the analysis are included as Appendix B of Attachments D. The effects
of this change on traffic volumes and intersection operations were evaluated to determine whether the
proposed change would cause a significant environmental impact to the transportation system. The
results of this analysis are:
• 200 apartments would generate approximately 30 to 35 additional peak hour vehicle trips compared
to 100 condominiums.
18
• The other land uses in the Transit Village have changed slightly since the original entitlement (27
fewer units than were entitled in Blocks A, B and E were built). Therefore the estimated overall
increase in AM peak hour vehicle trips is 2 (less than 1%) and PM peak hour trips are estimated to
decrease by 29 (a reduction of 4%).
• Traffic counts were conducted in January 2015 to measure current traffic volumes near the site.
PM peak hour traffic volumes on Jones Road within the Transit Village have increased a minor
amount (4%) since 2004 when the analysis for the entitlement was conducted. AM peak hour
volumes have decreased approximately 7%. Peak hour traffic volumes on Treat Boulevard have
decreased 12% to 18% since 2004.
• The operations of intersections near the site were evaluated with the recent counts and traffic
projections for full buildout of the Transit Village. The study intersections would operate at
acceptable levels.
• The proposed change from 100 condominiums to 200 apartments would result in a less-than-
significant impact to the transportation system. This finding is consistent with the requirements of
the CEQA requirements discussed in Section III C of the staff report.
H. Building Height
The Specific Plan requires that views of Mt. Diablo be maintained from the BART platform. It permits
heights up to 80 feet as a right and conditionally allows height up to 108 feet in Subarea 12, and
permits heights up to 150 feet as a right and conditionally allows heights up to 178 feet in Subarea 11.
Conditionally approved heights must be based on findings that the increase in height:
(1) will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space;
(2) will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites in the Station Area; and
(3) where a subarea is in multiple ownership, a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed
by all property owners within the subarea.
In addition, the Specific Plan allows heights of up to ten stories and 150 feet in Subarea 11, based on
individual circumstances.
The proposed project would consist of up to 55 to 65 feet in four to six above-grade stories, and would
therefore, be within the permitted height limit of 80 feet set by the Specific Plan. It would be set back
from the BART tracks pursuant to the 2005 Approvals. The revised design widens the view corridor
of Mt. Diablo from the BART platform compared to the approved design.
I. Consistency with Code
In a letter, dated March 16, 2015 (See Attachment Q), the Dahlin Group, the Town Architect, stated
that the project has either met or exceeded the approved FDP. The overarching idea of the transit
village is to provide an environment that encourages walking by providing active ground level uses on
all building frontages. This also allows for a sense of security to the village patrons as there is always a
feeling that there are eyes on the ground. From what Dahlin Group was presented, the project
continues to embrace all of the successful design elements of the first phase, while improving on the
lessons learned as well. The Town Architect will continue to be involved in reviewing plans as they
are further developed into construction documents.
19
J. Community Advantages/Disadvantaged to the Amendment:
Advantages:
o Block C is currently vacant and carries an assessed valuation of approximately $672,000. Because
the property is owned by a public agency, there is minimal property tax collected for the property.
Developing the property will add it to the property tax rolls sooner. The additional revenue will be
distributed to the County General Fund as well as several other taxing entities, including the
County, Consolidated Fire District, K-12 schools, community colleges, and numerous others.
o The property value of 200 rental units is higher than 100 condo units, thus property tax revenue is
increased with the modification.
o The current improved property value of Blocks A, B, and E is $168 million, resulting in
$1,090,000 of property tax revenue for 2014-2015.
o The Park Dedication fee is vested at $2,000 per unit for the 100 units. The updated fee would
apply for the apartments at $5,213-$5,757 per unit. Block C could generate just over $1 million for
200 units if approved.
o New rental units would be managed by a single on-site manager, instead of numerous landlords
should the trend of condos used as income property continue. The existing apartments are well
maintained, have high occupancy, and have one site management, security, and parking
enforcement. Less than 50 percent of townhouse/condo units in the area are owner-occupied, which
means they are rented out as income property by many different off-site owners/managers.
o Ground lease requirements ensure continued project quality
o Construction jobs
o A ground lease provides for long-term lease income to public agencies
o Continued public agency control of land use adjacent to the BART Station
o Regional policy goals of higher density at transit oriented developments
Disadvantages:
o Represents a change from the outcome of the 2001 Charrette
o The diversity of housing type on the BART property is reduced
o The opportunity for additional home ownership in the wider area is reduced.
o Larger-sized housing units would not be offered to the market
XI. CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the final development plan is substantially consistent with the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, “The California Sustain-able Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008” (California Senate Bill 375, Steinberg), and Plan Bay Area. The Zoning
Ordinance does not differentiate between rental and ownership multiple-family residential projects,
therefore the proposed density is consistent with the zoning for the area. The change marks a change
from the Charrette outcome, however given the local trends of condominiums being held as rentals
rather than owner-occupied, and the desire for BART to be able to plan the entirety of their site in the
future, the arguments for owner occupied units is diminished.
20
Attachments:
Attachment A – Proposed Modification to the Development Plan
Attachment B - General Plan Map
Attachment C – Zoning Map
Attachment D – CEQA checklist
Attachment E – Parcel Map
Attachment F1 and F2 – Public Works Department Comments
Attachment G – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Comments
Attachment H – Contra Costa County Health Services District Comments
Attachment I – Contra Costa Water District Comments
Attachment J – Walden District Improvement Association (12-8-14 meeting notes)
Attachment K - Walden District Improvement Association (9-14-12 letter)
Attachment L – Supervisor Mitchoff response
Attachment M – January 5, 2015 Letter from Donna Gerber
Attachment N – Keyser Marsten Response
Attachment O - Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis
Attachment P – Census Area Map
Attachment Q – Town Architect letter
g:\cdbg-redev\redev\contra costa centre rda\transit village\block c\staff report\dp1503001.srdraft 4-14-15-final.doc
21
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN #DP043099 and
SD058950 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 24, 2005
DEVELOPMENT PLAN #153001
FINDINGS
1. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings:
a) Traffic: Traffic impacts have been addressed in the DEIR for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Specific Plan. A comparison of the Preliminary Development Plan’s trip generation
characteristics with the alternatives evaluated in the 1998 EIR showed that the traffic
generated by the project is within the lower and upper range of impacts and mitigation
measures identified in the 1998 EIR. The Traffic Operations Analysis prepared for the Final
Development Plan confirmed that traffic generated from the Final Development Plan is lower
than that of the Preliminary Development plan scenario. Modifications to Block C would
generated approximately 30-35 additional peak hour trips. The proposed change from 100
condominiums to 200 apartments would result in a less-than-significant impact to the
transportation system.
b) Water: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District. Under California Water
Code, a water supply assessment and affirmative written verification of sufficient water
supply for projects that contain more than 500 dwelling units indicated they have capacity to
serve the project.
c) Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Central Sanitary
District, service is planned for the area.
d) Fire Protection: The subject property is within the Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Boundaries and the project is required to comply with all of the District's requirements,
including the payment of fees.
e) Public Protection: Comments were received from the Sheriff's Department on the Final
Development Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure #XIIIb, including working with
the Sheriff’s Department to identify design features of the project which discourage criminal
behavior will reduce impacts to Police Services. In addition, the project proposes to activate
the area with people, which has been shown in numerous studies to discourage criminal
activity.
f) Parks and Recreation: Park dedication fees are required per County Ordinance for residential
projects. The fee is used to provide parks/recreational opportunities within the area and
would offset any impacts to parks.
g) Flood Control and Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey
requirements.
2. Findings For Approval of a Final Development Plan:
The proposal is consistent with Section 84-66.1406 of the zoning ordinance which requires
the following findings be made prior to granting the preliminary development plan approval:
a) The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective
date of zoning change and approval. The applicant has expressed their desire to begin
construction of the beginning phase (Blocks A, B and E) of the proposed project once the
plan is finalized and a final development plan is approved. The business arrangement
between BART, and the County, the County Redevelopment Agency is expected to be finalized
1
and approved shortly, allowing initial construction in 2005. Construction f Block C will
commence well within two and one-half years from the effective date of approval.
b) The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County general plan. The
proposed project is consistent with the mixed-use general plan designation, the policies of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station area Specific Plan, and compatible with other uses in the vicinity.
c) In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of
sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community. The proposed development locates high-density
residential uses in close proximity to existing high-density residential uses. The project is
located at a transit center, near existing and proposed neighborhood retail services.
d) In the case of commercial development, it is needed at the proposed location to provide
adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, and that traffic congestion will not likely
be created at the proposed center, or will be obviated by presently projected improvements
and by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by internal
provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and efficient
center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or
surrounding development. The proposed commercial development meets the policies of
transit-oriented development and the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan. Traffic impacts have
been adequately addressed in the DEIR for the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan. No
variances to the number of parking spaces are requested. In addition, the Conditions of
Approval require participation in the Transportation Demand Management program.
e) The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal
application of this code. The planned-unit zoning district is the appropriate zoning
designation for the proposed project and is consistent with the principles of transit-oriented
development, and the goals of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and County
General Plan.
3. Approval of Tentative Map:
a) The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the
proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. The proposal
includes the subdivision of the existing six parcels on the site into nine parcels. The
reconfiguration of lots reflects the five development blocks and the BART facilities. This
parcelization is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. With the mitigation
measures the project would not cause significant impacts to the environment.
b) The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the
proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. The Public Works Department
requires that the project comply with collect and convey regulations. The design of roadways
reflect the design standards approved in the Preliminary Development Plan. New frontage
improvements are necessary. Buildings must comply with the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, which includes provisions for special interior noise reduction, which is made
necessary by proximity to Treat Blvd. and the BART line.
c) Advisory agency findings for exceptions 92-6.002: Subject to the Subdivision Map Act, the
advisory agency may authorize exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations set
forth in this title. Application for such exception shall be made by the subdivider, stating fully
the grounds for the application and the facts relied upon, and the subdivider shall grant such
additional time as may be required by the advisory agency for the consideration of the
exception. Before granting any such exception, the advisory agency shall find:
(1) That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The
subject site is a Transit Oriented Development accommodating multiple modes
2
of transportation. In addition to the BART transportation system, the surface
roads will accommodate buses, autos, pedestrians and bicyclists. The premise
of this development is to design roadways that calm vehicular traffic, resulting
in a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. The calmer traffic also
results in a better environment for this mixed-use (i.e., residential, office and
retail) neighborhood.
(2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has requested an
exception to the standards to allow narrower lanes than that required by the
County. The reduction in lane width is necessary to calm the traffic on the street
that will now have high-density residences fronting it. The slower traffic will
result in safer and more enjoyable environment for the residents and visitors,
will help set the tone of a multi-modal transportation hub where motor vehicles
are not the dominant mode, and improve safety and mobility for both
pedestrians and bicyclists.
(3) That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the
property is situated. The County has specific street widths identified in its
Ordinance Code. Caltrans standards for lane widths are referenced for various
projects including highways, arterials, collectors, and/or residential
neighborhood streets. The project streets are consistent with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
guidelines, which state “Street lanes for moving traffic preferably should be at
least 3.0 m [9' 10"] wide. Where feasible they should be 3.3 m wide [10' 10"],
and in industrial areas they should be 3.6 m wide [11' 10"]”. Although the
County does not commonly reference AASHTO guidelines, the AASHTO
guidelines are widely recognized as safe standards for street design. The
reduction in lane width provides a safer pedestrian crossing by reducing the
distance and time required of the large numbers of pedestrians that must cross
these lanes. The reduced lane widths provide not less than 20 feet unobstructed
width for emergency vehicle access to all buildings. Granting the exception
provides an optimal configuration that balances the County’s goals calm
pedestrian character, adequate vehicle capacity, and fully responsive emergency
vehicle access.
4. Findings For Approval of Variances to Aisle Width and Parking Stall Size Requirements:
a) That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of 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. Other projects in the area have received variances from
zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. Aisle widths of 25 ft. were
recently approved for the Amerisuites, Homestead Village, Spieker (EOP) office buildings,
and the Bridge Housing Projects. An aisle width of 26 ft. was approved for the Station Oaks
project to the west of the site. It should be noted that although the proposed parking aisle
width does not comply with the County’s 28 ft. parking aisle width, it is close to the 25 ft.
parking aisle width for the City of Walnut Creek. The Specific Plan policies for commercial
parking allows for 50 percent of the parking spaces to be small cars spaces (pg. 34).
However, the County Zoning Ordinance does not have regulations for compact parking
spaces. When needed, the approval of compact spaces are generally handled through
variances. The City of Walnut Creek’s ordinance allows for 50 percent of parking spaces,
3
intended for long-term employee parking, to be compact spaces. Walnut Creek’s minimum
requirements for compact spaces is 7.5 ft. in width and 15 ft. in depth. Other projects have
received variances from zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. Station
Oaks, and the Bridge Housing project received variance approval for compact parking
spaces and over one-half of the parking spaces in the Treat Towers project are compact
spaces.
b) That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning
regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Based on the County’s past experience,
double loaded garages are necessary to reduce the overall mass and impact of the garage,
and a reduction in aisle width is justified if necessary to achieve this objective. Strict
application of the requirements would require parking garage redesign and massing in
undesirable locations, resulting difficulty in meeting the overall objectives of the Specific
Plan. The property’s size and shape, combined with the Specific Plan objectives to maximize
pedestrian circulation on the site. Thus, staff recommends the Planning Commission’s
approve the variance to the aisle width and parking stall size.
c) That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective
land use district in which it is located. The applicant intends to provide universal size
parking spaces in the majority of the project. Although the Specific Plan allows for up to 50-
percent compact spaces, the applicant plans to include a much smaller number of compact
spaces, which will be located in areas where the garage structural beams are located. Thus,
staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the variance to the parking stall size
and aisle width.
5. Required Factors for Granting Tree Permit:
The Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as
provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied
as marked:
_X 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be
saved. The arborist report identified nine trees that should be removed due to poor
health.
___2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and
sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means.
___3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means.
___4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as building
foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc.
___ 5. The tree species is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be
a fire hazard. .
___ 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving.
X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of
the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area
of the lot. The development will occur in an existing parking lot and require the
removal of approximately 77 trees on site.
___ 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree of
the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not
limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and
subject to toppling.
___ 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, and the Director is satisfied
4
that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the
resource.
___ 10. None of the above factors apply.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This approval is based upon the following documents received by the Community
Development Department:
a) Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan Summary Report (October 2001)
b) Regulating Plan
c) The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code – Architectural Standards
(adopted November 5, 2002)
d) The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code – Principles and Regulations for
Redevelopment of the BART Station Property (adopted November 5, 2002)
e) Pleasant Hill BART Preliminary Development Plan (adopted November 5, 2002)
f) Pleasant Hill BART Final Development Plan Application (November 9, 2004) and
revised plans (April 26, 2005)
g) Pleasant Hill BART Subdivision Application (January 31, 2005)
h) Traffic Operations Analysis for Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village, prepared by
Fehr & Peers (August 24, 2004)
i) Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village, Walnut Creek, California: Pre-construction
Archaeological Testing Program, Prepared by Archeo-Tec (April 19, 2005)
j) Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Modified Final Development Plan
Application (January 21, 2015)
k) Preliminary CEQA Air Quality Screening and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for Proposed
Avalon Walnut Creek Village Development (February 23, 2015)
l) Traffic Analysis for the Proposed AvalonBay Pleasant Hill BART Apartments,
prepared by Fehr & Peers (February 24, 2015)
2. Tree Preservation Report, Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village, Contra Costa County, CA
(June 29, 2004)
3. The Final Development Plan request is for the development of 549 622 multi-family
residential units; 35,590 sq. ft. retail; 12,130 sq. ft. (10 units) of live-work/retail; 270,000
sq. ft. of commercial office; 19,400 sq. ft. conference area; and 1,816 structured parking
spaces for the proposed uses.
Indemnification
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or
any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County
Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to
5
attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section
66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
Phasing
5. A detailed plan specifying the pattern of phasing, including common area improvements,
shall be submitted for review and approval of the Redevelopment at least 30 days prior to
filing the Final Map.
6. The Applicant shall obtain approval of a subdivision application for the approximately
100 for-sale units on Lot 1/Block C, prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. Any
deviation to this Condition shall be subject to a modification to the Development Plan.
Modification to Final Map
7. The final map shall reflect a change to the adding Parcel 9, encompassing the Coggins
Street extension between the westernmost corner of Lot 8 and Jones Road as this are will
be retained by BART and not be made a public road.
CC& R’s
8. A copy of the project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to filing a Final Map.
Street Names
9. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and private)
shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department, Graphics
Section (Phone #335-1270). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map
cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved
street names.
Variances
10. Approval is granted to allow for a variance to the standard parking space to 8.5 ft wide
and 18 ft. deep and up to approximately 50 percent of those spaces as compact spaces,
and drive aisle width of 24 ft., subject to the plans submitted with the application and
received by the Community Development Department and subject to the following
conditions of approval.
Trees and Tree Preservation
11. The following condition shall be incorporated to protect oak trees:
6
a) Existing native oaks shall be retained and protected from encroachment by structures
and paving damage to their root structure except as other wise noted in the arborist’s
report..
b) Hard surface areas shall be restricted and no change in finish grade shall be permitted
beneath their drip line.
c) Surface drainage shall be maintained to promote healthy root growth.
d) Development of the Specific Plan are shall comply with the County’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
e) Protected trees, as defined in the County’s Tree Preservation Ordinance that have a
circumference exceeding 20 inches measured 4.5 feet from the ground, shall be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1. MITIGATION MEASURE Ia
12. Construction Period Restrictions: No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving
or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing
mature tree other than the tree proposed for removal.
13. Construction Tree Damage: The development’s property owner or developer shall notify
the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during
the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined
by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development.
Any tree not approved for removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of
construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size (i.e.,
cumulative diameter of several trees) of a species approved by the Director of
Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation.
14. Prohibition of Parking: No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction material, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be
permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved.
15. Site Preparation: Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading,
compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the
applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be
inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction
plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended to trees to be
protected is to be placed, and that the required fencing shall be installed prior to the
commencement of any construction activity.
16. Deposit conditions: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit the applicant
shall deposit cash or other acceptable security with the department on a per tree basis in
the amount established by the involved development’s condition of approval or approved
application. As required, the county may hold the deposit for a two-year period to
guarantee the health of the trees for a two-year period upon completion of construction.
17. Additional Tree Replacement Area: In addition to park dedication fees, the applicant is
7
to be affirmatively obligated to mitigate for the loss of Walden Green Property when
Jones Road is relocated. This will mean tree replacement, and future phase 2 Walden
Green improvements such as installing the main irrigation line north from its current
terminus to Mayhew Road. Such improvements should be subject to this review and
approval of the Redevelopment Director, with the underlying requirement that the
applicant install improvements equal to or greater in value than the property being lost to
road relocation.
Archaeology
18. A qualified archaeologist conduct on-site monitoring of project activities (excavation,
grading, pile driving, etc.) that could potentially impact buried cultural resources.
19. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are
encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of
the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and
a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant
cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped
stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash,
charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations.
20. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be
no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,
per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Geologic Conditions
21. A geotechnical report shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit..
The geotechnical report shall include methods to mitigate effects of engineered fills,
settlement and liquefaction.
a) Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately
compacted (i.e. minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by ASTI D1557) to
significantly reduce both seismically induced and natural fill settlement.
b) All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to
accommodate estimated settlement without failure.
c) Final design of improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level
geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation
shall include deep borings and evaluation of liquefaction potential and the report shall
estimate the magnitude of differential settlement. If a high liquefaction potential
exists, the report shall include measures to control drainage, including measures
aimed at controlling damage to buildings, buried pipelines and surface parking.
8
MITIGATION MEASURE VIa
22. The following conditions address expansive soils and/or bedrock and the potential to
cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements.
a) The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed.
Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects shall provide criteria
for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) and County Code requirements on the-basis of subsurface
exploration. and laboratory testing.
b) Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations, reinforced
slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-
level geotechnical investigation. MITIGATION MEASURE #VIb
Erosion Control
23. During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust control
measures such as the following:
a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
b) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown
by the wind daily.
c) Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material-
hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
d) Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking lots and staging areas at construction sites.
e) Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent
streets.
MITIGATION MEASURE IIIa
23. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection
Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All
grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15
through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize
erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow
only erosion control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to
review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will
reduce this impact to less than significant. The applicant shall prepare a SWPPP
(Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) obtain an NPDES General Permit for
Stormwater prior to Construction MITIGATION MEASURE #VIIIa
Construction Conditions
24. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and
litter control requirements:
9
a) All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.,
Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays, unless
otherwise approved by Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator.
b) The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate
stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers
as far away from existing residences as possible.
c) At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site
and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the
project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a
list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The
person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept
current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and
implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals
responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly iden-
tified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading
and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to
the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list
of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
d) A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable
ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be
allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been
posted.
e) The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads
serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each portion of the
development site. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park
earth moving equipment.
f) Transporting of heavy equipment shall be limited to week days between the hours of
9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays.
g) The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of
construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site.
Lighting
25. 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review
and approval of the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan.
Light standards shall be low-lying and exterior lights on the building shall be deflected so
that lights shine onto applicant’s property and not toward adjacent properties; all subject
to review and approval by the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator prior to
issuance of a building permit. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE Ib
10
TDM
26. Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel modes. To
mitigate regional air quality impacts:
a) Provide secure and convenient residential and non-residential bicycle parking facility
and/or program subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Director
Zoning Administrator.
b) Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking
garages.
c) Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART.
d) Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR.
e) Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally
possible.
27. Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area M-31 District to fund area-
wide trip reduction measures and participate in Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) for the Pleasant Hill BART station area administered by the Contra Costa Center.
The application shall consist of a letter of request to the Public Works Department; a
metes and bounds description; and, pay current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur
prior to filing the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process
must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner
must hold a special election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to
6 months to complete. Membership in the Contra Costa Centre Association will be
required.
MITIGATION MEASURE IIIb
28. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the Redevelopment Director
Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the location of the bicycle parking areas
within the parking garages.
29. The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan presently requires a pedestrian overcrossing of
Treat Blvd. from Area 15 to Area 12 in the general vicinity of the intersection of Oak
Road and Treat Blvd. On December 14, 2004 the Board of Supervisors expressed its
intent to amend the Specific Plan to remove this facility from the Plan at a future date
subject to a determination by the Board of Supervisors that the Iron Horse overcrossing
of Treat Blvd. a block east is certain to proceed. At this time the final design and contract
award for this facility has not occurred, therefore the Board has not yet acted on its
expressed intent. Therefore the applicant may have an obligation to participate in the
Oak/Treat pedestrian overcrossing should the requirements of the Board of Supervisor’s,
December 14, 2004 intent action not be fulfilled.
In view of the foregoing, the applicant is subject to the following requirement, which
requirement maybe waived after a future Board of Supervisors action to eliminate the
Oak/Treat pedestrian overcrossing from the Specific Plan. The requirement is:
The applicant shall enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for the project’s
11
proportionate obligation (50%) related to the construction of a pedestrian
overcrossing at Treat Blvd. and Oak Road. This obligation is shared with property
owners in Area 15 of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. The applicant
shall also enter into a Maintenance Agreement, which will assure their fair share of
maintenance for the Treat/Oak pedestrian overcrossing. The fair share shall be based
on the applicant, percentage of traffic generation compared to total traffic generation
in this block time, one-half of the maintenance costs.
30. Loading hours for the retail uses shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
First Source Hiring
31. The applicant shall execute a first source hiring agreement with the County
Redevelopment Agency. This requirement shall be included in operating agreements for
the residential and office elements and shall be included in retail leases.
Noise
32. The following condition shall be incorporated to address potential noise impacts:
a). Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site
planning and/or use of soundwalls; and
b). interior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound
rated windows, insulation, full air-conditioning, or building facade treatments.
MITIGATION MEASURE #Xia
33. Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30
AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to
reduce equipment noise such as:
a) All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good
condition;
b) Use 'quiet' gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors
wherever possible.
c) Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify
additional mitigation measures as needed, consistent with the impacts and mitigation
measures identified in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURE #Xib
34. Exterior noise levels, emitted from the parking structure, shall not exceed County
established acceptable level of 70 dBA. This may be accomplished through appropriate
site planning and/or use of design features of the parking structure. The projected noise
level of the parking structure shall be verified by an acoustical study to be submitted prior
to issuance of the building permits. MITIGATION MEASURE #Xic
12
Fire Protection
35. The following conditions address the increase in traffic which would have the effect of
increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services.
a) Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in
consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District.
b) Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprinklers,
smoke detectors, early warning system, fire rated walls and other requirements of the
building code.
c) Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies and
features that address fire suppression, training, and traffic signalization to
accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to facilitate
fire protection.
MITIGATION MEASURE #VIIa
d) Mitigations that reduce traffic congestion would mitigate impacts on response times.
MITIGATION MEASURE #XIIIa
Police Protection/Crime Prevention
36. In addition to the Specific Plan Guidelines to encourage “defensible” space design,
incorporation of the following mitigation measure will further reduce impacts to Police
Services to a less than significant level:
a) For new developments, work with Sheriff’s office to identify design features of
project which discourage criminal behavior.
b) Development on Subarea 12 may be required to provide a BART police station
depending on the scale of development.
c) As an increase in traffic is expected to have an increased demand for BART police
services, the BART should be involved in developing the circulation plan at the
station area.
d) Office development will include an on-site security program that includes security
guards, electronic surveillance systems, and alarms.
e) A clean-up program to manage litter and patrol the perimeter of the BART station
area will be implemented to control littering, loitering and vandalism adjacent to
residential areas. Such a program may be implemented by retail and restaurant
development that attracts transient visitors to the site.
MITIGATION MEASURE #XIIIb
37. Prior to the establishment of the use, the plans for this project shall be submitted for
review by the County Sheriff's Department for suggestions or changes that could be made
to design defensive crime prevention measures. If agreement cannot be reached, the
matter can be brought back to the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator for
decision.
13
Schools
38. Both the residential and commercial development components of the proposed project
would be required to provide school impact fees. The total fees collected would be
available to add portable classrooms and support other educational needs to offset the
impacts of the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURE #XIIIc
39. Will-serve letters from the School Districts shall be submitted to the Redevelopment
Director Zoning Administrator prior to recording the Final Map.
Utilities
40. A will-serve letter from the Central Sanitation District shall be submitted prior to
recording the Final Map.
41. A water supply assessment shall be prepared for the project. A will-serve letter from the
Contra Costa Water District shall be submitted prior to recording the Final Map.
Park Dedication Fees
42. Comply with Chapter 920-2 of the County Ordinance related to Park Dedications.
Compliance may be met by paying park dedication fees pursuant to Section 920-6.204, or
through the provision of improvements described in Section 920-8.002 through 920-
8.006, or a combination thereof as determined by the Redevelopment Director Zoning
Administrator to be consistent with Chapter 920-2. Fees in effect at the time of issuance
of the building permit shall apply. MITIGATION MEASURE #XIIId.
Childcare
43. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute a
child care agreement with the County.
Sign Program
44. The applicant shall submit a signage program for the development, including directional
signage within the public areas, as well as signage for the development for the review and
approval of the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator, following a review by the
Town Architect. No other outside displays are permitted.
Landscaping
45. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all areas shown on the plan shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator at least (30 or
60) days prior to recording of Final Map. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the
landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation
Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final building
14
permit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified
to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance.
Multiple-family Recycling Area
46. Development plans for multiple-family residential projects shall indicate a recycling
program that meets county standards for a high-density mixed-use project. This area
will be included in the computation of the 25 percent of lot "open area" required for the
development.
47. The refuse area shall be properly screened and gated. The Redevelopment Director
Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the location and screening of the refuse
area.
Take-out Food
48. At least three times a week, pick up and properly dispose of trash, litter and garbage
originating from such take-out food establishment, deposited on public property within
four hundred feet of any boundary of the premises on which such take-out food
establishment is located.
49. Upon the request of any owner of private property located within four hundred feet of
any boundary of the premises on which the take-out food establishment is located, at least
three times a week, pick up and properly dispose of trash, litter and garbage originating
from such take-out food establishment, deposited on such private property visible from a
public street. (Ordinance 89-5 2).
50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the proprietor shall post a cash deposit, in the
amount of $1,125 to cover possible costs of trash, litter or garbage removal should the
proprietor of the take-out food establishment fail to properly police the area. If the cash
deposit, falls below $1,125, then the proprietor of the take-out food establishment shall
deposit the difference forthwith. If inflation makes an increase necessary in the security
amount, the Redevelopment Director Zoning Administrator may make the necessary
changes at a public hearing.
Home Occupation
51. The application to conduct a home occupation within and of the residential units is
approved subject to the following conditions:
a. There shall be no merchandise or services for sale on the site.
b. The use shall not generate vehicular traffic in excess of that normally associated
with single-family residential use.
c. Not more than one room or 25 percent of the habitable floor area of the unit shall
be used for the home occupation.
d. There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation.
e. No exterior signs shall be used.
15
f. No noise, odor, dust, fumes, vibration, smoke, electrical interference or other
interference with the residential use of adjacent properties shall be created.
g. No persons shall be employed, except the applicant, in the conduct of the home
occupation.
h. There shall be no outside storage or advertising product display in off-street
parking stalls or driveway areas.
Fees
52. This application is subject to an initial application fee, which was paid with the
application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses
exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the
permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees
include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation.
Current costs may be obtained by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes
additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance.
16
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PERMIT DP 15-3001 SUBDIVISION 8950/PERMIT DP 04-3099
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County
Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the Vesting Tentative Map Site Plan dated January
31, 2005 January 16, 2015.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP AND/OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS.
General Requirements:
53. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall
conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any
exceptions from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The
drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and
approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the vesting tentative map
dated January 31, 2005.
54. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and
inspection fees, and security for all street or drainage improvements required by the
County Ordinance Code for the Conditions of Approval of this Development Permit.
These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by
the Transportation Engineering Division.
55. Applicant shall provide evidence to the Public Works Department that all on-site
roadways and access points (parking, lanes, curb radii, driveways, etc.) have been
reviewed and approved by the Fire District.
Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
56. The applicant shall construct all project improvements, with the exception of frontage
improvements (i.e. curb, gutter, and sidewalk), outside road right of way and in
conformance with the typical sections and site plans dated January 31, 2005, unless
specifically stated in these conditions of approval. Any modification to existing road right
of way, road alignment or lane configuration for Treat Boulevard, Jones Road, Coggins
Drive Las Juntas Way and Oak Road shall be submitted to Public Works for review and
approval.
57. Applicant shall modify the proposed typical sections for Jones Road to provide for 12-
foot travel and turn lanes from Treat Boulevard to Coggins Drive to accommodate bus
movements into and out of the station area. This may require the applicant to reduce the
proposed sidewalk width, building setbacks and median widths to accommodate the
17
required lane widths. 11-foot lanes may be utilized subject to the review and approval of
the Public Works Department.
58. Applicant shall submit a striping plan for Jones Road indicating the appropriate lane
configuration and striping for southbound traffic. This plan shall take into account the
fact that parking will be allowed on Jones Road during weekends. This plan shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department.
59. Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval, a sketch
plan of the proposed improvements for Las Juntas Way, from Oak Road to Coggins
drive, prior to the initiation of improvement plan preparation. The plan shall be to scale,
show road right of way, horizontal and vertical alignment changes, necessary transitions,
frontage improvements (both sides of road), lane striping, and parking (both sides of
road).
60. Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval, a sketch
plan of the proposed Treat Boulevard improvements from Jones Road to Oak Road. The
plan shall be to scale, show road right of way, horizontal and vertical alignment changes,
necessary transitions, frontage improvements, lane striping, and parking (# of spaces,
dimensions and time limits/restrictions). A minimum of 22-feet shall be provided from
the face of curb to the edge of travel way of the outside westbound lane on Treat
Boulevard along those areas where parking is proposed. Alternative pavement treatments
or other means (such as raised medians, islands, etc.) shall be provided in order to create
a visual differentiation between the travel way and parking areas, subject to the review of
the Public Works Department.
61. Any existing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk that will remain as part of the project frontage
along existing streets and that is cracked and/or displaced shall be removed and replaced
along the project frontages. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and
grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing
improvements.
62. The applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb
returns in lieu of standard driveway depressions at all major project entrances/exits on to
Treat Boulevard, Jones Road, Coggins Drive, Las Juntas Way and Oak Road. 15-foot
radii curb returns will be allowed at the garage entrances/exits onto Jones Road and Las
Juntas Way.
63. The applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets, including traffic
signs and striping, as necessary, and pedestrian ramps at the curb returns, as approved by
Public Works. Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. Truncated domes shall be installed on all curb ramps.
18
Roadway Improvements (On-Site):
64. All on-site roadways shall be constructed per the typical sections indicated on the Vesting
Tentative Map dated January 31, 2005, unless stated otherwise in these conditions of
approval.
65. Typical Section E-E (Retail Drive) shall be modified to provide for lane widths of 12
feet, both directions from Treat Boulevard to the parking garage entrance.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
66. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of
way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary
or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
67. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center
for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Oak
Road, Treat Boulevard, Las Juntas Way, Jones Road, Coggins Drive and Wayne Drive.
Site Access
68. Applicant shall only be allowed access to the project site at those locations shown on the
approved site plan, unless approved by the Public Works Department.
68.5 Garbage collection shall not be scheduled during peak hour traffic. Garbage trucks shall
not block traffic for extended periods of time. If it is determined by Public Works that
garbage truck operations during garbage collection is creating a traffic hazard and poses
a risk to the traveling public on southbound Jones Road, the methods, timing and/or
location of garbage collection must be modified to remove, or at minimum reduce, the
traffic hazard and risk posed to the traveling public.
69. Applicant shall relinquish abutter’s rights of access along the Treat Boulevard frontage,
Jones Road frontage, Oak Road frontage, Las Juntas Way frontage, and Coggins Drive
frontage of this property, with the exception of the project entrances shown on the
applicant’s Vesting Tentative Map, as specifically approved under these conditions of
approval.
Road Dedications/Road Right Of Way:
70. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way
necessary for the planned width of all internal on-site project streets consistent with the
typical sections included as part of the Vesting Tentative Map dated January 31, 2005.
19
71. The Public Works Department will consider requests for the vacation of public interest in
any public road right of way along Jones Road, Coggins Drive and Las Juntas Way as
shown on the Vesting Tentative Map dated January 31, 2005. The Applicant shall submit
a letter to the Public Works Department, Real Property Division requesting the County to
initiate the vacation process of the specific road right of way. This process is very
specific and is typically a discretionary action by the Board of Supervisors. As part of this
process, a determination must be made as to the underlying fee ownership of the
property. The property may only be conveyed by the County to an adjacent property
owner if the County is the underlying fee owner and the property falls under the Streets
and Highway Code. This determination should be made by a title company and will be
reviewed by staff during processing of the vacation request. The applicant shall be
responsible for all costs and County staff time associated with this request. The exact
terms, including, but not limited to, appropriate compensation for the vacation shall be
determined at the time the request is acted upon.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities:
72. Applicant shall design this project to provide for and encourage the use of bicycles. At a
minimum, this project shall include bicycle racks and/or lockers accessible to both the
BART station and Iron Horse Trail, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator Redevelopment Director.
73. Bike sensitive detection loops shall be incorporated where road modifications are
proposed at traffic signal legs that abut this development.
74. The applicant shall incorporate a signage program to address potential conflicts of
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation. In addition, surface treatment both within
and along the Village Green, Village Green Street, and Treat Blvd. should help define
pedestrian, bicycle, parking and vehicle travel ways. Bike traffic should be directed to use
the street, while the Village Green should be reserved for pedestrians. The trail crossings
at Jones Road and Coggins Drive Extension shall be consistent with intersection design
concepts of the Contra Costa County Trail Design Resource Handbook.
75. The Applicant shall to provide cross sections for these sections of Oak Road and Las
Juntas Way, adjacent to the project site. These cross sections shall show restriping
sufficient for the addition of full-time on-street parking and Class III bikeways along the
curb areas bordering the project.
76. Applicant shall design this project to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
access from all sides of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan study area to the BART
station.
77. All Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County
standards.
20
78. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with
Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include
all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and pedestrian ramps. Truncated domes shall
be installed on all existing and proposed curb ramps.
Sight Distance:
79. Applicant shall provide sight distance at each project entrance/exit on Oak Road for a
through traffic design speed of 40 miles per hour.
80. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and “B”
Street for a through traffic design speed of 45 miles per hour.
81. Applicant shall provide sight distance at all intersections along Las Juntas Way, Coggins
Drive, and Jones Road for a through traffic design speed of 35 miles per hour.
82. Applicant shall provide sight distance at all on-site horizontal curves and intersections for
a design speed of 25 miles per hour.
Maintenance of Facilities:
83. The applicant shall apply to Public Works for annexation to the County Landscaping
District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and
automatic irrigation facilities prior to filing of the Final Map. This may entail annexation
to the existing zone (Zone 7) and/or formation of a new zone.
84. The Applicant shall establish a maintenance entity (i.e., Mello Roos District) for the
maintenance of streets and trails in the project area.
Street Lights:
85. Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by
submitting a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and, pay current LAFCO
fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware
that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements that
state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve annexation. This
process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to complete.
Parking:
86. Parking will be allowed along Treat Boulevard in conformance with a sketch plan as
required by these conditions of approval and as approved by Public Works. If it is
determined by Public Works that the parking along Treat Boulevard is creating a traffic
hazard and poses a risk to the traveling public on westbound Treat Boulevard, the parking
may be removed subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
21
87. Applicant shall provide a discloser to tenants of the retail spaces fronting on Treat
Boulevard indicating the possibility that parking along Treat Boulevard may be removed
in the future if Public Works determines that the parking creates traffic hazards and poses
a risk to the traveling public on westbound Treat Boulevard.
88. “No Parking” signs shall be installed along Jones Road from Treat Boulevard to Coggins
Drive with the provision that parking will be allowed on the west side of Jones Road
pursuant to an approved sketch plan as required by these conditions of approval. Parking
will only be allowed from Friday at 7:00pm to Monday at 5:00am, subject to the review
of Public Works.
89. “No Parking” signs shall be installed along Oak Road between Treat Boulevard and the
extension of Coggins Drive and Coggins Drive between Jones Road and Las Juntas Way,
subject to the review and approval of Public Works.
90. If full-time, on-street parking is proposed along Oak Road north of the extension of
Coggins Drive, the applicant shall submit a parking analysis plan and cross sections that
show the proposal is feasible and can accommodate bike lanes, subject to the review of
Public Works.
91. Parking shall only be allowed on those sides of on-site streets where parking bays are
provided as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Parking shall be prohibited in all other
areas, including along horizontal curves. All on-site street parking shall be subject to the
review of Public Works.
Underground Utilities:
92. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
93. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this
property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public
storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural
watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code.
94. The existing site hydrology shall be maintained. Hydrology calculations and maps that
verify the existing hydrology shall remain unchanged and shall be submitted to Public
Works, Engineering Services Division and the Flood Control District for review and
approval.
22
95. Applicant shall verify the adequacy of any downstream drainage facility accepting storm
water from this project prior to discharging runoff. If the downstream system(s) is/are not
adequate to handle the existing plus project condition for the required design storm,
improvements shall be constructed to make the system adequate.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
96. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the
Public Works Department.
97. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across sidewalk(s) and driveway(s)
in a concentrated manner.
98. Applicant shall install within a dedicated public drainage easement any portion of the
drainage system which conveys runoff from public streets.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
99. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal,
construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water
Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San
Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region).
100. Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP’s) for
the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall
incorporate some or all of the following long term BMP’s in accordance with the Contra
Costa County Clean Water Program for the site’s storm water drainage.
a. Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins.
b. Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
c. Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a
covered enclosure, OR, be located on a concrete pad that drains to the sanitary
sewer or be a self-contained unit with a fluid retention system.
d. Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
e. Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers.
f. Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces where feasible.
g. Develop an employee training and education program to inform employees of the
need for the reduction in pollutants leaving the site, and to inform them of
appropriate methods of handling potential contaminants.
h. Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage
facilities.
i. The owner shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least once a year between
September 1st and October 15th utilizing a vacuum type sweeper. Verification
(invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water
23
Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2238.
j. Filtering inlets.
k. Alternative pavements.
l. Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department.
Provision “C.3” of the NPDES Permit:
101. This project is subject to the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance. As part of these requirements this project shall incorporate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design of this project,
implement them and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all treatment
BMPs.
Exception
102. This project is not subject to Provision “C.3” in the NPDES Permit because the proposed
project was deemed complete prior to February 15, 2005. However, this project is still
subject to the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
102a. The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a
Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public Works
Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be deemed consistent
with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014)
prior to (STOP choose one: filing of the parcel/final map, issuance of a building permit,
initiation of the proposed use). To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final
Stormwater Control Plan and the O+M Plan will be required to comply with NPDES
Permit requirements that have recently become effective that may not be reflected in the
preliminary SWCP and O+M Plan. All time and materials costs for review and
preparation of the SWCP and the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant.
102b. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP and
compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the County’s
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014).
102c. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to inspection by the Public Works
Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management
facilities shall be borne by the applicant.
102d. Prior to initiation of the proposed use, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard
Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra
Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for and related
to operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant
public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities.
24
102e. Prior to initiation of the proposed use, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject
property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management
Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit
to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property
owners.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan:
103. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate construction related impacts and submit it to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site at all times and
shall be amended whenever there is a change in construction or operations which may
affect the discharge of significant quantities of pollutants to surface waters, ground
waters, or a municipal separate storm sewer system.
Area of Benefit Fee Ordinance:
104. The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Specific Plan Fee. This fee will fund transportation and circulation
projects, such as road widening, intersection modification, and pedestrian facilities.
Payment shall be at the commercial rate, or shall be based on $5464 per unit or peak hour
trip generated by the development. This fee shall be adjusted annually by the Caltrans
Construction Cost Index. Collected fees shall be recorded and placed in Fund # 2891 Org
7889. The applicant is deemed to have paid $2,984,785 in Specific Plan Fees upon
execution of the Disposition and Development Agreement.
25
Advisory Notes
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may
affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
C. This project lies within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. In lieu of
standard County mandated road and drainage impact fees, an overall fee for the Specific Plan
Area has been adopted and is managed by the Department of Conservation and Development
(DCD) County Redevelopment Agency. The applicant should contact the Agency DCD to
determine if additional impact fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits.
D. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the
Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to
requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
E. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section
66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is
limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved.
F. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition
of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on
the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department
within 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
G. The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Specific Plan Fee. This fee will fund transportation and circulation projects, such as
road widening, intersection modification, and pedestrian facilities. Payment shall be at the
commercial rate, or shall be based on $5464 per unit or peak hour trip generated by the
development. This fee shall be adjusted annually by the Caltrans Construction Cost Index.
Collected fees shall be recorded and placed in Fund # 2891 Org 7889. The applicant is
deemed to have paid $2,984,785 in Specific Plan Fees upon execution of the Disposition and
Development Agreement with Subdivision 8950.
26
AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGE
WALNUT CREEK, CA
0-0
03-03-2015
COVER SHEET
AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT
THIS MIXED USED TRANSIT-ORIENTED PROJECT IS LOCATED ON PARCEL C OF THE OVERALL
PLEASANT HILL BART TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT. IT IS A 200 RESIDENTIAL UNIT PROJECT WITH
2300 S.F. OF RETAIL AREA, COMPRISING OF 2 LEVELS OF TYPE IA PARKING GARAGE, WITH 1 LEVEL
BELOW GRADE; AND A COMBINATION OF 5 STORY TYPE IIIA STRUCTURE AND 3 AND 4 STORY
TYPE VA STRUCTURE ABOVE THE GARAGE PODIUM. THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT
CONSISTS OF A MIX OF STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, AND THREE BEDROOM FLATS
AND PERCENTAGE OF TOWNHOMES AT THE UPPER LEVEL.
VICINITY MAP
0-0 COVER SHEET
0-1 SITE PHOTOS
0-2 AERIAL SITE PLAN
0-2 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
C.1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
C.2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
C.3 PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
C.4 PRELIMINARY STORM TREATMENT PLAN
A-1 LEVEL A GARAGE PLAN
A.2 STREET LEVEL PLAN
A.3 PODIUM LEVEL PLAN
A.4 LEVEL 3 PLAN
A.5 LEVEL 4 PLAN
A.6 LEVEL 5 PLAN
A.7 LEVEL 6 PLAN
A.8 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
A.9 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
A.10 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
A.11 RENDERING
A.12 RENDERING
A.13 RENDERING
L0-1 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
L0-2 PODIUM ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1-2 PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1-3 STOOP PLAN
L1-4 COGGINS JONES INTERSECTION
L2-1 SECTIONS
OWNER:
AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES
455 Market Street, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT:
ARCHITECT:
STEINBERG ARCHITECTS
98 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA
CIVIL ENGINEER:
LUK & ASSOCIATES
738 Alfred Nobel Drive, Hercules, CA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
TIM DEACON SLA
2927 Newbury Street, Suite B Berkeley, CA
SHEET INDEX
1. ZONING:PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
2. LOT AREA:70,194 S.F. (1.61 ACRES)
3. SITE COVERAGE: 63,700 (BUILDING FOOTPRINT) = 90.7%
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT TEAM
ARTIST'S CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - VIEW FROM TOWN SQUARE
Block C Block C
Attachment A
N0"0'0'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CA0-101-16-2015SITE PHOTOSCORNER OF JONES AND COGGINS LOOKING SOUTHJONES ROAD AT BLOCK COAK ROAD AT BLOCK DOAK ROAD AT BLOCK DOAK ROAD AT BLOCK D03-03-2015Attachment A
3 STORY TYPE VA5 STORY TYPE IIIA5 STORY TYPE IIIA4 STORY TYPE VA3 STORY TYPE VA4 STORY TYPE VA
PODIUM
COURTYARDPLEASANT HILL BART STATIONCOGGINS DRIVEHARVEY DRIVEBARCLAY DRI
VEJONES ROADBLOCK BBLOCK D
BLOCK A
N
0"0'0'0
AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGE
WALNUT CREEK, CA
0-2
03-03-2015
AERIAL SITE PLAN
Attachment A
3 STORY TYPE VA5 STORY TYPE IIIA5 STORY TYPE IIIA4 STORY TYPE VA3 STORY TYPE VA4 STORY TYPE VAPODIUMCOURTYARDPLEASANT HILL BARTSTATIONCOGGINS DRIVEHARVEY DRIVEBARCLAY DRIVEJONES ROADBLOCK BBLOCK DBLOCK AN0"0'0'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CA0-201-16-2015AERIAL SITE PLANLEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3LEVEL 4LEVEL 5LEVEL 6TOTALSTUDIO455111178.5%1BR4182228 (12TH)16119949.5%2BR41516131276733.5%3BR2227 (5TH)22178.5%TOTAL144045493121200UNIT TABULATION03-03-2015Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
UPUPFAN ROOM162 PARKING STALLSBOILER ROOMBIKE STORAGESTORAGEBIKE STORAGEFAN ROOM1A-8ABOILER ROOM2A-8ARAMP UPSTAIR 1STORAGEN0"0'0'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CAA-101-16-2015LEVEL AREQUIRED: 1.5 MAX PER UNIT (300MAXIMUM)1.0 MIN PER UNIT (200 MINIMUM)PROVIDED:STANDARDACCESSIBLETOTALLEVEL A: 162 SPACES NONE162LEVEL 1: 80 SPACES 4 SPACES 84TOTAL: 142 SPACES 4 SPACES 246RESIDENTIAL PARKING TABULATION03-03-2015Attachment A
KM LIKM LINESTOP
STOP
STOPSTOPSTOP
STOPONLYONLYONLYSTONLYPBPB PBPBPBPB
PBPB
PB
PB
PB
PBPBPBPBPBPBPB
PBPB
PB
PB
PB PBPB75
RCV RCV RCVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVARV5ARVARVCT
PB
P B
PB
PBPB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PBPB
PBPBPB
PB
PBPBJ O N E S R O A DT O W NS Q U A R EC O G G I N S D R I V EB A R T S T A T I O NC L A Y D R I V EEC O G G I N S D R I V E D ' S T R E E T )E T )UPUPUNIT SAUNIT 2BSTAIR 12315 SFRETAILFAN ROOMTRASH RM 2MAINTENANCEROOMMPOE/ ELECROOMBIKE STORAGETRASH 1MAIN TRASH RM2LOBBY 1 ANDMAILROOMMOVE IN/STAGINGMAIN TRASH 1UNIT 1ATTUNIT 2AUNIT 2A UNIT 2AUNIT SA UNIT SA UNIT SALOBBY 2LOUNGEUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 3BUNIT 3ASTAIR 3STAIR 280 STD STALLS & 4 ACCESSIBLESTALLS1A-8ARETAIL TRASHELEC. ROOMELEV 2GAS MTR2A-8AUNIT 3ARAMP UPRAMP DOWNUNDERGROUNDTRANSFORMERUNDERGROUNDTRANSFORMERVEHICULAR ENTRY8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 0"ELEV 1IDFELEV 3N10' - 0"20'40'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CAA-201-16-2015STREET LEVEL PLAN03-03-2015Attachment A
UPUNIT 1EUNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT SA UNIT SA UNIT SAUNIT 2CUNIT SAUNIT 2AUNIT 1AUNIT 1ATRASH RM 1UNIT 2BUNIT 2AUNIT 2BUNIT 2B.1UNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 2AUNIT 1BUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1BUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT SBUNIT 1CUNIT 1AUNIT 3BUNIT 1ASTAIR 2UNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 3AUNIT 1AELECOPEN TO BELOW1A-8A2A-8ASTORAGEIDFTEIDFELEV 3ELEV 1ELEV 2N10' - 0"20'40'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CAA-301-16-2015PODIUM LEVEL PLAN03-03-2015Attachment A
UPUPUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 2BUNIT 2BUNIT 2BUNIT 2BUNIT SA UNIT SA UNIT SAUNIT 2CUNIT SAUNIT 2AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1CUNIT 1AUNIT 3BUNIT SBUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 1BUNIT 1AUNIT 1AUNIT 1BUNIT 2AUNIT 1CUNIT 2CUNIT 1EUNIT 3AUNIT 1D1A-8A2A-8ATEELEV 1STAIR 1N10' - 0"20'40'0AVALON WALNUT CREEK VILLAGEWALNUT CREEK, CAA-401-16-2015LEVEL 303-03-2015Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
A
Co
w
Env
Avalon W
ontra Cos
1
Conta
Jan
www.FirstCarb
vironmen
Walnut Cre
sta Count
FirstC
1350 Treat Bo
Waln u
act: Mary Bea
nna Waligorsk
Report Da
bonSolutions
ntal Check
eek – Bloc
ty, Califo
Prepare
Carbon Solu
oulevard, Suit
ut Creek, CA 9
925.357
an, Project Dir
ki, Project Ma
ate: March 3,
s.com
klist
ck C
rnia
ed by:
utions
te 380
94597
7.2562
rector
nager
, 2015
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 - Project Background and Prior CEQA Documentation ........................................................ 1
1.1.1 - Original 1998 Approval ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 - 2002 Approvals ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1.3 - 2005 Final Development Plan and Addendum ....................................................... 2
1.1.4 - Post 2005 Development ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 - CEQA Requirements .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 - Initial Study/Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 6
1.3.1 - Findings .................................................................................................................. 7
1.3.2 - Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 7
1.4 - Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................... 7
Section 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1 - Location and Setting .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 - Project Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 - Scope of the Checklist and Proposed Project Modifications ........................................... 10
Section 3: CEQA Checklist ............................................................................................................. 21
3.1 - Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories ............................................................... 21
(1) Conclusion in Prior Environmental Review ........................................................ 21
(2) Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts? .............................................. 21
(3) New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? ..................................................... 21
(4) New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? ................................ 21
(5) Mitigation Measures Implemented to Address Impacts .................................... 22
3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections ................................................................................. 22
(1) Discussion ........................................................................................................... 22
(2) Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 22
(3) Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 22
I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 23
II. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................... 26
III. Air Quality .............................................................................................. 28
IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................... 43
V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 46
VI. Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 49
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 53
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................... 56
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 60
X. Land Use ................................................................................................. 65
XI. Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 68
XII. Noise ...................................................................................................... 69
XIII. Population and Housing ......................................................................... 74
XIV. Public Services ........................................................................................ 76
XV. Recreation .............................................................................................. 79
XVI. Transportation ....................................................................................... 81
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................. 89
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... 93
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Table of Contents Environmental Checklist
iv FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Section 4: Environmental Determination ...................................................................................... 95
Section 5: References ................................................................................................................... 97
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Preliminary CEQA Air Quality Screening and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B: Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Avalon Bay Pleasant Hill BART Apartments
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Approval Background Summary .................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Mixed-Use Corridor Place Type Development Guidelines ......................................................... 6
Table 3: Building Square Footage .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 4: BAAQMD Project-Level Construction-Related Thresholds ...................................................... 29
Table 5: BAAQMD Project-Level Operational-Related Thresholds ........................................................ 30
Table 6: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes ................................................... 35
Table 7: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Approved Project and Current Project
Comparison Avalon Walnut Creek at Pleasant Hill BART, Block C ..................................... 36
Table 8: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes ................................................... 37
Table 9: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis ................................................................................ 38
Table 10: Screening Health Risk Assessment Cumulative Results ......................................................... 40
Table 11: Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... 54
Table 12: Condominium vs. Apartment Trip Generation Estimates ...................................................... 83
Table 13: Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village Trip Generation Estimates ................................................ 84
Table 14: Comparison of Peak-Hour Traffic Counts at Jones and Treat ................................................ 85
Table 15: Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service .............................................................................. 86
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 2: Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Land Use Areas ...................................................... 15
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base ............................................................................................. 17
Exhibit 4: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 19
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This checklist and attached supporting documentation have been prepared to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the Avalon Walnut Creek – Block “C” development (project or proposed
project) in relationship to the prior environmental review conducted for the site, including the 1998
Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan EIR, 2002 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and 2005 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis considers whether the
environmental impacts of the project have already been analyzed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code (PRC), Section 21000, et seq.).
1.1 - Project Background and Prior CEQA Documentation
1.1.1 - Original 1998 Approval
In 1998, Contra Costa County approved the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and
certified the accompanying EIR. The Specific Plan covered 125 acres, divided into 15 subareas on either
side of the Pleasant Hill BART Station. This included Subareas 11 and 12 (Subarea Site), which are
owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART) and comprise approximately 18 acres. The
Specific Plan articulated a minimum density of 35 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 60
dwelling units per acre. Based on the 12.5 acres of developable area of the Subarea Site, the Specific
Plan anticipated up to 750 dwelling units on the Subarea Site. The Specific Plan articulated height
limitations of 80 feet or five stories by right, and up to 108 feet or seven stories with conditional
approval. It also set a parking minimum of 1 space per residential unit and a parking maximum of 1.5
spaces per residential unit. Finally, it required that future development preserve view corridors
between the BART platform and Mt. Diablo. As shown on Exhibit 2, the project that is the subject of this
checklist and addendum is located on Block “C” (referred to herein as the project site) within a portion
of the Subarea Site.
1.1.2 - 2002 Approvals
In 2002, the County undertook a number of approvals (the 2002 Approvals) specific to the Subarea Site:
1) Amended the Specific Plan to eliminate the proposed Oak Road pedestrian bridge and
reduce building setbacks
2) Rezoned the Subarea Site from Single-Family Residential (R-15) to a Planned-Unit District
(P-1);
3) Approved a Preliminary Development Plan to construct 290,000 to 456,000 square feet of
office space, 274 to 446 multi-family residential units, 42,000 square feet of storefront
space, and 7,000 square feet of civic use space;
4) Expanded the existing parking garage on the Subarea Site; and
5) Adopted the New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Codes and Architectural Standards
(the “Regulating Plan”).
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Introduction Environmental Checklist
2 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
The County prepared and certified an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2002
IS/MND) for the 2002 Approvals. The 2002 IS/MND concluded that all impacts could be mitigated to
less than significant levels, and included mitigation measures for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land
Use and Planning, Noise, and Public Services.
1.1.3 - 2005 Final Development Plan and Addendum
In 2005, the County approved a Subdivision, Final Development Plan (FDP), variances, and Tree
Permit for the Subarea Site (the 2005 Approvals). The FDP authorized up to 549 multi-family
residential units (including 100 units in a four-story building on Block C), 35,590 square feet of retail,
12,130 square feet (10 units) of live-work/retail, 270,000 square feet of commercial office, 19,400
square feet of conference area, and 1,816 structured parking spaces for the proposed uses. This
represented an overall increase in multi-family housing units and a reduction in office and retail
uses.
The County analyzed the impacts of the 2005 Approvals in an Addendum to the 2002 IS/MND (the
2005 Addendum). The 2005 Addendum analyzed the changes in the proposed development at the
Subarea Site. It concluded that the 2005 Approvals would not create any new impacts relative to the
1998 Specific Plan or 2002 Approvals and no new mitigation measures were required.
These three CEQA documents (the 1998 EIR, 2002 IS/MND, and 2005 Addendum) are collectively
referred to herein as the prior CEQA documentation.
1.1.4 - Post 2005 Development
Since 2005, Block A of the Subarea Site has been developed with a four- to six-story, multi-family
residential building containing 184 dwelling units and retail uses on the ground floor. Block B has
also been developed with a four- to six-story multi-family residential building containing 205
dwelling units and retail on the ground floor. Block D is currently undeveloped. Finally, Block E has
been developed with an expansion of the parking garage to add 1,551 parking spaces and 33
residential units. Together, these three blocks comprise 422 dwelling units on the Subarea Site.
The project developer (Avalon Bay) now proposes to develop a four- to six-story multi-family
residential building containing 200 for-rent dwelling units on the currently undeveloped Block “C”
(project site) within the Subarea Site. This proposal changes the 2005 Approvals, which anticipated
549 total units, including 100 for-sale dwelling units in a four-story building on Block C. Therefore,
the current proposal is for a net increase of 73 units from the 2005 Approvals for the Subarea Site.
This Checklist evaluates the environmental effects, if any, of this net increase in dwelling units, the
change from for-sale units to rental units, and the increase in height from four stories to a four- to
six-story building.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table 1: Project Approval Background Summary
Component 1998 Approval (Specific Plan)
2002 Approvals
(Regulating Plan/2002
ISMND)
2005 Final
Development Plan
(Addendum)
Current Proposed
Project
Density Analyzed 750 dwelling unit
maximum; Minimum
Density = 35 DU/acre;
Maximum Density = 60
DU/acre
Approved 274 to 446
dwelling units and
significant office space
Approved 549
units, including
100 dwelling
units in Block
“C” with less
overall office
space
622 units,
including 200
dwelling units in
Block “C”
Residential
Parking
0.75 spaces per bedroom
with a minimum of 1 space
per unit and a maximum of
1.5 spaces per unit
Same as 1998 Specific
Plan
259 spaces
approved for
Block C
246 spaces (1.23
spaces per unit)
at Block C
Height 80 feet (five stories) by
right and 108 feet (seven
stories) with conditional
approval
52 feet 47feet (4stories) Stepped building
of 55 to 65 feet
(four to six
stories)
View
Corridor
Maintain the visual
relationship of the Station
Area to the larger natural
and built setting provided
by long distance views, in
particular those of Mt.
Diablo, by protecting for
views as seen from the
BART Station platform and
from future upper floor
office space throughout
the Station Area.
Encourage the creation of
view corridors from the
development.
Implements 1998
Specific Plan
Implements
1998 Specific
Plan
Implements
1998 Specific
Plan
Source: Steinberg 2015
1.2 - CEQA Requirements
CEQA generally requires local governments to conduct environmental review on public and private
development projects, unless such projects are exempt from environmental review. A project is
exempt from CEQA if it is exempt by statute (CEQA Guideline 15061(b)).
Government Code Section 65457(a) provides that any residential development project, including any
subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific
plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified, is exempt from CEQA as long as
the following events, as identified in PRC Section 21166, have not occurred:
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Introduction Environmental Checklist
4 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
environmental impact report;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or
(3) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
Expanding upon this, CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific
Plan, indicates that where a public agency has prepared an EIR for a Specific Plan, no EIR or negative
declaration need be prepared for a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity
with that specific plan unless one or more of the events described under CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a) have occurred:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was
certified or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
Similarly, PRC Section 21155.4 provides statutory exemption for residential, employment center, or
mixed-use development projects, including any subdivision or zoning change, for which none of the
events in PRC Section 21166 have occurred and that meets all of the following criteria:
• The project is proposed within a transit priority area as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
21099.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
• The project is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a Specific Plan for which an EIR
has been certified.
• The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy
or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to
subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government
Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable
communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
The project’s consistency with each of these criteria is discussed below.
PRC Section 21099 defines a transit priority area as an area within one-half mile of a major transit
stop that is existing or planned. The project site is located adjacent to the Pleasant Hill BART station,
entirely within a half-mile radius of that station, and is therefore a transit priority area.
The project is intended to implement the development anticipated and planned for by the 1998
Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan for which an EIR was certified. As discussed
in this Checklist, the project is consistent with the applicable policies and regulations of the 1998
Specific Plan as it was amended in 2002. As such, the project is consistent with the applicable
Specific Plan.
The project is consistent with the applicable sustainable communities strategy. In compliance with
the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375), the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) developed a
sustainable communities strategy for the Bay Area, called Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area articulates
the region’s strategy for meeting greenhouse gas reduction standards. On April 10, 2014, the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) accepted the ABAG/MTC’s determination that Plan Bay Area, if
implemented, would achieve the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Under Plan Bay Area, the project site is located in the Contra Costa Centre Planned Development
Area (PDA) (ABAG 2015). PDAs are the framework for implementing the land use strategy in Plan
Bay Area. Development projects in PDAs included in Plan Bay Area are consistent with the Plan if
they are within the range of densities and building intensities specified for the Place Type designated
for the PDA (ABAG undated). A Place Type is assigned for each PDA that provides a range of
densities, building intensities and land uses. The range of densities, intensities, and land uses for
each place type is found in the Station Area Planning Manual (MTC 2007). According to ABAG’s
Priority Development Area Showcase the project site’s Place Type is Mixed-Use Corridor (ABAG
2015). As indicated in Table 2, the proposed project would be consistent with the development
guidelines outlined for the Mixed-Use Corridor Place Type.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Introduction Environmental Checklist
6 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table 2: Mixed-Use Corridor Place Type Development Guidelines
Subject Guideline Project Consistency
Housing Mix Mid- and low-rise townhomes
on immediate transit corridor
The project includes 200 mid-rise
apartments directly adjacent to the
Pleasant Hill BART station corridor
Station Area Total Units Target 2,000 to 5,000 By adding housing, the project
supports the development
guideline to add more units to the
station area
Net Project Density 25 to 60 du/acre The Specific Plan articulated a
maximum density of 60 dwelling
units per acre. Based on the
developable area of the Subarea
Site, the Specific Plan permits a
maximum of 750 dwelling units.
The proposed project’s 200 units, in
combination with the existing 422
units would result in 622 units on
12.5 developable acres resulting in
approximately 50 du/acre.
Station Area Total Jobs Target 750 to 1,500 By adding retail space, the project
would contribute to the total jobs
target.
Minimum FAR (New
Employment Development)
2.0 FAR The project does not contain
employment only buildings so this
FAR does not apply.
Source: MTC 2007; FCS 2015
As shown in Table 2 and in the Checklist herein, the project is consistent with PRC Section 21155.4,
and therefore is eligible for a statutory exemption.
1.3 - Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
This environmental checklist has been prepared to determine whether the proposed project is
exempt from CEQA review pursuant to the statutory exemptions in Government Code Section
65457(a) and PRC Section 21155.4. More particularly, the checklist evaluates whether the project
meets the requirements of the aforementioned statutory exemptions. As part of that evaluation,
the checklist considers whether the events set forth in PRC Section 21166 have occurred. The
checklist uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines, but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a).
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
1.3.1 - Findings
The project is consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan, and would comply with
applicable mitigation measures required under the prior CEQA documentation. None of the events
set forth in PRC Section 21166 have occurred. There are no substantial changes proposed by the
project, or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions
of the prior CEQA documentation, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration. There are no new significant environmental effects, or any substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Likewise, there are no new
alternatives to the project that would reduce any significant impacts, and there were no new
mitigation measures available that would reduce any significant impacts.
Accordingly, the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to Government Code Section
65457, CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, and PRC Section 21155.4, as a project that is located within
a transit priority area, has been undertaken to implement a Specific Plan for which an EIR was
completed, and is consistent with the applicable sustainable communities strategy.
This checklist and attached documentation constitute substantial evidence supporting the
conclusion that preparation of an addendum or a supplemental or subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is not required. The analysis shows that the proposed increase in units and increase in
height comply with the Specific Plan and do not change any of the CEQA impacts. It also shows that
changing the Block C development from for-sale units to rental apartments will have no effect on the
environment; it does not change any of the CEQA analysis.
1.3.2 - Conclusions
Contra Costa County may approve the project based on this checklist and the finding of CEQA
exemption pursuant to Government Code Section 65457, CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, and PRC
Section 21155.4, as discussed above. The impacts of the project are within the impacts previously
analyzed in the prior CEQA documentation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061).
The project does not require any revisions to the prior CEQA documentation. No new significant
information or changes in circumstances surrounding the project have occurred since the
certification of the prior CEQA documentation. The previous analyses completed for the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Specific Plan and subsequent approvals at the Subarea Site therefore remain
adequate under CEQA. The County and project developer will remain obligated to comply with all
applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained within the prior CEQA
documentation.
1.4 - Incorporation by Reference
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Checklist has incorporated by reference the
following prior CEQA documentation prepared for the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan:
• Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific
Plan (1998)
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Introduction Environmental Checklist
8 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
• Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan Amendment
#2002-01, Rezoning #02-3116, and Development Plan DP023041 (Iron Horse Associates
Office/Residential/Retail Project) (2002)
• Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan Amendment #2002-01,
Rezoning #02-3116, and Development Plan DP023041 (Iron Horse Associates
Office/Residential/Retail Project) (2005)
Information from documents incorporated by reference into this Addendum has been summarized
as necessary in the appropriate section(s) that follow to support the project’s exemption from CEQA.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 - Location and Setting
The 1.61-acre project site is located within Contra Costa County, California, approximately 30 miles east
of San Francisco (Exhibit 1). The project site is located on Block “C” within Subareas 11 and 12 of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan, which are designated as “Mixed Use” under the Urban Design
Policy Diagram of the Specific Plan (see Exhibit 2; Specific Plan Figure 5, page 21). Subareas 11 and 12
are bisected by the Pleasant Hill BART Station and railway, and are generally bounded by Las Juntas Way
to the north, Treat Boulevard to the south, Jones Road to the east, and Oak Road to the west.
Block “C,” where the project site is located, falls partially within the southern corner of Subarea 11
and partially within the northern corner of Subarea 12. Block “C” is bounded by Coggins Drive and
the Pleasant Hill BART Station and tracks to the northwest, Jones Road to the northeast and east,
and Harvey Drive to the South.
The project site is located in a highly developed area. Areas surrounding the immediate project
vicinity include commercial and office uses, multi-family residential uses, and I-680 (see Exhibit 3).
Multi-family residential development and first-floor commercial uses exists to the north and
southwest beyond Harvey Drive. Multi-family residential development is also present to the east
beyond Jones Road. Beyond Coggins Drive and the BART Station to the north and northwest are
surface parking and a seven-level parking garage.
2.2 - Project Characteristics
The project would include the development of 200 residential dwelling units in a single building, in
the following configurations:
• 17 Studio units
• 99 One-bedroom units
• 67 Two-bedroom units
• 17 Three-bedroom units
Approximately 2,310 square feet of retail use would be provided on the ground floor at the
southwest corner of the project, adjacent to the residential building lobby and the outdoor “Town
Square” (an existing feature southwest of the project site). An approximately 11,000-square-foot
enclosed, landscaped courtyard area will be provided at the center of the building, which would also
feature a barbecue and fire pit area for use by residents (Exhibit 4).
The podium-style project building would range from 55 to 65 feet in height, and would consist of
between four and six above-grade stories. A two-level parking garage would be provided, with one
of the parking levels located below grade. Building heights over 80 feet or five stories are permitted
within the Specific Plan Area (up to a maximum of 108 feet or seven stories), subject to conditional
approval. The project would consist of 344,640 square feet of gross building area (resulting in
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Project Description Environmental Checklist
10 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
building footprint lot coverage of 63,700 square feet, or 90.7 percent), distributed among the various
levels (Table 3).
Table 3: Building Square Footage
Level Square Footage
Garage A (below grade)61,700
1 (ground floor)57,700
2 48,660
3 50,260
4 50,260
5 50,260
6 25,800
Total 344,640
The second level of parking, retail use, and some residential units would be provided on the ground
floor level, with the additional residential units located on floors above. Elevator access would be
provided.
The project would provide 246 parking spaces, or 1.23 spaces per unit, which complies with the
Specific Plan parking requirements of 1.0 to 1.5 spaces per unit. Level Garage A (below grade) would
provide 162 parking spaces, and Level 1 would provide 84 spaces, including four accessible spaces.
Project construction is anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 18 months, beginning in
the second quarter of 2016 and ending in the fourth quarter of 2017, with full project occupancy
projected by the second quarter of 2018.
Grading of the site and excavation to accommodate the below-grade parking structure is anticipated
to occur over approximately 60 days (during the 18-month construction period), and will involve the
export of approximately 70,000 cubic yards of soil.
Because of the developed nature of the surrounding area, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements
have already been installed along the street frontages surrounding the project site. The project
would also connect to existing utility infrastructure (water, sewer, and dry utilities) and the
stormwater drain located in Jones Road.
2.3 - Scope of the Checklist and Proposed Project Modifications
The Specific Plan anticipated up to 750 dwelling units and the 2005 Approvals allowed for the
development of up to 549 dwelling units within the Subarea Site (including Block C). Since 422 of
these units have already been constructed, the County is requiring an amendment of the
Development Plan to allow for 622 units (which will encompass the 200 units proposed by the
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
project and those already constructed) for a net increase of 73 dwelling units within the Subarea
Site. This checklist will evaluate whether the net increase of 73 dwelling units, conversion of the
proposed residences from condominiums to apartments, and the increase in maximum building
height from four to six stories will create any new significant environmental effects or substantially
increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
!
·|}þ12
·|}þ12
·|}þ29
·|}þ121
·|}þ37
·|}þ4 ·|}þ4Na
p
a
CountyS
o
n
omaCountyC o n tra C o s ta C o u n ty
A la m e d a C o u n ty
!"#$80
!"#$580
!"#$680
!"#$80
·|}þ24
!"#$680
Co n traCosta County
!"#$780
S o la noCou n ty
·|}þ24
N
a
p
a
R
i
v
e
r
NapaRiver MontezumaSlough
SacramentoRiver
SanJoaquinRiver
CarquinezStrait
BroadSlough ShermanLakeNew YorkSlough
San PabloReservoir BrionesReservoir
Upper SanLeandroReservoir
LakeChabot
Fairfield SuisunCity
Benicia
WestPittsburg
Pittsburg
Hercules
Pinole Martinez Antioch
ConcordSanPabloPleasantHill
Richmond
El Cerrito WalnutCreekAlbanyLafayette
OrindaBerkeley
Alamo
SanFrancisco
Moraga
Piedmont Danville
Alameda Oakland SanRamon
DublinCastroValleySanLeandro
SanLorenzo PleasantonSouth SanFrancisco
Vallejo
46110001 • 02/2015 | 1_regio n al.mxd
Exhibit 1Regio n al Lo catio n Map
5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Pro ject Site
AV ALON WALNUT CREEK – BLOCK CENV IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
So urce: Cen sus 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2013.
I
Pro ject Site
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
WAYSIDEPLAZA
OAK RDJONESRDJONESRD
RAVENWOODDRBIRCHDRJONESRDTREAT BLVD
COGGINSDR
OAKRDWAYNE
D
R NLERBMOHLEDCOGGINSDRLASJUNTASWAY
BUSKIRKA VE
RABLLI
HT
NASAELP TSTATIO
N
INTERSTATEFREEWAY6801A
7B
9
1B
5
1C 2
3 4N
4S
8
7A
10A
10B
12
1514B
14A
13
6
16
11
21
COMMERCIAL / OFFICE ZONE
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE
MIXED USE ZONE
UTILITY / OPEN SPACE ZONE
PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
I
46110001 • 02/2015 | 2_specificplan.cdr SSL LAW FIRM, LLP • AVALON BAY AT WALNUT CREEK
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Exhibit 2
Pleasant Hill BART Station
Specific Plan Land Use Areas
Source: Heller Manus Architects, 1998
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
46110001 • 02/2015 | 2_ vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 3Local Vicinity Map Aerial Base
Source: ESRI Imagery
AVALON WALNUT CREEK – BLOCK CENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTOakRdJones RdTreat Blvd
Las Juntas Wa y
Coggins Dr
Oak Park Blvd
Geary Rd
NMainStPleasant Hill BART Station
!"#$680
I 700 0 700350
Feet
Project Location
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
6 STORY TYPE III
A
5 STORY TYPE VA
4 STORY TYPE VA 5 STORY TYPE VA4 STORY TYPE VA6 STORY T
Y
P
E III
A
I
46110001 • 02/2015 | 4_siteplan.cdr
Exhibit 4
Site Plan
AVALON WALNUT CREEK – BLOCK C
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Source: Steinberg Architects, 2015
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
SECTION 3: CEQA CHECKLIST
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any changed condition (e.g.,
changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may
result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).
The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer
does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental
category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed
and addressed as necessary by mitigation measures.
3.1 - Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
(1) Conclusion in Prior Environmental Review
This column provides the conclusion from prior environmental review relative to the
environmental issue listed under each topic.
(2) Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the
changes represented by the revised project will result in new significant environmental
impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the prior CEQA documentation, or whether
the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant effects.
(3) New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether
there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the prior CEQA documentation, due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
(4) New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A-D), this column indicates whether
new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior CEQA documentation
was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior CEQA
documentation;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the prior CEQA documentation;
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
22 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the prior CEQA documentation would substantially reduce one or more
significant effect of the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review finds that the
conclusions of the prior CEQA documentation remain the same and no new significant
impacts are identified, identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, and
additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no
additional environmental document would be required.
(5) Mitigation Measures Implemented to Address Impacts
This column indicates whether the existing CEQA documentation provides mitigation
measures to address effects in the related impact category. If these mitigation measures will
require implementation with the construction of the project a “yes” response will be
provided. If the prior CEQA documentation and this Checklist have both concluded an
impact does not occur with this project or is not significant and, therefore, no mitigation
measures are needed, “None” is indicated. If this Checklist concludes that no impact or less
than significant impact occurs and a determination has been made that the mitigation
measures from the EIR are not applicable to the proposed project evaluated herein then
“N/A” is indicated.
3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections
(1) Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category
in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular
environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation
that may be required or that has already been implemented.
(2) Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior CEQA documentation that apply to the
project are listed under each environmental category. Each mitigation measure has been
renumbered for inclusion in this document, but includes a parenthetical reference to the
prior CEQA document from which it originated (1998 EIR or 2002 MND).
(3) Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstance
s Involving
New Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
I. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
No Impact No No No None
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings
within a state scenic
highway?
No Impact No No No None
c) Substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality
of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
d) Create a new source
of substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day
or nighttime views in
the area?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM AES-1
(MM Ib, 2002
MND)
Discussion
a) The 1998 EIR addressed concerns related to views of Mt. Diablo within the scope of the
land use analysis, stating: “The existing Specific Plan includes urban design guidelines for
building form, massing, height, setbacks, pedestrian circulation and signage. Most of these
will be retained with the proposed Specific Plan amendments.” The 1998 EIR noted “the
urban design policies and design review process built into the Specific Plan and determined
that no further mitigation is necessary” (1998 EIR at page I-37).
The 1998 EIR found that “The station area affords a number of views of hillsides to the east
and west. The most sensitive and prized view, based on expressed community concerns, is
that of Mt. Diablo as seen from the BART platform, which is elevated approximately 35 feet
above the ground. This view is enjoyed by the thousands of commuters who use the
station daily.” The 1998 EIR further concluded that a 10- to 15-story building on Subarea
12, depending on its placement, would diminish some of the views of Mt. Diablo as seen
from the BART platform. The 1998 EIR therefore recommended that the amended Specific
Plan should specify the minimally acceptable extent to which the view of Mt. Diablo as seen
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
24 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
from the BART platform shall be preserved; or that the height of buildings on Subarea 12
could be reduced and building mass sited such that existing views are preserved, or shifted
to Subarea 11 in a manner that does not obstruct Mt. Diablo views. The 1998 EIR found
that either of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
Accordingly, the Specific Plan requires that views of Mt. Diablo be maintained from the
BART platform. It permits heights up to 80 feet as a right and conditionally allows height up
to 108 feet in Subarea 12, and permits heights up to 150 feet as a right and conditionally
allows heights up to 178 feet in Subarea 11 (Specific Plan page 38). Conditionally approved
heights must be based on findings that:
The increase in height: (1) will not create shading or wind conditions
adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space; (2) will not unduly restrict
view potential from other sites in the Station Area; and (3) where a subarea
is in multiple ownership, a coordinated design has been prepared and
agreed by all property owners within the subarea. In addition, the Specific
Plan allows heights of up to ten stories and 150 feet in Subarea 11, based on
individual circumstances (2002 MND at page 16).
These limitations are consistent with the recommendations in the 1998 EIR related to
building heights (1998 EIR at page II-42 to II-44).
The potential for development of the Subarea Site to impact scenic vistas was found less
than significant by the 2002 MND.
The proposed project would consist of up to 55 to 65 feet in four to six above-grade stories,
and would therefore, be within the permitted height limit of 80 feet set by the Specific
Plan. It would be set back from the BART tracks pursuant to the 2005 Approvals.
Furthermore, the proposed building would be consistent with building heights in the
surrounding area and would not substantially affect views of Mt Diablo from public spaces.
The project site does not contain any scenic vistas, and would not have any adverse effect
on a scenic vista. No new or increased impacts would occur.
b) The project would not substantially damage any scenic resources such as trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed project
would consist of a single building that is up to 55 to 65 feet and four to six stories in height.
The project site is not currently visible from I-680 and this portion of I-680 is not designated
as a scenic highway. The project would not involve the removal of any trees; existing street
trees have been incorporated into the preliminary landscape plan for the project and would
remain undisturbed. No new or increased impacts would occur.
c) As previously mentioned, the 1998 EIR did not contain a separate aesthetics section, but
instead addressed concerns related to views of Mt. Diablo within the scope of the land use
analysis, stating: “The existing Specific Plan includes urban design guidelines for building
form, massing, height, setbacks, pedestrian circulation and signage. Most of these will be
retained with the proposed Specific Plan amendments. The 1982 DEIR noted “the urban
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
design policies and design review process built into the Specific Plan and determined that
no further mitigation is necessary” (1998 EIR at page I-37).
The project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. The architecture of the proposed project would be compatible with existing
buildings in the vicinity, and would adhere to the design guidelines in the Specific Plan,
Regulating Plan and related documents to ensure an attractive design that is harmonious with
the surrounding development. No new or increased impacts would occur.
d) The 2002 MND concluded that proposed development within the Subarea Site has the
potential to introduce new sources of light and glare, and imposed mitigation requiring
preparation of a lighting plan (2002 MND at page 5). The project would comply with this
mitigation measure, in addition to all other County lighting requirements and conditions of
approval. The project buildings would not incorporate building materials with a high potential
to cause glare or reflection of light. The areas surrounding the project are developed and
contain existing sources of nighttime lighting, including lights from the nearby parking garage
structure, lights from vehicles, lighting associated with the BART facilities and trains, and
interior and exterior lighting from adjacent commercial and residential buildings. Therefore,
the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM AES-1 Thirty days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. Light standards
shall be low-lying and exterior lights on the building shall be deflected so that lights
shine on to applicant’s property and not toward adjacent properties; all subject to
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building
permit. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less
than significant (2002 MND MM Ib)
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant aesthetic impacts or substantial increases to any previously
identified significant aesthetic impacts. With the implementation of the applicable mitigation
measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result in less
than significant impacts to aesthetics.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
26 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
(Farmland), as shown
on the maps
prepared pursuant to
the Farmland
Mapping and
Monitoring Program
of the California
Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
No Impact No No No None
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for
agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact No No No None
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in
Public Resources
Code section
12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code
section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland
Production (as
defined by
Government Code
section 51104(g))?
No Impact No No No None
d) Result in the loss of
forest land or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
e) Involve other
changes in the
existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature,
could result in
conversion of
Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a-d) Although the project site is currently vacant, it is paved and located in a highly developed
area and does not contain any land that is considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project site is subject to a Williamson
Act contract. The project site does not contain forest land and is not designated as a
Timberland production zone. No new or increased impacts would occur. Impacts to
agricultural resources were addressed within the 2002 MND, which concluded that
development of the Subarea Site would have no impact to agricultural resources.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
The conclusions of the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project would
not result in any new significant agricultural resource impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant agricultural resource impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
28 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
III. Air Quality
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air
quality plan?
Not
Addressed
No No No MM AQ-1
(MM IIIa,
2002 MND, as
amended)
and MM AQ-2
(MM IIIb,
2002 MND)
b) Violate any air quality
standard or
contribute
substantially to an
existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM AQ-1
(MM IIIa,
2002 MND, as
amended)
c) Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any
criteria pollutant for
which the project
region is
nonattainment under
an applicable federal
or state ambient air
quality standard
(including releasing
emissions which
exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM AQ-1
(MM IIIa,
2002 MND, as
amended)
and MM AQ-2
(MM IIIb,
2002 MND)
d) Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
Significant
No No No MM AQ-1
(MM IIIa,
2002 MND, as
amended)
e) Create objectionable
odors affecting a
substantial number
of people?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Discussion
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) publishes CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to
assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding
potentially adverse impacts to air quality. BAAQMD published its 1999 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
and thresholds (1999 Thresholds) and later adopted its 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2010 Air
Quality Guidelines) with associated 2010 Thresholds of Significance (2010 Thresholds). The 2010 Air
Quality Guidelines were updated with minor edits in May 2011; however, for the purposes of clarity,
the updated 2011 Air Quality Guidelines are referred to in this document by the 2010 adoption date
(2010 Air Quality Guidelines). The 2010 Thresholds included new thresholds of significance for
construction emissions, cumulative toxic air contaminant impacts, fine particulate matter
concentration increases, and greenhouse gas emissions.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD
had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the 2010 Thresholds. The Court did not determine
whether the 2010 Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the 2010
Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to
set aside the 2010 Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied
with CEQA. Therefore, the BAAQMD cannot legally recommend the 2010 Thresholds.
The BAAQMD appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision and the case went to the
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. The
Court of Appeal’s decision was subsequently appealed to the California Supreme Court, which
granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending there. Therefore, the BAAQMD still
cannot legally recommend the 2010 Thresholds.
After the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision, the BAAQMD stopped recommending that the
2010 Thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s significant air quality
impacts. The BAAQMD released a new version of its Air Quality Guidelines in May 2012 removing
the 2010 Thresholds. The BAAQMD, however, provided a recommendation that lead agencies
determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the
record. It has been determined that the 2010 Air Quality Guidelines and 2010 Thresholds are
appropriate for the analysis of this project. Furthermore, the 2010 thresholds are more stringent
than the 1999 thresholds, and, therefore, provide more conservative analysis results.
Table 4 and Table 5 compare the 2010 Air Quality Thresholds to the thresholds established in the
original 1999 Air Quality Guidelines.
Table 4: BAAQMD Project-Level Construction-Related Thresholds
Pollutant 1999 Air Quality Thresholds 2010 Air Quality Thresholds
ROG None 54 lbs/day
NOx None 54 lbs/day
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
30 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table 4 (cont.): BAAQMD Project-Level Construction-Related Thresholds
Pollutant 1999 Air Quality Thresholds 2010 Air Quality Thresholds
PM10 None 82 lbs/day (exhaust)
PM2.5 None 54 lbs/day (exhaust)
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) BMPs BMPs
TACs None • Increased cancer risk of >10 in a
million
• Increased non-cancer risk of >1 Hazard
Index (chronic or acute)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 µg/m3
annual average
Cumulative TACs None • Increased cancer risk of >100 in a
million
• Increased non-cancer risk of >10
Hazard Index (chronic)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.8 µg/m3
annual average
Notes:
lbs/day = pounds per day ROG = reactive organic gases
Ox = nitrous oxides PM = particulate matter
CO = carbon monoxide BMPs = best management practices
TACs = toxic air contaminants
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1999, 2011.
Table 5: BAAQMD Project-Level Operational-Related Thresholds
Pollutant 1999 Air Quality Thresholds
2010 Air Quality Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
Maximum Annual
Emissions
ROG 80 lbs/day 54 lbs/day 10 tons/year
NOx 80 lbs/day 54 lbs/day 10 tons/year
PM10 80 lbs/day 82 lbs/day 15 tons/year
PM2.5 None 54 lbs/day 10 tons/year
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8-hour average),
20 ppm (1-hour average)
9.0 ppm (8-hour average),
20 ppm (1-hour average)
TACs • Increased cancer risk of >10
in a million
• Increased non-cancer risk of
>1 Hazard Index
• Increased cancer risk of >10 in a million
• Increased non-cancer risk of >1 Hazard Index
(chronic or acute)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 µg/m3 annual
average
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table 5 (cont.): BAAQMD Project-Level Operational-Related Thresholds
Pollutant 1999 Air Quality Thresholds
2010 Air Quality Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
Maximum Annual
Emissions
Cumulative TACs None • Increased cancer risk of >100 in a million
• Increased non-cancer risk of >10 Hazard Index
(chronic)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.8 µg/m3 annual
average
Accidental Release Storage or use of acutely
hazardous materials near
receptors or new receptors
near stored or used acutely
hazardous materials
Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials near
receptors or new receptors near stored or used
acutely hazardous materials
Odor >1 confirmed complaint per
year averaged over three
years or 3 unconfirmed
complaints per year averaged
over three years
5 confirmed complaints per year averaged over
three years
Notes:
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrous oxides
PM = particulate matter CO = carbon monoxide
TACs = toxic air contaminants ppm = parts per million
lbs/day = pounds per day t/y = tons per year
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1999, 2011.
a) The 1998 EIR did not address consistency with applicable air quality plans. The 2002 MND
stated that there was no impact and cited the 1998 EIR. Because the Air Basin is
nonattainment for the federal and state ozone standards, the BAAQMD prepared an Ozone
Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour ozone planning requirement
and a Clean Air Plan to satisfy the state 1-hour ozone planning requirement. These plans
comprise the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan was prepared by BAAQMD in
cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The 2010 Clean Air Plan builds from and incorporates
components of the BAAQMD’s 2005 Ozone Strategy, and identifies how the Air Basin will
achieve compliance with the state 1-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as
practicable and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to
neighboring air basins. The 2010 Clean Air Plan accounts for proposed projections of
population growth provided by ABAG and vehicle miles traveled provided by the MTC, and
it identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air
quality standards. Consistent with BAAQMD 2010 Air Quality Guidelines, a consistency
analysis with the 2010 Clean Air Plan is provided herein.
Because of the region’s non-attainment status for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour
ozone, 24-hour particulate matter 10 microns in diameter and smaller (PM10), annual PM10,
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
32 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller (PM2.5), if the proposed project-
generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, or
PM2.5 would exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds, then the proposed project
would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the proposed
project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles
traveled, these may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that are unaccounted for
in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.
As discussed in Impact III.b through III.e herein, the proposed project would not violate air
quality standards, result in a cumulative contribution of a non-attainment pollutant, expose
sensitive receptors to substantial air pollution concentrations, or create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people after implementing MM AQ-1 (as amended) and
MM AQ-2. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with emissions inventories
contained in regional air quality attainment plans or result in a significant contribution to
the region’s air quality non-attainment status. Additionally, the proposed project would be
consistent with the site’s General Plan and Zoning designations. Therefore, it would also be
consistent with the land use assumptions contained in the 2010 Clean Air Plan (the
applicable air quality plan) and would not introduce any new impacts not previously
disclosed. Although the Development Plan will be amended to allow for the development
of 73 additional residential units, the higher density and location near transit would be
more supportive of regional goals for smart-growth development than the previously
approved project. The higher-density near transit would also be more supportive of the
Plan Bay Area, which is the sustainable communities strategy adopted for the Bay Area to
address greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with
all applicable rules and regulations in the attainment plans. Accordingly, the proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plans. As such, the proposed project would not result in new or increased impacts.
b) Potential localized impacts would be exceedances of state or federal standards for PM10 or
carbon monoxide (CO). Fugitive PM10 emissions are of concern during construction because
of the potential to emit fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities. CO emissions are of
localized concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to
increases in on-road vehicle congestion. Regional construction and operational impacts are
not addressed in this section but are discussed in Impact III.c, below.
Prior CEQA Documentation
As discussed in the prior CEQA documentation, construction equipment exhaust and
construction dust emissions were found to be a potentially significant impact, and required
the implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant. The mitigation
from the 1998 EIR under Air Quality Impact 1 and as repeated in the 2002 MND as MM IIIa
required that dust control measures were to be applied during all construction phases. The
1998 EIR and 2002 MND found that the project’s operation would result in a less than
significant localized air quality impact.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Project Analysis
Short-term Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would require site clearing and grading/earthwork
activities. Emissions from construction activities are generally short-term in duration, but
may still cause adverse air quality impacts. The project would generate emissions from
construction equipment exhaust, worker travel, and fugitive dust. These construction
emissions include dust (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction activities would also temporarily
create emissions of equipment exhaust and other air contaminants. The project’s potential
impacts related to equipment exhaust are evaluated separately in Impact III.c.
BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter
emissions. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a
consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions
control measures recommended by BAAQMD are implemented for a project, then fugitive
dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. BAAQMD considers a
project’s construction emissions to be less than significant if best management practices
(BMPs) are implemented.
Mitigation for Air Quality Impact 1 from the 1998 EIR, contained the BMPs that were
current during the time of analysis (in 1998). BMPs recommended by BAAQMD have since
been updated. Therefore, as reflected in MM AQ-1, the mitigation has been amended to
reflect the most current BMPs. The amended MM AQ-1 is to be included in the project
design and implemented during all phases of construction. After applying the amended
MM AQ-1, short-term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard
or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less
than significant.
Long-term Operational Impacts
CO emissions from project-related operational traffic would be the greatest pollutant of
concern at the local level, since congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have
the greatest potential to cause high, localized concentrations of CO.
BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the
potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when subsequent
site-specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. BAAQMD considers a project’s local CO
emissions to be less than significant if the following screening criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon,
below-grade roadway).
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
34 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
The project would be consistent with the existing general plan land use designation.
Further, the project’s traffic analysis determined that the proposed project would have less
than significant impacts to the transportation system. As discussed in Section XVI, b) of this
checklist, the project’s traffic would be consistent with the Draft 2014 Central County Action
Plan from TRANSPAC (the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for Central Contra
Costa County), which is a component used to implement and evaluate current and future
performance of the County’s Congestion Management Program network. These
characteristics indicate that the project is consistent with the applicable 2013 Update of the
Contra Costa Congestion Management Program, thereby satisfying the first screening
criteria.
The adjacent roadways are not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited. The traffic analysis for the proposed project found that highest traffic
volume would occur on Treat Boulevard east of Jones Road during the AM peak hour and
would be 4,580 vehicles per hour, which is less than the BAAQMD’s CO hotspot screening
criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour (satisfying the second and third criteria). Therefore, the
project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for CO hotspot analysis and
further analysis is not required. The project would result in a less than significant impact for
CO hotspot generation. No new or increased impacts would occur.
c) Non-attainment pollutants of concern include ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In developing
thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for
which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project
exceeds the identified thresholds of significance, its emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air
quality conditions. The analysis considers construction and operation period impacts
separately, as described below.
Prior CEQA Documentation
As discussed in the prior CEQA documentation, construction equipment exhaust and
construction dust emissions were found to be a potentially significant impact, and required
the implementation of MM IIIa (2002 MND) to reduce impacts to less than significant. The
mitigation required that dust control measures be implemented during construction. The
prior CEQA documentation found the project’s operational individual and cumulative
impacts on long-term local air quality to be less than significant, but its regional impact to
be potentially significant. The prior CEQA documentation required the implementation of
MM AIR-2 (MM IIIb, 2002 MND) that promoted the use of non-auto travel. This mitigation
measure reduced the impacts from operational emissions, but not to a less than significant
level; thus, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidable in the prior CEQA
documentation.
Project Analysis
ENVIRON Corporation (ENVIRON) prepared an analysis of air quality impacts (included as
Appendix A of this checklist). The analysis below discusses regional construction and
operational impacts separately below.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Short-term Construction Impacts
A preliminary screening method is provided in BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines for construction-
related impacts associated with criteria air pollutants and precursors. The preliminary
screening is used to indicate whether a project’s construction-related air pollutants or
precursors could potentially exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The construction
of the project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality if the following
screening criteria are met:
1. The project is below the applicable screening level size (Table 6).
2. All construction period Standard Project Conditions would be included in the project
design and implemented during construction.
3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
a) Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos
Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing;
b) Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases;
c) Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would
develop residential and commercial uses on the same site), (not applicable to high
density infill development);
d) Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) for grading, cut/fill, or earth
movement); or
e) Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of soil
import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
Table 6: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes
Land Use Type
Construction-Related
Screening Size
Project Size
(Dwelling Units)
Project Percent of
Screening Size
Apartment, Mid-Rise 240 du 200 du
(increase of 73 du) 83% (36.5%)
Retail 99 ksf 3 ksf 3%
Notes:
du = dwelling unit
ksf = 1,000 square feet
Source: BAAQMD, 2011.
As shown in Table 6, project does not exceed the screening size for construction-related
criteria air pollutants and precursors. However, the project would exceed the 10,000 cy
screening threshold for soil import or export during construction, since the project
proposes to export 70,000 cy for the below grade parking level; therefore, additional
analysis is needed to determine the project’s potential significance.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
36 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
The analysis prepared by ENVIRON compared the proposed project’s construction
emissions with the Approved Project and found that construction exhaust for the proposed
project would be less than the Approved Project. As shown below in Table 7, the emissions
would not exceed either the 1999 or 2010 thresholds. The impact would be less than
significant. Therefore, no new or substantially increased significant impacts would result
from the project beyond those discussed in EIR.
Fugitive dust emissions were evaluated in impact III.b. above, which determined that
implementation of MM AQ-1 as amended would reduce fugitive dust impacts to a less than
significant level.
Table 7: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Approved Project and Current Project
Comparison Avalon Walnut Creek at Pleasant Hill BART, Block C
Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Approved
Project
Tons 2.8 6.5 0.33 0.32
Pounds1 14.14 32.83 1.67 1.62
Current
Project
Tons 2.7 4.9 0.22 0.21
Pounds1 13.64 27.75 1.11 1.06
1999 Threshold
(pounds/day) 80 80 80 N/A
Exceed 1999 Thresholds? No No No N/A
Significant? No No No N/A
2010 Threshold
(pounds/day)
54 54 82 54
Exceed 2010 Thresholds? No No No No
Significant? No No No No
Note:
1 Average pounds per day based on 18 months of construction (average of 22 days/month = 396 days)
Source: ENVIRON, 2015
Long-term Operational Impacts
Generally, long-term operational emissions could result from the project-related traffic and
through the routine use of maintenance equipment. BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines provide
guidance and screening criteria for determining if a project could potentially result in
significant air quality impacts. As shown in Table 8, the project would not result in
operational-related air pollutants or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance. For example, the operational criteria pollutant screening size for a mid-rise
apartment development is 494 dwelling units and for retail it is 99,000 square feet. The
project is well below BAAQMD’s screening threshold, indicating that ongoing project
operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity
of air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operation impacts associated with criteria pollutant
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
emissions would be less than significant. The prior CEQA documentation included MM-2 to
reduce the impact of the overall development, as such; the project would also incorporate
MM-2 to promote the use of non-auto travel methods to the extent applicable. No new or
substantially increased significant impacts would occur.
Table 8: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes
Land Use Type
Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size Project Size
Project Percent of
Screening Size
Apartment, Mid-Rise 494 du 200 du
(increase of 73 du) 40.5% (14.8%)
Retail 99 ksf 3 ksf 3%
du = dwelling unit
ksf = 1,000 square feet
Source: BAAQMD, 2011.
d) This impact addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to
construction-generated fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), construction-generated diesel
particulate matter (DPM), operational-related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational
CO hotspots.
BAAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be any facility or land use that includes members
of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as
children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. If a project is likely to be a place where
people live, play, or convalesce, it should be considered a receptor. It should also be
considered a receptor if sensitive individuals are likely to spend a significant amount of time
there. Examples of receptors include residences, schools and school yards, parks and play
grounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Playgrounds could be play
areas associated with parks or community centers. As a residential development, the
project itself is a sensitive receptor.
Air quality problems arise when sources of air pollutants and sensitive receptors are located
near one another. Localized impacts to sensitive receptors generally occur in one of two
ways:
• A (new) source of air pollutants is located close to existing sensitive receptors.
• A (new) sensitive receptor is located near an existing source of air pollutants.
To address both of these types of impacts, BAAQMD has established as part of its 2010
Guidelines the following health risk and hazards significance thresholds, as shown in Table
9. These thresholds were adopted for the purpose of this analysis.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
38 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Table 9: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis
Scenario
Cancer Risk
(in a million)
Chronic Hazard
Index
Acute Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(mg/m3)
Individual Impact 10 1 1 0.3
Community Cumulative Impact 100 10 10 0.8
Source: BAAQMD, 2011.
Prior CEQA Documentation
The 2002 MND indicated impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Project Analysis
Short-term Construction Impacts
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions from grading, trenching, or land clearing activities can create
nuisances and localized health impacts. As addressed in Impact III.b, the proposed project
would incorporate appropriate dust control measures during project construction through
inclusion of MM AQ -1 (as amended by this Addendum to include updated BMPs, as
recommended by BAAQMD). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial fugitive dust concentrations from construction activities. No new
or increased impacts would occur.
DPM and PM2.5
Potential short-term construction impacts related to DPM and PM2.5 were not addressed in
the prior CEQA documentation and, therefore, an analysis is provided herein. As discussed
in the 2010 Air Quality Guidelines construction activity using diesel-powered equipment
emits DPM, a known carcinogen. A 10-year research program prepared by the Air
Resources Board in 1998 demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human
carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health
risk. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by BAAQMD when studying
the health risk posed by DPM assume the following: (1) 24-hour constant exposure; (2) 350
days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 70 years.
The majority of heavy diesel equipment usage would occur during the grading phase and
building phase. These activities would occur over a brief duration within the estimated 18-
month construction schedule. Residents and employees located near the project site would
be exposed to construction contaminants only for the duration of construction. This brief
exposure period is substantially less than the 2-year exposure period typically assumed for
health risk analysis for small construction projects and would substantially limit exposure to
hazardous emissions. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact
from exposure to construction-generated DPM. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Long-Term Operational Impacts
CO Hotspot
As identified in Impact III.b, the project would not create a localized CO hotspot. Therefore,
the project would not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational
activities. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Operational Health Risk
When siting a new receptor, the existing or future proposed sources of TACs and PM2.5
emissions that would adversely affect individuals within the project should be examined,
including:
• The extent to which existing sources would increase risk levels, hazard index, and/or
PM2.5 concentrations near the planned receptor.
• Whether the existing sources are permitted or non-permitted by BAAQMD.
• Whether there are freeways or major roadways near the planned receptor.
BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies identify all TAC and PM2.5 sources located within
a 1,000 foot radius of a project (known as the ‘zone of influence’). A lead agency should
enlarge the 1,000-foot radius on a case-by-case basis if an unusually large source or sources
of risk or hazard emissions that may affect a project is beyond the recommended radius.
Permitted sources of TAC and PM2.5 should be identified, as should freeways, major
roadways, and other potential sources of TAC and PM2.5.
For project-level analysis, BAAQMD provides three tools for use in screening potential
sources of TACs. These tools are:
• Surface Street Screening Tables. BAAQMD pre-calculated potential cancer risk and PM2.5
concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction. The look-up tables are
used for roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or
1,000 trucks per day. Risks are assessed by roadway volume, roadway direction, and
distance to sensitive receptor.
• Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. BAAQMD prepared a Google Earth file that contains
pre-estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways
within the Bay Area. Risks are provided by roadway link and are estimated based on
elevation and distance to the sensitive receptor.
• Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tool. BAAQMD prepared a Google Earth
file that contains the locations of all stationary sources within the Bay Area that have
BAAQMD permits. For each emissions source, BAAQMD provides conservative cancer
risk and PM2.5 concentration increase values.
BAAQMD recommends the use of these three tools in a screening process for project-level
analysis to identify whether further environmental review of potential TAC or PM2.5
concentration risk for a project is warranted. Specifically, emissions sources within 1,000
feet of a proposed project boundary should be evaluated.
For project-level analysis, BAAQMD specifies both individual and cumulative-level
thresholds of significance for risks and hazards. For projects that are considered new
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
40 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
sources of TACs or PM2.5 (such as stationary sources, industrial sources, or roadway
projects), it is generally appropriate to use both the project-level and cumulative-level
thresholds because the project-level threshold identifies said project’s individual
contribution to risk, while the cumulative threshold assesses said project’s cumulative
contribution to risk. However, for projects that consist of new receptors, it is generally
appropriate to use only the cumulative-level threshold because the project itself is not a
source of TACs and, thus, the individual project-level threshold is not relevant. The
cumulative risk threshold accounts for all potential sources of TACs and PM2.5 in proximity
to new receptors. Because the proposed project is a residential development, and
residential development is not considered a source of TACs, this analysis is focused to the
cumulative impact of nearby sources of TACs to the project site.
ENVIRON prepared a screening level health risk assessment in accordance with BAAQMD
guidance for the project, which is included as Appendix A to this checklist and shown in
Table 10. The analysis showed the proposed project would not exceed the lifetime excess
cancer risk nor would it exceed the PM2.5 concentration level, accordingly impacts would be
less than significant.
Table 10: Screening Health Risk Assessment Cumulative Results
Source
Lifetime Excess Cancer
Risk (in a million)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m2)
Stationary Sources (all generators) 36 0.0878
Surface Streets 15.5 0.386
Total 51 0.4738
Cumulative Threshold 100 0.8
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Potential Diesel Generators 22.4 0.07
Total Including Potential Diesel Generators 74 0.54
Cumulative Threshold 100 0.8
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Source: ENVIRON, 2015
Summary
The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations after incorporation of MM AQ-1, as amended. The impact is less than
significant and no new or increased impacts would occur.
e) The prior CEQA documentation found that the approved project would not create
objectionable odors due to project implementation. The BAAQMD Guidelines state, “two
circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts:
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
1) A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors,
or
2) A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor.”
The BAAQMD has recommended screening criteria based on distance between types of
sources known to generate odor and potential receptors. For projects within the screening
distances, the BAAQMD uses the following threshold for project operations:
An odor source with five (5) or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three
years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance
shown in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s guidance, Table 3-3 (BAAQMD
2011).
The proposed project is not a type of source identified by the BAAQMD as a source of odors
and the proposed residents would not be located near an existing or planned source of
odor. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and no new or increased impacts would
occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 The following construction phase BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:
a. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
b. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
c. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13,Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage
regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
d. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
e. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and the applicant regarding dust complaints. The applicant and
the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations (MM IIIa, 2002 MND, as amended).
MM AQ-2 Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel
modes. To mitigate regional air quality impacts:
a. Provide secure and convenient residential and non-residential bicycle parking.
b. Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking
garages.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
42 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
c. Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART.
d. Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR.
e. Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally
possible (MM IIIb, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant air quality impacts or substantial increases to any previously
identified significant air quality impacts. With the implementation of the applicable mitigation
measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result in less
than significant impacts to air quality.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,
or special status
species in local or
regional plans,
policies, or
regulations, or by the
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact No No No None
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or
other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans,
policies, regulations
or by the California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US
Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact No No No None
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on
federally protected
wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
(including, but not
limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
44 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
d) Interfere
substantially with the
movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or
wildlife species or
with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede
the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact No No No None
e) Conflict with any
local policies or
ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
(see 2002
MND)
No No No N/A
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state
habitat conservation
plan?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) The 1998 EIR concluded that impacts to plant life would not occur, and were adequately
addressed in a prior 1982 EIR for the original Specific Plan (1998 EIR at page I-36). Likewise,
the Initial Study prepared for the 1998 DEIR concluded that no impacts to animal species or
existing fish or wildlife habitat would occur. The 2002 MND explained that no unique,
threatened, or endangered species of plants or animals were documented in the project
area. The project site consists of a paved area previously used for parking and construction
staging and does not contain habitat suitable for special status species. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
b) Refer to discussion under IV a), above. The prior CEQA documentation concluded that no
impacts would occur related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities exist on the project site. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
c) The prior CEQA documentation concluded that no impacts would occur related to federally
protected wetlands. No federally protected wetlands exist on the project site. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
d) The prior CEQA documentation concluded that no impacts would occur related to wildlife
corridors or nursery sites. The project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor or provide
habitat for wildlife nursery sites. No new or increased impacts would occur.
e) The prior CEQA documentation concluded that the development could have a significant
impact on oak trees. Mitigation Measure Ia from the 2002 MND required that native oaks
be retained and protected and that development within the Specific Plan area comply with
the County’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. There are no oak trees on the project site;
therefore, Mitigation Measure Ia from the 2002 MND is not applicable. The project does
not conflict with any other ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. As such,
no new or increased impacts would occur.
f) The project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As
such, no new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None applicable.
Conclusion
Conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project would
not result in any new significant biological resource impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant biological resource impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
46 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in
the significance of a
historical resource as
defined in Section
15064.5?
No Impact No No No None
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No See MM CUL-
1 below (MM
Va, 2002
MND).
c) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
No Impact No No No None
d) Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) Previous surveys for historic resources did not reveal any resources that would be affected
by the development of the Specific Plan, and the 2002 MND concluded that no impact
would occur to historical resources as a result of development of the Subarea Site (1998 EIR
at page IX-1 to IX-2; 2002 MND at page 9-10). No cultural resources were found during
construction of adjacent parcels within the Subarea Site. This, combined with the fact that
the project site and surrounding areas are predominately built out with relatively recent
development, indicates that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
any historical resource. The project site contains no existing structures and was previously
used as a parking lot. No new or increased impacts would occur.
b) At the time of the Specific Plan update, the Archaeological Sensitivity Map of the Contra
Costa General Plan identified the “station area” as an urbanized area, which was excluded
from the archaeological survey (1998 EIR at page IX-2). No cultural resources were found
during construction of adjacent parcels within the Subarea Site. However, the 1998 EIR and
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
2002 MND noted that since the late 1800s, the general vicinity of the BART Station Area has
yielded a number of buried prehistoric village locations and human burials dating back as
far as 3,000 years. Most of these archaeological sites, buried under several feet of flood-
deposited silt materials from nearby creeks, were discovered accidentally during
construction (1998 EIR at page IX-1; 2002 MND at page 9).
Accordingly, the 1998 EIR adopted mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the identified
impacts of future construction on cultural resources to a less than significant level, and
those applicable to the Subarea Site were included within the 2002 MND (see 1998 EIR at
page IX-3 to IX-4; 2002 MND at page 9-10). The project would be required to comply with
these mitigation measures, as well as all applicable federal, state, and local requirements
regarding inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, to ensure that impacts are less
than significant. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, no new significant
impacts, or increased impacts would occur.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project
site, and the 2002 MND concluded that no impacts to such resources would occur. In
addition, standard inadvertent discovery procedures would be implemented in the event
that subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during construction or
excavation activities, consistent with state law and Mitigation Measure CUL-1, below.
Therefore, the project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature would remain less significant. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
d) There are no known burial sites within the project area (2002 MND at page 9). However,
the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter previously
undiscovered human remains. Standard inadvertent discovery procedures would be
implemented in the event that human remains are encountered during construction,
including notification of the County Coroner’s office in compliance with state law.
Therefore, the project’s potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries, would remain less than significant. No new or increased
impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Since the major portions of Subareas 11 and 12 are covered with pavement or other
material obscuring the ground surface, the following measures would be
implemented to evaluate the presence or absence of cultural resources.
• For parcels presently covered by pavement or landscaping that may obscure the
original ground surface, a program of mechanical subsurface testing shall be
conducted to determine the presence of buried or obscured cultural material. In the
event that any such material is discovered, additional testing shall be conducted to
determine the aerial extent and depth below surface of the deposit area and to
determine the extent of impacts any planned development would have.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
48 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
The above mitigation is intended to demonstrate only the presence or absence of cultural resources
in Subareas 11 and 12, and is not meant to demonstrate the scientific importance of any deposits. If
a qualified archaeologist determines that cultural resources are likely to be present, the following
components of the mitigation measure shall be implemented:
• If cultural resources have been identified in Subareas 11 and 12, and the extent of potential
impacts to them have been determined in by the presence or absence survey, a qualified
archaeologist shall determine if the impacts would be significant enough to require evaluation
of the scientific importance of the resources. If it can be demonstrated that prehistoric
cultural resources are “unique” or “significant’’, further mitigation to reduce or eliminate the
impact shall be recommended. Mitigations will be implemented prior to granting site and
construction permits.
• The archaeological testing shall be undertaken when the Final Development Plan is submitted.
• When and if subsurface borings are done, the work shall be scheduled during a period that
does not disrupt the use of the surface parking lots serving commuters in the Station Area.
Boreholes shall be 4-10 inches in diameter, depending on the depth needed to extract a
reliable sample.
• The archaeological investigators shall use hand augers or quiet mechanical equipment to
minimize the noise disturbance of boring on nearby residents, commuters, and workers.
• All boreholes shall be filled (using Quick Patch Asphalt or similar substance) and flattened
immediately after the core sample is extracted so as to maintain the safe use of the parking
lots (MM Va, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant cultural resource impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant cultural resource impacts. With the implementation of the
applicable mitigation measure identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result
in less than significant impacts to cultural resources.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
VI. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or
structures to
potential substantial
adverse effects,
including risk of loss,
injury, or death
involving:
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No See MM GEO-
1 and GEO-2,
below (MMs-
VIa and VIb,
2002 MND).
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the area
or based on other
substantial evidence
of a known fault?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
with
mitigation
No No No See MM GEO-
1, below (MM
VIa, 2002
MND).
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
with
mitigation
No No No See MM GEO-
1, below (MM
VIa, 2002
MND).
iv) Landslides? No Impact No No No None
b) Result in substantial
soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
No Impact No No No None
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil
that is unstable or
that would become
unstable as a result
of the project, and
potentially result in
on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction or
collapse?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
50 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform
Building Code
(1994), creating
substantial risks to
life or property?
No Impact No No No See MM GEO-
2, below (MM
VIb, 2002
MND).
e) Have soils incapable
of adequately
supporting the use
of septic tanks or
alternative waste
water disposal
systems where
sewers are not
available for the
disposal of waste
water.
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) i-iv) No faults are mapped through the Specific Plan area (1998 EIR at page VII-5). The nearest
faults shown are unnamed and trend northwest. Specifically, the project area is located
approximately two miles southwest of the mapped trace of the active Concord fault and
eight miles north of the active Calaveras fault. The prior CEQA documentation concluded
that a potentially significant impact existed related to potential strong-to-violent
earthquake ground shaking on active fault zones in the region, which could cause significant
damage to improvements, and in extreme cases, loss of life. Based on this analysis,
mitigation measures were incorporated into the 2002 MND for development of the Subarea
Site, identified as Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, below (see 2002 MND at page
11).
In addition, to comply with these mitigation measures, project building plans would
incorporate all applicable geotechnical recommendations by the project engineer and
would comply with the latest version of the California Building Standards Code in
accordance with MM GEO-1, which would ensure that potential ground shaking impacts
remain less than significant.
The prior CEQA documentation divided the liquefaction potential for the project area into
two categories: (1) high to moderate liquefaction potential (further study recommended
prior to building) and (2) moderate to low liquefaction potential (further study may not be
necessary). It represents the inferred location of the main channel of Walnut Creek during
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 51
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
the Holocene Epoch (last 11,000 years). The project site (Block “C”) is located within the
high to moderate liquefaction potential zone as denoted by Figure VII-3 in the 1998 EIR.
However, compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce all impacts related to
liquefaction to less than significant.
There are no substantial slopes on or near the project site. This condition precludes the
possibility of landslides inundating the project site. As a result, the project would not result
in any significant impacts with regard to these geologic hazards. No new or increased
impacts would occur.
b) The Initial Study prepared for the 1998 EIR determined that development of the Specific
Plan area would not have significant impacts associated with earthmoving, modification of
geologic features, or erosion. Accordingly, this was not addressed further within the 1998
EIR or the subsequent CEQA documentation. Likewise, the current project would not result
in any impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The construction of the
proposed project would be required to comply with mandatory requirements related to
stormwater, including the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP),
which would require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to ensure
no significant erosion impacts. In addition, the site and surrounding areas area primarily
paved surfaces further reducing the potential for erosion. No new or increased impacts
would occur.
c) Impacts related to liquefaction are discussed under section a), above. The project design
would follow all geotechnical recommendations of the project engineer and would comply
with the latest version of the California Building Standards Code in order to ensure that the
proposed structures are adequately supported. These practices would ensure that the
project is located on stable soils and geologic units, and would not be susceptible to
settlement or ground failure. No new or increased impacts would occur.
d) The 1998 EIR indicated that damage from expansive soils is one of the most widespread and
costly problems in the San Francisco Bay Region (1998 EIR at page VII-18). Expansive soils
and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs, and
pavements. Mapped soils within the project area consist of clays and clay loam developed
on alluvial soils. Specifically, the 1977 Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicated that the
Specific Plan area is mantled by the Clear Lake Clay. This soil has a high shrink-swell
potential and a high corrosivity to uncoated steel (1998 EIR at page VII-18). Accordingly,
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 was recommended to reduce impacts related to expansive soils
to less than significant (1998 EIR at page VII-18 to VII-19; 2002 MND at page 11). The
project would comply with this mitigation measure to ensure that impacts in this area
remain less than significant. No new or increased impacts would occur.
e) The prior CEQA documentation determined that there would be no impacts related to
adequate soils for wastewater disposal systems. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems are proposed as part of the project, as wastewater service would be provided
by the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
52 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Require geotechnical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement
and liquefaction as follows:
a. Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately
compacted (i.e. minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by ASTI Dl557) to
significantly reduce both seismically induced and natural fill settlement.
b. All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to
accommodate estimated settlement without failure.
c. Final design of improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level
geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation
shall include deep borings and evaluation of liquefaction potential and the report
shall estimate the magnitude of differential settlement. If a high liquefaction
potential exists, the report shall include measures to control drainage, including
measures aimed at controlling damage to buildings, buried pipelines and surface
parking (MM VIa, 2002 MND).
MM GEO-2 1) The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed.
Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects shall provide
criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and County Code requirements on the basis of
subsurface exploration and laboratory testing.
2) Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations,
reinforced slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided
by the design-level geotechnical investigation (MM VIb, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant geology and soils impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant geology and soils impacts. With the implementation of the
applicable mitigation measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project
would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 53
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate
greenhouse gas
emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment?
N/A No No No None
b) Conflict with any
applicable plan,
policy or regulation
of an agency
adopted for the
purpose of reducing
the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
N/A No No No None
Discussion
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) provides that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the
lead agency determines that “new information” exists that was not known before, which shows that
the Proposed Project will (1) have significant effects that were not discussed, (2) substantially more
severe effects, (3) result in mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be feasible that
are no longer be feasible, or (4) result in mitigation measures that are considerably different.
Since the prior CEQA documentation did not discuss impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions,
the issue for purposes of this analysis is whether greenhouse gas emissions and the adoption of the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines constitute “new information” requiring a subsequent EIR. They do not.
Because climate change has been known about since at least the late 1970s, courts have held that
climate change is not new information requiring a supplemental EIR. Information about greenhouse
gases have been available for decades. Further, the 2013 case, Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of
Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, held that the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are not “new
information” that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR.
For information purposes, this document provides an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions.
a) The proposed project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction
and operation. ENVIRON prepared an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts (included as
Appendix A of this checklist) and a summary is provided herein. Construction and
operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
54 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction and Operation
The proposed project would emit negligible greenhouse gas emissions during construction
from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. The
BAAQMD does not have a greenhouse gas threshold for construction emissions. However,
the BAAQMD does recommend that construction emissions be assessed within CEQA
documents. Therefore, construction emissions were quantified for the proposed project.
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. The 2010 Thresholds
contains the following for greenhouse gases (GHG):
For land use development projects (including residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the threshold is compliance
with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than
1,100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); or 4.6 metric
tons CO2e/service population/year (residents + employees).
The construction and operational emissions are shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Category Construction Operation
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year) 823 1,094
BAAQMD Bright Line Threshold
(MTCO2e/year) N/A 1,100
Exceed Threshold? N/A No
Service Population N/A 387
GHG Emissions per Service Population
(MTCO2e/SP/year) N/A 2.8
BAAQMD Service Population
(MTCO2e/SP/year) N/A 4.6
Exceed Threshold? N/A No
Source: ENVIRON, 2015.
As shown in Table 11, project-generated greenhouse gas emissions would be less than the
BAAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e per year and would also be below the
Service Population threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact.
b) Project-related construction and operation would contribute incrementally to cumulative
increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Contra Costa County released a draft Climate Action
Plan in 2012 to address the County’s impacts to climate change. The Climate Action Plan
would provide methods and guidance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the County.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 55
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Because the Climate Action Plan is not adopted; however, it cannot be utilized to determine
potential significance.
The project is consistent with the applicable sustainable communities’ strategy. Under Plan
Bay Area, the project site is located in the Contra Costa Centre Planned Development Area
(PDA) (ABAG 2015). PDAs are the framework for implementing the land use strategy in Plan
Bay Area. Development projects in PDAs included in Plan Bay Area are consistent with the
Plan if they are within the range of densities and building intensities specified for the Place
Type designated for the PDA (ABAG undated). As indicated in Table 2 of this document, the
proposed project would be consistent with the development guidelines outlined for the
Mixed-Use Corridor Place Type.
BAAQMD’s approach to developing the threshold of significance for greenhouse gas
emissions utilized in Impact VII.a, above, was to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation
adopted to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions. BAAQMD set the greenhouse gas
significance threshold based on AB 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals while
taking into consideration emission reduction strategies outlined in ARB’s Scoping Plan.
Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that a project that is less than the BAAQMD’s
project-level thresholds is consistent with the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals of
AB 32 and ARB’s Scoping Plan. Since the proposed project would emit less than the
BAAQMD’s screening level for greenhouse gases and would also meet the service
population threshold, and because those thresholds were developed to be consistent with
AB 32 and the ARB’s Scoping Plan, the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32 or
the ARB’s Scoping Plan; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any significant greenhouse gas impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
56 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of
hazardous
materials?
No Impact No No No None
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset
and accident
conditions involving
the release of
hazardous materials
into the
environment?
No Impact No No No None
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school?
No Impact No No No None
d) Be located on a site
which is included on
a list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant
to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment?
No Impact No No No None
e) Be located within
two miles of a public
airport or private use
airport and result in
a safety hazard for
people residing or
working in the
project area?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 57
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
f) For a project within
the vicinity of a
private airstrip,
would the project
result in a safety
hazard for people
residing or working
in the project area?
No Impact No No No None
g) Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No See MM HAZ-
1 below (MM
VIIa, 2002
MND)
h) Be located in an area
designated as having
a high, extreme, or
severe fire hazard, or
otherwise expose
people or structures
to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death
involving wildland
fires, including where
wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized
areas or where
residences are
intermixed with
wildlands?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) The 1998 EIR’s Initial Study determined that the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan
would not permit land uses that create health hazards; that permitted development would
not involve the use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials; and that no further study
of this impact was required (1998 EIR at page I-37 and Appendix A). Likewise, the project
would not create any uses that would involve the transport, use, or disposal of large
quantities of hazardous materials. Construction of the project would involve the use of
relatively small amounts of various products that could contain materials classified as
hazardous (e.g., fuels in heavy equipment, solvents, adhesives and cements, certain paints,
cleaning agents and degreasers used in building construction, and asphalt mixtures for
paving). Use of these types of hazardous materials is common during construction
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
58 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
activities. The 2002 MND acknowledged that accidental release of hazardous materials
could occur during construction, but concluded that this risk would be less than significant
with standard safety practices implemented (installing sufficient signs warning about
construction and detours, marking of underground lines before trenching, etc.), and did not
require any mitigation (2002 MND at page 13).
Operation of the project would involve the use of household and commercial hazardous
materials, such as cleaning agents and paints. However, based on the uses within the
project, these materials would not be used, stored, or transported in large enough
quantities to cause a substantial impact, during either construction or operation of the
project. Furthermore, the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials are
subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulations, the intent of which is to minimize
the risk of upset. Therefore, the risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
materials that could create a health hazard is less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. No new or increased impacts would occur.
b) Refer to the analysis under subsection a), above. The project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment, through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No
new or increased impacts would occur.
c) The prior CEQA documentation did not identify any impacts related to nearby schools (2002
MND at page 12). There are currently no schools located within 0.25 mile of the project
site, although the Step Ahead Learning Center, a daycare facility, is located approximately
0.15 mile to the northwest of the project site, at 1338 Las Juntas Boulevard. The project
does not involve creation, relocation, or changes to the operation of any facilities that could
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste. No new or increased impacts would occur.
d) The project site is not a hazardous material site compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. No new or increased impacts would occur.
e-f) The prior CEQA documentation did not identify any impacts related to public or private
airport hazards (2002 MND at page 12). The project site is not located within two miles of a
public or private airport, and there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project.
No new or increased impacts would occur.
g) The 2002 MND determined that development of the Specific Plan would increase traffic,
which could have the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency
medical services. As a result, a mitigation measure was incorporated to reduce impacts to
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans to less than significant. This
measure is identified as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, below (2002 MND at page 13). In
addition, the Specific Plan states at page 32: “Circulation and parking within the Station
Area involve the integration of the automobile, transit vehicle, bicyclist, and pedestrian [sic]
in a manner that minimizes congestion or safety hazards. The provisions for circulation and
parking are incorporated into specific policies. A traffic study was completed in 1996 which
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 59
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
evaluated circulation improvements needed to facilitate access to the Station Area and to
alleviate regional traffic congestion around the Station Area.” Additional traffic studies
were prepared in 2004 and in 2015 indicating that changes to proposed development
would not result in significant additional traffic. As such, no increased delays for emergency
response or evacuation would occur. The project would comply with Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 and no new or increased impacts would occur.
h) The prior CEQA documentation did not identify any impacts related to wildland fires, or any
risks associated with being located within an area designated as having a high, extreme, or
severe fire hazard. Likewise, the project would have no impact. No new or increased impacts
would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 1. Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in
consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District.
2. Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include
sprinklers, smoke detectors, early warning system [sic], fire rated walls and other
requirements of the building code.
3. Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies
and features that address fire suppression, training, and traffic signalization to
accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to
facilitate fire protection (MM VIIa, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts or substantial
increases to any previously identified significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. With the
implementation of the applicable mitigation measure that was identified in the prior CEQA
documentation, the project would result in less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
60 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No See MM HYD-
1, below (MM
VIIIa, 2002
MND).
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that there would
be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table
level (e.g., the
production rate of
pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a
level which would not
support existing land
uses or planned uses
for which permits
have been granted)?
No Impact No No No None
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the site or
area, including
through the alteration
of the course of a
stream or river, in a
manner which would
result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
No Impact No No No None
d) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the site or
area, including
through the alteration
of the course of a
stream or river, or
substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 61
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
manner which would
result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute
runoff water, which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
f) Otherwise
substantially degrade
water quality
Less than
Significant
No No No None
g) Place housing within
a 100-year flood
hazard area as
mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard
delineation map?
No Impact No No No None
h) Place within a 100-
year flood hazard
structures, which
would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact No No No None
i) Expose people or
structures to
significant risk or
loss, injury or death
involving flooding,
including flooding as
a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
No Impact No No No None
j) Inundation of by
seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
62 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Discussion
a) With regard to hydrology and water quality the 1998 EIR, stated that:
The 1982 EIR [prepared for] the Specific Plan notes on page 111-1 that the
site is in a flood hazard and dam inundation area. A portion of the site lies
in the 100-year flood plain. The Initial Environmental Study for this EIR
notes that all of the station area is in Flood Zone C [Zone C is used to denote
areas outside the 500-year flood area] . It also notes that there would be no
significant impact from runoff and drainage because major drainage
improvements were completed in 1987-88 as part of an assessment district
project. Each individual development project will be required to meet the
collection and conveyance requirements of the County Code, which reduce
impacts to a level of insignificance.
The 2002 MND identified the potential for discharge of silt during the construction period,
which could result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was
identified to reduce this impact to less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in additional soil disturbance beyond what was
considered in the prior CEQA documentation. The construction of the proposed project
would be required to comply with mandatory requirements related to stormwater,
including the preparation of a SWPPP, which would require the implementation of BMPs in
order to treat onsite stormwater during the construction period. The implementation of
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 during construction of the currently proposed project would
ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. No new or increased impacts would
occur.
b) See discussion under a), above. The 1998 EIR also concluded: “The Initial Environmental
Study for the Specific Plan amendments notes that water supply for the project is sufficient
according to the Contra Costa Water District. No further study is required.”
The 2002 MND likewise concluded that no impacts would result related to groundwater
supplies or recharge. The proposed project would result in an increase of 73 units, which
would increase demand for domestic water in the project area. However, the project would
be served by the Contra Costa Water District’s surface water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, rather than groundwater supplies. As such, no increase in groundwater use
would occur. The footprint of the proposed project would be similar to the projects that
were previously considered in the prior CEQA documentation for the site. As the project
would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces when compared with the projects
analyzed in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would not interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. No new or increased impacts would occur.
c) The 2002 MND concluded that that no impacts would result related to erosion or siltation
on or off site. The site is paved and no waterways occur on the site, including streams or
rivers. Onsite drainage would continue to be directed to existing storm drains. As
previously mentioned, the proposed project would not result in additional soil disturbance
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 63
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
beyond what was considered in the prior CEQA documentation. The construction of the
proposed project would be required to comply with mandatory requirements related to
stormwater, including the preparation of a SWPPP, which would require the
implementation of BMPs in order to treat onsite stormwater during the construction
period. As mentioned under impact a), the 2002 MND did identify the potential for the
discharge silt during the construction period. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure HYD-1 during construction of the currently proposed project would ensure that no
new or increased impacts would occur.
.
d) The 2002 MND concluded that that no impacts would result related to on-site or off site
flooding. No waterways occur on the site, including streams or rivers. Onsite drainage
would continue to be directed to existing storm drains.
The proposed project would not alter the drainage pattern of the site beyond that which
was identified in the prior CEQA documentation. The project site is currently paved, and,
therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change in the rate or amount of
surface runoff that could result in flooding on or offsite. No new or increased impacts
would occur.
e) The 2002 MND concluded that no impacts would occur related to the creation or
contribution of runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
(2002 MND at 14). The proposed project would be expected to contribute a similar amount
of stormwater to the municipal drainage system when compared with the project that was
previously analyzed in the prior CEQA documentation and that exists now. Therefore, the
proposed project would not be expected to contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. No new or increased impacts would occur.
f) The 2002 MND concluded that the potential for development of the Subarea Site to
otherwise substantially degrade water quality was less than significant (2002 MND at page
14). The project would result in an increase in the residential density at the site, but would
not include any components that would result in a substantial degradation of water quality
when compared with the projects previously analyzed in the prior CEQA documentation.
No new or increased impacts would occur.
g–h) The 1998 EIR indicated the project site is located in Flood Zone C, or an area outside the
500-year flood area. The 2002 MND similarly concluded that the project site is not located
within a 100-year flood area. No new or increased impacts would occur.
i) The 2002 MND concluded that development of the Subarea Site would not expose people
or structures to significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, which are not located in the vicinity of the
Subarea site. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
64 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
j) The 2002 MND concluded that the site is located in a relatively flat area, with no water
bodies nearby. Therefore, the project site would not be subjected to seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-1: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building
Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following
measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry
season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be
replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the
grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification to the above
schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection
Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than
significant (MM VIIIa, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant hydrology and water quality impacts or substantial increases
to any previously identified significant hydrology and water quality impacts. With the
implementation of the applicable mitigation measure that was identified in the prior CEQA
documentation, the project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 65
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
X. Land Use
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established
community?
No Impact No No No None
b) Conflict with any
applicable land use
plan, policy, or
regulation of an
agency with
jurisdiction over the
project (including,
but not limited to
the general plan,
specific plan, local
coastal program, or
zoning ordinance)
adopted for the
purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an
environmental
effect?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No N/A
c) Conflict with any
applicable habitat
conservation plan or
natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) The 2002 MND found that development of the Subarea Site did not have the potential to
physically divide an established community. The project site is surrounded by existing
development and is currently vacant. Because this portion of the Specific Plan is currently
bisected by the BART line and station, the Specific Plan provides a series of linked parks,
plazas, and broad sidewalks to allow and invite pedestrian access to the BART station from
all directions in the area, and contains policies to emphasizes pedestrian access and
connectivity, such as the following: “Development within Subarea 12 shall retain provisions
for pedestrian and bicycle access from the former Southern Pacific right-of-way to the BART
station to integrate the regional trail system with BART”(2002 MND at page 16). The
project would be designed to maintain this connectivity for pedestrians through the use of
sidewalks, and would not physically divide an established community. Indeed, construction
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
66 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
of residences within the Subarea Site will better connect the established community, which
is currently interrupted by a vacant lot. No new or increased impacts would occur.
b) The 1998 EIR identified certain General Plan amendments that would need to take place in
order to achieve consistency with the proposed Specific Plan amendments, but these did not
relate to the Subarea Site (see 1998 EIR at pages II-29 to II-31). At the time the 2002 MND
was prepared, the project site had a General Plan designation of Mixed-Use, but was zoned
R-15. Rezoning to P-1 (Planned District) was required in order to accommodate the
proposed development within the Subarea Site. This was accomplished by the time the Final
Development Permit was approved in 2005. Multiple-family residential within the Subarea
Site is permitted with conditional zoning administrator approval (see Specific Plan Figure 6).
The prior CEQA documentation determined that development of the Subarea Site would be
consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan in every respect, except that the then-
proposed parking was found to exceed the maximum allowed parking spaces by 626
parking spaces, and therefore conflicted with the parking policies set forth in the Specific
Plan. As a result, the Final Development Plan parking plan was amended to be consistent
with the parking policies in the Specific Plan (2002 MND at page 18).
The proposed project would provide 246 parking spaces, or 1.23 spaces per unit, which
complies with the Specific Plan minimum and maximum parking requirements of 0.75 space
per bedroom and 1.0/1.5 spaces per unit, respectively, and would therefore be consistent
with this policy, avoiding the need for any parking mitigation (see Specific Plan Figure 7).
Although the project proposes a net increase of 73 dwelling units beyond what was
proposed in 2005, the total number of dwelling units would still be within the maximum
density that was analyzed in the 1998 EIR and that is permitted based upon the developable
area of the Subarea Site (see Specific Plan Figure 7). Provision of additional residential
dwelling units is consistent with Land Use and Development Policy No. 2 of the Specific
Plan, which is to “Integrate housing into the Station Area wherever environmental
constraints or overall land use considerations do not preclude it” (Specific Plan at page 12).
Potential visual impacts related to building height (which were addressed within the 1998
EIR under the purview of land use) were addressed by incorporating the building height
limitations for the Subarea Site into the Specific Plan, with which the project would comply
(see Section I. Aesthetics in this document for discussion of building height compliance).
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation. No new or increased impacts would occur.
c) The prior CEQA documentation did not identify any potential impacts related to applicable
habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The project site is not
located within the boundaries of any such plan, and, therefore, no impact would occur. No
new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
No applicable mitigation measures.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 67
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant land use impacts or substantial increases to any previously
identified significant land use impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
68 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XI. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a
known mineral
resource that would
be of value to the
region and the
residents of the
state?
No Impact No No No None
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a
locally important
mineral resource
recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land
use plan?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a-b) The prior CEQA documentation determined that there was no potential for impacts to
mineral resources to occur due to development of the Specific Plan area. Because of the
developed nature of the area surrounding the project site and the fact that there are no
known mineral resources on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, no impact is
anticipated to occur. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant mineral resource impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant mineral resource impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 69
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XII. Noise
Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons
to or generation of
noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the
local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable
standards of other
agencies?
Less than
Significant
No No No MM NOI-1 to
NOI-3 (MM
XIa–XIc, 2002
MND)
b) Exposure of persons
to or generation of
excessive
groundborne
vibration or
groundborne noise
levels?
No Impact No No No None
c) A substantial
permanent increase
in ambient noise
levels in the project
vicinity above levels
existing without the
project?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM NOI-1 to
NOI-3 (MM
XIa–XIc, 2002
MND)
d) A substantial
temporary or
periodic increase in
ambient noise
levels in the project
vicinity above levels
existing without the
project?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM NOI-1 to
NOI-3 (MM
XIa–XIc, 2002
MND)
e) For a project
located within an
airport land use
plan, or where such
a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
project expose
people residing or
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
70 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
working in the
project area to
excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within
the vicinity of a
private airstrip,
would the project
expose people
residing or working
in the project area
to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
The Contra Costa County General Plan established acceptable exterior noise level standards in Figure
11-6. As indicated on the General Plan Figure 11-6, acceptable multi-family residential noise levels
range up to 65 dB CNEL and conditionally acceptable noise levels range from 60 to 70 dB CNEL. As
indicated by General Plan Noise Element Policy 11-2, “The standard for outdoor noise levels in
residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all
residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies
associated with multi-family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult
to control the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an
alternative.”
The Noise Element also indicates in Policy 11-3, “If the primary noise source is train passbys, then
the standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 70 dB. A higher DNL is allowable
since the DNL is controlled by a relatively few number of train passbys that are disruptive outdoors
only for short periods.”
Furthermore, the General Plan notes that, in accordance with Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code
of Regulations, new multiple-family housing projects exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a
detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL of 45 dB or less.
In addition, for new residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events, such
as train operation, indoor noise levels shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB
in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms.
Construction noise is also minimized by General Plan Noise Element Policy 11-8, which requires
construction activities “to be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive
for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to
provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods.”
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 71
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
a) The 2002 MND stated that the future noise levels in the Subarea Site could range from 66-
84 dBA. The lower end of the range would result from additional traffic-related noise; and
the upper end of the range would occur sporadically from construction-generated noise.
The 2002 MND referred to the noise element of the County General Plan, which provides
that for residences, a noise level of 55-70 dBA is conditionally acceptable. As previously
noted, the General Plan continues to indicate that a maximum noise level of 70 dBA is
conditionally acceptable. The 2002 MND concluded that the increase in noise levels
associated with increased traffic would be less than 70 dBA and would not pose significant
impacts to office and commercial uses. However, the proposed residences at the
intersection of Treat Boulevard and Jones Road, and the residential units adjacent to the
BART station were found to be potentially subjected to noise levels of 75 dBA. These areas
were found to be subjected to community noise categories between what is normally
unacceptable and clearly unacceptable for residential development.
The 2005 Approvals (page 5) and 2005 Addendum (page 4) required that housing on Block C
be set back from the BART tracks and include additional insulation and double- or triple-
pane windows to achieve minimum interior noise levels.
The proposed project would locate residential units across from the BART station along
Coggins Drive. These units will comply with the 60-foot setback requirement from the BART
tracks and will include additional insulation and double- or triple-pane windows consistent
with the 2005 Approvals. Through the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 to
NOI-3, interior and exterior noise levels would be compatible with acceptable levels and
impacts related to the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards would be
less than significant. No new or increased impacts would occur.
b) The 2002 MND concluded that development of the Subarea Site would not result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels. The prior CEQA documentation considered the construction of residential
land uses within the Subarea Site. It determined that neither the construction of the site
nor the proximity to the BART station and associated rail vibration would cause impacts
(2002 MND at page 19). In addition, the project would adhere to Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 and NOI-2, which would further ensure that vibration impacts during the
construction phase will be less than significant. The distance the proposed project is set
back from the BART tracks (consistent with the 2005 Approvals), which further avoids
vibration impacts. No new or increased impacts will occur.
c) Please refer to discussion under XII a), above. The project would increase the development
intensity at the site by an adding 73 dwelling units to the project site. Although the
increase in the total number of residential units may nominally increase the number of
vehicles on the nearby roadways (please refer to analysis of traffic impacts), this small
change in the number of vehicles is minor in relation to the existing number of vehicles in
the area, and would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in permanent noise
levels, or result in a new significant impact. In addition, the project would comply with
Mitigation Measures NOI-1 to NOI-3, below, to ensure that noise impacts remain less than
significant. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
72 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
d) The prior CEQA documentation assumed the full development of the Subarea Site, inclusive
of Block C, and mitigation was incorporated to ensure that short-term construction noise
impacts are less than significant. The proposed increase in the development intensity at the
site (73 additional dwelling units) would generate similar amounts of construction noise
compared with what was previously analyzed, and the implementation of Mitigation
Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would ensure that these impacts remain less than significant. In
addition, the 2002 MND concluded that standard County conditions of approval (restricting
construction hours, traffic flow, and heavy equipment usage) would also serve to reduce
temporary construction noise impacts to less than significant. Similar conditions of approval
would be imposed upon the project, as deemed appropriate by the County and in
compliance with General Plan Noise Element Policy 11-8. No new or increased impacts
would occur.
e-f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport, and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No new or increased
impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 (1) Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate
site planning and/or use of sound walls; and (2) interior noise levels should be
reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows, insulation,
full air-conditioning, or building façade treatments (MM XIa, 2002 MND).
MM NOI-2 Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of
7:30 AM–5:00 PM Monday–Friday. Require construction contractors to include
measures to reduce equipment noise such as:
• All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in
good condition;
• Use “quiet” gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered
compressors wherever possible.
• Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activities and to identify
additional mitigation measures as needed, consistent with the impacts and
mitigation measures identified in the EIR (MM XIb, 2002 MND).
MM NOI-3 Exterior noise levels, emitted from the parking structure, shall not exceed the
County established acceptable level of 70 dBA. This may be accomplished through
appropriate site planning and/or use of design features of the parking structure. The
projected noise level of the parking structure shall be verified by an acoustical study
to be submitted prior to issuance of the building permits (MM XIa, 2002 MND).
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 73
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any new significant noise impacts or substantial increases
to any previously identified significant noise impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result in less
than significant impacts to noise.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
74 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XIII. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
population growth in
an area, either directly
(for example, by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact No No No None
c) Displace substantial
numbers of people,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a) The prior CEQA documentation found that residential development within the Specific Plan
would be consistent with stated objectives to provide housing within the Station Area, and
that the projected population increases at full buildout would constitute planned growth
envisioned by the County General Plan. For purposes of analysis, the 1998 EIR determined
that a 50-percent (3,000+ person) increase over the existing Specific Plan’s population
projection would be considered significant. The 1998 EIR indicated that the Specific Plan’s
existing population of permanent residents who live in on-site housing was 2,058. None of
the development scenarios analyzed within the 1998 EIR were found to result in significant
population impacts (1998 EIR at pages III-1 to III-14; 2002 MND at pages 20 to 21).
When the 2002 MND was prepared, the development proposed at that time within the
Subarea Site would have included 274 to 446 dwelling units. This density was found to be
within the ranges allowed by the Specific Plan (i.e., up to 750 dwelling units), and the
population increase at that time was expected to be 834 people (based on 1.87 people per
household; this estimate reflected the fact that a majority of the Station Area housing was
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 75
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
to consist of apartments rather than single-family residences). The approved Development
Plan was later revised to permit 549 dwelling units. The 2005 Addendum to the MND found
no new or increased impacts in connection with this increase in dwelling units.
The project now seeks to amend the Development Plan to allow for a net increase of 73
dwelling units (a total of 622 units). The total number includes dwelling units that have
already been constructed, as well as the 200 units that would be constructed by the project.
All of the 200 units proposed as part of the project would be apartments, rather than for-
sale units. The 73 additional units is within the 750 units analyzed in 1998, and it
represents a nominal 13-percent increase above the 549 dwelling units that were approved
in 2005. This number of dwelling units remains within the maximum density permitted by
the Specific Plan based on the developable acreage of the Subarea Site; therefore, the
proposed project represents expected and analyzed growth. The project would be served
by existing roadway and utility infrastructure, and would not involve any extension or
expansion of infrastructure. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial
direct or indirect population growth inducement. For these reasons, the proposed project
would not result in significant impacts related to growth inducement. No new or increased
impacts would occur.
b-c) The project site is currently vacant and does not contain any residences. The project would
provide 200 new apartment dwelling units to the Specific Plan area. As such, the proposed
project will not displace people or housing. For these reasons, the proposed project would
not result in significant impacts related to displacement of persons or housing. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
No applicable mitigation measures
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant impacts to population and housing or substantial increases to
any previously identified significant population and housing impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
76 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XIV. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM PS-1
(MM XIIIa,
2002 MND)
b) Police protection? Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM PS-2
(MM XIIIb,
2002 MND)
c) Schools? Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM PS-3
(MM XIIIc,
2002 MND)
d) Parks? Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM PS-5MM
XIIId, 2002
MND)
e) Other public
facilities?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
Discussion
a) The proposed project is within existing urban boundaries served by the Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District, County Sheriff’s Department, and the various County
Departments serving the area. Four fire stations currently serve the BART station area: (1)
Station #1, approximately3.5 miles south of the station; (2) Station #2, approximately 1.25
miles west of the site; (3) Station #5, approximately 1.75 miles northwest of the site; and (4)
Station #10, approximately 2.0 miles east of the site. The 1998 EIR stated that all new
development would be required to pay development fees at the time building permits are
obtained, which would offset the costs of capital improvement and equipment, but not
personnel. The 2002 MND determined that the project could result in increased traffic,
potentially increasing the response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services.
Mitigation Measure PS-1, below, was required to reduce impacts to less than significant.
The project would adhere to MM PS-1 to ensure that impacts to fire protection services
would remain less than significant, would be developed to the most current Building Code
standards, and would pay applicable development fees as required by the County. No new
or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 77
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
b) The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, BART police, and East Bay Regional Park
District share responsibility for police protection in the BART station area. The Walnut
Creek Police Department could serve the site at the request of other police departments
under a mutual aid agreement. The 2002 MND determined that the proposed
development of the whole Subarea Site would add a substantial amount of transient uses to
the BART station area, including restaurants and retail uses, along with visitors to the parks,
civic spaces and offices. Littering, loitering, vandalism and theft, and domestic disputes in
residential units were anticipated to increase as a result, but were found to be controlled by
the project’s incorporation of the Specific Plan “Defensible Space” Guidelines (Specific Plan
at pages 58-59). In addition, MM PS-2, below, was required to reduce impacts to less than
significant. The project would adhere to MM PS-2 to ensure that impacts to police
protection services remain less than significant, and would ensure that the parking garage
areas of the project are well-lit, and that ample security lighting is provided on the exterior
of the building and interior courtyard. No new or increased impacts would occur.
c) The prior CEQA documentation utilized a student generation rate of 3.8 students per 100
dwelling units. This means that adding 73 units would yield approximately three students.
Even conservatively applying this figure to the 200 units that would be constructed by the
project would only result in approximately eight new students, which is a negligible increase
in the overall school population. The prior CEQA documentation determined that payment
of school impact fees would be adequate to offset any impacts to school facilities from
construction of new dwelling units within the Specific Plan area (see MM PS-3, below)
(1998 EIR at pages VIII-I to VIII-6; 2002 MND at page 24). The project would be required to
contribute impact fees toward school facilities funding under Senate Bill 50, the payment of
which is considered full and complete mitigation under CEQA for school construction
needed to serve new development. No new or increased impacts would occur.
d-e) The project analyzed in the 2002 MND would have added approximately 834 new residents
to the area. To meet the growth management standard for that proposed development, 2.5
acres of park land would have been required. The 2002 MND noted that the Development
Plan featured a green space leading to a civic building in the center of the development, as
well as arcades, outdoor seating and other gathering spaces. Although these improvements
provide recreational enhancements to the community, they were not included for purposes
of compliance with the General Plan’s park standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population.
The 2002 MND also stated that the development within the Subarea Site would provide for
connections between the BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail. The project’s development
would be coordinated with East Bay Regional Park District for the planning and completion
of the alignment of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Similar to other recreational aspects of
the plan, the Iron Horse Regional Trail provides recreational enhancements to the
community, but they are not included in the compliance with the park standard. Therefore,
mitigation in the form of park fees was required (see MM PS-4, below) (2002 MND at pages
24-25). The project would pay all applicable park fees to ensure that impacts to park
facilities remain less than significant. No impacts to any other public facilities were
identified. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
78 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Prior Mitigation Measures
MM PS-1 1. Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in
consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District.
2. All new buildings shall have life safety systems that include sprinklers, smoke
detectors, early warning systems, fire rated walls and other requirements of the
building code.
3. Mitigations that reduce traffic congestion would mitigate impacts on response
times (MM XIIIa, 2002 MND).
MM PS-2 All future development at the Pleasant Hill BART station shall work with the Sheriff’s
office during all stages of development to identify design features of the project
which encourage or facilitate criminal behavior, and eliminate them from the project
plans (MM XIIIb, 2002 MND).
MM PS-3 Both the residential and commercial development components of the proposed
project would be required to provide school impact fees. The total fees collected
would be available to add portable classrooms and support other educational needs
to offset the impacts of the proposed project (MM XIIIc, 2002 MND).
MM PS-4 Park dedication fees are required per County Ordinance for residential projects. The
fee is used to provide parks/recreational opportunities within the area and would
offset any impacts to parks (MM XIIId, 2002 MND).
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant public services impacts or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant public services impacts. With the implementation of the applicable
mitigation measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result
in less than significant impacts to public services.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 79
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XV. Recreation
Would the project:
a) Would the project
increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No MM PS-5 (MM
XIIId, 2002
MND)
b) Does the project
include recreational
facilities or require
the construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
Discussion
a) The 2002 MND indicated that the project would result in a greater use of existing parks and
recreational facilities and an increase in the need for additional parklands and recreational
opportunities (2002 MND at page 26). It was determined that payment of park fees in
compliance with MM PS-4 (MM XIIID, 2002 MND) would be adequate to offset impacts to
parks caused by increased residential development within the Subarea Site. The project
would pay all applicable park fees to ensure that impacts to recreational facilities remain
less than significant. Furthermore, the net increase of 73 units and resulting residents
would not be substantial enough to cause substantial deterioration of existing parks and
recreational facilities. No impacts to any other recreational facilities were identified. No
new or increased impacts would occur.
b) The 2002 MND indicated that the project would include the development of green space
and civic building for recreational use, as well as other outdoor public areas, but did not
discuss their potential to result in adverse physical impacts to the environment. The
proposed project would not include public recreational space, but would include an internal
courtyard for use by residents. The construction of this courtyard as part of the project
would be required to abide by all applicable mitigation measure from prior CEQA
documentation (as indicated in this document) to ensure no significant environmental
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
80 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
impacts would occur. Furthermore, the project would not require the expansion of offsite
recreational facilities. As such, no new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
See MM PS-4.
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant impacts to recreation or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant recreation impacts. With the implementation of the applicable
mitigation measures that were identified in the prior CEQA documentation, the project would result
in less than significant impacts to recreation.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 81
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XVI. Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an
applicable plan,
ordinance or policy
establishing
measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the
circulation system,
taking into account
all modes of
transportation
including mass transit
and non-motorized
travel and relevant
components of the
circulation system,
including but not
limited to
intersections, streets,
highways and
freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
b) Conflict with an
applicable congestion
management
program, including
but not limited to,
level of service
standards and travel
demand measures, or
other standards
established by the
county congestion
management agency
for the designated
roads or highways?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
c) Result in a change in
air traffic patterns,
including either an
increase in traffic
levels or a change in
location that results in
substantial safety
risks?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
82 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
d) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
e) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
f) Conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or
programs regarding
public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease
the performance or
safety of such
facilities.
Less than
Significant
No No No None
Discussion
a) The 1998 EIR included a comprehensive traffic study that evaluated regional and non-
regional roads. Seven different land use alternatives for the Specific Plan area were
evaluated and, based on the prepared traffic study, the 1998 EIR adopted mitigation
measures for roads in the study area sufficient to reduce the identified impacts to a less
than significant level for any of the seven land use alternatives.
Traffic conditions were evaluated again in 2001 as part of the 2002 MND. The existing and
existing-plus 2002 project traffic volumes fit within the counts and projections from the
1997 Traffic Study. The 2002 project traffic generation was within the lower and upper
range of impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1998 EIR. Therefore, the 2002
MND concluded that no significant impacts would occur in relation to increased traffic.
In addition, a traffic operations analysis was completed in 2004, addressing the 2005 Final
Development Plan’s traffic impact. Existing traffic volumes were counted and project trip
generation was added (along with applicable changes to the street system) to determine
potential impacts. The 2004 analysis concluded that the analyzed intersections would
continue to operate at acceptable levels, and implementation of the 2005 Final
Development Plan was adequately addressed by the 1998 EIR.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 83
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
A Traffic Analysis has been prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed project, examining
the effects of the proposed changes on traffic volumes and intersection operations to
determine whether the proposed changes would cause a significant environmental effect to
the transportation system. A summary of the Traffic Analysis is provided herein and in full
in Appendix B.
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
The originally approved condominiums were estimated to generate approximately 31
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 36 trips during the PM peak hour consistent with
the analysis conducted in 2004. These estimates were based on rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition), a compilation of surveys
conducted over the last several decades for sites throughout the nation, plus appropriate
reductions for estimated transit (BART and bus) use.
To update the analysis for 2015, trip generation surveys were conducted at the Park
Regency apartment community near the Pleasant Hill BART station to obtain the amount of
traffic generated per unit by a comparable (nearly identical) apartment complex. These
results were used to estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by the
proposed apartments, as shown in Table 12. The amount of traffic that was expected to
have been generated by the condominiums is presented for comparison purposes.
Table 12: Condominium vs. Apartment Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Use Size In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums1 100 units 6 25 31 23 13 36
Apartments2 200 units 16 49 65 46 22 68
Net New Trips 10 24 34 23 9 32
2004 Analysis of Transit
Village Buildout1
See Table 2 403 212 615 249 436 685
2015 Analysis of Transit
Village Buildout3
See Table 2 405 212 617 241 416 657
Transit Village % Change <1% -4%
Note:
1. Trip generation estimates obtained from the Traffic Operations Analysis for Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village
Memorandum, 2004.
2 Trip generation rates developed from surveys conducted at the Park Regency Apartments in Walnut Creek near the
Pleasant Hill BART station.
3. Trip generation estimates for current Transit Village land use program presented in Table 2.
Source: Fehr & Peers 2015.
As shown above, the net new vehicle trips added to the roadways by the apartments would
be 34 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 32 vehicles during the PM peak hour over what
the condominiums would have generated. Combined with other modifications to the land
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
84 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
use program to reflect what has actually been built on the project site, the 2015 projected
traffic volumes for the buildout of the Transit Village are projected to increase less than
1 percent during the AM peak hour and decrease by 4 percent during the PM peak hour
compared with the volumes evaluated in the 2004 project buildout analysis. Trip
generation estimates for the entire Transit Village are presented in Table 13 with the
proposed land uses changes that would be constructed upon project buildout. More
detailed trip generation estimates are presented in Appendix B.
Table 13: Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village Trip Generation Estimates
Use Size
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
2004 Proposed Uses and Assumptions (2005 Approval)
Apartment 450 dus 32 126 158 121 65 186
Civic Use 7 ksf 8 1927 9
Condominium 100 dus 6 25 31 23 13 36
Office 290 ksf 345 47 392 61 298 359
Retail 35 ksf 12 13 25 42 53 95
Total 403 212 615 249 436 685
2015 Proposed Uses and Assumptions (Current Proposal)
Built and Occupied Uses
Apartment 418 dus 33 103 136 95 47 142
Retail 14 ksf 5 5 10 17 21 38
Subtotal (Included in 2015 traffic
counts) 38 108 146 112 68 180
Unbuilt, Unoccupied and Proposed Uses
Apartment 4 dus 0 1 1 1 0 1
Apartment
(Block C)
200 dus 16 49 65 46 22 68
Office 290 ksf 345 47 392 61 298 359
Retail 17.6 ksf 6 7 13 21 27 48
Subtotal (Amount to be added
for future traffic projections) 367 104 471 129 347 476
Total 405 212 617 241 415 656
2015 Uses Compared with
2004 Uses 2 0 2 -8 -21 -29
Notes:
The 2015 conditions used a local trip generation rate for the Apartments based on data collected at the nearby Park
Regency Apartments (which include reductions to account for transit use). All other land uses utilized the same rates
and reductions as the original 2004 entitlement to calculate the trip generation. Rates for retail and office uses in the
latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) are very similar to the rates in the 7th edition.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 85
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Comparison of Traffic Volumes
Existing Traffic Volumes
The traffic operations analysis for the 2005 Approval was based on counts conducted in
2004. New traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections to determine whether
traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project have changed substantially. The peak-hour
traffic volumes counted in 2004 and in 2015 are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix B. The traffic
volumes at the intersection of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard are compared in Table 14.
Table 14: Comparison of Peak-Hour Traffic Counts at Jones and Treat
Count Date Jones North of Treat Jones South of Treat Treat East of Jones Treat West of Jones
AM Peak Hour
2015 1,060 630 4,580 3,650
2004 1,135 645 5,190 4,195
Difference -75 (-7%) -15 (-2%) -610 (-12%) -545 (-13%)
PM Peak Hour
2015 1,095 795 4,385 3,425
2004 1,050 1,095 5,370 4,160
Difference 45 (4%) -300 (-27%) -985 (-18%) -735 (-18%)
Source: Fehr & Peers 2015.
PM peak-hour traffic on Jones Road south of Treat Boulevard has substantially decreased.
The northbound right-turn lane was removed as part of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge
construction and is the likely cause of the decrease. PM peak-hour traffic on Jones Road
north of Treat Boulevard has increased a minor amount. Traffic on Treat Boulevard, both
east and west of Jones Road during both the AM and PM peak hours, has decreased since
2004. This could be attributable to changes in travel patterns in the area the since 2004,
such as the widening of State Route 4, external constraints on traffic flows in the project
area, and spreading of the peak periods so that the traffic volumes in any one hour are
reduced.
Projected Future Traffic Volumes
Future traffic volumes were projected in the 2004 analysis to represent conditions at
buildout of the Transit Village. They included 2004 existing volumes, a redistribution of
traffic on Jones Road caused by the change in parking from the old surface lots at the BART
station to the expanded garage, buildout of the transit village uses as shown in Table 13,
plus some other development near Treat Boulevard. Future traffic projections for this
analysis include current (2015) volumes plus estimates of traffic generated by the vacant
retail space and by the uses that have not been constructed yet at the Transit Village (also
shown in Table 13). Note that traffic volumes on Treat Boulevard have not increased in the
past 10 years, so it was not necessary or appropriate to estimate additional growth along
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
86 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Treat Boulevard for this analysis. The future traffic projections for the study intersections
developed in 2004 and in 2015 are presented on Figure 3 in Appendix B.
Existing Operations Analysis
Existing intersection operations were evaluated using the peak-hour volumes obtained from
the counts, the existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and existing traffic signal
timings (at Jones Road and Treat Boulevard). The results are shown in Table 15. This
Existing 2015 scenario includes traffic generated by the portion of the Transit Village that
has already been built, including the parking structure expansion.
With the 2015 volumes, the intersection of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard operates at LOS
C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. It is currently operating at an
acceptable level. The 2015 LOS worksheets can be found in Appendix B.
Future Operations Analysis
Future intersection operations were evaluated using the projected peak-hour volumes
presented on Figure 3 of Appendix B with the existing lane configurations, traffic control
devices, and traffic signal timings. The results are shown in Table 15, along with the results
from the 2004 analysis of full buildout and the 2015 existing levels of service. The
intersections operate at LOS D or better during the peak periods. LOS D is considered
acceptable operations.
Table 15: Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service
Location Control1
Peak
Hour
2004 Analysis
(Full Buildout)
2015 Existing
(Partial
Buildout)
2015 Existing
Plus Proposed
Project
LOS LOS LOS
1. Jones Road/Coggins Drive/BART
Parking Structure
AWS AM
PM
C3
B3
D3
C3
D3
C3
2. Jones Road/Harvey Drive SSS AM
PM
B2
B2
A (A)2
A (B)2
A (B)2
A (B)2
3. Jones Road/Treat Boulevard4/5 Signal AM
PM
C
E
C
D
C
D
Notes:
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection
AWS = All way stop-controlled intersection
2. Side-street stop-controlled intersections were calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology.
LOS is shown for the average intersection delay first and the delay for worst movement is shown in parenthesis.
3. Calculated using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology due to the lane configuration.
4. Eastbound left-turns include U-turning vehicles.
5. See Attachment D for the LOS results based on the delay calculation for the 2015 analysis of Jones Road and Treat
Boulevard intersection and Attachment E for the delay calculation for the 2004 Full Buildout of Jones and Treat
Boulevard.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 87
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Summary
The proposed apartments are projected to generate 65 AM peak-hour vehicle trips and 68
PM peak-hour vehicles trips, approximately 34 more trips than the originally proposed
condominiums. However, with the additional proposed changes to the land use and the
updated apartment trip generation rate based on locally collected data, the Transit Village
will experience less than a 1-percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour and will
experience a decrease in traffic during the PM peak hour by about 4 percent compared with
projections from the 2004 analysis used for the 2005 Approval.
These vehicles will use several roadways to approach and depart the site so the added
traffic will be dispersed among the surrounding roadway system. The effect of the added
traffic generated by full buildout of the Transit Village on roadway operations in the vicinity
of the site was evaluated at three nearby intersections. The results indicate that the
intersections are performing at acceptable levels with the change from 100 condominiums
to 200 apartments. As such, no new or increased impacts would occur.
b) The 2002 MND did not discuss consistency with an applicable county congestion
management program, but indicated that impacts would be less than significant. The 2013
Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CMP) is the applicable CMP
for the project site. As indicated in the Traffic Analysis, according to the Draft 2014 Central
County Action Plan from TRANSPAC (the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for
Central Contra Costa County), intersections along Treat Boulevard within Contra Costa
County’s jurisdiction must meet a 1.5 volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The Treat Boulevard
and Jones Road intersection are projected to operate at a 0.72 V/C ratio during the AM peak
hour and a 0.85 V/C ratio during the PM peak hour with implementation of the project.
These are acceptable levels. The Draft 2014 Central County Action Plan is a component
used to implement and evaluate current and future performance of the County’s CMP
network. As such, the project would not conflict with the applicable county CMP. No new
or increased impacts would occur.
c) The prior CEQA documentation did not discuss or analyze the potential for development on
the project site to result in a change in air traffic patterns. However, the 2002 MND’s
checklist did indicate that related impacts would be less than significant. The nearest
airport is Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles to the north. The project
site is not located within the Buchanan Field Airport Influence Area. Furthermore, the
project would not include features that could interfere with air traffic (e.g., emit smoke,
attract wildlife). As such, no new or increased impacts would occur.
d) The 2002 MND included a mitigation measure (MM XVb) regarding addressing the safety of
the proposed north-south street connecting the BART station with Treat Boulevard.
However, the road (Sunne Road) has already been constructed and; as such, MM XVb from
the 2002 MND is no longer applicable. As such, potential hazards related to increased
traffic in surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant. The proposed project
does not contain any other design features or incompatible uses that may result in
increased circulation hazards. As such, no new or increased impacts would occur.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
88 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
e) As previously discussed in XIV. a), the 2002 MND’s Public Services section determined the
project could result in increased traffic, potentially increasing the response times for fire
trucks and emergency medical services, but that Mitigation Measure PS-1, as included in
this document, would reduce impacts to less than significant. The 2002 MND’s
Transportation/Traffic section did not discuss impacts to emergency access but did indicate
that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project has been designed to
ensure that appropriate emergency access is planned for and would be provided. As such,
no new or increased impacts would occur.
f) The 2002 MND did not discuss potential impacts to alternative modes of transportation, but
did indicate that impacts would be less than significant. The 2002 MND focused on the
2002 project’s exceedance of maximum allowable parking spaces and included a mitigation
measure (MM XVa). However, parking is no longer considered under CEQA, and, therefore,
further analysis is not needed. The proposed project does not include any features that
would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. No
new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
No applicable mitigation measures.
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant impacts to transportation or substantial increases to any
previously identified significant transportation impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 89
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentatio
n Mitigation
Measures
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater
treatment
requirements of the
applicable Regional
Water Quality
Control Board?
Less than
Significant
No No No None
b) Require or result in
the construction of
new water or
wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,
the construction of
which could cause
significant
environmental
effects?
No Impact No No No None
c) Require or result in
the construction of
new storm water
drainage facilities or
expansion of existing
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause significant
environmental
effects?
No Impact No No No None
d) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project from
existing entitlements
and resources, or are
new or expanded
entitlements needed?
No Impact No No No None
e) Result in inadequate
wastewater
treatment capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
No Impact No No No None
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
90 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentatio
n Mitigation
Measures
f) Be served by a landfill
with sufficient
permitted capacity to
accommodate the
project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
No Impact No No No None
g) Comply with federal,
state, and local
statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
No Impact No No No None
Discussion
a-b, e) The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal services to Specific Plan area. Utilizing waste water generation rates of 225 gallons per
day per dwelling unit for residential uses, the 1998 EIR determined that no significant impacts
to sewer service were anticipated under any of the development scenarios envisioned by the
Specific Plan (1998 EIR at page I-36). The capacity of the sewers within the Specific Plan was
designed to accommodate buildout of the project area under the base case “Alternative I,” or
the most intensive development scenario (1998 EIR at pages VIII-26 to VIII-29). Therefore,
even with 750 units on Subarea Site, no impacts will be created.
The Contra Costa Water District provides potable water services to the Specific Plan area.
The 1998 EIR determined that water supplies and infrastructure were sufficient to serve the
project site without adversely impacting the level of service to the project site or adjacent
areas (1998 EIR at page VIII-24).
The 2002 MND determined that the project is within existing water and wastewater service
boundaries and would not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to infrastructure. The population growth attributable to the 73 additional
dwelling units now proposed by the project would be less than the maximum density
permitted within the Subarea Site. This growth was accounted for in the Specific Plan and,
therefore, would not increase wastewater generation beyond that disclosed in the prior
CEQA documentation. There would be no new impacts associated with wastewater
treatment requirements or facilities or water supply. No new or increased impacts would
occur.
c) The project would connect to the existing storm drain located in Jones Road, which was
appropriately sized to accommodate development of the Subarea Site. The proposed
project would replace impervious surfaces with new impervious surfaces, and in turn would
not be expected to substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. The Initial
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 91
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Study Checklist prepared for the 1998 EIR concluded that major drainage improvements
were completed within the Specific Plan area in 1987-88 as part of a property owner-
approved assessment district program. Each development project would be required to
meet the “collect and convey” requirements of the County Code (1996 Contra Costa County
Environmental Checklist Form at 6). This avoids the potential new impacts associated with
stormwater drainage or the need for construction of new stormwater facilities. No new or
increased impacts would occur.
d) The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides water service to the station area. Water
mains directly serving the area include one 24–inch main from the north in Oak Road, an 8-
inch main at Las Juntas Way and Cherry Lane, an 18-inch main in Treat Boulevard and
Coggins Drive, and a 12-inch pipe in Main Street and Treat Boulevard. The 24–inch main
typically is the primary source of water to the Pleasant Hill BART Station area and adjacent
areas. The other mains provide looping and enable the distribution system to respond
reliably to a variety of demand conditions.
The capacity of the 24-inch main in Oak Road is approximately 2,800 gallons per minute
(using a maximum velocity of 5 feet per second). The 1998 EIR stated that CCWD planned
capital improvement projects in response to expected cumulative demand from
undeveloped lands and redevelopment areas (1998 EIR at page VIII-22). The proposed land
uses encompassed under buildout of the Specific Plan were found to result in increased
water demand, but the EIR determined that water could be provided for any of the
proposed land use alternatives contemplated under the Specific Plan update without
adversely impacting the level of service to the project site or adjacent areas (1998 EIR at
page VIII-24). The population growth attributable to the 73 additional dwelling units now
proposed by the project would be in line with the maximum density permitted within the
Subarea Site and were accounted for in the Specific Plan and, therefore, would not
significantly increase water demand beyond that disclosed in the prior CEQA
documentation. This precludes the potential for new impacts associated with water supply.
No new or increased impacts would occur.
f-g) The 2002 MND stated that no impacts to landfills or solid waste would occur. The project
would be served by Keller Canyon Landfill, which has a permitted capacity of 75 million
cubic yards, and has 60 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, which is adequate to serve
the customers of the Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority, including the
project site. Based on 2012 estimates, the Keller Canyon Landfill has an estimated 65 years
of site life remaining at current intake levels. State law requires municipalities to recover 50
percent of solid waste. To accomplish this, municipalities typically supply three solid waste
bins: one for green waste, one for recyclables, and one for miscellaneous solid waste. The
project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. No new or increased impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
92 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Conclusion
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant impacts to utilities and service systems or substantial
increases to any previously identified significant utilities and service system impacts. With the
implementation of the applicable mitigation measures that were identified in the prior CEQA
documentation, the project would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and service
systems.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist CEQA Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions 93
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:
a) Does the project
have the potential to
degrade the quality
of the environment,
substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species,
cause a fish or
wildlife population
to drop below self-
sustaining levels,
threaten to
eliminate a plant or
animal community,
reduce the number
or restrict the range
of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate
important examples
of the major periods
of California history
or prehistory?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No As identified
in the
preceding
sections for
each issue
area, as
applicable
b) Does the project
have impacts that
are individually
limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means
that the incremental
effects of a project
are considerable
when viewed in
connection with the
effects of past
projects, the effects
of other current
projects, and the
effects of probable
future projects.)
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No As identified
in the
preceding
sections for
each issue
area, as
applicable
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
94 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior CEQA
Documentation
Mitigation
Measures
c) Does the project
have environmental
effects which will
cause substantial
adverse effects on
human beings?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No As identified
in the
preceding
sections for
each issue
area, as
applicable
Discussion
a-c) The prior CEQA documentation concluded that impacts to Biological Resources would be
less than significant. The Cultural Resources section of the 1998 EIR identified that the
project could result in potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered
archaeological resources. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce these
impacts to less than significant. Since the proposed project has the potential to result in
similar impacts, the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1998 EIR
would result in a similar reduction of the impacts to less than significant.
The 2002 MND concluded that no cumulatively considerable impacts would occur as a
result of the development in the Subarea Site. The proposed project would result in an
overall 73-unit increase in residential units compared with that considered in the 2002
MND. Given the limited amount of additional residential units that would be constructed in
relation to the amount of development assumed throughout the Specific Plan area, the
proposed project would have a similar level of impacts and would not result in significant
cumulatively considerable impacts.
Mitigation measures identified throughout this checklist would ensure that adverse effects
on human being would be reduced to less than significant.
The conclusions from the prior CEQA documentation remain unchanged and no new
significant impacts or substantially increased significant impacts would occur.
Prior Mitigation Measures
Prior mitigation measures have been identified, as applicable, in the preceding sections for each
environmental issue area as applicable.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts, or substantially increase any
previously identified significant impacts.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Environmental Determination
FirstCarbon Solutions 95
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This environmental checklist considers modifications to the Avalon Bay Walnut Creek – Block C
Project as described in Section 2.3 herein and concludes that no new significant impacts or
substantially increased significant impacts would occur.
Signed: Date:
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist Environmental Determination
FirstCarbon Solutions 97
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
SECTION 5: REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Plan Bay Area.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2015. Plan Bay Area Priority Development Area
Showcase. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/. Accessed February 25,
2015.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ND. Entitlement Efficiency Advisory for Priority
Development Areas. Website: http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/events/agendas
/r020415a-Item%207.1%20Advisory%20Memo%20on%20Application%20of%20CEQA%20Str
eamlining%20in%20PDAs.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2015.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1999. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed
February 25, 2015.
Concerned Dublin Citizens, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al. (2013 1st Dist., Div. 3) 214 Cal.App.4th1301
Contra Costa County. 1998. Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan.
Contra Costa County. 1998. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan.
Contra Costa County. 2002. Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Specific Plan Amendment #2002-01, Rezoning #02-3116, and Development Plan DP023041
(Iron Horse Associates Office/Residential/Retail Project).
Contra Costa County. 2005. Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan
Amendment #2002-01, Rezoning #02-3116, and Development Plan DP023041 (Iron Horse
Associates Office/Residential/Retail Project).
Contra Costa County. 2012. Draft Climate Action Plan.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2013. Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management
Program.
ENVIRON Corporation. 2015. Preliminary CEQA Air Quality Screening and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
for Proposed Avalon Walnut Creek Village Development Pleasant Hill BART Station, Block C,
Walnut Creek, California. February 23.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
CEQA Checklist Environmental Checklist
98 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Fehr & Peers. 2004. Traffic Operations Analysis for Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village Memorandum.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2007. Station Area Planning Manual.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2013. Plan Bay Area.
Regional Transportation Planning Committee for Central Contra Costa County. 2014. Draft 2014
Central County Action Plan.
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Appendix A:
Preliminary CEQA Air Quality Screening
and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
Avalon Walnut Creek – Block C
Environmental Checklist
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\4611\46110001\Environmental Checklist\46110001 Avalon Bay Env Checklist no tracks.docx
Appendix B:
Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Avalon Bay
Pleasant Hill BART Apartments
Attachment D
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment D
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 24, 2015
To: Jeff White, AvalonBay Communities
From: Jane Bierstedt and Patrick Gilster, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Proposed AvalonBay Pleasant Hill BART Apartments
WC14-3201
The Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village was originally entitled in 2002 and was updated in 2005 to
include 100 condominiums in Block C. However, due to changing market conditions since the
initial approval, AvalonBay Communities proposes to update the entitlement to replace the
condominiums with a 200-unit apartment development. Other land uses in the Transit Village
have also changed slightly since the 2005 approvals; fewer housing units were built than were
approved so the current proposal includes 73 net new units. (The proposed site plan is shown on
Figure 1.) (See Attachment A for all figures.) The effects of this change on traffic volumes and
intersection operations were evaluated to determine whether the proposed change would cause a
significant environmental impact to the transportation system. The results of this analysis are:
1. 200 apartments would generate approximately 30 to 35 additional peak hour vehicle trips
compared to 100 condominiums.
2. The other land uses in the Transit Village have changed slightly since the original
entitlement. Therefore the estimated overall increase in AM peak hour vehicle trips is 2
(less than 1%) and PM peak hour trips are estimated to decrease by 29 (a reduction of
4%).
3. Traffic counts were conducted in January 2015 to measure current traffic volumes near
the site. PM peak hour traffic volumes on Jones Road within the Transit Village have
increased a minor amount (4%) since 2004 when the analysis for the entitlement was
conducted. AM peak hour volumes have decreased approximately 7%. Peak hour traffic
volumes on Treat Boulevard have decreased 12% to 18% since 2004.
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 2 of 10
4. The operations of intersections near the site were evaluated with the recent counts and
traffic projections for full buildout of the Transit Village. The study intersections would
operate at acceptable levels.
5. The proposed change from 100 condominiums to 200 apartments would result in a less-
than-significant impact to the transportation system.
MEMORANDUM OVERVIEW
This memorandum presents:
• changes in Transit Village vehicle trip generation with the proposed project
• traffic volumes at intersections near the site (compared to traffic volumes used in the
analysis used for the original entitlement)
• operations of the intersections near the site (compared to the operations evaluated as
part of the analysis used for the original entitlement)
The nearby intersections that would be affected by the project are:
• Jones Road and Coggins Drive
• Jones Road and Harvey Drive
• Jones Road and Treat Boulevard
Traffic analyses evaluate roadway operations during the time periods when the roadway volumes
are highest, during the morning and evening commute periods. The information presented in
this memorandum represents conditions during highest one-hour periods referred to as the AM
and PM peak hours.
VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
The originally approved condominiums were estimated to generate approximately 31 vehicle trips
during the AM peak hour and 36 trips during the PM peak hour per the analysis conducted in
2004. These estimates were based on rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation (7th Edition), a compilation of surveys conducted over the last several decades for
sites throughout the nation, plus appropriate reductions for estimated transit (BART and bus) use.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 3 of 10
To update the analysis for 2015, trip generation surveys were conducted at the Park Regency
apartment community near the Pleasant Hill BART station to obtain the amount of traffic
generated per unit by a comparable (nearly identical) apartment complex. These results were used
to estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed apartments, as shown
in Table 1. The amount of traffic that was expected to have been generated by the condominiums
is presented for comparison purposes.
TABLE 1: CONDOMINIUM VS. APARTMENT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Use Size In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums1 100 units 6 25 31 23 13 36
Apartments2 200 units 16 49 65 46 22 68
Net New Trips 10 24 34 23 9 32
2004 Analysis of
Transit Village
Buildout1
See Table 2 403 212 615 249 436 685
2015 Analysis of
Transit Village
Buildout3
See Table 2 405 212 617 241 416 657
Transit Village %
Change <1% -4%
1. Trip generation estimates obtained from the Traffic Operations Analysis for Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village
Memorandum, 2004
2. Trip generation rates developed from surveys conducted at the Park Regency Apartments in Walnut Creek near the
Pleasant Hill BART station.
3. Trip generation estimates for current Transit Village land use program presented in Table 2.
Source: Fehr & Peers.
As shown above, the net new vehicle trips added to the roadways by the apartments would be 34
vehicles during the AM peak hour and 32 vehicles during the PM peak hour over what the
condominiums would have generated. Combined with other modifications to the land use
program to reflect what has actually been built on the Project site, the 2015 projected traffic
volumes for the buildout of the Transit Village are projected to increase less than 1 percent during
the AM peak hour and decrease by 4 percent during the PM peak hour compared to the volumes
evaluated in the 2004 Project buildout analysis. Trip generation estimates for the entire Transit
Village are presented in Table 2 with the proposed land uses changes that would be constructed
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 4 of 10
upon project buildout. More detailed trip generation estimates are presented in the the
spreadsheet in Attachment B.
TABLE 2: PLEASANT HILL BART TRANSIT VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Use Size AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
2004 Proposed Uses and Assumptions (Original Entitlement)
Apartment 450 dus 32 126 158 121 65 186
Civic Use 7 ksf 8 1 9 2 7 9
Condominium 100 dus 6 25 31 23 13 36
Office 290 ksf 345 47 392 61 298 359
Retail 35 ksf 12 13 25 42 53 95
Total 403 212 615 249 436 685
2015 Proposed Uses and Assumptions (Current Proposal)
Built and Occupied Uses
Apartment 418 dus 33 103 136 95 47 142
Retail 14 ksf 5 5 10 17 21 38
Subtotal (Included in 2015
traffic counts) 38 108 146 112 68 180
Unbuilt, Unoccupied and Proposed Uses
Apartment 4 dus 0 1 1 1 0 1
Apartment
(Block C) 200 dus 16 49 65 46 22 68
Office 290 ksf 345 47 392 61 298 359
Retail 17.6 ksf 6 7 13 21 27 48
Subtotal (Amount to be
added for future traffic
projections)
367 104 471 129 347 476
Total 405 212 617 241 415 656
2015 Uses Compared to
2004 Uses 2 0 2 -8 -21 -29
Notes: The 2015 conditions used a local trip generation rate for the Apartments based on data collected at the nearby
Park Regency Apartments (which include reductions to account for transit use). All other land uses utilized the same rates
and reductions as the original 2004 entitlement to calculate the trip generation. Rates for retail and office uses in the latest
version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Editions) are very similar to the rates in the 7th edition.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 5 of 10
COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The traffic operations analysis for the original entitlement was based on counts conducted in
2004. New traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections to determine whether traffic
volumes in the vicinity of the project have changed substantially. The peak-hour traffic volumes
counted in 2004 and in 2015 are shown on Figure 2. The traffic volumes at the intersection of
Jones Road and Treat Boulevard are compared in Table 3.
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS AT JONES AND TREAT
Count Date Jones North of
Treat
Jones South of
Treat
Treat East of
Jones
Treat West of
Jones
AM Peak Hour
2015 1,060 630 4,580 3,650
2004 1,135 645 5,190 4,195
Difference -75 (-7%) -15 (-2%) -610 (-12%) -545 (-13%)
PM Peak Hour
2015 1,095 795 4,385 3,425
2004 1,050 1,095 5,370 4,160
Difference 45 (4%) -300 (-27%) -985 (-18%) -735 (-18%)
Source: Fehr & Peers
PM peak-hour traffic on Jones Road south of Treat Boulevard has substantially decreased. The
northbound right-turn lane was removed as part of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge construction
and is the likely cause of the decrease. PM peak-hour traffic on Jones Road north of Treat
Boulevard has increased a minor amount. Traffic on Treat Boulevard, both east and west of Jones
Road during both the AM and PM peak hours, has decreased since 2004. This could be
attributable to changes in travel patterns in the area the since 2004, such as due to the widening
of State Route (SR) 4, external constraints on traffic flows in the project area, and spreading of the
peak periods so that the traffic volumes in any one hour are reduced.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 6 of 10
PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Future traffic volumes were projected in the 2004 analysis to represent conditions at buildout of
the Transit Village. They included 2004 existing volumes, a redistribution of traffic on Jones Road
caused by the change in parking from the old surface lots at the BART station to the expanded
garage, buildout of the transit village uses as shown in Table 2, plus some other development
near Treat Boulevard. Future traffic projections for this analysis include current (2015) volumes
plus estimates of traffic generated by the vacant retail space and by the uses that have not been
constructed yet at the Transit Village (also shown in Table 2). Note that traffic volumes on Treat
Boulevard have not increased in the past 10 years so it was not necessary or appropriate to
estimate additional growth along Treat Boulevard for this analysis. The future traffic projections
for the study intersections developed in 2004 and in 2015 are presented on Figure 3.
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS METHODS
Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations. Transportation engineers
and planners commonly use the term level of service (LOS) to describe the operational status of a
roadway network. LOS can range from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or
no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design
capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). For the purpose of this traffic operations analysis,
LOS D is considered the threshold of acceptable operation with the exception of Jones
Road/Treat Boulevard where LOS F with a volume-to-capacity ratio less than 1.5 is the acceptable
standard 1.
Signalized Intersection
Operations at the signalized intersection of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard were calculated using
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual method but based on the volume-to-capacity ratio as
opposed to delay. This was done to maintain consistency with the prior CEQA analysis and based
on the performance standards adopted by the Contra Costa County Congestion Management
1 From the Draft 2014 Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The document can be
accessed online here: http://www.ccta.net/sources/detail/12/1
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 7 of 10
Agency. The resulting LOS was identified using the criteria from the Transportation Research
Board’s Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, January 1980 as presented in the
attached Table C-1.
In addition, the LOS was calculated according to the current “state of the practice” methodology.
This method is described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 2. With this
method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds)
for all movements. This incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping,
and moving up in the queue. The associated LOS criteria are presented in the attached Table C-2.
Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual method for unsignalized intersections described in Chapter 17 was
used. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle
(measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement. For side-street stop-controlled
intersections, the delay is typically represented for each movement from the stopped approaches
only. Attached Table C-3 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized
intersections.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Existing Operations
Existing intersection operations were evaluated using the peak-hour volumes obtained from the
counts, the existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and existing traffic signal timings
(at Jones Road and Treat Boulevard). The results are shown in Table 4. This Existing 2015
scenario includes traffic generated by the portion of the Transit Village that has already been
built, including the parking structure expansion.
2 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (2000 Edition), 2000.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 8 of 10
With the 2015 volumes, the intersection of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard operates at LOS C in
the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. It is currently operating at an acceptable
level.3 The 2015 LOS worksheets can be found in Attachment F.
Future Operations
Future intersection operations were evaluated using the projected peak-hour volumes presented
on Figure 3 with the existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and traffic signal timings.
The results are shown in Table 4, along with the results from the 2004 analysis of full buildout
and the 2015 existing levels of service. The intersections operate at LOS D or better during the
peak periods. LOS D is considered acceptable operations. According to the Draft 2014 Central
County Action Plan from TRANSPAC, intersections along Treat Boulevard within Contra Costa
County’s jurisdiction must meet a 1.5 volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The Treat Boulevard and
Jones Road intersection projected to operate at a 0.72 V/C ratio during the AM peak hour and a
0.85 V/C ratio during the PM peak hour. These are acceptable levels.
3 The current “state of the practice” is to use a methodology based on delay to calculate LOS. The LOS
results based on the delay criteria for the Jones Road and Treat Boulevard intersection are summarized in
Attachment D.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 9 of 10
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
2004 Analysis
(Full Buildout)
2015 Existing
(Partial
Buildout)
2015
Existing Plus
Proposed
Project
LOS LOS LOS
1. Jones Road / Coggins
Drive/BART Parking
Structure
AWS AM
PM
C3
B3
D3
C3
D3
C3
2. Jones Road/Harvey Drive SSS AM
PM
B2
B2
A (A)2
A (B)2
A (B)2
A (B)2
3. Jones Road/Treat
Boulevard4/5 Signal AM
PM
C
E
C
D
C
D
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection
AWS = All way stop-controlled intersection
2. Side-street stop-controlled intersections were calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology.
LOS is shown for the average intersection delay first and the delay for worst movement is shown in parenthesis.
3. Calculated using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology due to the lane configuration.
4. Eastbound left-turns include U-turning vehicles.
5. See Attachment D for the LOS results based on the delay calculation for the 2015 analysis of Jones Road and Treat
Boulevard intersection and Attachment E for the delay calculation for the 2004 Full Buildout of Jones and Treat
Boulevard.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Attachment D
Jeff White
February 24, 2015
Page 10 of 10
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed apartments are projected to generate 65 AM peak-hour vehicle trips and 68 PM
peak-hour vehicles trips, approximately 34 more trips than the originally proposed
condominiums. However, with the additional proposed changes to the land use and the updated
apartment trip generation rate based on locally collected data, the Transit Village will experience
less than a 1% increase in traffic during the AM peak hour and will experience a decrease in traffic
during the PM peak hour by about 4% compared to projections from the 2004 analysis used for
the entitlement.
These vehicles will use several roadways to approach and depart the site so the added traffic will
be dispersed among the surrounding roadway system. The effect of the added traffic generated
by full buildout of the Transit Village on roadway operations in the vicinity of the site was
evaluated at three nearby intersections. The results indicate that the intersections are performing
at acceptable levels with the change from 100 condominiums to 200 apartments.
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT A
Figures
Attachment D
WC14-3201_1_SitePlanIllustrative Site Plan
Figure 1
Source: Sasaki
Attachment D
Oak RdOak RdO
a
k
R
d
O
a
k
R
d
N Main StN Main StTreat BlvdTreat Blvd Jones RdJones RdBuskirk AveBuskirk AveWayne DrWayne Dr
Harvey DrHarvey Dr
Sunne LnSunne LnLas Juntas WayLas Juntas Way
Elena CtElena Ct
Coggins DrCoggins DrCoggins DrCoggins DrAnthony WayAnthony WayGeary RdGeary Rd Del Hombre LnDel Hombre LnIron Horse LnIron Horse Ln
Eleana DrEleana DrAugello CtAugello CtSun Valley DrSun Valley Dr Wayside PlzWayside Plz
Birch DrBirch DrSunnyvale AveSunnyvale Ave
Jones RdJones Rd Iron Horse TrailIron Horse TrailIron Horse TrailIron Horse Trail1
2
3
Pleasant Hill
BART Station
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
Coggins Dr
Bus Drop-off BART Parking StructureJones Rd180 (19)
10 (10)
259 (169)7 (198)1 (144)26 (34)338 (49)170 (310)1
Iron Horse Lot
BART Surface Lot Jones Rd12 (28)
5 (40)
49 (240)
1 (16)
0 (9)
4 (60)40 (14)222 (351)29 (3)315 (46)516 (347)93 (17)2
Treat BlvdJones Rd60 (40)
1,530 (2,127)
159 (91)
712 (334)
2,385 (1,687)
123 (81)38 (79)61 (58)215 (504)24 (142)50 (36)227 (637)3
Coggins Dr
Coggins Dr BART Parking StructureJones Rd295 (53)
9 (6)
188 (176)40 (394)9 (180)9 (10)514 (45)153 (274)1
Harvey Dr Jones Rd59 (88)6 (6)
6 (6)14 (13)222 (569)156 (92)677 (332)2
Treat BlvdJones Rd86 (55)
1,361 (1,704)
105 (77)
604 (353)
2,017 (1,349)
240 (101)38 (128)78 (64)225 (465)43 (113)33 (30)132 (411)3
2004 2015
WC14-3201_2_ExVolExisting (2004 and 2015)
Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Figure 2
LEGEND
Study IntersectionStop SignXX (YY)Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour
Trac Volumes
Project Site#
Attachment D
Oak RdOak RdO
a
k
R
d
O
a
k
R
d
N Main StN Main StTreat BlvdTreat Blvd Jones RdJones RdBuskirk AveBuskirk AveWayne DrWayne Dr
Harvey DrHarvey Dr
Sunne LnSunne LnLas Juntas WayLas Juntas Way
Elena CtElena Ct
Coggins DrCoggins DrCoggins DrCoggins DrAnthony WayAnthony WayGeary RdGeary Rd Del Hombre LnDel Hombre LnIron Horse LnIron Horse Ln
Eleana DrEleana DrAugello CtAugello CtSun Valley DrSun Valley Dr Wayside PlzWayside Plz
Birch DrBirch DrSunnyvale AveSunnyvale Ave
Jones RdJones Rd Iron Horse TrailIron Horse TrailIron Horse TrailIron Horse Trail1
2
3
Pleasant Hill
BART Station
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
Coggins Dr
Bus Drop-off BART Parking StructureJones Rd224 (36)
10 (10)
218 (148)60 (493)2 (188)26 (34)627 (100)176 (276)1
Treat BlvdJones Rd65 (59)
1,703 (2,514)
159 (91)
713 (338)
2,593 (1,821)
123 (81)56 (88)61 (58)235 (524)24 (142)50 (36)159 (442)3
Coggins Dr
Coggins Dr BART Parking StructureJones Rd295 (53)
9 (6)
188 (176)1 (0)40 (394)9 (184)9 (10)514 (45)153 (274)1
Harvey Dr Jones Rd2 (7)
69 (144)5 (15)266 (589)210 (110)691 (374)2
Treat BlvdJones Rd128 (104)
1,367 (1,743)
105 (77)
630 (364)
2,062 (1,357)
240 (101)83 (176)78 (64)232 (492)43 (113)33 (30)132 (411)3
2004
Analysis
2015
Analysis
Harvey Dr Jones Rd15 (13)
35 (33)14 (14)286 (637)20 (15)808 (419)2
WC14-3201_3_FutVolFuture Traffic Projections
Figure 3
LEGEND
Study IntersectionStop SignXX (YY)Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour
Trac Volumes
Project Site#
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT B
Trip Generation Calculations
Attachment D
Original EntitlementUseITE Land Use Code Size Unit AM Rate % In % Out AM In AM OutAM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization AM In AM Out AM TotalApartments220 450 dus 0.5 20% 80% 45 180 225 29% 0% 1% 32 126 158Civic Use710 7 ksf1.52 88% 12% 9 1 10 10% 0% 1% 8 1 9Condominiums230 100 dus 0.44 18% 82% 8 36 44 29% 0% 1% 6 25 31Office710 290 ksf1.52 88% 12% 388 53 441 10% 0% 1% 345 47 392Speciatly Retail814 35 ksf0.74 48% 52% 12 13 25 0% 0% 0% 12 13 25Total462 283 745 403 212 615Use ITE Land Use Code Size Unit PM Rate % In % Out PM In PM Out PM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization PM In PM Out PM TotalApartments220 450 dus 0.59 65% 35% 173 93 266 29% 0% 1% 121 65 186Civic Use710 7 ksf1.39 17% 83% 2 8 10 10% 0% 1% 2 7 9Condominiums230 100 dus 0.52 64% 36% 33 19 52 29% 0% 1% 23 13 36Office710 290 ksf1.39 17% 83% 69 335 404 10% 0% 1% 61 298 359Speciatly Retail814 35 ksf2.71 44% 56% 42 53 95 0% 0% 0% 42 53 95Total319 508 827 249 436 6852015 Built and Occupied UsesPark Regency ApartmentsTotal Occupied Units In Out Total %IN %Out RateAM75659 193 245 24% 79% 0.324074PM756172 85 257 67% 33% 0.339947UseITE Land Use Code Size Unit AM Rate % In % Out AM In AM OutAM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization AM In AM Out AM TotalApartmentsLocal Rate Used 418 dus 0.32407424% 76% 33 103 136 0% 0% 0% 33 103 136Speciatly Retail814 14 ksf0.74 48% 52% 5 5 10 0% 0% 0% 5 5 10Total38 108 146 38 108 146Use ITE Land Use Code Size Unit PM Rate % In % Out PM In PM Out PM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization PM In PM Out PM TotalApartmentsLocal Rate Used 418 dus 0.339947 67% 33% 95 47 142 0% 0% 0% 95 47 142Speciatly Retail814 14 ksf2.71 44% 56% 17 21 38 0% 0% 0% 17 21 38Total112 68 180 112 68 1802015 Unbuilt, Unoccupied and Proposed UsesUse ITE Land Use Code Size Unit AM Rate % In % Out AM In AM OutAM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization AM In AM Out AM TotalApartments (Block B) Local Rate Used 4 dus 0.32407424% 76% 0 1 1 0% 0% 0% 0 1 1Apartments (Block C) Local Rate Used 200 dus 0.32407424% 76% 16 49 65 0% 0% 0% 16 49 65Office710 290 ksf1.52 88% 12% 388 53 441 10% 0% 1% 345 47 392Speciatly Retail814 18 ksf0.74 48% 52% 6 7 13 0% 0% 0% 6 7 13Total410 110 520 367 104 471Use ITE Land Use Code Size Unit PM Rate % In % Out PM In PM Out PM Subtotal Transit Pass-ByInternalization PM In PM Out PM TotalApartmentsLocal Rate Used 4 dus 0.339947 67% 33% 1 0 1 0% 0% 0% 1 0 1ApartmentsLocal Rate Used 200 dus 0.339947 67% 33% 46 22 68 0% 0% 0% 46 22 68Office710 290 ksf1.39 17% 83% 69 335 404 10% 0% 1% 61 298 359Speciatly Retail814 18 ksf2.71 44% 56% 21 27 48 0% 0% 0% 21 27 48Total137 384 521 129 347 4762015 Built and Proposed Uses TotalAM In AM OutAM Subtotal PM In PM Out PM TotalTotal405 212 617 241 415 6562015 Uses Compared to 2004 UsesAM In AM OutAM Subtotal PM In PM Out PM TotalTotal2 0 2 -8 -21 -29Change from 2004 to 2015AM PM% Change from 2004 to 2015 for Entire Transit Village 0.33% -4.23%AM Peak Hour TripsPM Peak Hour TripsInputs AM Subtotals Reductions AM TotalAM Subtotals Reductions AM TotalInputsInputs PM Subtotals Reductions PM TotalAM Peak Hour TripsPM Peak Hour TripsInputs PM Subtotals Reductions PM TotalAM Peak Hour TripsInputs AM Subtotals Reductions AM TotalPM Peak Hour TripsInputs PM Subtotals Reductions PM TotalAttachment D
ATTACHMENT C
LOS Tables
Attachment D
TABLE C-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA FOR V/C RATIO
Level of
Service Description V/C Ratio
A Uncongested operations. Turning movements are easily made and all queues
clear in a single signal cycle. < 0.60
B Operations with very light congestion. Drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted as vehicles fill-up an occasional signal. 0.61 - 0.70
C
Stable operations with light congestion. Backups may develop behind turning
vehicles. Drivers may have to wait through a signal cycle on heaviest
approaches.
0.71 - 0.80
D
Operations approaching unstable flow with significant congestion. Backups
develop on busiest intersection approaches during short peaks. No long-
standing queues are formed.
0.81 - 0.90
E Unstable operations with severe congestion. Long-standing queues develop
on critical approaches where vehicles wait through several signal cycles. 0.91 - 1.00
F Traffic demand exceeds the capacity of the intersection causing stop-and-go
operations with excessive delays. > 1.00
Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, January 1980.
Attachment D
TABLE C-2: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA FOR DELAY
Level of
Service Description Delay in
Seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green
phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also
contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
> 10.0 to
20.0
C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or
both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many
still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to
35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths,
or high V at C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to
55.0
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.
These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle
lengths, and high V at C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
> 55.0 to
80.0
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival
flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at
high V at C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such
delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Attachment D
TABLE C-3: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT D
LOS Results for Jones Road & Treat Boulevard based on the Delay
Calculation
Attachment D
TABLE D-1: EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE BASED ON DELAY
Location Control Peak
Hour
2004 Existing
(Transit
Village Not
Yet Built)
2015 Existing (Transit
Village Partially Built
Out)
LOS2 Delay LOS3
Jones Road/Treat Boulevard1 Signal AM
PM
D
F
44
58
D
E
1. Eastbound and westbound left-turns include U-turning vehicles.
2. Delay based LOS worksheets are presented in Attachment E for the 2004 analysis.
3. Delay based LOS worksheets are presented in Attachment F for the 2015 analysis.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
TABLE D-2: FUTURE INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE BASED ON DELAY
Location Control Peak
Hour
2004 Analysis (Full
Buildout)
2015 Existing Plus
Proposed Project
LOS2 Delay LOS3
Jones Road/Treat Boulevard1 Signal AM
PM
E
F
46
58
D
E
1. Eastbound left-turns include U-turning vehicles.
2. Delay based LOS worksheets are presented in Attachment E for the 2004 analysis.
3. Delay based LOS worksheets are presented in Attachment F for the 2015 analysis.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT E
Updated 2004 LOS Worksheets
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC 2004 AM Peak Hour
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2004 AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2004_AM.syn Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 21.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 0066025910180026338170
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0077028211196028367185
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 9.4 31.1 13.5
HCM LOS A D B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 58% 30% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 40% 50% 2% 70% 100%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 60% 50% 40% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 26 225 283 12 449 3 5
LT Vol 26 0 0 0 259 1 0
Through Vol 0 225 113 6 10 2 5
RT Vol 0 0 170 6 180 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 28 245 307 13 488 4 5
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.053 0.421 0.491 0.024 0.824 0.008 0.011
Departure Headway (Hd)6.695 6.186 5.758 6.503 6.08 7.796 7.641
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 535 583 627 549 595 458 467
Service Time 4.435 3.927 3.499 4.258 3.813 5.568 5.413
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.42 0.49 0.024 0.82 0.009 0.011
HCM Control Delay 9.8 13.4 14 9.4 31.1 10.6 10.5
HCM Lane LOS ABBADBB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 2.1 2.7 0.1 8.5 0 0
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC 2004 AM Peak Hour
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2004 AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2004_AM.syn Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0170
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2222
Mvmt Flow 0180
Number of Lanes 0020
Approach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 3
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 10.5
HCM LOS B
Lane
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2004 PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 00660169101903449310
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 00770184112103753337
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 9.7 14.5 12.8
HCM LOS A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 85% 69% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 5% 50% 5% 31% 100%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 95% 50% 10% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 34 33 326 12 198 210 132
LT Vol 34 0 0 0 169 144 0
Through Vol 0 33 16 6 10 66 132
RT Vol 0 0 310 6 19 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 37 36 355 13 215 228 143
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.066 0.058 0.518 0.024 0.414 0.427 0.254
Departure Headway (Hd)6.435 5.928 5.254 6.747 6.93 6.732 6.384
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 556 604 685 528 519 534 561
Service Time 4.179 3.671 2.996 4.517 4.678 4.483 4.135
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 0.06 0.518 0.025 0.414 0.427 0.255
HCM Control Delay 9.6 9 13.5 9.7 14.5 14.4 11.3
HCM Lane LOS AABABBB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 3 0.1 2 2.1 1
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2004 PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 144 198 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2222
Mvmt Flow 0 157 215 0
Number of Lanes 0020
Approach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 3
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 13.2
HCM LOS B
Lane
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2004 AM Peak Hour
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/17/2015
2004 AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2004_AM.syn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)60 1530 159 123 2385 712 24 50 227 215 61 38
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6317 1770 5085 1583 1770 1633 1681 1721 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6317 1770 5085 1583 1770 1633 1681 1721 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)65 1663 173 134 2592 774 26 54 247 234 66 41
RTOR Reduction (vph)08000372010300036
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1828 0 134 2592 402 26 198 0 147 153 5
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 70.7 15.6 80.0 80.0 35.0 35.0 18.7 18.7 18.7
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 73.7 16.6 83.0 83.0 37.0 37.0 20.7 20.7 19.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.46 0.10 0.52 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.12
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 2909 183 2637 821 409 377 217 222 194
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.08 c0.51 0.01 c0.12 0.09 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.63 0.73 0.98 0.49 0.06 0.53 0.68 0.69 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 74.3 32.8 69.5 37.8 24.8 48.0 53.8 66.5 66.6 61.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 1.0 12.2 14.0 2.1 0.3 5.2 6.4 6.9 0.0
Delay (s)76.1 33.8 81.8 51.8 26.9 48.3 59.0 72.9 73.5 61.7
Level of Service E C F D C D E E E E
Approach Delay (s)35.2 47.4 58.1 71.8
Approach LOS D D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/17/2015
2004 PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)40 2127 91 81 1687 334 142 36 637 504 58 79
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6368 1770 5085 1583 1770 1598 1681 1702 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6368 1770 5085 1583 1770 1598 1681 1702 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)43 2312 99 88 1834 363 154 39 692 548 63 86
RTOR Reduction (vph)04000241011000067
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 2407 0 88 1834 122 154 621 0 301 310 19
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 40.1 8.9 44.0 44.0 41.6 41.6 29.4 29.4 29.4
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 43.1 9.9 47.0 47.0 43.6 43.6 31.4 31.4 30.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 147 1960 125 1707 531 551 497 377 381 343
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.38 c0.05 0.36 0.09 c0.39 0.18 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.29 1.23 0.70 1.07 0.23 0.28 1.25 0.80 0.81 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 64.9 48.4 63.6 46.5 33.5 36.4 48.2 51.3 51.5 43.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 107.3 13.7 44.8 1.0 1.3 128.0 10.5 11.9 0.0
Delay (s)65.3 155.8 77.3 91.3 34.5 37.6 176.2 61.8 63.4 43.4
Level of Service E F E F C D F E E D
Approach Delay (s)154.2 81.8 152.1 60.3
Approach LOS F F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 117.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.7% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2004 Future AM Peak Hour
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/18/2015
2004 Future AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Future With Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2004_AM_Future.syn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)65 1703 159 123 2593 713 24 50 159 235 61 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6326 1770 5085 1583 1770 1650 1681 1718 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6326 1770 5085 1583 1770 1650 1681 1718 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)71 1851 173 134 2818 775 26 54 173 255 66 61
RTOR Reduction (vph)0700038407200053
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 2017 0 134 2818 391 26 155 0 158 163 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 69.8 15.6 77.8 77.8 35.0 35.0 19.6 19.6 19.6
Effective Green, g (s) 8.6 72.8 16.6 80.8 80.8 37.0 37.0 21.6 21.6 20.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.45 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 2878 183 2567 799 409 381 226 231 203
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.32 c0.08 c0.55 0.01 c0.09 0.09 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.70 0.73 1.10 0.49 0.06 0.41 0.70 0.71 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 73.1 34.9 69.5 39.6 26.0 48.0 52.2 66.1 66.2 61.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.4 12.2 50.8 2.1 0.3 3.2 7.4 7.8 0.0
Delay (s)74.5 36.3 81.8 90.4 28.2 48.3 55.4 73.5 73.9 61.1
Level of Service E D F F C D E E E E
Approach Delay (s)37.6 77.2 54.6 71.7
Approach LOS D E D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/18/2015
2004 Future PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2004 Future With Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)59 2514 91 81 1821 338 142 36 442 524 58 88
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6374 1770 5085 1583 1770 1604 1681 1701 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6374 1770 5085 1583 1770 1604 1681 1701 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)64 2733 99 88 1979 367 154 39 480 570 63 96
RTOR Reduction (vph)03000245010800075
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 2829 0 88 1979 122 154 411 0 313 320 21
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.4 40.1 8.9 43.6 43.6 41.0 41.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.4 43.1 9.9 46.6 46.6 43.0 43.0 32.0 32.0 31.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.31 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.22
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 1962 125 1692 526 543 492 384 388 350
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.44 c0.05 0.39 0.09 c0.26 0.19 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.41 1.44 0.70 1.17 0.23 0.28 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 48.4 63.6 46.7 33.8 36.8 45.2 51.2 51.3 43.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 201.7 13.7 83.1 1.0 1.3 15.4 11.9 12.7 0.0
Delay (s)65.6 250.1 77.3 129.8 34.8 38.1 60.6 63.1 64.0 43.0
Level of Service E F E F C D E E E D
Approach Delay (s)246.1 113.6 55.4 60.9
Approach LOS F F E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 159.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.0% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT F
2015 Existing and Buildout LOS Worksheets
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC 2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Without Block C_AM.syn Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 31.9
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 00660188929509514153
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0077020410321010559166
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 10.2 50.9 20
HCM LOS B F C
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 38% 31% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 53% 50% 2% 69% 95%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 47% 50% 60% 0% 5%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 9 343 324 12 492 29 21
LT Vol 900018890
Through Vol 0 343 171 6 9 20 20
RT Vol 0 0 153 6 295 0 1
Lane Flow Rate 10 372 353 13 535 32 23
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.019 0.676 0.607 0.026 0.947 0.075 0.053
Departure Headway (Hd)7.042 6.532 6.195 7.349 6.372 8.517 8.321
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 506 551 578 490 567 423 433
Service Time 4.818 4.308 3.97 5.049 4.137 6.217 6.021
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 0.675 0.611 0.027 0.944 0.076 0.053
HCM Control Delay 10 22 18.2 10.2 50.9 11.9 11.5
HCM Lane LOS A C C B F B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 5.1 4.1 0.1 12.4 0.2 0.2
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC 2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Without Block C_AM.syn Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 9 40 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2222
Mvmt Flow 0 10 43 1
Number of Lanes 0020
Approach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 3
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 11.7
HCM LOS B
Lane
Attachment D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour
2: Jones Rd & Harvey Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Without Block C_AM.syn Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)0 59 156 677 222 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 64 170 736 241 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)479
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 948 121 241
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 948 121 241
tC, single (s)6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %100 93 87
cM capacity (veh/h) 226 908 1322
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 64 170 368 368 161 80
Volume Left 0 170 0000
Volume Right 64 00000
cSH 908 1322 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 11 0000
Control Delay (s)9.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s)9.3 1.5 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Without Block C_AM.syn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)86 1361 105 240 2017 604 43 33 132 225 78 36
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6339 1770 5085 1583 1770 1640 1681 1727 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6339 1770 5085 1583 1770 1640 1681 1727 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)93 1479 114 261 2192 657 47 36 143 245 85 39
RTOR Reduction (vph)0600032808900034
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 1587 0 261 2192 329 47 90 0 164 166 5
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 60.2 24.7 77.1 77.1 35.0 35.0 20.1 20.1 20.1
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 63.2 25.7 80.1 80.1 37.0 37.0 22.1 22.1 21.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.40 0.16 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 188 2503 284 2545 792 409 379 232 238 208
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.25 c0.15 c0.43 0.03 c0.05 c0.10 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.63 0.92 0.86 0.42 0.11 0.24 0.71 0.70 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 73.4 39.1 66.1 35.1 25.2 48.6 50.0 65.9 65.8 60.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.2 32.1 4.1 1.6 0.6 1.5 7.8 7.0 0.0
Delay (s)75.5 40.3 98.2 39.2 26.8 49.1 51.5 73.6 72.8 60.5
Level of Service E D F DCDD EEE
Approach Delay (s)42.2 41.5 51.0 71.9
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.2
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 0066017665301045274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0077019175801149298
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 10.4 17.4 14
HCM LOS B C B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 75% 58% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 5% 50% 3% 42% 100%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 95% 50% 23% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 10 30 289 12 235 315 263
LT Vol 10 0 0 0 176 184 0
Through Vol 0 30 15 6 6 131 263
RT Vol 0 0 274 6 53 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 11 33 314 13 255 343 286
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.021 0.059 0.51 0.027 0.513 0.65 0.518
Departure Headway (Hd)7.031 6.521 5.844 7.481 7.229 6.828 6.53
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 506 546 613 481 496 528 548
Service Time 4.811 4.3 3.623 5.181 5.005 4.604 4.306
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.06 0.512 0.027 0.514 0.65 0.522
HCM Control Delay 10 9.7 14.6 10.4 17.4 21.5 16.2
HCM Lane LOS AABBCCC
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 2.9 0.1 2.9 4.6 3
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 184 394 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2222
Mvmt Flow 0 200 428 0
Number of Lanes 0020
Approach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 3
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 19.1
HCM LOS C
Lane
Attachment D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Jones Rd & Harvey Dr 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)3 88 92 332 569 13
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)3 96 100 361 618 14
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)479
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1006 316 633
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1006 316 633
tC, single (s)6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %98 86 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 213 679 946
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 99 100 180 180 412 220
Volume Left 3 100 0000
Volume Right 96 000014
cSH 634 946 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 90000
Control Delay (s)11.7 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 11.7 2.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/17/2015
2015 Without Block C PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Without Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)55 1704 77 101 1349 353 113 30 411 465 64 128
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6366 1770 5085 1583 1770 1603 1681 1705 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6366 1770 5085 1583 1770 1603 1681 1705 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)60 1852 84 110 1466 384 123 33 447 505 70 139
RTOR Reduction (vph)040002560114000110
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 1932 0 110 1466 128 123 366 0 288 287 29
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 39.4 9.6 43.7 43.7 42.8 42.8 28.2 28.2 28.2
Effective Green, g (s) 6.3 42.4 10.6 46.7 46.7 44.8 44.8 30.2 30.2 29.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.21
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 154 1927 134 1696 528 566 512 362 367 330
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.06 0.29 0.07 c0.23 c0.17 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.39 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.24 0.22 0.72 0.80 0.78 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 48.8 63.8 43.7 33.8 34.8 42.0 52.0 51.8 44.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 21.1 30.3 6.1 1.1 0.9 8.3 10.7 9.6 0.0
Delay (s)65.6 69.9 94.0 49.8 34.9 35.7 50.3 62.7 61.4 44.7
Level of Service E E F DCDD EED
Approach Delay (s)69.8 49.4 47.3 58.7
Approach LOS E D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 58.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC 2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Buildout_AM.syn Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 31.9
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 00660188929509514153
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0077020410321010559166
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 10.2 50.9 20
HCM LOS B F C
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 38% 31% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 53% 50% 2% 69% 95%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 47% 50% 60% 0% 5%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 9 343 324 12 492 29 21
LT Vol 900018890
Through Vol 0 343 171 6 9 20 20
RT Vol 0 0 153 6 295 0 1
Lane Flow Rate 10 372 353 13 535 32 23
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.019 0.676 0.607 0.026 0.947 0.075 0.053
Departure Headway (Hd)7.042 6.532 6.195 7.349 6.372 8.517 8.321
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 506 551 578 490 567 423 433
Service Time 4.818 4.308 3.97 5.049 4.137 6.217 6.021
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 0.675 0.611 0.027 0.944 0.076 0.053
HCM Control Delay 10 22 18.2 10.2 50.9 11.9 11.5
HCM Lane LOS A C C B F B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 5.1 4.1 0.1 12.4 0.2 0.2
Attachment D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour
2: Jones Rd & Harvey Dr 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Buildout_AM.syn Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)2 69 210 691 266 5
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)2 75 228 751 289 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)479
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1124 147 295
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1124 147 295
tC, single (s)6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %99 91 82
cM capacity (veh/h) 163 873 1264
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 77 228 376 376 193 102
Volume Left 2 228 0000
Volume Right 75 00005
cSH 778 1264 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 16 0000
Control Delay (s)10.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 2.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout AM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Avalon Pleasant Hill BART Apartments_2015 Buildout_AM.syn Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)128 1367 105 240 2062 630 43 33 132 232 78 83
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6339 1770 5085 1583 1770 1640 1681 1726 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6339 1770 5085 1583 1770 1640 1681 1726 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)139 1486 114 261 2241 685 47 36 143 252 85 90
RTOR Reduction (vph)0600034408900078
Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 1594 0 261 2241 341 47 90 0 166 171 12
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 60.0 24.7 76.7 76.7 35.0 35.0 20.3 20.3 20.3
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 63.0 25.7 79.7 79.7 37.0 37.0 22.3 22.3 21.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.16 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 2495 284 2532 788 409 379 234 240 210
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.25 c0.15 c0.44 0.03 c0.05 0.10 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.64 0.92 0.89 0.43 0.11 0.24 0.71 0.71 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 74.3 39.3 66.1 36.0 25.7 48.6 50.0 65.8 65.8 60.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 1.3 32.1 5.0 1.7 0.6 1.5 7.8 8.0 0.0
Delay (s)86.7 40.6 98.2 41.0 27.4 49.1 51.5 73.6 73.8 60.6
Level of Service F D F DCDD EEE
Approach Delay (s)44.2 42.8 51.0 70.9
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.2
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 0066017665301045274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222
Mvmt Flow 0077019175801149298
Number of Lanes 001000100120
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 3 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 2 1
HCM Control Delay 10.4 17.4 14
HCM LOS B C B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, %100% 0% 0% 0% 75% 58% 0%
Vol Thru, %0% 100% 5% 50% 3% 42% 100%
Vol Right, %0% 0% 95% 50% 23% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 10 30 289 12 235 315 263
LT Vol 10 0 0 0 176 184 0
Through Vol 0 30 15 6 6 131 263
RT Vol 0 0 274 6 53 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 11 33 314 13 255 343 286
Geometry Grp 7777788
Degree of Util (X) 0.021 0.059 0.51 0.027 0.513 0.65 0.518
Departure Headway (Hd)7.031 6.521 5.844 7.481 7.229 6.828 6.53
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 506 546 613 481 496 528 548
Service Time 4.811 4.3 3.623 5.181 5.005 4.604 4.306
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.06 0.512 0.027 0.514 0.65 0.522
HCM Control Delay 10 9.7 14.6 10.4 17.4 21.5 16.2
HCM Lane LOS AABBCCC
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 2.9 0.1 2.9 4.6 3
Attachment D
HCM 2010 AWSC
1: Jones Rd/BART Parking Structure & Coggins Dr 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 184 394 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %2222
Mvmt Flow 0 200 428 0
Number of Lanes 0020
Approach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 3
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 19.1
HCM LOS C
Lane
Attachment D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Jones Rd & Harvey Dr 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)7 144 110 374 589 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0%0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)8 157 120 407 640 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)479
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1091 328 657
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1091 328 657
tC, single (s)6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free %96 77 87
cM capacity (veh/h) 182 667 927
Direction, Lane #EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 164 120 203 203 427 230
Volume Left 8 120 0000
Volume Right 157 000016
cSH 594 927 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 11 0000
Control Delay (s)13.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 2.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min)15
Attachment D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Jones Rd & Treat Blvd 2/18/2015
2015 Buildout PM Peak Hour 2/17/2015 2015 Buildout Project Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)104 1743 77 101 1357 364 113 30 411 492 64 176
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6367 1770 5085 1583 1770 1603 1681 1704 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6367 1770 5085 1583 1770 1603 1681 1704 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)113 1895 84 110 1475 396 123 33 447 535 70 191
RTOR Reduction (vph)040002720111000150
Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 1975 0 110 1475 124 123 369 0 300 305 41
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 39.4 9.6 41.0 41.0 41.9 41.9 29.1 29.1 29.1
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 42.4 10.6 44.0 44.0 43.9 43.9 31.1 31.1 30.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.30 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 1928 134 1598 497 555 502 373 378 340
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.31 c0.06 0.29 0.07 c0.23 0.18 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.51 1.02 0.82 0.92 0.25 0.22 0.73 0.80 0.81 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 63.4 48.8 63.8 46.4 35.7 35.4 42.9 51.6 51.6 44.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 26.9 30.3 10.4 1.2 0.9 9.2 11.3 11.3 0.1
Delay (s)64.2 75.7 94.0 56.8 36.9 36.4 52.1 62.8 62.9 44.3
Level of Service E E F E D D D E E D
Approach Delay (s)75.1 54.9 48.9 58.4
Approach LOS E D D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Attachment D
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment E
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment F-1
Attachment F-1
Attachment F-1
Attachment F-1
Attachment F-1
Page intentionally left blank
Julia R. Bueren, Director
Deputy Directors
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
Joe Yee
Memo
April 7, 2015
TO: Maureen Toms, Principal Planner, Department of Conservation and
Development
FROM: Kara Schuh-Garibay, Staff Engineer, Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT: Permit DP15-3001
STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Avalon Bay Communities Inc./Harvey Drive/Pleasant Hill/APN 148-221-
040)
FILE: DP15-3001 (X-ref DP04-3099, SD05-8950)
We have reviewed the application for DP15-3001 received by your office on January 26,
2015 and the supplemental information received on February 27, 2015, and submit the
following Staff Report and Conditions of Approval:
Issues:
Background
The applicant requests a development permit to construct 200 apartment units and
2,300 square feet of retail space on an approximately 1.61-acre Block C parcel of the
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village. The project site is located on the west side of Jones
Road, north of Harvey Drive and southeast of Coggins Drive. The project site was
previously a BART parking lot, although it is not currently being used for parking. The
proposed structure will consist of two levels of parking garage, one level being
underground; five stories on top of the two-story parking garage along Coggins Drive;
and a combination of three and four stories along Harvey Drive and Jones Road.
Traffic and Circulation
The project has direct frontage along Jones Road, which is a four lane road with a
raised median, and Coggins Drive, which is a two-lane road, limited to busses only (i.e.
bus boarding area). The project is separated from Harvey Drive by a linear park and is
separated from Sunne Lane by the “Town Square.” The nearest major thoroughfare is
Treat Boulevard located one block to the south of the project location.
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Attachment F-2
.
Maureen Toms
April 7, 2015
Page 2 of 5
The driveway access to the proposed parking garage is located on Jones Road where a
break in the median and a left turn pocket exists to allow access from the northbound
direction. There are two main access points for pedestrians: one is at the southeast
corner of the project site near the intersection of Harvey Drive and Jones Road; and the
other is at the “Town Square” at the southwest corner of the project site. The units on
the first level appear to also have direct access to either Jones Road or Harvey Drive
depending on the location of the unit.
It appears that most frontage improvements have already been installed with
Subdivision 8950. No additional frontage improvements are proposed with the
exception of widening the existing driveway on Jones Road to allow truck access to a
proposed loading dock area just north of the proposed driveway to the parking garage.
The applicant will be conditioned to show that adequate corner site distance is provided
at the intersections of Jones Road with Coggins Drive and Harvey Drive. The applicant
has resubmitted the “Subdivision 8950 Sight Distance Exhibit” dated December 2007.
This Exhibit was not updated to reflect the proposed revised development plan which
includes trees at the southwestern corner of the Coggins Drive and Jones Road
intersection. A new sight distance exhibit will need to be submitted showing the
proposed building and landscaping in order to meet the condition of approval to provide
adequate sight distance.
The application indicates that garbage and fire trucks will access the proposed
development from the surrounding streets and will not utilize the garage area. Delivery
trucks will use the loading dock area adjacent to the entrance to the parking garage
and will not utilize the parking garage area. A “Garbage Truck Operations Exhibit” has
been submitted with the application. The proposed location for garbage pickup is
problematic for pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation on Jones Road. The garbage
truck will need to block the westernmost southbound lane on Jones Road for a
significant amount of time to pick up the multiple dumpsters, which will require moving
each of them from the “staging area” in front of the loading dock and positioning each
for the truck to pick up. It is unclear what the delivery truck is expected to do when the
access to the loading dock is blocked by the dumpsters in the “staging area.” If the
delivery truck cannot enter the garage, the driver is likely to block the westernmost
southbound lane on Jones Road while they make their delivery. It would be preferable
for the garbage truck operations plan to be revised to eliminate the need to block the
travel way on Jones Road. However, operational restrictions on garbage collection may
adequately address traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. The project will be
conditioned to limit pickup times to non-peak hours, allow safe pedestrian access in the
area at all times and not block traffic for extended periods of time. The adequacy of the
implementation of these measures will be determined by the Public Works Department.
If it is determined that garbage truck operations during garbage collection is creating a
traffic hazard and poses a safety risk to the traveling public on southbound Jones Road,
the methods, timing and/or location of garbage collection will need to be modified to
Attachment F-2
Maureen Toms
April 7, 2015
Page 3 of 5
remove, or at a minimum, reduce the traffic hazard and risk posed to the traveling
public.
The original development permit DP04-3099 for this site was to construct 100
townhomes on the project site. This proposed project doubles the planned number of
dwelling units. A traffic study has been prepared addressing the changes to the overall
development plan since the original 2004 version. The study indicated that the overall
effect of changing from 100 condos to 200 apartments, when incorporating the effects
of land use changes for office and retail space, results in a less than 1% increase in
morning Peak Hour Trips and a decrease in afternoon Peak Hour Trips from the 2004
traffic analysis. The report also indicates that the proposed project level of service at
the intersection of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard and the intersection of Jones Road
and Harvey Drive are equal to, or better than, the Levels of Service calculated in the
2004 Traffic Analysis. The level of service calculated for the intersection of Jones Road
with Coggins Drive and the BART parking lot is lower than the 2004 Traffic analysis;
however, it is not reduced from the existing condition. No traffic impact mitigation
measures are recommended by the Analysis.
Drainage
It appears that the existing project site is fairly flat. In the project site’s existing
condition, it appears that onsite drainage would sheet flow towards the north, possibly
ponding on the northern half of the project site. Multiple existing storm drains are
shown on the surrounding streets. The “Preliminary Improvement Plan” submitted
shows un-sized storm drain pipes connecting into the existing storm drain systems on
the surrounding streets.
Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all stormwater entering and/or
originating on this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within
an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a
definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system
which conveys the stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse. The preliminary
improvement plan indicates that this project intends to meet this requirement by
connecting into the existing storm drain system. The applicant will need to show that
the existing storm drain system was designed to take runoff from the site and that the
proposed project will drain to the existing storm drain system as it was planned to when
the existing storm drain system was designed.
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance
The proposed project is substantially different from the previously approved project at
this site and is also a new development application. Therefore, the proposed project will
be required to comply with the current requirements of the County’s Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County’s Municipal
Attachment F-2
Maureen Toms
April 7, 2015
Page 4 of 5
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit. Under the County Ordinance and the County NPDES Permit, a
Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or
redevelop impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet (5,000 square feet for
projects that include parking lots, restaurants, automotive service facilities and gas
stations). It appears that almost the entire 1.61-acre project site is currently covered in
impervious surface. This development permit proposes to redevelop the entire site
replacing more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface.
A preliminary SWCP has been submitted that includes a bound report and a stormwater
site plan/exhibit depicting separate drainage area and the facilities designed to treat
each drainage area. The SWCP correctly indicates that the project falls within the
“Special Projects” category within the C.3 requirement and, therefore, qualifies to use
non-LID treatment Systems. The SWCP indicates that the project intends to meets C.3
requirements using “roof drain scrubber media filters” at several locations on the
project site. The SWCP also indicates that the roof plan is not complete and
consequently the drainage areas are approximate. The preliminary SWCP does not
specify a specific non-LID treatment system product to be used, therefore, it is not
possible to confirm whether or not the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Technical
Criteria for Non-LID Treatment Facilities is being met. The applicant will need to solidify
its drainage areas and the non-LID treatment systems to be used in the final SWCP
before it will be deemed adequate.
The preliminary SWCP correctly indicates that the proposed project will be subject to
the hydrograph modification requirements of C.3 due to the amount of impervious
surface acreage exceeding one acre. This project intends to meet this requirement
through “Option 1” listed in Appendix C of the C.3 Guidebook, which requires
demonstration that the project creates no net increase in impervious surface and that
changes to drainage facilities will not increase the efficiency of drainage collection and
conveyance. The Final SWCP should include this information as well.
Annexation to a Lighting District
The subject parcel is already annexed into the L-100 lighting district and will require no
further annexation into a lighting district.
Area of Benefit Fee
The applicant would typically need to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit, as adopted
by the Board of Supervisors. However, in-lieu of the Central County Area of Benefit
County mandated road fees, an overall fee for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific
Plan Area has been adopted and is managed by the Department of Conservation and
Development (DCD). The applicant should contact DCD to determine if additional
Attachment F-2
Maureen Toms
April 7, 2015
Page 5 of 5
impact fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant has
indicated that it has paid some of the required fees, but that more is owed. These fees
shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
Drainage Area Fee
The applicant would typically need to comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Drainage Area 44B (DA 44B) Fee
Ordinance, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. However, in-lieu of the DA 44B
County mandated drainage impact fees, an overall fee for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Specific Plan Area has been adopted and is managed by the Department of
Conservation and Development (DCD). The applicant should contact DCD to determine
if additional impact fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The fee
shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
KSG:tr
G:\engsvc\Land Dev\DP\DP 15-3001\Applications\Staff Report and Condiotns of Approval.docx
cc: W. Lai, Engineering Services
J. A. B. LaRocque
Jeff Ordway
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (Owner)
300 Lakeside Drive, 22nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Jeff White
Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. (Applicant)
455 Market Street, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attachment F-2
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment G
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment H
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment I
MEETING NOTES WITH RESPONSES
Walden Association Meeting December 8, 2014
Subject: Walden public meeting to discuss the proposed Transit Village change to Block C development
Attending: Walden District Improvement Association: Jeffrey Peckham, Larry McEwen, Peter Duncan,
Sherryl Brinkley, Leo Dominguez, and about 30 additional neighbors
Former County Supervisor Donna Gerber, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, and staff member Laura Case
Development Team: Mark Farrar, Millennium Partners, Jeff White, AvalonBay; John Kosi, Steinberg
Architects
County/BART Team: Jason Crapo, Kristen Lackey, and Maureen Toms, Department of Conservation and
Development and Reed Kawahara, Keyser Marston Associates. John Rennels was unable to attend.
Opening remarks
Jeff Peckham summarized the history of the 30 years of planning that have resulted in the current Transit
Village development. Established in the mid ‘80s, the General Plan called for creating a dense population
around the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
1.A multi screen Cineplex was proposed and withdrawn in the mid ‘90s.
2.The Charrette process of 2001 resulted in a mixed use Transit Village concept, with several key
components
a.A community center of 3,000 sq. feet.
b.A grand entrance to a proposed Village Square
c.442 units with at least 50 for sale condominiums
d.Landscaping of the Walden I Iron Horse trail, which was then a parking lot
e.Minimal landscaping of Walden II Iron trail (Coggins bend to Mayhew), which was then
virtually undeveloped
3.The ‘final’ development plan in 2010 think it was earlier than 2010 called for a total of 422 rental
units in Blocks A&B, and 100 condos on Block C.
4. 2010 – 2014 rental rates steadily increase - up to 40% plus over 4 years.
5. 2013 – 2014 housing rebounds significantly – now approaching peak levels projected over the next
few years.
Millennium Partners Mark Farrar presented the modified Block C proposal.
1.A 200 apartment complex, up from the planned 100 condo units, with an average footprint of 950
sq. ft., down from the condo size of 1200 sq. ft.
2.A terraced building with 4 stories on the Jones Road edge stepping up to 6 stories adjacent to the
BART station, up from the 2010 plan of a 4 story building.
3.A modestly revised retail space facing the Town Square.
4.Step back design features from the town square to provide increased views of Mt Diablo
5.Increased setback from the approved Final Development Plan, with additional landscaping areas.
The Coggins Drive-facing units now designed with entrance and view onto Coggins instead of
inward facing.
Attachment J
Keyser Marston then presented the financial analysis of the build-out costs for apartments vs
condos
1. Apartments are a less risky investment and produce superior economic results than condominiums
based on today’s market.
2.Most developments currently underway in the area are apartments
3.The costs of subterranean parking and prevailing wages make the Block C project more expensive
than most projects being built in the local market today.
4.Condo cost point needed for financial feasibility is not supported in today’s market
General Discussion
•The attendees were polled to determine how many were renters. 100% of the community
attendees were owners; no renters attended.
•Donna Gerber, who was an involved Contra Costa Supervisor at the time of the Charrette, gave a
short summary of how the plan evolved and why for-sale condominiums were a key part of the final
agreement between the JPA, the community, and the developers. Donna Gerber discussed the
charrette process and that the transit village was a public private partnership and it needs public
advocacy. She agreed with Mark that development so far is close enough and better than most.
She disagreed with this project change because the process required consensus. She feels that
KMA a report is incorrect because it segregated Lot C. The project was envisioned as a whole
transit village designed to be mixed use. She stated that Mr. Farrar agreed with the goal of putting
a heart here. The goal wasn't to build as much as you can and make money. She said we should
keep this in perspective: it's a public project and the County has put millions of dollars into it and
sold $135* million in bonds to make it happen. She has talked to some of the consultants from the
charrette and one of them reported to her that subterranean parking was not a requirement and
prevailing wage would be required if this is a rental project as well as a for sale project.
•Staff response: The $135 million debt was incurred by the developer, while the County was the
conduit issuer for these Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds. These bonds are repaid solely
from rental revenue. The former Redevelopment Agency issued debt to cover the cost of the
expanded parking garage. The debt from the parking garage is covered through redevelopment
tax increment derived from property taxes in the area.
•A community member asked about resolution of water flooding issues near the canal off Elmwood.
County will look into this – but has nothing to do with the proposal being discussed tonight.
•A community member who has been in the neighborhood since the mid 50’s asked whether
‘prevailing wage’ would apply to other large scale projects.
•Response from Mark Farrar: If these other projects are not public projects, it is not required to
pay prevailing wage.
•A community member who has been in the neighborhood since the mid 80’s asked why the Keyser
Marst on study identified the high cost of ‘prevailing wage’ labor as a reason to build apartments
vs. owner-occupied units.
•Response from Reed Kawahara: Reed confirmed that costs would involve prevailing wage
whether apartments or condos are constructed.
•Sherryl Brinkley asked confirmation that Avalon Bay is a REIT, and, therefore cannot build
condominiums.
Attachment J
•Response from Mark Farrar: He confirmed that is true, but Millennium Partners is able to build
condos. They elected to proceed with apartments rather than condos because of their viability in
the market given the risk and expense of constructing condos.
•Gayle Dominguez asked why Avalon was asked to bid on the project since they cannot build
condos.
•Response from Mark Farrar: He indicated again that the condo proposal is not feasible in the
market and that Millennium could build condos..
•Leo Dominguez commented that from reading the studies elsewhere available, there will be a
swing back to condo construction. Creating more rentals is a poor choice as condos will be
needed. He further asserted that rentals don’t create a community. There is significant turnover of
residents, approaching 50% per year, in rentals, resulting in a lack of integration to the local
community. Also, the result of the parking ratios in the existing high-density rentals has resulted in
clearly increased traffic and especially parking saturation on all the surrounding streets, including
north Cherry Lane – almost ½ mile from the BART entry gates.
•Staff Response: The parking ratios at the existing transit village development have been
adequate. There have not been issues with tenants unable to park in the lots provided. ((MORE
about “creating community””)). Building for-sale units does not guarantee owner occupancy. In
June 2013, 50 percent of owners within the four main condominium projects rented out their units.
This increased to 58 percent by September 2014.
•Response from Mark Farrar: He commented that San Francisco renters are moving out to
transit-oriented projects, including PH BART, to lower their rental costs.
•A community member expressed frustration as to why the Transit Village wasn’t completed by
now.
•Response from Mark Farrar: He responded by summarizing the progress to date, and the
financial headwinds of the recession which has delayed the build out of Blocks C and D.
•A community member stated that it feels like you're going back to the community and saying
thanks for participating in the charrette but we don't really care. Creating more rental is dependent
on community. Walnut Creek project is making 48 unit project pencil out. We want community
here. The rate at a rate that Avalon turns tenants around is high. Cherry Lane traffic has definitely
been impacted by Avalon project and has brought a lot of traffic and parking issuesWhy are you
asking for another approval you? You already had it just build it.
•Response from Mark Farrar: Mark’s response was we will look into the parking issue and we will
look at the Riviera project in W alnut Creek condominiums.
•A community member asked what sort of profit margin is expected in this project. Mark Farrar
responded that apartments are not as risky as condominiums.
•Marylee Martinez asked why there was any commercial space planned for Block C considering
Millennium’s assertion that it would not be feasible and there were ongoing problems with filling in
the existing commercial capacity. Farrar responded that they are on their 3rd vendor to help them
populate the commercial areas, and that it has been frustrating to explain why more retail
occupancy has not occurred.
•A community member commented that parking is a real problem now around the transit village.
His opinion is that 100 owners are much more preferable to 200 renters with no buy-in to the
neighborhood. Why is this being allowed?
•Staff Response: Maureen Toms from the County responded that this change will need to be
reviewed by the County Planning Commission, following a public outreach where the proposal can
be discussed.
•Sherryl Brinkley asked about the parking spaces ratio for the apartments compared to the condos.
Attachment J
•Response from Mark Farrar: He responded that the condo parking ratio was 2+ cars per condo,
while the apartment ratio would be 1.23 per unit with 200 apartments.
•Karen Mitchoff stated that the Planning Commission will make a decision and then it can be
appealed to the Board of Supervisors. She stated that BART owns the property and does not want
to sell, but rather they want a ground lease that serve them better. It's hard to get somebody to
want to develop when they aren't going to own the property. BART staff recommended to the
Board a ground lease instead of a sale. It's not necessarily a board opinion.
o She further informed that BART now wants a 99 year ground lease, not a for-sale
agreement on Block C. She said that the agreement to sell Block C land expired in 2011.
This significantly contributes to the non-viability of condo construction.
o She summarized how the JPA is organized now, and expressed disappointment that BART
representatives were not present at the meeting. She asserted that it is essentially a BART
proposal that is in front of the community today. County is not the driver here – it is BART.
o Karen has been involved in Contra Costa government under multiple supervisors and roles
for 30 years, and stated that PH BART land is a county asset of key value from a planning
perspective.
•Staff Response: The purchase agreement for Block C expired in 2011 and there is currently not a
proposal to renew it. The JPA (County and BART) have been working with BART and the
developer to complete the transit village with a development that is both feasible to the developer
and benefit BART and the County. A long-term revenue stream through a ground lease would
benefit BART and would retain underlying ownership of the property by the public agency.
Investment on the property would also benefit the County through property tax revenue.
•Peter Duncan clarified that the exclusive agreement with Millennium Partners was the reason that
an RFP for condos could not be put forward. He then asked whether BART could lower the price
of their land to make the deal more feasible. Karen agreed to the first point, but could not
comment on the second with no one from BART present to corroborate.
•A community member then stated that there are increasing problems with fire and police support.
Apartments are known to generate more problems in these areas than owner occupied properties.
There will also be more traffic with 200 new units. Supervisor Mitchoff responded that with
increasing county revenues more support can be funded.
•Larry McEwen asked Mr. Farrar to confirm that the project is currently profitable with only two of
the four revenue-generating blocks completed. Larry asked whether we are trying to maximize
profits by using apartments instead of condos
•Response from Mark Farrar: Mr. Farrar confirmed that the existing development has been
profitable. Mr. Farrar said that condos do not financially work out, especially under the new
recommendation from BART staff to structure it as a 99 year ground lease. Farrar said the his
company feels – and has always held the position - that condo development needs to be ‘fee
simple’ – a sale of the land.
•Staff Response: Maureen Toms confirmed that BART policy is for leasing property adjacent to
their stations, rather than selling land and since the agreement to sell Block C land expired in
2011, it is a new negotiation on this point.
•A community member then asked which would generate more taxes.
•Response from Mark Farrar: Mr. Farrar confirmed that 200 rentals will generate the same taxes as
approximately 120 condos. I don’t think this answer was recorded properly. It should be
researched further.
Attachment J
• Staff Response: The property taxes generated on a project are based on the value. The value of
the current proposal is higher than that which was previously approved, therefore the property txes
generated will be higher.
• (Mrs. McEwen) clarified that the building design went from 4 – 6 stories, and asked if there was a
low-income component. It was confirmed that the height increase occurred, and that there is no
requirement for low-income housing on Block C. It was fulfilled by Blocks A / B.
• .
Attachment J
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment K
July 28, 2014
Jeffrey Peckham
President
Walden District Improvement Association
15 Foss Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Dear Mr. Peckham:
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the possible development of Block C. The
development of the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village would not be what it is today without the input of the
community members such as the Walden District Improvement Association. The commitment remains to
include the community in the process as we develop the final phases of the project. The two biggest changes
that have occurred over the last 10 years, which were not a part of the discussion in 2001, are the elimination of
the Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the unexpected downturn in the real estate market.
The Specific Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area adopted in 1983 and amended in 1999 provided for
Transit Oriented Development with high density multiple-family housing and office uses with heights of up to
12-stories. The 2001 Charrette was intended to more precisely design the BART property at the center of the
larger Specific Plan area. The Charrette outcome did not result in an increase in density or building heights not
already contemplated by the Specific Plan. The results of the Charrette were memorialized in the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Summary Report, October 2001; The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code-
Architectural Standards; The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code – Principals and Regulations.
The November 5, 2002 adoption of the Preliminary Development Plan incorporated these documents. The
documents remain posted on the following website:
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/charrette/outcome/outcome.htm .
I would like to address the “broken promises” you presented in your letter to me.
Drawings presented during the Charrette process depicted a three-story project which, in some parts,
now stretches up to six stories
o The plans shown in the Charrette included a series of design schemes at several heights that
evolved during the Charrette. The outcome of the Charrette included a seven-story mixed use
building along Treat Boulevard that transitioned to four stories on the northern 2/3rds of Blocks A
and B. Block D was clearly identified as a 12-story office building at the outcome of the
Charrette. These drawings with clearly identified heights are identified in the Summary Report,
October 2001, as well as the other documents referenced above that were drafted to document
Attachment L
Walden District Improvement Association
Page 2
July 28, 2014
the outcome of the Charrette. Numerous public meetings were held that clearly described the
proposed project. In addition, the documents describing the plan were made widely available
prior to the Planning Commission consideration of the plan. This process was open and
accusations of misleading the community are inaccurate and unwarranted.
A promise of a 2,000 plus square foot space available for public use did not “pencil out” when the
building was completed.
o The Charrette estimated approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of civic/public use within the plan area.
These uses include public parks, squares, possible day care, cultural/educational uses,
community theater, library, Iron Horse Trail head, and/or bicycle facilities. The village green
and town square have been completed. The plan proposed the civic building to be located on
Block C. Efforts to move the civic use to one of the existing buildings prior to the elimination of
Redevelopment by co-locating the Contra Costa Centre office and a meeting room were not
pursued after a meeting in my office in August of 2011 in which members of Walden stated they
were not interested in the space that was being offered. Significant effort was put into planning
the space given the reality of the loss of the Redevelopment Agency. The County was ready to
move forward on the development of the civic space if the community would have given their
approval to do so. Despite the loss of the major funding source to construct a civic use, staff
continues to look into alternative means to provide the civic use in either a future block or one of
the existing blocks. BART is currently seeking grant funds to provide a bicycle facility on the
site.
The demise of the Redevelopment Agency has put the ongoing need of maintenance funding for Walden
I in Question.
o Although Redevelopment Agency funds were used for construction of Walden I, those funds
were never intended to be a source of maintenance funds. You are correct that there is a need to
identify a long-term source of maintenance funds for Walden I. The loss of Redevelopment has
no bearing on this question.
The community did not get promised green space in the center of the development; it got cemented over,
and the open space shrank by some 20% due to poor planning by the architects regarding fire equipment
access. This was supposed to have provided a transition from the Transit Village to the Iron Horse Trail.
o The Village Green location was moved from a median island to be connected to Block C. The
move was due to the Fire Department’s 20 ft. clearance requirements on each side of the median
island. The change resulted in better pedestrian access to the green space as it was no longer
necessary to cross a lane of traffic to access the space. The green space still serves as a
connection between the Iron Horse Trail and the Town Plaza. In addition, this change was
brought before the Planning Commission during a public hearing when the Final Development
Plan was considered. Although the change was a necessary deviation from the Charrette
outcome, the space turned out much better than first conceived.
It is correct that the recent downturn in the housing market resulted in a delay to the development to Block C.
The developer is proposing a denser apartment project, similar to those in Blocks A, B, and E. Due to the
success of the existing development, the market conditions, the fact that 50 percent of the for-sale townhouses
in the BART station area are occupied by renters, and the proposal’s consistency with the Specific Plan, the
members of the JPA thought it would be reasonable to consider the Block C proposal. The proposal is not yet at
a point where it can move forward. The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) calls for a report describing
Attachment L
Walden District Improvement Association
Page 3
July 28, 2014
the market of for-sale housing units and rental units. The ENA further calls for the developer to prepare a
public outreach program for their proposal. These two pieces have not been prepared yet because currently the
parties do not have a business deal to move forward. If a business agreement can be reached, the proposal will
move forward into the public realm, then to the Planning Commission for consideration. The proposal has not
evolved to the modification to the Development Plan phase yet.
If it were determined that a 100-unit for sale project could be built under the current market conditions, Avalon
would be able to develop a for sale property themselves or in joint venture with another developer by
establishing a taxable REIT subsidiary.
As you know, a member of my staff attends the Contra Costa Centre Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)
meetings on a regular basis; she reports to me that, on occasion, there have been members of the Avalon
Community in attendance. I am unable to comment on the participation of these residents in the Walden
meetings.
To reiterate, there has been no report to the MAC on the Block C proposal, because it is premature. The
negotiations taking place are legal in nature and are not a public process. The real estate study is a part of these
negotiations and is not a public document. To release the report would compromise our negotiations. If the
framework for a business agreement is made, the process of considering the changes to the entitlements will
move forward. This phase will involve public participation through Walden and MAC meetings before it
advances to the Planning Commission for consideration. At present, however, there is not an agreement to
discuss. I can assure you that the matter will be brought before the MAC when it is appropriate to do so.
If you would like to further discuss this matter, please call my office and we can schedule an appointment with
you and others who may wish to attend.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff
Enclosure
Cc: Senator Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Candace Andersen
Director Gail Murray
Attachment L
Attachment M
Attachment M
Attachment M
Attachment M
Attachment M
Attachment M
KMA Response to Donna Gerber Letter 3.11.15.docx
KMA Response to Donna Gerber Letter
1. The economics of Block C should not be analyzed piecemeal and therefore, the
conclusions of the KM report are fundamentally flawed.
Response:
An outside developer coming in to purchase Block C and develop a high density
condominium project would not benefit from income generated by the existing Phase 1
development. An economic analysis inclusive of Phase 1 would only be applicable to
Avalon Bay and Millennium Partners and both have indicated that they would not move
forward with the condominium project today.
2. The Transit Village is a BART/County public project that has benefitted from huge
infusions of public tax funding. It is not a private development like the condo
projects KM compared it to . . . Shouldn’t BART keep its word to provide for sale
residential units on Block C after County RDA largely paid for the expansion of
BART’s parking garage?
Response:
This comment appears to relate to public policy issues, not project economics. However,
it is worth noting that, while the County did provide public funding for the project, the
County will also be the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenues from the
overall transit village project over the course of the lease term.
3. KM bases their negative economic conclusion regarding condos on the high cost
of subterranean parking, however, subterranean parking was never required in the
original design and should not be a part of the comparison.
Response:
KMA’s analysis was based on the approved development plan for Block C, which
included subterranean parking. At this time, there is no alternative condo plan to
analyze. It is noted that if the approved project did not have subterranean parking, the
result would be a taller building overall.
4. KM bases their negative economic conclusion regarding condos on the cost of
“prevailing wage” but rental units will also require prevailing wage as did the
apartments built on Blocks A and B so this is at best confusing and at worst
manipulative.
Response:
KMA has acknowledged from the outset that prevailing wages would be a requirement
for both condominiums and apartments. The primary point made in the analysis is that
prevailing wages is not a requirement that applies to most other projects in the local
market and therefore it is a cost factor that needs to be accounted for. It would be wholly
inaccurate to analyze the economics of either project alternative without prevailing
wages.
5. The KM analysis doesn’t appropriately account for the cyclical nature of real
estate development. It concludes that the condo market isn’t high enough right
Attachment N
KMA Response to Donna Gerber Letter 3.11.15.docx
now based upon a simple comparison with other single use condo projects in the
area. At best this project won’t be completed for three years. KM does not know
what the market will be in 3 years.
Response:
KMA acknowledges that we do not know what the market will be in three years. In light
of the events of the Great Recession, it would be very difficult for any developer to obtain
the necessary debt and equity financing based on speculation as to where the real
estate market will be three years out. For a developer to obtain financing, it is necessary
for them to provide convincing evidence of the project’s financial feasibility. Based on
KMA’s evaluation, we do not see that such evidence exists for the for-sale condo
alternative.
6. The KM analysis is not based upon construction cost pro forma specific to
Block C; rather it is a compilation of costs from other KM projects by private
developers. This is speculative and generalized, and not useful in this case.
Response:
The use of current market cost data from other similar construction projects is a standard
and routine approach to analyze the economics of new development projects at this
early stage. The current plans for the site are conceptual in nature and are not
sufficiently developed for a detailed project-specific cost estimate.
7. The KM analysis doesn’t give proper attention to the unique qualities that would
attribute to the value of Block C within the transit village and therefore it’s not
apples to apples.
Response:
KMA agrees that Block C has unique qualities and represents an excellent opportunity
for residential development. The problem is that the condo sale prices that can likely be
achieved, even accounting for Block C’s unique qualities, are not at a sufficient level for
financial feasibility. The comparable sale price data utilized in the analysis is derived
from projects like 555 YVR, The Mercer, and Montecito, all of which are high-quality
condo projects in Walnut Creek with many of the same attributes as Block C.
8. The KM analysis puts all future mixed use transit developments in question
because if followed by the JPA it devalues the unique consensus achieved for this
transit village.
Response:
From our discussions with senior BART staff, it is KMA’s understanding that the
consensus arrived at through the charrette process involved a wide range of issues, of
which the for-sale vs. rental issue was only a minor part. In addition, in light of the
significant percentage of condominiums in the greater Transit Village area that are not
owner occupied, BART staff believes the fact that the proposed development for Block C
will be rental rather than for-sale residences will not devalue the uniqueness of the
Transit Village. The significant elements which establish the quality and uniqueness of
the proposed apartment project are its architectural, landscape, and place-making
features which are critical to integrating into the fabric of the existing Transit Village. The
fact that the original architect for the initial phase has been engaged to design the
proposed second phase helps to ensure this continuity of design. Additionally, an
Attachment N
KMA Response to Donna Gerber Letter 3.11.15.docx
independent architectural firm has been engaged to ensure that the ultimate design,
landscape, and other elements of the proposed project conform with the Form Based
Code established specifically for the Transit Village.
9. There are also indications of overestimation of costs in the KM pro forma that
cause pause re: condo economic feasibility conclusions. Some of them are: $150
per square foot for land is high and is based upon a single Berkeley sale in 2013;
the projected cost per stall of parking for the condo project at $37,500 per stall
may be 20% high (other bay area structured/subterranean $20-30Kper stall) and as
previously stated, the costs associated with the prevailing wage requirement are
used to increase costs by $4.5 million which should not be considered a factor.
These and other possible overestimates might make ANY project infeasible on
paper.
Response:
Regarding the land cost acquisition assumption: It is ultimately the decision of the
landowner, BART, to agree to sell or not sell the land and at what price. KMA
collaborated with BART staff on the land price assumption in the analysis. As stated in
the report, BART expects that a premium price would be needed in order for BART to
sell the site.
Regarding the subterranean parking garage cost: Based on the parking layout shown in
the approved plans, it has been assumed that a portion of the garage will be two levels
below grade. Garage costs increase for the second level of subterranean garage. An
average cost of $37,500/stall is determined to be a reasonable estimate for the garage
as it is currently designed. We are not aware of subterranean parking garages similar to
that proposed for Block C that are being built today for as low as $20,000/stall.
Regarding prevailing wages: see Response #4 above.
Attachment N
Page intentionally left blank
160 Pacific Avenue, SUITE 204 ! San Francisco, CALIFORNIA 94111 ! PHONE: 415 398 3050 ! FAX: 415 397 5065
001-002; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 11270.005
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
KATE EARLE FUNK
DEBBIE M. KERN
REED T. KAWAHARA
DAVID DOEZEMA
LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO-HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY
SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
MEMORANDUM
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (JPA)
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA)
Date:November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis
In furtherance of our work with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (JPA),
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has undertaken a preliminary assessment of the
potential for residential condominium development on Block C at Contra Costa Centre.
The assessment is considered preliminary because project planning is at a conceptual
stage only and many requisite technical studies have not been performed. Nonetheless,
the analysis is considered to be at a level sufficient to inform basic land use decisions.
In summary and as further described in this memorandum, KMA has determined that
development of high density residential condominiums on Block C is not feasible today
and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. The existing market data and
development economics for a high density, prevailing wage condominium project
indicate that, even for this premium BART location, it would be difficult to attract a
reputable and experienced condominium developer to undertake the high quality project
that is expected for this site. In practical terms, staying with a for-sale condo project on
Block C would result in a delay of construction start for reasons not limited to financial
feasibility. The following steps would be needed before construction of Block C could
begin: (1) BART and the County would need to authorize a new developer RFQ (if a new
developer is desired), (2) a new developer is selected, (3) new business terms are
negotiated, (4) project approvals are obtained, (5) construction documents are prepared,
and (6) project financing and construction contracts are finalized.
The following are the key factors influencing the financial feasibility conclusions:
" The local apartment market still produces superior economic returns than
condominiums, as exhibited in part by the much larger number of new
apartments being built than condos as well as the fact that many condominium
units in the market today continue to be rented rather than sold.
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 2
001-002; jf
11270.005
" The proposed project will be more costly to build than the vast majority of market
rate condominium projects in the East Bay due to a combination of: (1) the
subterranean parking and (2) the prevailing wage requirement.
" Building a large number of condominiums (100-150) in a single phase project
involves a high level of risk that many suburban developers will shy away from
based on today’s market conditions.
" Condominium prices are not high enough to support financial feasibility for the
Block C project and price appreciation going forward will be constrained by
factors such as rising mortgage interest rates, slow growth of household
incomes, and the inventory of unsold (rented) condo units in the market.
I. Background
Block C is an approximately 1.61-acre vacant land parcel located in Contra Costa Centre
in unincorporated Contra Costa County, straddling the border of Pleasant Hill and
Walnut Creek. The site is immediately adjacent to the southern entrance to the Pleasant
Hill BART station and immediately north of the initial phase of the mixed-use Transit
Village project built by AvalonBay Apartment Communities under a ground lease with the
JPA. Block C is owned by BART and development of the site falls under the jurisdiction
of the JPA, whose members are BART and Contra Costa County.
Under the original agreement between the JPA and AvalonBay, entered into in
December 2005, Block C was intended to be developed with an approximately 100-unit
for-sale residential condominium development. The original condo project plan, with a
residential density of 62 units per acre, featured four levels of condo flats, a small
number of two-story units, a 1 ½ level subterranean parking garage, and a small
retail/civic space on the ground floor (for reference, the original plans for the 100-unit
condo project are included in Appendix A). As further explained in Section III of this
memorandum, this feasibility analysis also considers a 150-unit alternative to assess the
extent to which additional units improves financial feasibility.
In large part due to the onset of the recession in 2008 and the resulting severe decline in
home prices, the planned condominium project did not proceed. More recently,
AvalonBay has proposed developing Block C with rental apartments rather than the
condominiums originally planned and to increase the number of units from 100 to 200.
These changes were made in order to improve the economics of the project and to
generate a fair return on BART’s land. BART and Contra Costa County are considering
the change from condominiums to apartments and the increase in building density in
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 3
001-002; jf
11270.005
order to ensure that a developer is on board in the near term and is contractually
obligated to proceed with developing this next phase of the Transit Village project1. It is
the shared goal of BART and the County to develop Block C with a high density
residential project as soon as possible.
In recognition of the fact that Block C was originally intended to be developed with
condominiums, the JPA has requested that KMA assess the local condominium market
in order to determine whether it would be financially feasible to proceed with a high
density condo project rather than the apartment project being discussed with AvalonBay.
II. Overview of Multi-family Residential Market
a) Condominium Market
In 2005 when the agreement between the JPA and AvalonBay was entered into, market
conditions were favorable for condominium development. Higher density multi-family
developments requiring structured parking garages were being developed in San
Francisco and in select East Bay locations. Local projects that were developed at or
around that time included the Mercer and Montecito projects in downtown Walnut Creek
and Renaissance Phase I in downtown Concord. Some of the units in those projects
were initially rented rather than sold due to the decline in home prices from the
recession. In fact, given the continued strength of the rental market, the developers of
some condominium projects are electing to continue to rent units rather than sell them.
As one example, public records indicate that nearly half of the condo units in the 555
YVR project in Walnut Creek (discussed further in Section III) have never been sold and
instead are being rented2.
The 2008 recession brought with it a severe decline in home values throughout the Bay
Area. As can be seen in the following Figure 1, median home values in Walnut Creek
and Pleasant Hill declined dramatically between 2006 and 2011. The prices have been
on the rise since 20123.
1 As was the case for the Phase 1 project, the Block C DDA would require AvalonBay to adhere
to specific predevelopment and construction milestones pursuant to a schedule of performance.
2 Additionally, public records indicate that the homeowners of well over 50% of the units in
several condominium projects around Contra Costa Centre do not occupy the units as their
principal place of residence.
3 Median home prices include single family homes as well as condominiums. The data for condos
alone is more susceptible to statistical anomalies from year to year because of the relatively small
sample size. Data from the Contra Costa Association of Realtors indicates that, county-wide, the
condo market experienced a similar price trend as the larger market as shown in Figure 1.
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 4
001-002; jf
11270.005
Figure 1. Median Home Prices
Source: Dataquick; construction cost inflation based on ENR Building Cost Index
Although median home prices in these cities are now close to their pre-recession highs,
construction costs have also been increasing. When home prices are adjusted for
construction cost inflation, the home prices are still well below their pre-recession highs
(also shown in Figure 1). Over the past ten years, construction cost inflation in the San
Francisco Bay Area has averaged approximately 3.7% per year4.
Another factor contributing to the recent rise in home values has been low mortgage
interest rates, which are now hovering close to 4% for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. As
recently as 2000, 30-year fixed mortgage interest rates were at 8%. An increase in
interest rates, which many economists expect to occur gradually going forward, would
have the effect of putting downward pressure on home prices.
A related issue to mortgage interest rates is that mortgage financing standards have
become stricter in the post-recession era, including higher credit and income
requirements. The ability to obtain mortgage financing also affects the down payment
that is needed to purchase a home. Assuming a 20% down payment, a condominium
4 Source: Engineering News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index.
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2005200620072008200920102011201220132014Median Home Prices
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2005200620072008200920102011201220132014Adjusted for Construction Cost Inflation
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013Figure 2. 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rates
Freddie Mac
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 5
001-002; jf
11270.005
priced in the $650,000 to $700,000 range would require a $130,000 to $140,000 down
payment. Prospective homebuyers often find that the down payment requirements are a
more significant challenge than affording the mortgage itself.
The increasing home prices in the East Bay have resulted in new home construction,
however most recent new for-sale residential development in Contra Costa County has
been single family detached homes or lower density attached homes such as
townhouses. These products yield overall residential densities of no more than 25 to 30
dwelling units per acre, far lower than the 62 units per acre that is required to develop
100 units on Block C. The higher densities envisioned for Block C are achieved by doing
the following5:
" Building smaller units;
" Stacking units on top of one another;
" Providing parking in a common garage and, in the case of Block C, placing the
garage underground;
" Not providing some amenities common to many residential developments such
as a swimming pool and clubhouse.
All of these factors have important implications for project feasibility, which is described
further in Section III of this memorandum.
b) Apartment Market
For the last several years the rental apartment market has been the strongest real estate
sector in the Bay Area. Paired with rising rents and stable occupancy rates, the
apartment sector has attracted significant investment resulting in tens of thousands of
new units being developed in San Francisco, the Peninsula, Silicon Valley, and more
recently, the East Bay. Nearby examples of higher density apartment projects in the
development pipeline are listed in the following table. All of these projects include
stacked flat units and structured parking garages. By comparison, there are few high
density condo projects in the development pipeline and those projects are generally
smaller6.
5 Another factor impacting the efficient layout of Block C is the site’s irregular (triangular) share.
6 The two largest condo projects in the development pipeline are The Village Mixed Use condo
project in downtown Walnut Creek (49 units) and Town Center III condos in downtown Lafayette
(72 units). It is also notable that as of the time of this writing, the developer of the Village project
had not actually decided if the project’s residential units would be initially sold or rented (the
project is mapped for condos but could initially be rented if the developer so chose).
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 6
001-002; jf
11270.005
Figure 3. Pipeline Apartment Projects (partial list) Units Developer Status
BRIO Apartment Community, Walnut Creek 300 SummerHill In construction
The Arroyo Apartments, Walnut Creek 100 Hall Equities In construction
North Main Apartments, Walnut Creek 126 Mill Creek In construction
Walnut Creek BART Transit Village 596 BRE/Essex Approved
Renaissance Phase 2, Concord 179 Fairfield Approved
The Landing at Walnut Creek 178 CenterStreet Under Review
Source: Pipeline Project reports for cities of Walnut Creek and Concord
Apartment rents have seen a dramatic rise beginning in 2010. As shown on the following
charts, unlike median home prices, current rents are above pre-recession levels even
when adjusted for construction cost inflation.
Figure 4. Average Apartment Rents – Contra Costa County
Source: Real Facts
The strength of the apartment market has also been supported by low capitalization
rates (“cap rates”) in recent years. The cap rate represents the relationship between an
apartment project’s net operating income (NOI) and the project’s market value. There is
an inverse relationship between cap rates and values; therefore the recent low
apartment cap rate environment reflects high apartment values. As an example, a
hypothetical apartment project generating $20,000/year in NOI would yield a project
value of $416,000/unit based on a 4.8% cap rate ($20,000 ÷ 4.8%) but only a
$274,000/unit value based on a 7.3% cap rate ($20,000 ÷ 7.3%), assuming the 2014
and 2010 figures in the chart below. The recent low apartment cap rates reflect a very
strong apartment market.
$900
$1,100
$1,300
$1,500
$1,700
200620072008200920102011201220132014Average Apartment Rent
$900
$1,100
$1,300
$1,500
$1,700
200620072008200920102011201220132014Adjusted for Construction Cost Inflation
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 7
001-002; jf
11270.005
Source: PwC Real Estate Investor Survey
In summary, the local rental apartment market remains strong as exhibited by rising
rents, low capitalization rates, and continued apartment construction activity in the local
development pipeline.
III. Pro forma Feasibility Analysis
In order to test the financial feasibility of for-sale condominiums on Block C, KMA ran a
development pro forma under two density alternatives, the first with the approved plans
for a 100-unit condo project and the second with 150 units. The 150-unit alternative is a
rough approximation of the condo project that could be built within the building envelope
of the 200-unit apartment project being discussed with AvalonBay. The condominium
project yields fewer units than the apartments because condo unit sizes are typically
larger7.
The pro forma estimates the costs to build the project including land acquisition, direct
construction costs, and indirect and financing costs. The output of the pro forma is the
average condo sale price required for project feasibility. The following summarizes the
major inputs into the pro forma. Further detail on the pro formas is included in Appendix
B.
7 The approved condominium plans for Block C have an average unit size of 1,200 square feet
while the average unit size for the proposed apartments is approximately 930 square feet.
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 5. Overall Apartment Cap Rates
Pacific Region
Cap Rate Hypothetical Unit Value
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 8
001-002; jf
11270.005
a) Land Acquisition Costs
As a general matter of policy, BART prefers to ground lease its land rather than sell.
Additionally, BART prefers rental apartment projects over for-sale condominiums. Some
of the key reasons why BART generally takes these policy stances are:
1. With ground leases, BART retains fee ownership of the land. Once the term of
the ground lease expires, both the land and improvements on the land revert
back to BART. In doing so, BART retains long-term control of its strategically
located land assets and also allows BART to realize additional land value when
the property is ultimately redeveloped.
2. Ground leases produce a long-term income stream to BART, which in many
cases is preferable to a lump sum land purchase.
3. From an operational point of view, it is generally more manageable for BART to
interface with a single apartment owner/operator rather than individual
condominium homeowners or a homeowners association.
4. For Contra Costa Centre in particular, there are advantages to maintaining the
continuity of ownership with AvalonBay. As the owner of the Phase I project and
as master developer of the overall Transit Village project, AvalonBay has a
vested interest in maintaining the high-quality of all components of the project
(i.e. residential, retail, and public spaces) in order ensure that the project
minimizes competing interests and functions well as a whole.
In order to persuade BART to sell its land for a condo project and set aside its policy
preference for a ground lease, there would need to be a compelling economic reason to
do so. As such, this financial feasibility analysis assumes that if BART were to sell its
land, the purchase price would need to be at a substantial premium. The following table
summarizes the upper end sale prices of East Bay multi-family land.
Figure 6. Higher Value East Bay Multi-family Land Sales
Location Acres Sale Date Units Sale Price
Total Price $/SF $/Unit
1 1200 Ashby Ave,
Berkeley
0.79 5/31/2013 98 $5,105,000 $148 $52,100
2 37350 Sequoia Rd,
Fremont
4.55 9/3/2014 132 $13,300,000 $67 $100,800
3 207 Ygnacio Valley
Rd, Walnut Creek
1.33 In
Contract
133 $5,800,000 $100 $43,600
4 Stevenson Place,
Fremont
2.01 For Sale N/Av $6,000,000 $69
Source: CoStar
Given Block C’s unique locational advantages adjacent to the BART station and within
the existing Transit Village project, Block C should be able to command a high land
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 9
001-002; jf
11270.005
value. However, the land value for Block C also needs to recognize the cost of the
prevailing wage requirement. This financial feasibility analysis assumes a pre-adjusted
land value of $10.5 million based on a $150 per square foot value for the 1.61-acre site.
This value is then downwardly adjusted for the cost of prevailing wages since prevailing
wages are not a requirement of the other land sale sites.
Unadjusted Land Value $10.5 million
(Less) Prevailing Wage Adjustment ($4.5 million)
Adjusted Block C Land Value $6.0 million
b) Direct Construction Costs
Direct construction costs include all labor and materials costs related to direct
construction of the site and building, including general conditions, contractor fees, and
contingency. The cost estimate is based on third party construction data sources such
as RS Means as well as KMA’s experience with similar building types in other current
East Bay projects. The construction costs for the proposed project would be higher than
many other projects in the local market for a variety of reasons:
" Prevailing Wages. Projects that pay prevailing union wages are more costly than
projects that do not. The cost premium associated with prevailing wages varies
by trade, however for the primarily wood frame building proposed for Block C the
cost premium for prevailing wages would be significant.
" Subterranean Parking. The approved Block C project includes a costly
subterranean parking garage. The subterranean parking allows for a more
aesthetically pleasing building, however subterranean parking is substantially
more expensive than alternative parking formats (e.g. at-grade podium or stand-
alone garage).
" Quality of Materials, Finishes, and Appliances. Construction costs tend to be
slightly higher for condominiums than for apartments because homebuyers
generally expect a higher quality of materials, finishes, and appliances.
In total, the direct construction costs are estimated at $37 million for the 100-unit
alternative and $56 million for the 150-unit alternative.
c) Indirect Development Costs
Indirect development costs include non-direct construction costs including architecture
and engineering costs (A&E), municipal fees and permits costs, marketing, taxes,
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 10
001-002; jf
11270.005
insurance, overhead, and financing. As with direct construction costs, indirect
development costs also tend to be higher for condominium projects as compared to
apartments; among the reasons are:
" Financing Costs. Financing costs are typically high for high-density condominium
projects because all of the project costs are incurred in a single phase and condo
sale revenues are not generated until the project is completed and the units are
absorbed over an extended sales period. With lower density projects, such as
townhomes, smaller increments of units can be built in multiple phases which
results in less debt and equity outstanding at any given time.
" Marketing Costs. Similar to financing costs, marketing costs are typically higher
for condominium projects than apartments because it takes longer to fully sell out
a condo project than it would to fully lease a comparably sized apartment project.
" Insurance Costs. Insurance costs are typically higher for condominiums than
apartments because these high density condo projects require construction
defect liability coverage. This type of insurance is not needed for rental projects.
" Miscellaneous Condominium Costs. Condominium projects have certain indirect
costs that are not applicable to apartment projects such as the costs to fund
homeowner warranties and the funding of homeowner association (HOA) dues
until the units are sold.
In total, the indirect costs are estimated at $15 million for the 100-unit alternative and
$22 million for the 150-unit alternative.
d) Condo Sale Price Needed for Financial Feasibility
The total land, direct, and indirect cost to develop the 100-unit and 150-unit alternatives
are $58.2 million and $83.5 million. To this figure, the following adjustments are made:
" Value of Retail Space. The retail space in the project will have a value based on
its income potential and this value represents an offset to the development costs.
However, the value of the retail space is less than the associated costs of
development. Therefore, in effect, the residential units are subsidizing the
commercial space.
" Cost of Residential Sales. Transaction costs associated with sale of the
condominium units, such as broker commissions and closing costs, are an added
cost of development.
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 11
001-002; jf
11270.005
" Development Return. In order to attract the necessary debt and equity
investment in the project, there will need to be an adequate return, or profit
margin, reflecting the risks of the project. Because the project is a large, high
density, stacked flat condo development and is still a pioneering development in
a largely suburban environment, this project has a much higher risk profile than
many residential projects in the market. The development return is estimated by
KMA at 13% of gross residential sales.
" BART Transit Benefit Fee. For condominium projects built on land sold by BART,
BART policy is that all units in the project have a Transit Benefit Fee covenant
allowing BART to receive a small percentage of all condominium unit sales – the
initial sale and all subsequent sales. The assumption in this analysis is that 1.5%
of the sale price of each unit in the project would need to be paid to BART8.
Accounting for the above factors, the 100-unit project would require condominium sale
proceeds of $70.5 million, or $705,000/unit. For the 150-unit project, the condo sale
price needed for feasibility would be approximately $677,000/unit. The feasible price is
lower for the 150-unit alternative because the $6 million land acquisition cost is spread
over more units, thereby reducing the land cost on a per-unit basis.
Figure 7. Pro forma Summary 100-Unit Condo
Alternative
150-Unit Condo
Alternative
Per Unit Total Per Unit Total
Development Costs
Land Acquisition $60,000 $6,000,000 $40,000 $6,000,000
Direct Construction $374,400 $37,440,000 $372,000 $55,800,000
Indirects & Financing $148,100 $14,810,000 $145,100 $21,770,000
Subtotal $582,500 $58,250,000 $557,100 $83,570,000
(Less) Value of Retail Space ($5,600) ($560,000) ($3,700) ($560,000)
Cost of Sales $26,400 $2,640,000 $25,400 $3,810,000
Development Return $91,700 $9,170,000 $88,000 $13,200,000
BART Transit Benefit Fee $10,600 $1,058,000 $10,200 $1,523,000
Total Net Development Costs $705,600 $70,558,000 $677,000 $101,543,000
Average Condo Sale Price Needed
for Financial Feasibility $705,600 $677,000
Note: The per unit costs are higher for the Block C condo project than they would be for the Block C
apartment project because the condos are significantly larger. Further pro forma detail is provided in
Appendix B.
8 The original 2006 purchase and sale agreement for Block C, which is now expired, specified
that BART would receive sale price participation equal to 50% above a pre-specified price per
unit. BART staff has indicated that any new agreement for Block C condominiums would include
the Transit Benefit Fee.
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 12
001-002; jf
11270.005
e) Analysis & Conclusions
In order to assess whether the above sale prices are supportable in the current market,
KMA surveyed condominium sales in select projects that we believe bracket the upper
and lower end of the range that could be expected for a Block C condominium project.
First, it is important to recognize that there are very few condominium projects in the
local market with direct comparability to Block C because of the high density nature of
the proposed development as well as its location right on the border of Pleasant Hill and
Walnut Creek. Home values are generally higher in Walnut Creek than Pleasant Hill due
in part to the more highly rated schools and the popularity of downtown Walnut Creek as
a retail, dining, and entertainment destination. On the other hand, Block C has the
advantage of its proximity adjacent to the BART station which allows for convenient
transit accessibility.
The projects included in KMA’s survey were: The Mercer, a “luxury” project in the heart
of downtown Walnut Creek; 555 YVR, a newer high density condo project near the
Walnut Creek BART station; Montecito, a high density condo project on the southern
end of downtown Walnut Creek; Walden Park Condominiums, a newer townhouse-style
development located off Oak Road midway between the Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek
BART stations; and Iron Horse Lofts, immediately to the north of the BART station on
Coggins and Las Juntas. It is noted that unit pricing is not yet available for the one
higher density condominium project now in construction – the Village mixed use project
in downtown Walnut Creek.
The following chart plots sales of units in these projects in 2013 and 2014 (through
August)9:
9 Note: two short sales from Iron Horse Lofts have been excluded because the low sale prices are
not representative of the market. Additionally, units smaller than 900 square feet have not been
included.
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 13
001-002; jf
11270.005
The following is an overview of KMA’s observations regarding these projects:
" The Mercer – This project is located at 1655 N. California Boulevard in the heart
of downtown Walnut Creek. It is considered one of the most desirable
condominium developments in the area due to its premium location and
amenities, such as a swimming pool, which the Block C plans do not have. For
these reasons, KMA would not expect condominiums on Block C to achieve
prices comparable to The Mercer. Nonetheless, it does represent an upper end
price point in the market for a condominium project with similar physical
characteristics and density as Block C.
" 555 YVR – This project is also similar to the Block C project with respect to
building type and density. Like Block C and The Mercer, it is a multi-story
development with a common parking garage on the ground floor. Built in 2009-
2010, it is located on Ygnacio Valley Road just 1 ½ blocks from the Walnut Creek
BART station and within walking distance of downtown Walnut Creek. We
believe this project represents the upper end of the range of prices that Block C
could potentially achieve. As noted previously, close to half of the units in this
project have never been sold and instead are being rented.
" Montecito – This project is located in the southwest corner of downtown Walnut
Creek, within a short walk of the heart of downtown and adjacent to Alma Park
and other housing developments. It also has a similar building format as the
Block C plans including stacked units and a shared garage. Montecito was built
in 2002.
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800
Unit Square Feet
Figure 8. Condominium Sales (2013-2014)
Avg Block C Feasible
Price - 100 Units
Avg Block C Feasible
Price - 150 Units
The Mercer
555 YVR
Montecito
Walden Park
Iron Horse Lofts
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 14
001-002; jf
11270.005
" Walden Park Condominiums – This townhouse-style development is at a lower
density than Block C, with larger units and parking in private attached garages.
This project, with its private open spaces, swimming pool and clubhouse, offers a
more suburban lifestyle which may be more appealing to young families with
children and to homeowners seeking a more quiet setting than Contra Costa
Centre. Nonetheless, this project is a relatively new development (built in 2011-
2012) and represents a competitive price point. Therefore it would be a potential
alternative for prospective Block C condominium buyers.
" Iron Horse Lofts – Given this project’s location directly north of the Pleasant Hill
BART station, it shares many of the same locational attributes as Block C. Like
Walden Park, Iron Horse Lofts is lower density and has private garages which
are often preferred over common garages because of their security and
convenience. On the other hand, the school district serving Iron Horse Lofts is
not as highly rated as the district serving Block C (Mt. Diablo vs. Walnut Creek
schools). Nonetheless, Iron Horse Lofts represents another competitive project
with sale price data that should be considered.
As shown in Figure 8, the sale prices required for financial feasibility of the Block C
condominiums are above the sale prices being achieved for all five of the competitive
projects surveyed. In order to be feasible and to attract the necessary debt and equity
investment for a large condo development, it is KMA’s assessment that the sale prices
would need to be well within the range of prices being achieved in the competitive
projects. Again, in order to sell 100 to 150 condominium units within a reasonable sales
absorption period, as opposed to a small number of re-sales per project as shown in
Figure 8, a condo project on Block C would have to be extremely price competitive.
As a final comment, a condo project on Block C will have operational and cost issues
that would not apply to most other projects in the market. For example, Block C home
owners would be responsible for paying HOA dues to fund a share of the costs of
maintaining the significant place-making infrastructure built as part of the overall Transit
Village project. These monthly HOA costs would be a factor in the prices that could be
achieved in the sale of the units. In addition, a project immediately adjacent to the BART
station, while advantageous with respect to commuter convenience, also brings potential
issues related to noise, traffic, and public safety.
In summary, the condominium market data and pro forma financial feasibility analysis
described in this memorandum, again which assume prevailing wages, subterranean
parking, and other cost and risk factors, indicate that a 100- to 150-unit condominium
development on Block C is not feasible based on market conditions today or in the
expected near term. The existing market data and development economics for a high
Attachment O
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority November 12, 2014
Subject: Block C Condominium Feasibility Analysis Page 15
001-002; jf
11270.005
density, prevailing wage condominium project indicate that, even for this premium BART
location, it would be difficult to attract a reputable and experienced condominium
developer to undertake the high quality project that is expected for this site. In practical
terms, staying with a for-sale condo project on Block C would result in a delay of
construction start for reasons not limited to financial feasibility. The following steps would
be needed before construction of Block C could begin: (1) BART and the County would
need to authorize a new developer RFQ (if a new developer is desired), (2) a new
developer is selected, (3) new business terms are negotiated, (4) project approvals are
obtained, (5) construction documents are prepared, and (6) project financing and
construction contracts are finalized.
Attachment O
APPENDIX A
Approved Block C Condominium Plans (100 Units)
Note: Due to the large file size, the approved Block C condominium plans are not attached in
the electronic version of this memorandum. The plans can be accessed online at:
http://www.ccreach.org/ccc_redevelopment/ph_finaldp.cfm
Attachment O
APPENDIX B
Development Pro formas
Attachment O
Table 1.
Development Program - 100-Unit Alternative
Contra Costa Centre - Block C Condominiums
I. Building Type
II. Land 1.61 acres
70,194 sf (from public records)
III. Building Program
Residential Units 100 units
Sellable Building Area
Residential 120,000 sf
Retail Space 2,315 sf
Total Sellable 122,315 sf
Building Efficiency (estimated)80%(1)
Gross Building Area 152,894 sf
Residential Density 62.1 du/acre
FAR 2.18 FAR (2)
IV. Parking
4-stories w/ underground parking
Pro forma assumes not more than 2 parking
spaces/unit on average including guest spaces and
retail spaces.
(1) Building efficiency is the ratio of total sellable building area to gross building area (floor area). In this case, approximately
20% of the gross area is dedicated to common areas such as the lobby, fitness center, hallways, etc.
(2) Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of gross building area (floor area) to land area.
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Condo Pro forma 9.22.14; Program 100
Attachment O
Table 2.
Feasibility Analysis - 100-Unit Alternative
Contra Costa Centre - Block C Condominiums
Per GSF
Per Unit
(rounded)Total
152,894 100
I. Land
Land Acquisition Costs $39 $60,000 $6,000,000
II.Directs (including Prevailing Wages)
Residential Construction $181 $277,000 $27,700,000
Subterranean Parking Garage $49 $75,000 $7,500,000
Retail Space $3 $4,600 $460,000
Contingency $12 $17,800 $1,780,000
Subtotal $245 $374,400 $37,440,000
III. Indirects
A&E $9 $14,200 $1,420,000
Fees & Permits $21 $31,800 $3,180,000
Legal & Closing $3 $4,200 $420,000
Marketing/Model/Warranty/HOA $9 $14,200 $1,420,000
Retail Space $10 $15,000 $1,500,000
Taxes/Insurance/Accounting $9 $13,100 $1,310,000
Indirects Contingency $3 $4,600 $460,000
Financing Costs $33 $51,000 $5,100,000
Subtotal $97 $148,100 $14,810,000
IV. Subtotal Costs $381 $582,500 $58,250,000
(Less) Value of Retail Space ($4) ($5,600) ($560,000)
Plus Costs of Residential Sales $17 $26,400 $2,640,000
Plus Development Return $60 $91,700 $9,170,000
Plus BART Transit Benefit Fee Covenant $7 $10,600 $1,058,000
V. Total Net Costs $461 $705,600 $70,558,000
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Condo Pro forma 9.22.14; Costs 100
Attachment O
Table 3.
Development Program - 150-Unit Alternative
Contra Costa Centre - Block C Condominiums
I. Building Type
II. Land 1.61 acres
70,194 sf (from public records)
III. Building Program
Residential Units 150 units
Sellable Building Area
Residential 180,000 sf
Retail Space 2,315 sf
Total Sellable 182,315 sf
Building Efficiency (estimated)80%(1)
Gross Building Area 227,894 sf
Residential Density 93.1 du/acre
FAR 3.25 FAR (2)
IV. Parking
5-stories w/ underground parking
Pro forma assumes not more than 2 parking
spaces/unit on average including guest spaces and
retail spaces.
(1) Building efficiency is the ratio of total sellable building area to gross building area (floor area). In this case, approximately
20% of the gross area is dedicated to common areas such as the lobby, fitness center, hallways, etc.
(2) Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of gross building area (floor area) to land area.
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Condo Pro forma 9.22.14; Program 150
Attachment O
Table 4.
Feasibility Analysis - 150-Unit Alternative
Contra Costa Centre - Block C Condominiums
Per GSF
Per Unit
(rounded)Total
227,894 150
I. Land
Land Acquisition Costs $26 $40,000 $6,000,000
II.Directs (including Prevailing Wages)
Residential Construction $182 $276,200 $41,430,000
Subterranean Parking Garage $49 $75,000 $11,250,000
Retail Space $2 $3,100 $460,000
Contingency $12 $17,700 $2,660,000
Subtotal $245 $372,000 $55,800,000
III. Indirects
A&E $9 $14,100 $2,120,000
Fees & Permits $21 $31,600 $4,740,000
Legal & Closing $2 $2,800 $420,000
Marketing/Model/Warranty/HOA $9 $14,200 $2,130,000
Retail Space $10 $14,900 $2,230,000
Taxes/Insurance/Accounting $9 $13,000 $1,950,000
Indirects Contingency $3 $4,500 $680,000
Financing Costs $33 $50,000 $7,500,000
Subtotal $96 $145,100 $21,770,000
IV. Subtotal Costs $367 $557,100 $83,570,000
(Less) Value of Retail Space ($2) ($3,700) ($560,000)
Costs of Residential Sales $17 $25,400 $3,810,000
Development Return $58 $88,000 $13,200,000
Plus BART Transit Benefit Fee Covenant $7 $10,200 $1,523,000
V. Total Net Costs $446 $677,000 $101,543,000
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Condo Pro forma 9.22.14; Costs 150
Attachment O
Page intentionally left blank
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill
Concord
Pleasant Hill
§¨¦680
§¨¦680
N Main St Treat Blvd Oak Rd Geary Rd N Main St Cherry Ln Jones Rd Oak Rd Las Juntas Way Wald e n Rd
B
a
n
c
r
o
f
t
R
d Bentley St Candelero Dr Minert Rd M a r c h b a n k s D r
M
o
h
r
L
n
Coggins Dr
N San Carlos Dr
Seve n H ills R a n c h R d Buskirk Ave Kinross Dr
S
h
a
w
R
d
Elmwood Dr
S i s k iy o u D r
S
a
n
t
o
s
L
n
Ludell Dr
Astrid Dr
Via del Sol Cora Ct
Sun Valley Dr
Wayne Ct Le Jean W
ay
Roble R d
Sunnyvale Ave
Parnell Ct
Oak Park Blvd
Alderwood Rd Ma
tt
e
r
h
o
r
n
Dr Briarwood Way Candelero Ct Jones Pl
Haven Ln O lm o Wa y El Paseo Sunne Ln S a i n t Louis Dr
Kingston Pl
Honey Trl
Kings O a k P l
Drake Ct W
ayside Plz
Del Hombre Ln Allegh
e
n
y
D
r
Mazda Dr Calle No g a l es Birch Dr Woodlawn Dr Service Dr
Oa k sh ire Ct Iron Ho r s e L n
Jillian Ct C lem son Ct W
a
y
n
e
D
r McCann Ct Ced
a
r
b
r
o
o
k
C
t Ravenwood Dr O
a
k
R
dMap Created 2/18/2015
by Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development, GIS Group
30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0770 1,540385
Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some
base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be
reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
Contra Costa Centre CDPand Surrounding Cities
Census Designated Place
Contra Costa CentreCity Limits
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill
Concord
Attachment P
Page intentionally left blank
March 16, 2015
Maureen Toms, AICP
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: AVALON WALNUT CREEK
CONSISTENCY WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND PROPERTY CODE
Dear Maureen:
On February 24, 2015, Mark Day and Lauri Moffet-Fehlberg of Dahlin Group, Town Architect for the
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village, met with Jeff White of Avalon Bay Communities and John Kosi of
Steinberg Architects to discuss the proposed design revisions of Block C of the Final Development Plan
(FDP) of the project. John Kosi presented the proposed plan and walked us through the current design.
Throughout the presentation, John and Jeff identified the areas of deviation from the Approved 2005 Final
Development Plan as well as the Architectural and Property Code.
Overall, in our opinion, the project has either met or exceeded the approved FDP. The overarching idea
of the transit village is to provide an environment that encourages walking by providing active ground
level uses on all building frontages. This also allows for a sense of security to the village patrons as there
is always a feeling that there are eyes on the ground.
From what Dahlin Group was presented, the project continues to embrace all of the successful design
elements of the first phase, while improving on the lessons learned as well.
Areas of Improvement supported by Dahlin Group:
1.Coggins Drive Building Frontage:
a.“Eyes on the Street” – The proposed project has turned the project inside out on this frontage
resulting in approximately 50 dwelling units facing outwards. This is a great improvement as it
enhances public safety within the transit village placing more eyes on the street.
b.Setbacks – The proposed building adds approximately 4 feet of additional setback along the bus
intermodal to allow for more layering of landscape between the road and building face.
c.Relocated residential building entrance.
d.Removal of residential uses from the ground level and relocated them to the main public plaza.
e.Added Height – The added floors of residential along the BART frontage is an improvement as
provides an acoustical barrier for the residential community to the East.
2.Town Square Frontage:
a.Corner Tower – The project proposes an Iconic corner tower at the corner of Coggins and the
Town Square which provides a memorable arrival to the transit village which was lacking in the
original design. The tower location was originally located in the proposed spot as a result of the
Charette, but removed in the approved FDP.
Attachment Q
Letter to Maureen Toms, Contra Costa County
RE: AVALON WALNUT CREEK
March 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2
b. Retail – The project proposes retail at the ground level below the tower which is a major
improvement to the overall plan. The proposed location will really help to further activate the town
square by providing a café type use with tables and chairs spilling onto the town square. The
improvement will truly give the project the heart and soul or a “there-there” that has been missing
in the first phase.
c. Residents Lobby – The project moved the residents lobby and Mail Room to front onto the Town
Square. This is a major improvement to help further activate the Town Square while giving the
residents a much more impressive front door than the original location adjacent to the Bus
Intermodal.
3. Village Green Frontage:
a. Stoops and Private Patios – The project added a few more private patios to front onto the Village
Green which helps to activate the open space and encourage a family friendly environment for
those units. The Patios also have a landscape buffer between the patio and sidewalk to help
soften the experience.
b. Fourth Level Balconies – The project added several balconies at the 4th level to relate to block B
across the street and provide residents with more private outdoor space.
c. Corner Lobby – The project proposes a residents lobby at the corner of the Village Green and
Jones Road which helps welcome residents’ guest who are coming from the Iron Horse Trail or
Jones Road.
d. Residents Lounge – The project provides a Residents Lounge at the 4th level to encourage
Community Interaction while providing stunning views over the Iron Horse Trail to Mount Diablo.
4. Jones Road Frontage:
a. Stoops and Private Patios – The project added a few more private patios to front onto the Village
Green which helps to activate the open space and encourage a family friendly environment for
those units. The Patios also have a landscape buffer between the patio and sidewalk to help
soften the experience.
b. Building Articulation – The building is articulated much more that the approved FDP which helps
soften the frontage and give a more “Townhouse” type feel which is consistent with the
Architectural Code.
c. Fourth Level Balconies – The project added a number of balconies at the 4th level to provide
residents with more private open space. This element is also consistent with the Architectural
Code.
d. Jones and Coggins Corner – The project now has an “anchor” scale at the corner which provides
a gateway feeling to the transit village for patrons arriving from the north. The building also
provided more setback at the corner in order to provide monumental seat walls and signage to
help welcome the neighborhood to the transit village.
While the design is consistent with the overall intent of the approved FDP, Dahlin Group will continue to
monitor the design progress to ensure that the design intent and quality of the first phase is followed
through and carried out on Block C.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Day, AIA, LEED AP
Senior Principal
Markkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk A. Day, AIA, LEED AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Senior Principal
Department of Conservation and Development
County Planning Commission
Tuesday, April 28, 2015– 7:00 .P.M.
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item # 2
Project Title:
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village-Block C
County File Numbers:
DP15-3001
Applicant/Owner:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
(BART) (Owner) and PLEASANT HILL BART TRANSIT VILLAGE
ASSOCIATES, LLC c/o MILLENNIUM PARTNERS (Applicant)
General Plan/Zoning:
Mixed Use (MU) / Planned Unit Development (P-1)
Project Location/Address: The project site is located on a 1.61 acre parcel (Block C), which is part
of the 18-acre Contra Costa Centre Transit Village, in the Pleasant
Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station Area in Central Contra Costa
County. (APN 148-221-040).
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Status:
The project is exempt per Government Code Section 65457(a), CEQA
Guidelines Section 15182, and PRC Section 21155.4. (See Section
III-C for complete CEQA information)
Project Planners: Maureen Toms (925) 674-7878
Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Complete Recommendation)
I. BACKGROUND
This item is a continued hearing from the April 14, 2015 County Planning Commission meeting. At
the previous meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony from
the applicant and several other speakers. Additional speakers submitted requests to speak, but due to
the late hour, the public hearing was continued.
Several speakers reference the Charrette planning process that occurred in 2001. In response, staff is
providing the Planning Commission a copy of the Charrette Summary (see Attachment R) accepted by
the Board of Supervisors in 2001. In addition, a member of the Planning Commission requested a
report of the Sherriff’s Department for the area. The report of calls and contract information is
included as Attachment S.
1
During the April 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, staff called out some recommended changes
to certain Public Works Conditions of Approval. Those proposed changes are reflected in the attached
set of Conditions of Approval, using double underline or double strike-out to reflect the changes.
At the April 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, staff noted that the Park Dedication fee estimate
on page 20 of the staff report could be incorrect and the total expected fees collected could be down to
$664,498. Staff researched this issue further and confirmed that original estimate of $5,213 per unit in
the staff report, for a total of $1,042,000, in park dedication fees is accurate.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the County Planning Commission, having considered the environmental
documentation prepared for the project, determine there are not any significant impacts, not previously
described in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted
October 6, 1998; Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted November 5, 2002; and Addendum
adopted May 24, 2005; and the modifications qualify for Statutory Exemption under Government Code
Section 65457 and Public Resources Code Section 21155.4; and approve the Modification to the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan (Attachment A), subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval.
XI. CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the final development plan is substantially consistent with the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, “The California Sustain-able Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008” (California Senate Bill 375, Steinberg), and Plan Bay Area. The Zoning
Ordinance does not differentiate between rental and ownership multiple-family residential projects,
therefore the proposed density is consistent with the zoning for the area. The change marks a change
from the Charrette outcome, however given the local trends of condominiums being held as rentals
rather than owner-occupied, and the desire for BART to be able to plan the entirety of their site in the
future, the arguments for owner occupied units is diminished. A modification to the Preliminary and
Final Development Plan, with a noticed public hearing, is the appropriate process for consideration of
the change.
Attachments:
Attachment R – Charrette Summary
Attachment S – Sherriff’s Report
g:\cdbg-redev\redev\contra costa centre rda\transit village\block c\staff report\dp1503001.sr 4-28-15-final.doc
2
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA
SUMMARY REPORT
OCTOBER 2001
Attachment R - Page 1
Attachment R
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 2
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
• Dennis Barry, Community Development Director
• James Kennedy, Redevelopment Director
• Maureen Toms, Principal Planner
• Steven Goetz, Community Development Department Transportation Planning Division
• Lisa Noble, Secretary
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) DISTRICT
• Dan Richard, BART Director
• Jeff Ordway, Property Development Manager
• Patty Hirota-Cohen, Senior Real Estate Officer
• Joel Keller, BART Director
• June Ganletti, Government & Community relations
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
• Donna Gerber, Supervisor, District 3
• Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, District 4
• Jay Lutz, Aide, District 3
• Marilyn Smith, Aide, District 4
OTHER AGENCIES
• Margaret Stanzione, City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department
• Paul Richardson, City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department
• Shelly Poticha, Congress for the New Urbanism
• Judy Corbett, Local Government Commission
• Greenbelt Alliance, Evie Stiers
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
• Kathy Boswell, Walden District Improvement Association
• Kris Hunt, Walden District Improvement Association
• Terry Flemming, Walden District Improvement Association
• Lynette Tanner-Busby, Contra Costa Centre Association
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
• Mark Farrar, Millennium Partners
• William Mohr, Catalyst
• Craig Woolmington-Smith, Woolmington-Smith, Inc.
CONSULTANT TEAM
LENNERTZ COYLE & ASSOCIATES, URBAN DESIGN
• Bill Lennertz, Principal
• Steve Coyle, Principal
• Laurence Qamar, Principal
• Jeff Thierfelder, Project Manager
• Carol Collier, Designer
OTHER CONSULTANTS
• Peter Katz, Author & Lecturer on New Urbanism
• Jeff Tumlin, Nelzon Nygaard, Transit Planning
• Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics, Market Economics
• Abby Sigal, Strategic Economics, Market Economics
• Peg Stone, CSG Advisors, Financial Modeling
• Carrie Hamilton, CSG Advisors, Financial Modeling
• Tom Clausen, Fehr and Peers Associates, Transportation Planning
• Seth Harry, Seth Harry Associates, Urban Design and Retail Consulting
• Steve Price, Urban Advantage, Digital Imaging
• Daniel Parolek, Envision Design, Urban Design
• Kristen Paulsen, Communities by Design, Public Outreach Coordination
Attachment R - Page 3
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 4
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 The Vision
1.2 The Process
1.3 The Master Plan Document
1.4 Summary of the Master Plan
II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Project Chronology
2.2 Specific Plan
2.3 Regional Context
2.4 Principles of New Urbanism and Transit-Oriented Development
III. PHYSICAL & FINANCIAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 13
3.1 Site Description
3.2 Lessons from the Region
3.3 Market Analysis
3.4 Transit Opportunities and Constraints
3.5 Transportation Existing Conditions
IV. PUBLIC PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Public Involvement Process
4.2 Summary of Stakeholder Issues
4.3 The Charrette Design Process
V. THE PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 33
5.1 Evolution of the Plan - The Charrette Log
5.2 The Preferred Illustrative Plan
5.3 Illustrations and Perspectives
5.4 Economic Analysis of Proposal
5.5 Transportation Related Proposals
5.6 Transit Related Proposals
5.7 Parking Analysis
VI. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 76
A. Financial Feasibility, Model Assumptions and Structure
B. Frequently Asked Economic Questions about the Project
C. Traffic Counts and other Relevant Background Data
D. Log of Public Proceedings
E. Design Concept Iterations
F. Public Comments Made during Events
Attachment R - Page 5
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 6
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan4
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The Introduction is an executive summary of the of the station
area vision, the process that lead up to the creation of the plan, and
the summary of the masterplan.
SECTION II. BACKGROUND
The Background is a summary of the 30 year history of the
Pleasant Hill BART station. This section explains the regional
growth strategy context and the project’s relationship with the
principles of New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development.
SECTION III. PHYSICAL & FINANCIAL CONTEXT
The Financial Context describes the current site, market, and
transportation conditions and their relationship to the plan.
SECTION IV. PUBLIC PROCESS
The core of the public involvement process is the Charrette design
process. An abbreviated log of the Charrette design process and a
summary of stakeholder issues is included.
SECTION V. THE PLAN
The Plan delineates the evolution of design that took place during
the six day Charrette process and follow-up meetings. The
illustrative plan describes the final master plan. The supporting
documents to the master plan include the market, transit,
transportation, and parking analyses.
SECTION VI. APPENDICES
The Appendices include base data and background information
from participants that led to the plan conclusions.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Attachment R - Page 7
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 8
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 1.0 Introduction - 5
1.1 THE VISION
The Pleasant Hill Bart Station is a major regional transportation
hub for trains, busses, vans, and taxis. It serves an important role
in the County’s transportation strategy to reduce automobile trips.
While the Station performs this function efficiently, for it to be an
overall asset to the surrounding neighborhoods it requires
improvement, or perhaps complete transformation. As a transit
center, it is dominated by a seven story parking garage and acres
of parking, surrounded by wide access roads. It is a place that
about 6400 transit riders rush to and from each day and is
therefore designed for fast and efficient movement.
The following report describes a transformative vision for the
Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area. It is the culmination of a vision
that began over 20 years ago of a new station community where
residents of nearby townhomes and apartments could take their
daily walk to the station, perhaps stopping to drop off dry
cleaning, fill a perscription, or enjoy a cup of coffee and the
morning paper. Coming home, they could choose to take a bike
ride on the trail, and then meet some friends at the restaurant
nestled in Oak Park.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station will serve the surrounding
communities as well. Currently, local residents must drive to
downtown Walnut Creek to find the amenities that the station area
will provide. In the future, many of those car trips will be
replaced by shorter walking or bicycle trips to Pleasant Hill
Station. The new transit-oriented community around the station
will add value to the surrounding neighborhoods - transforming
what used to be a utilitarian necessity into a true community asset.
1.2 THE PROCESS
Planning for the Pleasant Hill BART Station area first began in
1978 with a larger regional vision that included an emphasis on
creating communities close to transit. A Specific Plan for the
entire 140-acre Station Area (the BART station itself sits on 18
acres and is part of the larger Station Area) was developed in 1983
and was updated and amended in 1998. The Specific Plan calls for
"transit-oriented development," around the Pleasant Hill BART
Station - a development pattern of workplaces, housing, and shops
surrounding the transit hub. The Specific Plan continues to be a
critical component in Contra Costa County's strategy to
accommodate regional growth. Since 1986, much of the 140-acre
County redevelopment area that surrounds the station has been
I. INTRODUCTION
Aerial view of the Pleasant Hill BART Station
area from the south.
Attachment R - Page 9
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan6 - 1.0 Introduction
built out. More than 2,400 housing units, two hotels, offices with
more than 4,000 employees, and more than $40 million in major
public infrastructure improvements have been built within walking
distance of the BART station. About 6,400 BART riders travel
through the Station Area per day.
In 1995, a retail entertainment development was proposed for the
station site. The concept was not supported by neighborhood
interests and by surrounding communities and was subsequently
withdrawn by the developer. The failed plan resulted in
amendments to the Specific Plan in 1998 that prohibited large
entertainment uses and limited the size of commercial
development. The current master plan is subject to the 1998
amendments and the broader Specific Plan.
Much later, County Supervisor Donna Gerber, with the assistance
of New Urbanism consultant Peter Katz, proposed a renewed
effort on the project. The first step in this new approach featured a
series of lectures by Peter Katz, author of “The New Urbanism:
Toward an Architecture of Community.” The community reacted
favorably to New Urbanist concepts of lively, attractive public
streets and plazas. Using this public interest as a foundation, a
strategy was developed for a collaborative public planning
process, or Charrette.
Lennertz Coyle & Associates, nationally recognized for their use
of the Charrette process in urban design, was hired to lead a
design team that included transportation, public involvement and
financing consultants. This report is a summary of the Charrette,
the physical, functional and financial base parameters, and the
design schemes.
THE ILLUSTRATIVE
DRAWINGS & THE
CODES
The design team has
prepared "Codes" -
detailed regulations and
specifications designed
to assure that what was
created in the Charrette
is actually delivered on
the ground. The codes,
(including the Specific
Plan) control key
elements of the project’s
design, such as height,
building placement and
acceptable facade
materials, permitted
uses, and functional
planning requirements
such as parking and
access. These codes are
being refined and are
not a part of this
document.
Drawings, diagrams and
other visual
representations of the
proposed community
plan within this report
are conceptual in nature
and depict a series of
design schemes that
evolved over a period of
months. While such
illustrations represent a
generalized vision of the
plan, certain details may
be inconsistent with one
another and with the
ultimate built scheme.
For the most accurate
description of the plan
as proposed, refer to the
Pleasant Hill BART
Property Code.
Attachment R - Page 10
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 1.0 Introduction - 7
PROGRAM
Office: 290,000*- 456,000 sq. ft.+/-
Residential units: 274-446* units
inc. 50 for-sale min.
Storefront: 42,000 sq. ft.+/-
Civic: 7,000 sq. ft.+/-
*with Block ‘A’ residential alternative
Note: Numbers will be refined as design
progresses consistent with the Pleasant
Hill BART Property Codes.
BLOCK DESCRIPTIONS
BLOCK A:
A seven-story office building faces Treat
Blvd. It includes retail businesses on the
ground floor along Treat Blvd. and on the
new north-south retail street. Offices
wrap the perimeter of the upper levels of
the parking garage. Residential uses are
allowed as an alternative to office.
BLOCK B:
Retail uses line the ground floor on Treat
Blvd. and on the north-south retail street
face of Block B. Three stories of
apartments are located above the
storefronts on the south and west edges
of the block, with townhomes wrapping
the north and east sides. The inner block
is a well-landscaped parking court at the
second level of the parking structure.
BLOCK C:
A new civic building is placed next to the
transit station, terminating the view up
the north-south retail street. Townhomes
wrap the south and east edges of Block
C. A three-story commercial building
shields the internal courtyard from train-
related noise.
BLOCK D:
Block D consists of a 12-story office
building. Parking for the office building
is accommodated in Block E.
BLOCK E:
Block E provides a parking structure
large enough to accommodate all
replacement BART parking, as well as
temporary parking east of Jones Rd. and
parking for Block D. The north and west
edges of the block are wrapped with four
stories of apartments. A pedestrian
walkway links the neighborhood across
Las Juntas to the station.
The Pleasant Hill BART Area Master Plan
1.4 SUMMARY OF THE MASTERPLAN
USES:
•Transit Facilities.
• Retail, office and lodging businesses, along with possible business conference
center.
•For-sale townhouses and rental housing.
•Public parks and squares.
•Public buildings. Possible uses: daycare, cultural/educational, community theater,
library, Iron Horse trail head, and/or bicycle facilities.
•Replacement of existing BART parking and the temporary parking spaces now
located on the Iron Horse trail site.
URBAN DESIGN FEATURES
•Compatibility of Use: Residential is located across from existing residential to the
north and east. Office and commercial is located across from existing office to the
west and south.
•Compatibility of Height: Lower buildings ranging from three to five stories are
located to the north and the east across from residential. Office buildings range
from seven to twelve stories and are located to the south and west across from taller
commercial buildings.
A
B
C
E
D
Attachment R - Page 11
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 12
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan8 - 2.0 Background
2.1 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
The Pleasant Hill BART Station has a 30 year history of planning
and development. The following is an abbreviated chronology of
the milestones:
•1972: BART completes the station between the freeway and
the low-density residential area.
•1977: General Plan Amendment for transit-oriented
development adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
•1983: Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan adopted by
the County Board of Supervisors.
•1984: County Establishes the Pleasant Hill BART
Redevelopment Project.
•1986: the first office building is completed under the specific
plan 1987: the first of 7 additional traffic studies is completed.
•1989: Loma Prieta earthquake.
•1992-95: Economic recession.
• 1995: Theater/retail development is proposed for the 18 acres
on the BART property.
•1997: The theater development proposal is withdrawn.
•1999: Amendments are adopted to the Specific Plan. The
BART property commercial development capacity is reduced
by almost 500,000 s.f.
•1998: County undertakes a community planning process using
the design and development standard of the specific plan. An
acceptable plan was not developed.
•2000: Decision made to undertake a subsequent community
planning process using Charrette methods and New Urbanist
development principals.
•2000: Lennertz Coyle and Associates team is hired to initiate a
design program using the Charrette design process.
•2001 February: 6 day Public Charrette.
•2001 April: 2 day follow-up.
2.2 THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION SPECIFIC PLAN
The masterplan is required to meet the provisions of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
mandates the requirements for land uses, development program,
building form and massing, public spaces, circulation, and open
space within 125 acres of land on and around the BART Station.
The current masterplan encompasses an 18 acre parcel described
in the Specific Plan as areas 11 and 12, immediately adjacent to
the station. The Specific Plan requires a mix of uses on the site
II. BACKGROUND
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Specific Plan Cover
Attachment R - Page 13
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 2.0 Background - 9
that include locally-serving retail but specifically excludes
regional retail and entertainment. It limits commercial office use
to 800,000 gross square feet, and, depending on the location and
proximity to adjacent housing and view sheds, limits height from
five to twelve stories.
The Specific Plan reflects BART policy and requires the
replacement of the existing BART surface parking spaces. It
protects views from the BART platform towards Mount Diablo.
The masterplan diverges from the Specific Plan in terms of
minimum required building setbacks from existing streets in
accordance with the New Urbanist principle of spatially-enclosing
the streets to help create an active public realm. In the masterplan,
nonresidential buildings will be built directly up to the sidewalk in
a traditional main street fashion, like downtown Walnut Creek
2.3 REGIONAL CONTEXT
During the last three decades, there has been extraordinary
population growth in Contra Costa County. One reason is the
enviable quality of life: the availability of good jobs and housing,
nearby cultural attractions, the climate and a beautiful natural
landscape. Unfortunately, as new people moved in, the area has
sprawled outward - threatening the very lifestyle and qualities that
beckoned many people to the area begin with.
GROWING "SMART"
To help solve this dilemma, county leaders have begun to develop
a land-use plan to control and focus growth in a way that uses land
more efficiently and reduces future sprawl. Elements of this
"smart growth" strategy include: creating an urban limit line
beyond which urban densities are not allowed, encouraging
"infill" development (residential or commercial buildings
constructed on empty lots within a developed area), and looking at
land-use and transportation initiatives simultaneously.
Three potential scenarios for responding to these mounting growth
pressures have been defined. The likely effects of each one are:
SCENARIO #1 NO-GROWTH
Stop all new construction in the county
Housing prices will skyrocket without creating new housing
opportunities. This will make it difficult to attract new residents or
accommodate future generations of Contra Costa County residents
and will ultimately drive out jobs.
Remnants of the former rural character
remain in a rapidly changing region.
Attachment R - Page 14
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan10 - 2.0 Background
New jobs will mean employees must commute from neighboring
counties that do allow growth, placing additional strains on those
communities. In addition, traffic congestion at the BART station
and on streets and roads throughout the county will rise
considerably.
SCENARIO #2 BUSINESS AS USUAL
Continue conventional subdivision and strip development
This choice means development will be built on the last remaining
parcels between the existing built-up areas and the County's Urban
Limit Line. Pressure will then mount to push the Urban Limit Line
further out to accommodate even more "edge" development. The
combination of low-density development and absence of public
transit in these areas will ensure that virtually all trips will be by
automobile, adding to traffic congestion.
Auto trips will grow longer since everyday services and most jobs
are clustered in older, established areas near major roads. County
residents will be forced to drive on streets that are burdened by
even more traffic congestion.
SCENARIO #3 FOCUS-GROWTH
Encourage compact, pedestrian-oriented development in already
urbanized areas and around existing transit centers.
There will be less reliance on the car, since transit station areas
will become hubs of activity and provide a range of services
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is located at the junction between many transportation systems.
Attachment R - Page 15
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 2.0 Background - 11
needed by people in their daily lives. Instead of relying solely on
their cars to get to such services, residents will have the choice of
using BART or other transit alternatives. Road congestion will
increase at a slower rate than the first two options - minimizing
the impact on local streets around the county.
This option offers the opportunity to create attractive, safe, and
convenient town centers that consolidate growth instead of
allowing it to sprawl. Compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly
development - also known as "smart growth" - is a pattern that
helps maintain Contra Costa County's natural amenities while also
accommodating new growth. Focusing growth also allows the
protection of open space and valuable agricultural land from
sprawl.
2.4 PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM AND
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
The following principles of New Urbanism have been
incorporated into the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Masterplan:
•The Station Area is well-connected to the surrounding
neighborhoods and to the region. A continuous network of
streets and paths provide a choice of safe, convenient, and
interesting routes within and without the station area.
•The Station Area’s streets, parks, and squares become the
community’s outdoor living rooms. They are safe, convenient,
and comfortable places in which to spend time. No major
pedestrian route should be through a desolate parking lot or
though a lifeless street. These outdoor rooms become the
places where the chance meetings of people occur on a daily
basis and provide the space of support for the formation of
community bonds.
•The station area has a mix of uses, where people live, work
shop, and recreate, resulting in a safe twenty-four hour place.
•A choice of housing types allows people of different incomes
and ages to live in the station area, supporting a healthy and
diverse culture.
•The station area plan supports choice between walking, biking
and transit. The benefit is a measure of independence for those
who cannot drive, especially the young and the old.
•The architecture of the station area should represent diverse
yet harmonious groupings of buildings respectful of historic
architectural traditions.
To improve access to the site, several
connecting streets cut through the site,
providing many route choices.
Attachment R - Page 16
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan12 - 2.0 Background
•The station area will be well connected to a local and regional
bicycle and pedestrian trail system
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Masterplan design is based on the
principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism principles, when
applied to transit stations, result in the transit-oriented
development (TOD). According to Peter Calthorpe, in his book
The Next Metropolis,
“A transit-oriented development is a mixed-use community
within a 2000 foot walking distance of a transit stop and core
commercial area. TODs offer an alternative to traditional
development patterns by providing housing, services, and
employment opportunities for a diverse population in a
configuration that facilitates pedestrian and transit access.
TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space and public
uses, in a walkable environment, making it convenient for
residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot or
car.”
“The provision of local services for TOD residents as well as
the surrounding neighborhoods, results in reduced vehicle
miles traveled within the immediate area. This is because
nearby neighbors no longer have to travel outside the area for
some of their daily needs. The safety of the Station area
increases due to the number of visitors and residents providing
eyes on the street on a twenty-four hour basis.”
Attachment R - Page 17
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 18
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 13
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site occupies a 18-acre site owned by BART on the NE
intersection of Oak Road and Treat Boulevard in central Contra
Costa County. The current uses on the site are the Pleasant Hill
BART Station and Platform, 7-story BART Parking Garage, and
surface BART parking lots. The site is bordered by Treat Blvd.,
on the South, Oak Road on the West, Las Juntas Way/ Wayne
Drive on the North, and Jones Road on the East. Except for a
grove of oak trees on the SE corner, the site is completely paved.
The BART rail line bisects the property on a diagonal running
from the SW to the NE. This site is essentially flat, with a slight
rise from West to East.
SITE OPPORTUNITIES
• The BART Station is a possible anchor for development and a
people generator for a major public space.
• Excellent visibility and access from I-680.
• Good regional access from automobile.
• Regional access via BART.
• Good visibility from Treat Blvd.
• Grove of oak trees at the corner of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd.
•The view of Mt. Diablo from the station platform and from
higher buildings.
III. PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL CONTEXT
A dry creek bed and some Oak trees are
the only natural features on the site.
Entrepreneurs benefit from the heavy
pedestrian traffic around the station.
Adjacent office development suggests
higher density development on the site.
Aerial photo (from the south) of the Pleasant Hill BART Station and surrounding development.
Masking the large parking garages will
be critical to making this an active,
pedestrian-oriented town center.
Attachment R - Page 19
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan14 - 3.0 Context
•The park at the corner of Wayne Drive and Las Juntas Way.
• High Traffic Flow is good for retail.
•Connections to the Iron Horse Trail.
•Houses to the North and East give potential in becoming a
neighborhood center.
•Future Greenspace.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
•Site is bordered on three sides by heavily trafficked roads,
making pedestrian and bicycle travel difficult.
•Site has limited potential for street connections into the
surrounding neighborhoods.
•The property is in a transitional zone between the residential
neighborhood to the East and higher density offices to the
West.
•Large 7-story garage adjacent to residential
A woman waiting to head home on BART.
The park at the north edge of the site offers
some respite from the traffic.
The current property is little more than
a vast field of surface parking.
The existing taxi area.
Inside the Station.
Analysis diagram highlighting site opportunities and constraints.
Attachment R - Page 20
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 15
•Station platform is a barrier to connectivity across the site
•Requirement to replace all BART parking on the site
•High ground water constrains underground parking to 1-1/2
levels below grade
• BART requirement for land lease applies constraints to for-
sale housing potential
3.2 LESSONS FROM THE REGION
Many Charrette participants felt that the Station Community
should have a local architectural fit. To accomplish this, the design
team studied the most loved places in the area for inspiration.
Particular attention was paid to local parks, plazas, and streets
where people like to spend time. On the tour, the team visited
downtown Pleasant Hill, downtown Walnut Creek, Lafayette,
Orinda Theater Square, Ashby & Domingo, Elmwood, downtown
Berkeley, University Avenue, North Berkeley BART Station, San
Pablo Avenue / Emeryville, downtown Oakland, Grand Lake
Avenue, Piedmont Avenue, and Rockridge.
A cafe in Rockridge spills out onto the
street, creating a welcoming and
interesting environment.
Parking garages in downtown Walnut
Creek are articulated with upper story
windows that relate to the older
buildings in town.
Parking garages in Walnut Creek have
ground floor retail uses that activate the
sidewalk.
Small, intimate public spaces like this
cafe plaza are favorite local gathering
places.
Fountains, trees, outside tables, planters, awnings, and umbrellas give scale to this public plaza in
Walnut Creek.
Attachment R - Page 21
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan16 - 3.0 Context
3.3 MARKET ANALYSIS
Throughout the Charrette, Strategic Economics and CSG Advisors
highlighted the economic opportunities and constraints
confronting proposed development alternatives for the site. The
underlying strength of the local real estate markets, along with
uses that are mutually supportive, foster place-making, and
capitalize on the transit-rich location, represent the main economic
opportunities for the site. The constraints relate to the economic
issues that could prevent the project from going forward.
Constraints included programmatic issues such as accommodating
various types of parking, preferred building types, parcel self-
sufficiency, and return requirements for the developer, BART, and
the County.
MARKET OVERVIEW
To model proposed alternatives for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station, Strategic Economics analyzed the residential, office,
retail, hotel and parking markets, the costs for different building
types, and operating expenses. Detailed information concerning
the market overviews and cost assumptions can be found in the
March 5, 2001 pre-charrette summary.
Strategic Economics prepared most of this background
information for the Charrette in January and February of 2001 and
the financial assumptions uses to model the charrette alternatives
reflect a single snapshot in time. Market dynamics are always
changing, and conditions considerably since the charrette,
especially for office product. Therefore, once the project advances
to the next stage, more detailed market reviews and cost
estimating will be required based on current market conditions.
RESIDENTIAL
The residential market in the Pleasant Hill BART station is strong
and will remain so given the overall shortage of housing in the
Bay Area as well as its proximity to jobs and transit. Strategic
Economics looked at both rental and for-sale housing in the station
area, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, and central Contra
Costa County. Additionally, for rental units, Strategic Economics
surveyed centrally located areas that would compete for tenants
with the Pleasant Hill BART Station such as parts of San
Francisco and Walnut Creek.
As of January 2001 average, monthly rental rates for apartments
near the Pleasant Hill BART Station were as follows: Studios rent
Aerial view of Pleasant Hill BART
Station and surrounding communities.
Attachment R - Page 22
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 17
for between $1150 and $1300, one bedrooms between $1350 and
$1600, two bedrooms with one bath between $1700 and $2000,
and two bedrooms with two baths between $2000 and $2300.
During this same time period, average rents in Concord, Pleasant
Hill, and Walnut Creek were somewhat less, suggesting a
premium for transit proximity and perhaps highlighting a value for
new units with amenities characteristic of some of the apartment
complexes near the BART station.
For-sale housing in Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord sells
for an average price of $438,000 for a detached single-family
house and $340,000 for condos and town homes. The Countywide
average prices are $424,000 for a detached home and $371,000 for
condominiums and town homes. BART, the owner of the Pleasant
Hill BART site, typically does not sell its property and negotiates
long-term ground leases with developers. In the United States
ground leases for for-sale housing are extremely unusual. As a
result these units may be very difficult to market, especially if
comparable fee simple units are also available. In addition, it may
be very difficult to finance such units.
Central Contra Costa County has experienced steady residential
absorption for almost a decade, particularly at or near BART
stations. The rapid rent increases and low vacancies characteristic
of 2000 and the beginning of 2001 are consistent with this trend
indicating continued rapid absorption of any units available for
rent. Recent slowing of the economy may cause rents to stabilize
or decline and vacancies to inch up; however, given the number of
housing units projected to be needed in the Bay Area in the next
few years versus the number actually planned to be built,
absorption of new units should continue at a healthy rate.
OFFICE
The office market at the Pleasant Hill BART station, also known
as Contra Costa Centre, consists of 1,470,516 square feet of office
space with 195,000 currently under construction for the PMI
Group. Additionally, Spieker Properties has approvals to build a
multi-story office building adjacent to the PMI site. As of the last
quarter of 2000, the office vacancy rate at the Pleasant Hill BART
station hovered at 1%. Average rental rates for Class A office
space were $4.00 square foot per month with about $25-$45 in
tenant improvements. Space leased as soon as it was available.
Dense, compatible, human-scaled
housing in Mountain View, California.
Attachment R - Page 23
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan18 - 3.0 Context
In the intervening period, the strength of the Bay Area economy
has lessened as the technology sectors have gone into a deep
slump. As a result the market has softened, particularly as the
number of square feet available on the sublease market increased
dramatically in the South of Market, Emeryville, the Highway
580/80 corridor and other “new economy” hot spots. Contra
Costa Centre, however, has traditionally been a market for more
established companies, some firms moving all or a portion of their
operations from San Francisco and other firms from elsewhere in
the region, nation, or world seeking office space in close
proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Consequently, the
office rents and vacancy at the Pleasant Hill BART station have
not been as volatile.
According to a report from the real estate brokerage firm of CB
Richard Ellis’ “I-680/Contra Costa County Market Index Brief:
Office Properties 1Q2001” the amount of space available when
sublease space is included has gone from 1.3% in the fourth
quarter 2000 to 8.5% in first quarter 2001. This change also
points to slower absorption rates. In summary, if the downturn
continues and starts having repercussions in non-technology
sectors such as banking and services, then the Pleasant Hill BART
Station office market may soften. Conversely, the limited amount
of new space, its accessibility to transit and relatively affordable
housing, and its traditional reliance on more established firms for
its tenant base limits its exposure.
STOREFRONT/RETAIL
Given the parking constraints and the neighborhood context,
Strategic Economics did not look at the feasibility of regional-
serving, destination retail. Focusing on local serving and
supportive retail, Strategic Economics spoke with a number of
local retail brokers as well as investigated some comparable retails
nodes in the East Bay.
The relative high incomes and densities of the surrounding area as
well as the high number of BART riders will help to support retail
on the site. The market for local serving and supportive retail is
approximately $2.00 to $2.50 monthly rents with an average of
about $30 in tenant improvements to finish the space for use by
the retailers. This market, however, is highly variable depending
on the tenant. For example, a high-end restaurant may demand
over $100+ for tenant improvements. Also, incentives such as
Tall office buildings, when scaled
properly, can add to the attractiveness
and vibrancy of a retail center.
Attachment R - Page 24
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 19
high tenant improvements and low rents may be required to draw
in the first tenants because retailers are not apt to be pioneers.
New retail uses at the Pleasant Hill BART station needs to work in
concert with existing and proposed residential and office uses.
For retail to succeed, a careful storefront strategy needs to be
developed and implemented. The total number of square feet
should be fewer than 40,000 net rentable square feet, at least
initially; otherwise, renting out the space will be extremely
difficult. Conversely, the number of square feet should not be less
than 25,000 square feet. Less than 25,000 square feet does not
provide enough space for the needs of a local convenience center;
nor does it allow enough space to create a local destination for
even nearby neighbors. Potential types of tenants include a
specialty food store, drug store, restaurant, café, dry cleaners,
flower shop, shoe repair, bicycle shop, hair salon, insurance
company, and travel agent. These uses need to be proximate to
one another to generate a buzz of activity, reminiscent of a village
center.
PARKING
Strategic Economics looked at the market for parking at the
Pleasant Hill BART station to determine whether or not fee
parking could cover the cost of building a parking structure to
replace the Iron Horse Trail parking spaces (see the Economic
Analysis section of this report for the results of this parking
analysis). Currently, office tenants at Contra Costa Centre pay
about $65 a month for an unreserved parking space and non-
tenants pay $150 a month. The daily rate at the Centre’s garages
is $8.00 a day.
MIX OF USES & DENSITIES
The Pleasant Hill BART Station, its size, location, markets, and
context, presents the economic opportunity for place-making. The
economics of place-making, and thus the criteria for assessing it,
differs somewhat from the more traditional “highest and best” use
approach. Place-making thinks about a site in terms of its context
such as access to transit and relationship to adjacent land uses and
it emphasizes the importance of mixing uses to address both
supply and demand. As a result, the uses play off one another to
create a more substantive and economically complex project. This
more organic approach supports nuance, density and flexibility to
enhance economic viability, particularly over the long-term.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is also a transit rich location, i.e.,
Lively street scene in Oakland,
California.
Attachment R - Page 25
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan20 - 3.0 Context
it offers many kinds of transit opportunities. Transit rich locations
provide unique economic opportunities for people who live in
these areas. Under these conditions it is possible to have higher
density development but with fewer cars because households do
not need to own as many cars with transit is a viable transportation
choice. The economic consequences include better support for
local retailers who might capture a greater percentage of residents’
expenditures, expenditures that would have otherwise flowed to
other shopping destinations because these people are walking to
their neighborhood stores. Other consequences could include
reduced parking ratios and the implementation of a car-sharing
program. The former consequence would reduce the cost of
building the project, while the latter would enable potential
residents to spend more on housing and other goods with funds
that would have otherwise gone toward automobile ownership.
However, it is also important to remember that developers and
lenders are still trying to understand the dynamics of transit-
oriented projects distinct from other types of infill development
and that underwriting standards still typically include more
conventional parking ratios. While changes in public policy are
helping to change underwriting standards, any policies for the
BART station must still take these into account.
RETURN REQUIREMENTS
For a private developer to build a project at the Pleasant Hill
BART Station, the developer expects that the project will generate
enough net income to meet required investor and lender return
thresholds. BART, as the owner of the land, also has return
expectations both from the project itself as well as the increased
ridership that the project generates. The County too has return
criteria that compares its contribution to replace the BART surface
parking, to fund other site improvements, and to meet other
Countywide needs and goals, including forecasted increase in its
fiscal base from tax increment revenues without relying as heavily,
on local taxes.
A proposed alternative must meet these economic thresholds to be
feasible. The financial model analyzes the developer’s return
requirements and provides input to BART’s and the County’s
broader return requirements.
GENERAL PROGRAMMATIC PARAMETERS
Proposed uses for the site had some specific parameters related to
their overall economic viability. The following list shows these
Attachment R - Page 26
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 21
items:
•Class A office buildings floor plates should be between 20,000
and 25,000 square to maximize the building’s efficiency
•At least 200 residential units are needed to support amenities
and reduce ongoing operating costs.
•The amount of storefront space should not exceed 40,000
square feet initially.
•A mixed-use building with more than one use accounting for
15% of the square footage is much more difficult to finance.
These guidelines helped frame the use program for the site.
BUILDING TYPES
Some building types are more economically viable than others.
For example, buildings over fifty and less than one hundred feet in
height (approximately over five stories but less than 10 stories) are
not economically viable because they require more expensive
construction types and trigger added life-safety codes but do not
benefit from economies of scale. Consequently, allowable
building types needed to anticipate structures either under fifty
feet or above one hundred feet otherwise the project was unlikely
to be built.
PARCEL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The size of the site calls for creating parcels that could be treated
as financially independent from each other. To create such
financial independence demands that each parcel operates in a
self-sufficient matter. For instance, each parcel must not depend
on other parcels for parking or other functions. Parcel self-
sufficiency provides the developer needed flexibility to both
develop and finance the project. Office, residential, and parking
parcels were created.
Attachment R - Page 27
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan22 - 3.0 Context
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
Infill development also requires that virtually of the site’s
infrastructure requirements, including roads, storm water
drainage, and public open space will need to be built at the
beginning of the project, rather than phased over time. This puts a
greater burden on the project because all of these large costs must
be incurred at the time when there is also the least amount of
economic value.
3.4 TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
This section summarizes key aspects of transit service currently
provided at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Included in this
summary is data and information about the BART transit system.
Data and information about the four transit authorities serving this
area (Central Costa Contra Transit Authority, Benicia Transit,
Fairfield Suisin, and Livermore Amador Transit Authority) is
included as an appendix at the end of the report.
BART
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is situated off the I-680 corridor
between Concord and Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County. The
station is supported by 3,450 parking spaces (including 581
temporary spaces for I-680/24 construction mitigation measures),
40 motorcycle spaces, 67 bicycle spaces on racks, 53 bicycle
spaces within lockers, a taxi stand, and 10 connecting bus routes.
Routes
The Pittsburg/Baypoint - Colma line serves the Pleasant Hill
BART Station seven days a week during peak and off-peak times.
The line directly links Contra Costa County with downtown
Oakland and San Francisco.
Transfer connections from the Pittsburg/Baypoint – Colma line to
BART’s Richmond - Daly City/Colma line are possible at all stops
south of Rockridge. Transfers to BART’s Fremont – Richmond
line are possible at the MacArthur, 19th Street/Oakland, and
Oakland City Center/12th Street stops. Transfers to the Fremont –
Daly City and Dublin/Pleasanton- Daly City lines are possible at
all stops west of Oakland City Center/12th Street.
Service Hours & Frequencies
•During weekdays, the Pittsburg/Baypoint - Colma line
operates at 15 minute headways during the early morning
(4:17 am - 5:47 am); 5 minute headways during the morning
Passengers boarding the BART train.
Attachment R - Page 28
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 23
peak (6:12 am – 8:17 am); 15 minute headways during the
daily off-peak (8:32 am – 7:34 pm) and 20 minute headways
during the evening (7:34 pm –12:14 pm.)
•On Saturdays, service operates at 20 minute headways all day
(6:14 am – 12:14 am).
•On Sundays and holidays, service operates at 20 minute
headways all day (8:14 am - 12:14 am.)
Ridership
Average weekday exits from Pleasant Hill have increased from
5700 in 1998, to 6700 in 2001.
Origin-Destination Data
•According to a BART origin-destination analysis,
approximately 66% of weekday passengers originating at the
Pleasant Hill BART Station exit at one of the San Francisco/
Daly City/ or Colma BART stations.
•15% alight at one of the stations along the Pittsburg/Bay Point
– Colma line from Bay Point to West Oakland (but excluding
the McArthur, 12th Street and 19th Street Oakland stations.
•15% alight at destinations along the from the Richmond
Station to downtown Oakland. 4% alight at stations east of
downtown Oakland on the Fremont-Richmond line.
Survey Data
BART conducted a passenger survey in 1998. The results were
published a year later in the Station Profile Study. The study
revealed the following information about the demographics and
travel patterns of passengers who entered the Pleasant Hill BART
Station.
•74% of the surveyed passengers travel to the station from
their homes by automobile; 15% walk; 8% take transit; 2%
bicycle, and less than 1% use another mode.
•48% of the passengers are aged 25-44. 43% are 45-64; 5%
are 18-24; 3% are 65 and over; and less than 1% are under 18.
•53% of the passengers are female; 47% are male.
•28% of surveyed passengers earn incomes more than
$100,000; 37% earn incomes between $60,001 and
$100,000; 28% earn between $30,001 and $60,000 and 8%
earn $30,000 or less.
•71% of the passengers are white; 15% are Asian or Pacific
Attachment R - Page 29
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan24 - 3.0 Context
Islander; 8% are Hispanic; 3% are black and 3% are other.
• 86% of the passengers are traveling to work; 4% to
school; 1% to shopping location; 9% to other locations.
Other factors:
•81% use BART 5 or more days per week.
•78% have a car available to make their BART trips.
•16% have employers who pay all or part of BART ticket
cost.
•12% work at home/telecommute*
•4% take casual carpool*
•69% use the Internet*
Planned Service Improvements
BART does not have plans to change the existing level of service
provided at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. However, the
Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has requested that BART
evaluate whether equalizing ticket prices between the Pleasant Hill
and Concord Stations would eliminate the current financial
incentives for riders to go out of their way to use Pleasant Hill
BART Station.
Intermodal Planning
Although BART does not currently have specific planning
standards for intermodal connections at the Pleasant Hill BART
Station, the Strategic Plan identifies several intermodal objectives/
measures and strategies related to the goal to “maximize regional
transit access, convenience, and ease of use through effective
coordination among transit providers.”
Objectives/Measures
•Improve customer’s rating of “timeliness of bus
connections”
•Improve intermodal transit time competitiveness relative to
the automobile, for trips that serve major destinations.
•Increase transit ridership and revenue by increasing
convenience (especially for intermodal trips) and develop
additional measures of customer satisfaction to track our
success.
•Work to develop proactive, productive partnerships with at
least one or two other transit providers per year to integrate
fares, schedules, services, and information.
Strategies
Bus loading terminal at the Pleasant
Hill BART Station.
Attachment R - Page 30
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context - 25
•Develop and monitor measures on comparative door-to-
door timing for the customer
•Enter into formal agreements with other transit partners,
establishing a framework for working together more
closely.
•Work with transit partners to improve feeder service for
customers.
•Support the development of incentives to spur further
improvements in the quality of transit connections.
•Actively support transit agencies in marketing their
connections to BART riders
•Complete a study to determine the feasibility of providing
real time intermodal schedule information to BART
customers.
•Design physical infrastructure improvements to minimize
rider movement required for transfer between systems, to
minimize traffic and other transit complications around
BART Stations, and to improve customer comfort for
transferring and waiting patrons.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is located adjacent to the city
boundaries of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Concord. It is
bounded by Oak Road on the west, Coggins Drive on the north,
the Iron Horse Trail (formerly the Southern Pacific right-of-way)
on the east and Treat Boulevard to the south.
The site is served by I-680, a freeway connecting to Solano
County to the north, and Alameda and Santa Clara counties to the
south. I-680 connects with State Route 4, providing access to east
and west Contra Costa County and other areas. I-680 also
connects with State Route 24 that provides access with Alameda
County (Oakland) and San Francisco. A partial interchange is
provided with Treat Boulevard. Treat Boulevard, designated as a
Route of Regional Significance by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, is a six-lane arterial in the site vicinity
and provides access to and from Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut
Creek and other areas. Treat Boulevard connects with North Main
Street and Contra Costa Boulevard, both of which are also
designated as Routes of Regional Significance.
Monument Boulevard provides additional access between
Concord and the northern BART Station area through an
intersection with Buskirk Avenue. Buskirk Avenue is a north-
Attachment R - Page 31
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan26 - 3.0 Context
south collector street. The Station is also served by Oak Road, a
north-south roadway just west of the Station. Other streets serving
the Station include Geary Road (Treat Boulevard becomes Geary
Road west of I-680), Coggins Drive north of the Station, Las
Juntas north of the Station and Jones Road which parallels the Iron
Horse Trail. These roadways are designated as Basic Routes,
primarily carring local traffic. They are all routes not designated
as Routes of Regional Significance.
Parking for the BART Station is currently provided by surface lots
and a parking structure. The existing supply is essentially fully
used by BART commuters. The lots are not fully used in the
evenings and on weekends when BART patronage is lower.
The BART Station is served by the Central Contra Costa Transit
Authority (CCCTA), also known as County Connection, as well as
other services such as Solano Bencia. Service is provided along
Treat Boulevard and Oak Road.
Pedestrian and bicycling access for the BART Station is provided
along the Iron Horse Trail and along the roadways connecting
with the Station.
The major issues and concerns noted by area residents,
commuters, employees, employers and others regarding
transportation in the area of the BART Station are traffic
congestion, traffic intrusion in the surrounding neighborhoods,
pedestrian and bicycle access, bus access, and parking supply and
management.
Attachment R - Page 32
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 4.0 Public Process - 27
4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
The purpose of the public involvement process was to gain
information and “buy-in” from the community. This promotes a
well-informed design strategy that creates a mutual education
process through which all parties become aware of the various
complex elements of the project, including transportation,
economics, program, urban design, and community needs.
Public outreach for the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette started prior
to the January 16, 2001 kickoff meeting, and then it continued
before and after the February 22-27 Charrette, and up to the April
9-10 follow up meetings. The goal of the outreach activities was
to successfully involve as many people in the Charrette process as
possible, reaching out to local organizations and individuals, as
well as people who might not have participated in public events in
the past. The basic philosophy was to try to promote awareness
and understanding about the Charrette process by developing
contacts and disseminating information. A key element of the
approach was to continue to contact people throughout the
process, using a variety of different means, to promote attendance
throughout the course of the Charrette. The outreach component
involved a combination of the following:
•Mailings: letters of invitation, background
information, flyers, reminder postcards
•Phone calls: personal calls to key stakeholders, residents,
and business contacts
•Faxes: fliers and announcements to key
stakeholders, residents, and business
contacts
•Emails: announcements and updates to key
stakeholders, residents, business
contacts; and Charrette event participants
•Handbills: posted at the Community Bulletin Board at
the BART station and in local
office buildings
•Signs: posted around the Pleasant Hill BART
station
•Banners: Displayed at the Pleasant Hill BART station
prior to the Charrette
•Newsletter announcements: BART newsletter, League of
Women Voters, Walden Newsletter, and
others
•Passenger Notices: meeting announcements available at
IV. PUBLIC PROCESS
The Charrette included many
community meetings of various sizes.
Experts challenged each other,
generating new ideas.
Local residents generated and
presented their own design concepts.
Attachment R - Page 33
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan28 - 4.0 Public Process
thefare gates of the Pleasant Hill BART
station
•Cable TV announcements: meeting dates and times posted
on local cable channels; later rebroadcasts
of the Charrette meetings played on local
cable channel
•Press releases: to local newspapers, TV and radio stations
•Website: invitations, announcements, meeting notes,
comments received, sketches and site plans
via the project website; a user-friendly
domain name secured and used; there was
also a response area on the website where
people could request to be added to the
Pleasant Hill BART mailing list
Accurate and comprehensive database creation and maintenance
was another key aspect of the outreach component. Communities
By Design used the County mailing list as a starting point, and
contacted other key organizations for their mailing lists. In
January (prior to any Charrette activities), these combined lists
totaled approximately 1200 names. New names were added to the
database throughout the Charrette process as people requested to
be added through the website, or as participant lists were
developed at the individual meetings. The Pleasant Hill BART
Charrette database now contains approximately 1700 names.
Prior to the Charrette, Communities By Design conducted one-on-
one briefings with key project participants and stakeholders,
including: Jay Lutz of Supervisor Donna Gerber's office, Lynette
Tanner-Busby of the Contra Costa Centre Association, and Kris
Hunt of theWalden District Improvement Organization, to gather
background information and obtain input for best ways to reach
out and involve the community. Kristen Paulsen of Communities
By Design also participated in several regular meetings of
community groups, including the Pleasant Hill BART Steering
Committee and the Countrywood Homeowners Association (at the
request of Marjorie McWee) to promote the Charrette.
More than 522 individuals participated in one or more of the
scheduled public meetings and Charrette events, or dropped in
during the more than 80 hours of open door studio time. We
believe that the actual number of participants was much higher, as
not everyone signed in at the public meetings.
Small group presentations allowed the
everyone to critique the work.
Large evening meetings allowed
community members to give input.
Various aspects of the project were
examined, from parking to architecture
to trails and safety.
Attachment R - Page 34
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 4.0 Public Process - 29
4.2 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER ISSUES
The following is a summary of the citizen comments made
throughout the extensive public involvement process from January
16th, 2001 to April 10th, 2001.
SCALE OF BUILDINGS
• The area around the BART station should provide a local sense
of place, and it should not look like “Anywhere, USA.”
• The blocks should be small and walkable.
• Buildings should front on streets, not parking lots. The
architecture should have variety, but also appear compatible
and complementary.
• Create a village center or town square where residents could
gather for events and belong to a community.
• Provide places to “meet your neighbors.”
• Buildings should be “human-scaled.”
• High-rise buildings should be avoided when possible.
• Towers should be clustered close to the station, with buildings
stepping down toward the edges of the site.
PROGRAMMING
•The station area should contain mostly local serving uses and
should not become a regional retail destination.
•Provide a mixture of uses (similar to downtown Walnut Creek)
that would generate activities throughout the day and evening.
•Provide a community center or public space that could be used
for community events.
•Possible public uses include: a concert hall, a community
theater, a library, a post office, a new swim club/exercise
facility, small science observatory, a fountain, a bowling alley,
a playground (with a dog park), and a roller rink.
•Provide small retail shops such as coffee shops, book stores,
bike shops, dry cleaners, florists: uses that would appeal to
locals and not generate large quantities of additional traffic.
Additional potential commercial uses include a grocery store,
a bank (with ATM machines), restaurants, delis, bakeries, a
day care center, and a clinic. Local serving, affordable office
space.
•Provide a variety of housing including some affordable
housing near the station, and senior facilities with housing and
meeting space.
•Possible Business Conference Center.
Participants were encouraged to roll up
their sleeves and draw their suggestions
and ideas.
The design studio was almost a non-
stop flurry of activity.
Ample time was allowed for communi-
cation between participants and the
design consultants.
Attachment R - Page 35
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan30 - 4.0 Public Process
TRAFFIC & PARKING
• Parking should be designed so as not to detract from the
pedestrian environment.
• Address short-term parking during the construction phase of
the project.
• Address the traffic on already congested streets in the area
Look holistically at the regional transportation system, in
particular the traffic flow from Bancroft to the BART Station
via Mayhew and Las Juntas.
• Encourage nonresidents to use the arterials to relieve
congestion on local roads.
• Increase connectivity, too many dead end streets.
• Of particular concern was the impact of new development on
Treat Boulevard, which many described as “very congested”
and a “neighborhood divider.”
• The intersections at Treat Boulevard and Oak Road and at
Treat Boulevard and I-680 are overloaded.
• It is impossible to merge left and avoid being forced onto I-
680 when turning right from Oak Road onto Treat Boulevard.
Connect Jones to Treat versus realign Jones south of Treat.
• Concern for pedestrian access and movement in the area.
• The interaction between pedestrians and traffic is currently
very poor.
• The bus lanes are difficult to walk over, and Oak Road is too
wide for pedestrians.
• Consider pedestrian connections to the surrounding
neighborhoods, to make the walk into the station safe,
interesting and convenient.
SAFETY
•Provide activity and “eyes on the street” so that the area
around the station will be safe and have low crime rates. The
station is currently a nighttime wasteland.
•Accommodate all modes of transportation safely, including
bicycling and walking.
•Concern that the development could increase crime by
bringing in people from other areas, including thieves.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CAR
•Alternatives to the automobile should be encouraged and
emphasized on site; this includes increased educational efforts,
incentives for public transit use, more frequent late night bus
service, airport shuttles, a light rail system as a complement to
Many local residents became quite
enthusiastic, returning for multiple
meetings.
The Charrette process is about
education, community input, and design
brainstorming.
Small groups enabled everyone to give
input.
Attachment R - Page 36
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 4.0 Public Process - 31
BART, better bike/pedestrian connections to the site, and
improved bike facilities.
• Promote increased use of the current public transit system to
alleviate the parking demand.
• Create off-site parking structures (conversions of the old
Montgomery-Wards shopping center and the old Co-op
building, for example) that would provide free parking for
BART riders.
•Connect to the station via free shuttle buses. This program
would be in conjunction with charging patrons for parking on-
site, thus rewarding those who were willing to take the shuttle
bus. Many supported the idea of charging for on-site parking
at the station as a way to encourage more BART patrons to
arrive by bus or via carpool.
•Make the connections to the station walkable and interesting,
encouraging pedestrian activity as much as possible.
•Create a clear, safe route through the area connecting nearby
housing, retail, and office uses with the station and parking
garages.
•Recommended physical upgrades: softer trails (not concrete),
better lighting and light color (white not yellow), handicapped
accessible sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, intersection
improvements on Treat Boulevard and other dangerous
crossing areas, bridge or tunnel access across the 1-680
Freeway toward North Main and across Treat at Jones and
Oak.
•Provide bicycle access separated from automobile traffic and
pedestrian areas, with dedicated bicycle lanes on Treat
Boulevard and Oak Street.
•Develop linkages to other existing transit systems, including
connecting to neighboring communities in Walnut Creek,
Concord, and Pleasant Hill, as well as surrounding residential
areas.
IRON HORSE TRAIL
•Integrate the Iron Horse Trail into the project, consistent with
the Regional Trail System such as Colony Park.
•Connected uses together by the trail (e.g. Swim club, buses,
BART, hotel, fitness center, etc.).
•Provide a possible refuge area along the East side of the Trail
just North of Treat Boulevard that could be named for Del
Hombre. Consider a community garden. Integrate the
proposed pedestrian/bike overpass over Treat Boulevard into
the project.
Between meetings, there was time for
one-on-one discussions of the ideas.
During the evening meetings,
participants were able to talk publicly
about particular concerns.
Displays of the work were set up to
allow “drop-ins” to see the design
progress.
Attachment R - Page 37
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan32 - 4.0 Public Process
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
•Some residents had strong feelings about preserving the
natural environment.
•Concern over the safety of the large oak trees on the corner of
Oak and Treat Boulevard.
•Preserve views of Mount Diablo to the East.
•Concern that development on the East side of the site could
block the views of those on the West side of the site.
•Support for increased public space and parks
•Concern about the timing issues involved with implementing
“green space” along the trail.
•Mitigate the strong Southwest winds, and freeway noise from
the adjacent I-680 freeway.
4.3 THE CHARRETTE DESIGN PROCESS
The Design process for the Pleasant Hill BART Station was based
on the principle that “the best plan is made by many hands.”
In order to avoid rework and to make the best use of everyone’s
time, the consultant team conducted an opportunity and
constraints analysis before starting design work. The consultants
used short feedback loops in order to insure that the design stayed
on track. Each design iteration was tested by a round of review by
interested parties. During the Charrette, the design advanced from
a set of conceptual alternatives to a preferred alternative through a
series of reviews. Feedback was collected during continuous ad
hoc meetings with drop-ins, scheduled stakeholder meetings, in-
studio daily pinups reviews, and large evening public meetings.
After the Charrette, the consultant team performed technical
feasibility studies and incorporated further comments from the
public and relevant agencies. The refined alternative was then
presented at the Charrette follow-up session, a set of two evening
meetings where further changes were incorporated into plan and a
final preferred alternative was presented at the end of the second
day.
Large meetings offered a forum for a
wide range of community concerns to
be aired.
Small topic-based sessions allowed
local residents to participate in the
details of the design solutions.
Photo-realistic digital imaging helped
participants visualize what locations
around the station might look like.
Attachment R - Page 38
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 33
5.1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE PLAN - THE CHARRETTE LOG
THURSDAY FEB. 22
•6:30-8:30 PM Public Kickoff Meeting
FRIDAY FEB. 23
•11:00 BART Technical Meeting
•1:00 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Meeting
•2:00 Retail Meeting
•4:00 Staff Review Meeting
SATURDAY FEB. 24
•10:30 Neighbors Meeting
•4:30-6:30 Public Workshop
MONDAY FEB 26
• 10:00 BART Technical Meeting
• 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting on Transportation
TUESDAY FEB 27
•6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
5.2 THE CHARRETTE PROCESS LOG
START-UP PHASE : JANUARY 16TH
Public Kickoff Meeting, Tuesday, January 16Th, 2001
The kickoff meeting was a one evening, hands-on workshop. The
purpose of the meeting was for public representatives, staff,
consultants and the public to reach a shared understanding of the
project goals, process, constraints, and desired vision. It was
important to have this meeting before the consultants starting their
design work. Two hundred participants worked at small group
tables to arrive at the key issues and visions for the project.
V. THE PLAN
Charrette Process Chart.
Attachment R - Page 39
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan34 - 5.0 The Plan
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PHASE : JANUARY 16 – FEBRUARY 22ND
The purpose of the Research and Education Phase was to continue
a two-way conversation with the community in order to develop a
fully informed set of participants for the Charrette. During this
phase, consultants gathered physical, economic and
transportation-based data. They also began to test design concepts
that are based on the latest community input.
CHARRETTE PHASE – FEBRUARY 22ND – 27TH
The design team established a temporary studio in the Embassy
Suites Hotel between February 22nd and 27th. During these six
days, a team of architects, landscape architects, engineers,
economists, and transportation and transit engineers worked day
and night to first develop alternatives that eventually merged into
a preferred alternative. The design studio was open to the public
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 9:30 PM. Unscheduled
meetings occurred on a regular basis, during which interested
people would visit the studio and discuss the design with the
design team. In total, the Charrette included over 72 hours of open
public design workshop.
Charrette Day One, Thursday, February 22nd
Scheduled Meetings:
•11:30-12:30 Technical Group Meeting
•6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
The consultants (design team) set up a temporary public design
studio at the Embassy Suites Hotel. A team of 13 planners,
architects, economists, and transportation engineers, made the
studio their home for the next six days. The studio was open to
the public morning and evening, from 8:30 AM to 9 PM. At 6:30
PM, the Design Team presented subsequent research and design
concepts at a public review session attended by over 200 people.
Two design concepts were presented, one with a diagonal street
leading from the corner of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard to a
station square, (Scheme 1A), and one with streets leading
perpendicular from Treat Boulevard to the station and
perpendicular from Jones Road to the station, (Scheme 1B). Part
way through the meeting some participants expressed their
frustration at the presentation format of the meeting. Many people
expected a hands-on workshop format similar to prior meetings.
The county and consultant team decided to restart the meeting,
setting up workstations around the room where people could
discuss the proposed concepts in small groups. Input was gathered
using drawings on site plans, flip charts and Post-it notes. After
Feb. 22 - Scheme 1 A
(enlarged version in Appendix G)
Feb. 22 - Scheme 1B
(enlarged version in Appendix G)
Attachment R - Page 40
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 35
the impromptu change of meeting format, most participants felt
that the Charrette process was back on track.
Charrette Day Two, Friday, February 23rd
Scheduled Meetings:
•11:00 BART Technical Meeting
•1:00 Pedestrian/ Bicycle overcrossing Meeting
•2:00 Retail Meeting
•4:00 Staff Review Meeting
The design team began to assess input from the previous evening’s
session and to rework the design alternatives. A series of meetings
were held with members of the design team and the BART
engineering group, the engineer for the pedestrian bridge, County
Connection, the developer, and retail experts. All meetings were
open to the public. The meetings offered an opportunity for
everyone to gain a greater understanding of the various aspects of
the project, so that the designs could be well informed. Financial
and transportation feasibility analysis was continually performed
on the evolving schemes.
Based on the high level of citizen interest in transportation issues,
the design team decided to add an ad hoc transportation meeting
for Monday evening at 6:30. The design team worked until 11:30
PM in anticipation of Saturday’s neighbor’s meeting and afternoon
public review.
Charrette Day Three, Saturday, February 24th
Scheduled Meetings:
•10:30 Neighbors Meeting
•4:30-6:30 Public Workshop
Several design concepts were presented to a meeting of neighbors
at 10:30 AM.. A separate station was set up for the Las Juntas
Swim Club. Since the swim club was listed by the county as a
possible future loction for some of the temporary parking east of
Jones Road on the Iron Horse Trail, it became an important
element of the Charrette. Several pool site alternatives were
presented and debated by pool members. A steady stream of
people flowed through the design studio on Saturday afternoon.
The A and B schemes were refined and presented to a public
review at 4:30, during which concerns were raised over the low
number of residential units relative to the amount of ofice and the
poor retail exposure of Scheme 2A. An important evolution from
Feb. 24 - Scheme 2B
Provides more developable blocks for
residential and good retail exposure.
Feb. 24 - Scheme 2A
Not enough residential; poor retail
exposure on Treat.
Feb. 25 - Scheme emphasizes a strong
connection between the Iron Horse
Trail and the Station.
Attachment R - Page 41
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan36 - 5.0 The Plan
scheme 2A and 2B was the location of the BART replacement
parking garage. 2A located the parking on the north and south
sides of the tracks. This arrangement imposed limitations on the
viability of residential blocks on the south. The BART
replacement parking was then consolidated to the north corner,
contiguous with the existing garage. The south blocks then
became viable developable residential sites.
Scheme 2B became the favored plan in part due its greater
housing, the square at the station and the retail frontage on Treat.
At this meeting it is announced that in response to the public’s
concern for accurate traffic counts, new counts would be
conducted for a week starting on Monday.
One neighbor proposed a scheme that featured a substantial public
green connecting the station directly east to the Iron Horse Trail.
This concept was incorporated into Scheme B, by creating a green
in front of the station and extending a boulevard east to the Iron
Horse Trail.
Charrette Day Four, Sunday, February 25th
The design team continued to revise the design schemes according
to the information and input from the prior three days. Traffic
counts wereobtained at various locations in the immediate vicinity
of the BART station.
Charrette Day Five, Monday, February 26th.
Scheduled Meetings:
• 10:00 BART Technical Meeting
• 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting on Transportation
Scheme 2B passed a review by a second BART Technical
meeting. The design team began more detailed studies of the
scheme. The economists continued to test the financial and
market feasibility of the scheme. Approximately 50 people
attended the Transportation Focus Group at 6:30. The design team
facilitated a discussion of the BART Station area in the regional
transportation context. Scheme 2B was presented and the
transportation impacts were discussed. Input was gathered on the
scheme. The general response was positive. The most common
suggestion for improvement was to increase the number of
housing units and introduce for-sale units.
Scheme 3B
Provides more residential and larger
public open space component.
A detail of Station Square and the
residential green leading to the Iron
Horse Trail at the eastern edge of the
site.
Attachment R - Page 42
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 37
Charrette Day Six, Tuesday, February 27th
Scheduled Meetings:
•6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
The design team revised their preferred scheme to maximize the
amount of green and housing. Scheme 2B evolved in 3B with a
larger park area.
After six days, including four formal public meetings, over seven
informational meetings, and 72 hours of open door studio work,
the design team presented scheme 3B to an evening public
meeting attended by nearly 200 people.
Scheme 3B featured:
• A larger “Station Square” and Residential “Green”
connecting the station to the Iron Horse Trail.
• A location for an Iron Horse Trail Gateway with locations for
bike maintenance and rest room facilities.
• A north/south retail main street extending from Treat
Boulevard to Station Square. Retail also on Treat Boulevad
and around some portion of the square. Possible uses include
cafes and small locally serving shops, such as a drug store
• An interconnected pedestrian network of interesting, walkable
sidewalks and paths connecting the surrounding
neighborhoods to the station.
• Over 250 housing units of residential including 50 for sale
townhouses. Most units face the surrounding residential
neighborhoods, to the east along the Trail, and to the north
along Las Juntas Way, across from Fox Creek Park.
• Office towers are located to the west, mirroring the existing
office along Treat and Oak.
• Public uses such as a day care center, a health club, and
meeting spaces, among others, are located around Station
Square.
• Taxis and busses circulate around the Station Square, stopping
to pick up and drop off passengers at designated locations.
Layovers occur north of the Square under the BART tracks.
Kiss and Ride is located north of the tracks.
• The existing BART surface parking is accommodated in a
parking structure attached to the current garage. The 250
spaces that were scheduled for possible location on the
neighboring swim club site are accommodated in garages in
the plan. All parking necessary for the offices, retail and
housing is accommodated on site in garages as fee parking.
On street parking adds to the available parking for the project.
Attachment R - Page 43
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan38 - 5.0 The Plan
REVIEW AND REVISE PHASE
The consultant team spent the next six weeks reviewing, refining
and testing the preferred Charrette Plan. Further input was
gathered from citizens, agencies and the developer. The scheme
was revised to assure physical and financial feasibility, and was
prepared for presentation at the Charrette follow-up meetings in
April.
Charrette Follow-up Meeting 1
Monday April 9, 6:30 PM, Embassy Suites Hotel
The consultant team presented revised design schemes plus
concepts for design codes to a meeting which was attended by
over 150 people. The design team gathered input to inform their
work on further revisions during the following day.
Charrette Follow-up Meeting 2
Tuesday April 10, Embassy Suites Hotel
The Design Team presents the final draft of the Plan based upon
the previous night’s comments. Final public input was gathered,
and traded. The consultant team asked for a “Vote of Confidence”
on the Design Team resulting in an enthusiastic round of applause
from the participants.
A new gathering place for the
neighborhood and for commuters.
Station Square looking to the improved
Bart platform with a new office
building in the background.
Attachment R - Page 44
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
HOUSING ON LAS JUNTAS WAY
Las Juntas Way becomes a completed residential
street with the addition of a four-story apartment
building. This building buffers the neighborhood
from the BART garage. These new residences also
front Fox Creek Park.
BART REPLACEMENT PARKING
The replacement parking, temporary parking east of
Jones Road, and parking for the office building is
accommodated in the addition to the existing park-
ing structure.
STATION SQUARE
Station Square is the primary, formal civic space. It
is activated by the station entry and the surrounding
commercial and civic uses. Loading and unloading
for busses and taxis is accommodated around the
square. Bus layovers are accommodated in the alley
south of the platform (3a).
NORTH/SOUTH RETAIL MAIN STREET
Prime retail fronts Treat Boulevard and extends
along the north-south street to, and partially around,
the square.
RESIDENTIAL PARK BLOCK &
IRON HORSE TRAIL
An east-west street, envisioned as an elegant green
lined with town houses, connects Station Square
with the regional Iron Horse Trail.
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA MASTER PLAN1
2
3
4
5
6
OFFICE BUILDING
A 12 story office building is located across the
BART tracks from the square, in proximity to the
existing office buildings. Because of its orientation
on axis with the square, this prominent building
creates a visual connection between the north and
south sides of the community.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7OAK PARK
The oak grove becomes a park fronted by retail on
Treat. A small retail building, probably a restaurant,
is sited so as not to disturb the trees.
TREAT BOULEVARDOAK ROADJONES ROADLAS JUNTAS WAY
Parking garage location subject to further
engineering studies.
3a
*
*
Attachment R - Page 45
Page intentionally left blank
Attachment R - Page 46
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan40 - 5.0 The Plan
RESPONDING TO THE
SURROUNDING CONTEXT
Many citizens felt that the
station community should
maintain a similar scale to
the surrounding buildings.
The heights and uses of
proposed buildings were
therefore coordinated with
existing development - tall
office buildings next to
adjacent tall office
buildings, lower-resident
buildings facing existing
residential areas. Streets
were also carefully
aligned to maximize
access and connectivity to
surrounding destinations.
Aerial rendering of the proposed design shows how the new buildings would fit in with the surrounding community.
Connecting the square next to the station with the Iron Horse Trail was a major objective in the
project. This illustration shows the residential boulevard that connects them, and the small civic
building within the generous planted median.
5.3 ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHARRETTE SCHEMES
NOTE: Drawings, diagrams and other visual representations of the
proposed community plan within this report are conceptual in
nature and depict a series of design schemes that evolved over a
period of months. While such illustrations represent a generalized
vision of the plan, certain details may be inconsistent with one
another and with the ultimate built scheme. For the most accurate
description of the plan as proposed, refer to the Pleasant Hill
BART Property Code.
Attachment R - Page 47
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 41
CREATING A PUBLIC
GATHERING SPACE
For the majority of the
participants in the
planning process, the idea
of a central public space at
the heart of the
community was
compelling. Like many
traditional rail stations, the
Pleasant Hill BART Area
Community Plan
incorporates an adjacent
public square.
Dubbed “Station Square”
during the Charrette, the
civic space is planned as
the focus of activity for
the larger neighborhood.
It terminates both the
north-south retail street
and the east-west
residential boulevard. To
further activate the square,
the buses are routed
around the green, enabling
convenient transfers to
and from BART. Busses
lay over along the alley
south of the platform.
Uses around the square
include retail and civic on
the ground floor, and
residential and office uses
above. Generous
sidewalks are provided to
encourage al fresco dining
and pedestrian activity.
Aerial view of Station Square looking east toward Mt. Diablo.
Street-level view of Station Square showing the improved BART station, retail shops, and office
beyond.
Attachment R - Page 48
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan42 - 5.0 The Plan
A concept section through station square looking at the BART platform.
Plan detail showing a continuous sequence of green public spaces creating a gateway to the Iron Horse Trail.
STATION
SQUARE PARK BLOCK
JONES ROADIRON HORSE TRAILThree alternative concepts for the BART Station improvements. The towers are envisioned as a part of the abutting retail buildings.
Attachment R - Page 49
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 43
CONNECTING TO THE IRON
HORSE TRAIL
Charrette participants felt
it was important to make a
strong connection between
the station and the trail.
The plan features a green
lined by elegant three-
story townhomes leading
to the Station Square. A
small civic building is
located in the green to
provide for community
functions such as a coffee
window, public toilets,
bike repair and storage, a
public market, or
community meeting room
upstairs.
View of the wide planted green and townhomes, with views of Mt. Diablo in the background.
View of juncture between Iron Horse Trail, Jones Road, and the new east-west residential park block.
Attachment R - Page 50
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan44 - 5.0 The Plan
CREATING A SENSE OF
PLACE
The streets of the Pleasant
Hill BART Community
Plan define the blocks that
set the pattern for the entire
plan. From this layout
comes the dimensions and
configurations of the
buildings, parks, and plazas
that make up the physical
environment in the
development.
Street sections vary from a
narrow 20’ access lane to
a broad boulevard with a
generous planted median
and associated public
building. Each is sized
according to its particular
function and location
within the plan.
This local street inspired the design of the retail street.
Attachment R - Page 51
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 45
The outdoor space created
by the buildings that line
each street is vital. Streets
that are either too wide or
that are lined with low
buildings fail to provide
spatial enclosure. Spatial
enclosure is one of the
elements needed to create
a sense of place.
Another design goal was
to provide a human-scaled
elements at the street-
level. The street standards
for Pleasant Hill BART
mandate street trees, wide
sidewalks, on-street
parking, and benches.
The architectural codes
specify minimum first
floor glazing requirements
and awnings on retail
buildings. These elements
help create a comfortable,
intimately-scaled
streetscape that
encourages pedestrian
activity.
Attachment R - Page 52
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan46 - 5.0 The Plan
INCORPORATING REGIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTER
Charrette participants felt
that the station community
should have a local
architectural fit. The
Charrette architects were
inspired by the rich
architectural traditions of
the East Bay. These
building elevations are
representative of a diverse
yet harmonious design
palette that will be
allowed under the codes.
Example elevations of mixed-use retail buildings around Station Square.
Example elevations of the three-story townhomes along the residential boulevard.
Example elevation of the 12 story office building.
Attachment R - Page 53
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 47
CREATING A
COMPREHENSIVE
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
Charrette participants felt
that pedestrian access to the
BART station should be
improved..
Currently, pedestrian access
to the BART Platform is
difficult. Pedestrians are
forced to traverse large
surface parking lots that
lack dedicated pedestrian
routes and adequate
lighting.
Vigorous pedestrian-
activity is the hallmark of a
healthy public place. The
master plan creates a series
of linked parks, plazas and
broad sidewalks to allow
comfortable and safe
pedestrian access to the
BART station from all
directions.
Benefits of this network
include reduced parking
requirements and increased
pedestrian safety.
Residents living within
walking distance of the
BART station will have
more incentive to leave
their cars at home, reducing
the overall need for
parking. Active uses, good
lighting, and large, street
level windows help to keep
pedestrian routes safe and
attractive.
Treat BoulevardOak RoadIron Horse Trail GreenwayRes. Blvd.
Station
Square
Oak
Park
Fox
Creek
Park
Las Juntas Way
Jones RoadOpen space diagram showing landscaped areas (green) and hardscaped
areas (tan).
Attachment R - Page 54
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan48 - 5.0 The Plan
PRESERVING
NATURAL AMENITIES
Two significant natural
features currently exist on
the 18 acre BART site: a
grove of large oak trees on
the Southwest corner of
the site, and Fox Creek
Park, a small pocket park
adjacent to Las Juntas
Way. Special care was
taken to preserve these
amenities and integrate
them into the design.
During the Charrette, two
ideas emerged for utilizing
the oak grove to provide
safe and convenient
pedestrian access north to
the station. This site is
viewed by thousands of
cars per day. Whatever is
built at the corner of Oak
and Treat will become an
important landmark for
the project.
Option one (above left)
shows a series of arcades
along the south and east
edges of the grove. This
option provides abundant
pedestrian access and
safety lighting for those
walking to the BART or
bus stations. Option two
(center left) illustrates a
pavilion restaurant with
outside seating underneath
the oaks. This active
nighttime use will help
maintain safety and create
a lively atmosphere in the
area.
Option one - a trellised arcade stretches along Treat Boulevard and the western edge of Block A.
Plan - Option one.
Option two - a pavilion restaurant sits among the oak trees, with an adjacent outside patio.
Plan - Option two.
Attachment R - Page 55
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 49
A view of Treat Boulevard looking west showing a vital pedestrian, retail street. Off-peak parking and a row of trees and planters buffer the sidewalk
from the traffic. Storefronts, awnings and other architectural details provide an attractive, human scale.
Current conditions on Treat Boulevard looking west.
RETAIL ON TREAT BOULEVARD
Attachment R - Page 56
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan50 - 5.0 The Plan
A view of proposed housing in front of the BART garage. This building improves the local neighborhhod character by placing new residences across
from existing ones.
The existing view along Las Juntas Way looking at the BART garage.
HOUSING WRAPPING THE PARKING GARAGE ON LAS JUNTAS WAY
Attachment R - Page 57
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 51
First Floor Uses in the Pleasant Hill BART Area Master Plan
ALLOWED HEIGHTS,
USES AND BUILDING
TYPES
Several factors determined
the maximum building
heights allowed on the
site. The Specific plan
stipulates that views of
Mt. Diablo be maintained
from the BART platform.
This limits building
heights east of the
platform to 52 feet. The
maximum height allowed
by the Specific Plan for
any building north of the
BART tracks is 12 stories
and 7 stories to the south.
Building construction techniques also influenced allowed building heights. Wood-frame
construction (type V) is the most common and economical construction technique for buildings of up
to four stories. For fire safety reasons, higher buildings must use more expensive steel or concrete
structural systems (type I). This additional project cost can only be recouped if the building is seven
or more stories. In buildings between four and seven stories, additional rental income doesn’t
compensate for the additional structural cost.
Allowed uses are outlined in the codes. In some locations, uses are quite specific. In others they are
more flexible. For example, along the new north-south street that links Treat Boulevard with Station
Square, retail uses are required at the ground level. However, in the upper floors of the same
buildings, a variety of uses are allowed - from housing to office to lodging. The final use will
depend on market demand at the time of construction and thereafter.
LEGEND
Office Use
Residential Use
Civic Use
Retail Use
Undetermined /
Flex Use
*
*
Attachment R - Page 58
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan52 - 5.0 The Plan
The master plan allows for
buildings to accommodate
interim uses. For
example, the square
footage of required retail
storefront may exceed the
initial demand for retail
space. In this case, office
uses would be allowed
until the retail market
develops.
Generally, housing is
located near desirable
visual and recreational
amenities (such as the Iron
Horse Trail), and close to
existing housing. Office uses are clustered near other office buildings. Retail uses are sited in
locations that are highly visible to passing cars and along routes to and from public transit.
Structured parking lots are hidden behind other uses (when possible) and architecturally enhanced
(when not screened by an active use). Buildings with civic uses are placed in prominent locations
around the site, terminating views from important streets.
Upper Floor Uses in the Pleasant Hill BART Area Master Plan
LEGEND
Office Use
Residential Use
Civic Use
Retail Use
Undetermined /
Flex Use
*
*
Attachment R - Page 59
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 53
5.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
The financial analysis conducted as part of the Charrette was
designed to test the financial performance of the development
program created during the charrette process. A financial model
was built specifically for this purpose which generated multiple
measures of return to test performance from three perspectives:
the developer, BART, and the County. In addition, the model was
structured to test the financial feasibility of each individual
product type included in the overall program e.g., townhouse and
flats but the results shown below combine the return from each
use to reflect the synergisms of a mixed-use project. In addition,
the model also incorporated non-income producing elements of
the plan including infrastructure and public improvement costs
such as streets, streetscapes, the plaza, improvements to the BART
Station, etc. For more detailed description of the model and the
assumptions uses and inputs to this analysis, see Appendix A.
Two alternatives were generated during the charrette, however, the
only difference between the two is the treatment of the block
bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. One proposes
primarily residential on this block while the other considers
primarily office uses. The following two tables summarize the
programs for each alternative.
RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM):
Block layout for the proposed new
development around the Pleasant Hill
BART Station.
Use
Square Feet/ #
Units/Spaces Cost
Funding
Sources
Rent/Sales
Price per
Square Ft.(as
of 2/2001)
Feasibility
(Income vs.
Costs)
Office
290,000 Sq.
Ft. $77 million Private $3.50-$3.75 ++
Storefront 42,000 Sq. Ft. $13 million Private $1.50-$2.50 -
Residential 446 units $93 million Private $2.15-$2.75 +
Total for
Private Uses 778,000 sq. ft. $183 million
Public
Infrastructure
Plazas, parks,
new roads,
sidewalks, etc. $8 million Public N/A N/A
BART
Replacement
Parking1480 $20 million Public N/A N/A
Iron Horse
Trail
Replacement
Parking581 $9 million
Public/Fee
Financed N/A N/A
Total for Public
Benefits $37 Million
Project Total 799,000 sq. ft. $220 million Private/Public
Attachment R - Page 60
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan54 - 5.0 The Plan
OFFICE ALTERNATIVE (TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM):
KEY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Use
Square Feet/#
Units/Spaces Cost
Funding
Sources
Rent/Sales
Price per
Square Ft.(as
of 2/2001)
Feasibility
(Income vs.
Costs)
Office 456,000 Sq. Ft. $122 million Private $3.50-$3.75 ++
Storefront 42,000 Sq. Ft. $13 million Private $1.50-$2.50 -
Residential 274 units $57 million Private $2.15-$2.75 +
Total for
Private Uses 772,000 sq. ft. $192 million
Public
Infrastructure
Plazas, parks,
new roads,
sidewalks, etc. $8 million Public N/A N/A
BART
Replacement
Parking1480 $20 million Public N/A N/A
Iron Horse
Trail
Replacement
Parking581 $9 million
Public/Fee
Financed N/A N/A
Total for Public
Benefits 772,000 sq. ft. $37 Million
Project Total $229 million Private/Public
Overall, the final Charrette alternative, with either residential or
office on the parcel bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard,
meets the developer’s required return on capital for each
individual land use using cost and revenue assumptions based on
market conditions in February, 2001. However, the returns to the
developer are not high enough to meet their own requirements and
generate enough additional revenue to pay for all the necessary
infrastructure and public improvement costs. Therefore some
public/private partnership will be required to finance the
infrastructure and public improvements cost necessary to create a
true “transit village” on this site, including replacing all of the
existing on-site BART parking.
The proposed residential uses are successful enough to meet the
developer’s required return, but do not generate any additional
cash to help pay for the major infrastructure and public
improvement costs. Including 50 for-sale units in the program did
improve the overall financial performance of the housing
component, due to the early influx of cash flow upon sale at the
assumed absorption rate. This impact, however, was not dramatic,
due to the small number of for-sale units and the fact that each
townhouse replaced about two rental units due to its larger size
and lower height. This finding is consistent with the fact that
other residential projects in the area around the BART Station
have been financially successful, however, none of these projects
Attachment R - Page 61
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 55
have been burdened with providing such elements as a dense street
network, a large green, or replacement parking for BART, all of
which are necessary conditions for developing the BART site.
Retail and storefront land uses are similar to the public
improvements budget: retail is a crucial component of activated,
new urbanist public spaces, but it is cost intensive especially as
compared to the achievable rents and is therefore not financially
feasible as an independent use. In all scenarios run by the
economics team through the course of the charrette, the cost to
build retail spaces in all blocks exceeded the revenue this use
could achieve. However, the development of carefully planned
retail spaces is of primary importance in the development of place
and the creation of a neighborhood that complements and
capitalizes on the BART station. In addition, retail uses help to
increase the value of other uses in project, especially the housing.
Therefore, the financial model was structured to consider the
potential for “cross-subsidy” between land uses, i.e., if the retail
space is not financially viable, but the office space makes more
than enough return, some of the excess revenue from the office
space can be used to cover the retail space’s extra costs. Having
one land use cross-subsidize another allows the developer to
create the desired use mix and still have a financially viable
project overall, even if some uses are weaker than others. The
financial analysis does indicate that with cross-subsidy from the
office use, the retail component of the project is viable.
The high-rise office land use is the most intensive revenue
generator in the plan, consistently surpassing the minimum return
thresholds based on February 2001 market conditions. This excess
revenue would enable the developer to cross-subsidize the retail
space, as discussed above, and contribute to some of the
infrastructure and public improvements beyond basis site
improvement costs. The office cash flow included income from
its associated parking, under the assumption that all spaces
provided for the office (at a ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1000 net square
feet) would be leased to tenants or other users at market rate.
The chart below summarizes the previous discussion showing that
only the office use generates values in excess of the threshold
Attachment R - Page 62
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan56 - 5.0 The Plan
return number required by the developer to have a viable project,
while housing essentially breaks even, and storefront uses fall
short of the desired return. Public improvements are also shown
on this table because they are a cost to the project even though
they are not expected to generate a direct financial return. It is
important to reiterate that these numbers are predicated on market
conditions from February 2001. The project will require further
financial analysis as it proceeds through the entitlements process
to reflect both changing market conditions and any changes that
might be made in the development program.
These results illustrate that the mixed-use nature of the project
accomplishes many objectives while at the same time balancing
many interests. From a purely financial point of view, the highest
and best use of this site would be a series of office buildings
perhaps with minimal ground floor retail uses. However, such a
project would not meet the community’s objectives and, at this
point in time might expose the developer to more risk, since there
is currently so much uncertainly in the office market. For BART
and the County an office project might also be the most desirable
because it would generate the highest lease revenues to BART of
any alternative, create the potential for reserve commuting, and
provide more revenue above the developer’s required return that
could potentially be used to pay for additional infrastructure and
public improvements.
On the other hand, an all-residential project, while potentially
meeting more of the community’s objectives also has drawbacks.
On the plus side, the residential project is still financially viable
for the developer and the market is still strong for all types of
residential product. But, the project would generate virtually no
extra cash to help cross-subsidize the cost of the retail uses or
contribute to any infrastructure and public improvements costs.
Therefore, on the negative side, an all residential project would
generate the least amount of public revenues including both tax
Scenario 1: Block A Office Scenario 2:
Block A Residential
Construction
Cost
Amount
above/(below)
value threshold
Construction
Cost
Amount
above/(below)
value threshold
Public
Improvements
$7,762,000 ($7,762,000) $7,762,000 ($7,762,000)
Residential $57,000,000 $0 $93,000,000 $0
Office $122,000,00
0
$5,250,000 $77,000,000 $3,250,000
Storefront $13,000,000 ($2,300,000) $13,000,000 ($2,300,000)
TOTALS $199,762,000 ($4,812,000) $190,762,000 ($6,812,000)
Attachment R - Page 63
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 57
increment and ground lease revenues for BART and the County,
not provide any cross-subsidy for the project’s retail component
rendering this use financially infeasible, and putting the burden of
paying for all additional infrastructure and public improvements
entirely on the County to finance.
The proposed mix of uses included in the development program
generated by the charrette process allows the developer, BART,
and the County to capture some of the greatest upside potential for
the site and still offer a significant residential component that will
be critical to creating the project’s “village” character. In addition,
the office use cross-subsidizes the retail uses while still providing
additional revenue that can be used to offset some of the
infrastructure and public improvement costs. By mixing uses, all
of the parties concerned are also protected from some market risk.
In a down office market, the residential portions of the project can
still proceed, while in turn, the residential uses will help create a
stronger image and identity for the office space thus helping to
increase its value.
DETAILED FINANCIAL FINDINGS
Return to the Developer
As has been explained above, the financial return to the developer
for all three land uses is acceptable given that the office use can
cross-subsidize the retail/storefront use. However, this is
predicated on the assumption that the developer will be allowed to
build the amount of high-rise office space included in the
development program generated by the charrette. If any changes
are made in this program, the value of the office component may
not be high enough to cover its costs, and/or the financial viability
of the retail/storefront use may also be threatened. Once the
project has received its development approvals the developer will
conduct another more detailed parcel-by-parcel financial analysis
to further test project feasibility and make decisions about project
phasing. Ultimately when and how the project gets built will
depend on having favorable market conditions as well as the
appropriate approvals.
Return to BART
As landowner, BART is bringing an asset of considerable value to
Attachment R - Page 64
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan58 - 5.0 The Plan
the development effort. The agency has a stated intention of
retaining long-term ownership of its land; therefore return to
BART will be in the form of ground lease payments. This is
reflected in the financial model as an annual percentage of gross
net operating income from each land use (rental housing, office,
and storefront) prior to debt service. To enable the for-sale town
homes, BART has stated it would consider selling land to
accommodate 50 units. In the model, BART receives a percentage
of the home sale price. The income is significant and has an
impact on the developer’s bottom line return.
Potential increase in BART ridership generated by the intensive
proposed station area development was also analyzed. First, the
model estimates the projected new residential and office
population at full build-out. (Storefront was considered to have
negligible impact on BART ridership, as it is planned to be largely
local-serving in nature.) Capture rates of 46.7% for residential
and 10% for office were applied to the new population, along with
estimates of average daily fare. In total, annual new ridership
revenue for BART could reach approximately $650,000 per year.
Potential Tax Increment Financing
At the request of the County, the economics team analyzed the
possibility of tax increment financing for the Pleasant Hill BART
Redevelopment Project. The methodology involved estimating
the capitalized value of the improvements upon completion of the
project. The tax increment was then calculated as the annual
additional tax revenue after 20% set-aside for low- and moderate-
income housing purpose (some of which may be eligible to fund
this project). The economics team then analyzed the potential
borrowing capacity that may be supported by this annual
increment, using aggressive tax-exempt rate assumptions.
According to the preferred scenario, tax increment financing from
the BART property redevelopment could yield borrowing capacity
of somewhere between $18 and $20 million.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The financial analysis also identified four key issues that were not
previously obvious. One issue considers the financial differences
between building office or residential on the block bordered by
Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. A second assesses specifically the
residential units adjacent to the BART parking garage and their
contribution to the project. The third point discusses the
importance of the storefront strategy to create a sense of place.
Attachment R - Page 65
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 59
The final point examines the ability to finance the Iron Horse Trail
replacement parking program with fee-based revenues.
Office vs. Residential on the Parcel Bordered by Treat and Oak
In the final alternative, the design team proposed two uses for the
parcel bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. Building
residential on this site adds a total of approximately 150 units or
140,000 net square feet. Building office on this parcel increase
the project’s office square footage by 160,000 net square feet. The
different uses present a few financial differences for the County
and BART that are highlighted below.
The office use is a significant income generator assuming market
conditions from February, 2001, generating approximately $2
million over the required return that can be used to cross-subsidize
the retail/storefront uses and contribute to infrastructure and
public improvements. This use also boosts the Redevelopment
Agency’s borrowing capacity based on the potential tax increment
by about $2 million, from $18.4 million to $20.4 million.
Additionally, office on the parcel increases BART’s annual ground
rent about $165,000 a year. The BART ridership revenue
potential, however, is about $50,000 less annually with office on
the site rather than housing.
Residential Adjacent to BART Parking Garage
The 60 residential units adjacent to the BART parking structure
add significant, qualitative value to the project. They make
critical connections to the adjacent community, increase the
number of housing units, and create an appealing frontage for the
project. Moreover, different housing types will make the station
area feel more like a real village and should be encouraged. These
60 units, however, are the least economical of the residential units
proposed for the site.
Several factors reduce their economic viability. First, the costs of
developing a project connected to the BART parking structure will
be more than those of a stand alone structure for two primary
reasons: the greater complexity of the design and the increased
risk and time required to coordinate with the parking structure
developer and operator. Second, the potential rent for these units
is likely to be less given their proximity to the structure and the
fact that they are north facing. Third, the limited number of units
does not permit significant economies of scale that would help to
limit the expenses or enable provision of additional amenities to
Attachment R - Page 66
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan60 - 5.0 The Plan
increase the potential rents. Site constraints also will limit the
provision of amenities. When residential use for the site is
unbundled, this residential performs poorly, while the financial
return of the other residential units improves markedly. In effect,
within the residential use, one type and parcel of housing cross-
subsidizes another.
Approach to the Storefront Program
The future success of the station area depends on whether or not
the project as built and tenanted feels and operates like an urban
village. One of the keys to creating a high quality sense of place is
the area’s retail program and its storefronts. Consequently,
developing a thoughtful and realistic storefront strategy is critical.
The Charrette process yielded several insights about retail on the
site. From the beginning, retail as the primary use for the site was
ruled out because of adjacent neighborhood concerns and potential
traffic issues. Consequently, only retail that serves the local
community and supports the other proposed uses was studied.
The economic effects of this approach results in the recognition
that retail at this site will not generate additional cash flow and
may in fact require some cross-subsidy..
Determining the location of the retail had two important and
conflicting goals. One goal for the location was insuring high
visibility to the greatest number of potential users to increase is
financial viability. The second goal was to use the storefront
offerings to bolster place-making functions and create gathering
places. As a result, the first goal pushed as much storefront as
possible to Treat Boulevard and the second sought retail around
key public spaces such as the square.
The fact that the market analysis suggested that the area could
support initially only about 40,000 net rentable square feet
exasperated this locational tension. None of the obvious choices –
select one location to create a single retail node, bifurcate the retail
into two nodes, or create too much retail space risking having
empty storefronts– seemed appropriate for the proposed project.
The resulting more nuanced approach entails locating a couple
restaurants with sidewalk seating along Treat Boulevard and retail
offerings such as a café, newspaper stand, a bike shop, a flower
shop, and perhaps a drugstore around the square near the BART
entrance. To link the two nodes, storefront spaces are located
Attachment R - Page 67
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 61
along the newly created street off of Treat Boulevard. This
storefront space can be tenanted to a number of different types of
users including retailers, civic uses, and residential live/work
spaces. Then, as the station area evolves into the envisioned
transit village and as the demand for local-serving retail increases,
the project will have the potential space to accommodate
additional retail tenants. Any lodging facilities could also be
located in the “storefront” area, or adjacent to the square.
Economics of Iron Horse Replacement Parking
In response to the Charrette and the follow-up workshop, the
economists were asked to look at the economics of replacing the
parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail. The daily or monthly fees
charged for those parking spaces would create the funding source
needed to build the requested replacement parking. Any
additional funds would help support a local shuttle.
The economics team preliminarily analyzed the feasibility of
replacing the existing 581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron
Horse Trail with structured fee parking located on the site and
providing additional funding to support a local shuttle bus. The
following assumptions were used in the analysis: an all-in
development cost of $12,000 (which is on the low-end), current
monthly rates for non-tenants of $160 per space increasing
annually at 3%, expenses equal to 35% of revenue, 65% financing
at 7.00%, an equity requirement of about $2.5 million, a one year
construction period, and 5% vacancy and credit loss. This
preliminary analysis suggests a “surplus” of over $200,000 a year
to fund a shuttle service.
Attachment R - Page 68
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan62 - 5.0 The Plan
5.5 TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS
Overall, the traffic and transportation analysis indicates that the
impacts for the proposed project would be less than those noted in
the previous EIR for all alternatives except for the “residential
only” uses. Therefore, the previous traffic study and EIR provide
the primary information for the analysis of the impacts.
TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation analysis is attached. This analysis is based on
a scenario consistent with the most conservative Charrette
schemes. The land use for this plan consists of 456,000 square
feet of office, 42,000 square feet of retail, 274 residential units and
7,000 square feet of civic uses. The trip generation from these
uses results in 6,880 daily trips, with 777 trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 878 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The traffic volumes shown on the attached figures represent actual
counts and projections for the year 2010. For Figure 1 (Appendix
C), the peak hour traffic volumes noted as “1997” are from counts
reported in the Traffic Study for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1997. The
volumes noted as “2001” are field counts conducted in 2001. The
volumes noted for “2010” are projections from the 1997 EIR
Traffic Study for the Base Case with the Scenario 1 Project
volumes included. For Figure 2 (Appendix C), the estimated trips
generated by the preferred plan from the Charrette were added to
the 2001 counts.
Office and retail shown in thousands.
Attachment R - Page 69
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 63
It should be noted that all but two of the 2001 counts are higher
than the counts from the 1997 Traffic Study. The increases in the
counts appear reasonable and are considerably less than the 2010
projections. The two 2001 counts that are lower than the 1997
Traffic Study counts are p.m. peak hour counts on Treat Boulevard
between I-680 and Jones Road. There are a number of reasons for
this apparent discrepancy. It should be noted that traffic volumes
vary on a daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal basis. Throughout
the year, counts vary as much as 10 percent or more, some times
from one day to the next. Therefore, these counts should be seen
as an indication of the changes in traffic volumes. Factors that
may have affected the counts include construction and new
development and new street patterns in the project area, the major
reconstruction of the I-680 / State Route 24 interchange, and other
construction in the general area, including the extension of BART
to Bay Point and construction along State Route 4.
The volumes shown in Figure 2 for 2001 are the actual field
counts added to the trips that would be generated by the preferred
plan from the Charrette. These trips were assigned to the roadway
network based on the directional trip distribution percentages from
the 1997 Traffic Study. As shown in Figure 2, the 2001 volumes
with the preferred project trips added are slightly higher than the
volumes from the 1997 Traffic Study and substantially lower than
the 2010 projections from the Traffic Study.
SITE ACCESS
There are a number of areas of concern for the proposed design.
The new roadway into the site with retail on each side may be a
two-way roadway. It may be advisable for the roadway to be one-
way only into the site. The exiting traffic may experience
difficulties merging into traffic on Treat Boulevard. If the
roadway is two-way, it should be carefully designed, with traffic
bars or other means to prohibit vehicles exiting the site to attempt
making a left turn onto Oak Road toward Walnut Creek.
ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING
The on-site roadways should be designed carefully to provide
appropriate access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The roadway
widths should allow for bicyclists. On-street parking may be
advisable in most areas, with adequate controls and enforcement.
Parking may be allowed along the Jones Road access road,
providing there are two lanes for traffic in the peak direction, in
Attachment R - Page 70
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan64 - 5.0 The Plan
the morning and in the evening. It may be necessary to provide
“standby” towing at certain times of the day to ensure that two
lanes are open in the peak direction during peak hours.
PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS AND TRAFFIC CALMING
There are crosswalks on the Jones Road access road, providing a
pedestrian and bicycle connection between the Station and the
Iron Horse Trail and parking area near the Trail. For the proposed
design, the crosswalks should be raised to form “speed tables.”
The intersection of Las Juntas Way and Coggins Drive should be
redesigned to emphasize the pedestrian crosswalks and bicycle
access. Other traffic calming measures should also be considered
in the nearby neighborhood. It may be advisable to provide
parking along portions of Las Juntas Way to narrow the roadway.
On-street permit parking for residents may be useful in the area.
5.6 TRANSIT RELATED PROPOSALS
INTRODUCTION
This memo provides a brief summary of the transportation issues
that were addressed by the February 22-27 Pleasant Hill BART
Station Charrette, the follow-up workshops on April 9-10, and
subsequent meetings with County Connection staff. It includes
the key design requirements that the Charrette attempted to
address and an analysis of the resulting plan.
SUMMARY BUS FACILITY NEEDS
Adding up the comments from each of the transit agencies results
in the following design requirements for the station:
•Provide 15 bus bays for 40’ motor coaches. These can be
either along a straight curb or in sawtooth bays.
•For bus stops along a straight curb, 80 linear feet is
required per bus for independent operations. There should
be a minimum of 22 feet between the curb edge and the
street center line.
•For sawtooth bays, only 60 linear feet of curb length is
required per bus, but there should be a minimum of 25 feet
between curb and center line, plus an additional 16 feet of
right-of-way for the sidewalk and sawtooth. Sidewalks
should be 16 feet wide at the widest point of the sawtooth
and 10’ at the narrowest.
•Future bus stop capacity can be accommodated by
providing on-street parking along curbs in the short term.
These parking lanes should be 11’ wide, with an adjacent
11’ travel lane, if they may be converted to bus stops in the
future.
Attachment R - Page 71
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 65
Bus Access and Queuing Diagram
Attachment R - Page 72
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan66 - 5.0 The Plan
•Make sure that the bus bays are within view of one another
to facilitate bus-to-bus transfer.
•Make sure that the bus bays are within view of the station
to facilitate transfer to BART.
•Make sure that the bus waiting areas are safe and
comfortable at all times of the day, with informal
surveillance by merchants and/or station agents.
•To the greatest extent possible, separate peak period
automobile traffic from bus traffic
•Allow for safe crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NEEDS
In addition to the detailed requirements for transit, there are a few
specific requirements for bicyclists and pedestrians that were
considered:
•A “bicycle station” offering secure bicycle parking and
other services should be located within view of both the
BART station and the Iron Horse Trail. This could be
placed in one of the storefront spaces near the Transit
Square, or in a separate building on the residential green.
•Pedestrian facilities should provide safe, interesting,
comfortable access from all sides of the study area to the
station.
•Traffic calming measures should be undertaken to improve
the interaction among motor vehicles, bikes and
pedestrians.
Attachment R - Page 73
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 67
On-Street Parking Diagram
Attachment R - Page 74
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan68 - 5.0 The Plan
RESULTING ANALYSIS
The plan developed during the Charrette and refined in the follow-
up workshops meets all key transportation design requirements,
with excellent bicycle and pedestrian facilities, sufficient bus stops
for currently planned services, as well as the possibility of adding
even more bus stops in the future.
The grid of streets allows for multiple routing options for buses
through the site, allowing bus drivers to alter course depending
upon traffic conditions. Placing the buses around the “town
square” allows for a high-quality passenger waiting area within
view of the station itself and places all buses within view of one
another. County Connection staff is very enthusiastic about all the
details for addressing buses at the station.
The removal of the earlier planned “transit green” allows for better
transit routing and stops, and it resolves highly problematic
circulation problems at Oak Road.
There is sufficient parking to meet the needs of BART patrons and
people attracted to new uses proposed for the study area, while
minimizing the traffic impacts on the surrounding community.
Stack and robotic parking should be investigated to determine if
the envelope consumed by parking can be reduced, allowing for
cost savings.
Replacing the 581 trail spaces as monthly BART patron permit
spaces allows a funding stream to provide a shuttle connecting
nearby residents to the station.
The issue of the Iron Horse Trail pedestrian/ bicycle crossing still
needs to be resolved among local stakeholders, but the plan allows
the bridge to proceed or not, according to the desires of the
community.
The proposed Oak Road pedestrian bridge across Treat is not well
resolved by the draft plan, and needs to be further analyzed during
subsequent development phases.
Attachment R - Page 75
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 69
REMAINING DETAILS TO BE RESOLVED
There are a number of details that will need to be resolved during
the design development phase of the project. These include:
•A road connecting Jones Road to the town square, just
south of and parallel to the BART tracks, would be
valuable. This road would help accommodate some bus
routing, plus it would allow a good location for kiss &
ride, taxis and bus layover.
•Design of transit shelters, information kiosks, signage, etc.,
will be very important. Custom signage and shelters are
acceptable to the transit agencies, but specific ADA and
local agency requirements will need to be met.
•Bus drivers currently use the BART passenger rest rooms
at the station, which are sometimes not in service or poorly
maintained. A single driver-only toilet incorporated into
the project would be very valuable to the transit agencies.
•The intersection of Jones and the residential green street
needs to be addressed. A significant number of bicycles
and pedestrian crossing movements must be
accommodated here. A pedestrian-activated traffic light
may be necessary, but traffic calming may be sufficient.
•It may be useful to allow bus routing through the garage.
We should explore the cost issues associated with having
the first floor of the garage allow sufficient clearance for
buses.
•Considerable analysis will need to be completed to ensure
that all the street widths, travel lane and intersection
configurations are optimized both within and adjacent to
the project.
Attachment R - Page 76
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan70 - 5.0 The Plan
5.7 PARKING ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Commuter parking was and will continue to be a dominant issue in the Station Area’s development.
Stakeholders include BART commuters, the local community, participating public agencies and the
developers. A primary objective of the BART “park and ride” Station is to provide convenient, safe
and free use of the facility’s parking. Indeed, a central component of the Station’s ridership success
has been its abundant commuter parking and convenient access from the regional circulation
system. BART, however, encourages alternative transportation mode access for its riders when
feasible. At Pleasant Hill, despite BART’s desire for facilitating alternative transportation modes to
and from the station – pedestrian, bikes and transit riders – the pressure to provide private vehicle
access and station parking remains high from BART patrons and the potential for a BART Pleasant
Hill/Airport line. In response to this expressed need, the design of parking structures - locations,
size and integration into the site - were a primary part of the Charrette planning effort.
According to the 1998 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, all existing parking - all
2,814 spaces - must be contained on the BART site. In 1991, a 1,337-space parking structure was
constructed at the northwest corner of the site. In addition to these spaces, BART currently provides
1,477 surface parking spaces for a total of 2,814 parking spaces for commuters, not including 39 on-
street parking spaces. An additional 581 temporary BART patron surface spaces are currently
located on a portion of the County’s Iron Horse Trail just east of the Station.
The off-site BART surface parking has been a continued source of tension between car commuters,
who feel that BART parking should remain free and abundant, and the surrounding neighborhood,
who want commuter parking restricted to the BART site, not on the Iron Horse Trail. In response, a
secondary design objective for the Station Area, in addition to locations, size and integration, was the
determination of the amount of structured parking that could be accommodated on the BART site,
within the context of an “urban village” concept.
The Charrette design’s parking objective was, initially, to provide replacement of the 1477 BART
surface spaces on the site. The 581 spaces on the Iron Horse Trail were not part of this initial design
objective. The “urban village” concept for parking consists of structured parking garages that are
physically lined or screened by occupied buildings, at least on the street level. Another design
challenge was providing adequate parking for the anticpated office, retail, residential and civic uses
that will be developed where the surface parking currently exists.
Through some innovative urban design techniques and parkign structure configuration, however, the
Charrette Plan’s parking design and capacity appear to satisfy many of the concerns of both
commuters and neighbors. The parking garages are architecturally screened to mitigate the viual
impact. In terms of Plan’s space capacity, all current commuter parking, both surface parking on the
BART site and on Iron Horse Trail, can be contained on the BART property.
Attachment R - Page 77
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 71
Additional parking spaces, over and above the BART and building parking requirements, could be
accommodated in the master plan if desired. Conceivably, this parking could be monthly paid
parking available to either employees, residents or BART commuters.
While the actual number of spaces will not be determined until a detailed design of the streets,
buildings and parking garages are completed – and built – the numbers are encouraging. The Plan’s
parking capacity means that the Iron Horse Trail’s future will be green and pedestrian-friendly.. A
right-of-way for a fixed guideway will be reserved. The commuters will have current parking levels
maintained and have addded capacity in the form of private parking garages. New residents and
business will have both garage and on-street parking on the site. The complex will include great
civic plazas and greens, shopping streets and a new station that everyone – young and old – can
enjoy.
DETAILED PARKING SUMMARY
Following is a summary of International Parking Design’s (IPD) structured parking analysis for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station, completed by Warren C. Vander Helm, IPD’s Senior Parking
Consultant. The totals include on-street parking that is identified separately. The capacity and
demand figures are based on Lennertz Coyle & Associate’s dimensioned site and building plans and
the demand basis supplied by Strategic Economics. The variables that affect the quantity of non-
commuter parking consist of the specific building uses – retail, office, residential and civic – and the
amount of building developed. Each use carries a specific parking requirement based on the area of
building provided in terms of square foot (office, retail and civic) or number of residential units.
IPD broke down demand/supply totals by blocks and they included recommended alternatives at the
end of this section. The block letter designations are shown in the referenced plan.
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION -STRUCTURED PARKING ANALYSIS
Block A Parking Levels (-1.5), (-.5), (+0.5), (+1.5), (+2.5), (+3.5)
Configuration The irregular shape at the north end of this parcel will tend to reduce parking
efficiencies. An express ramp for vertical circulation may adapt better to the small
footprint than a parked ramp solution. Office and retail on the northeast perimeter
only, will permit greater flexibility in terms of column placement. Clear-span
construction in a portion of the structure may be achievable.
Access Ingress/egress from the east side of the structure is a workable solution-compatible
with an express ramp for vertical circulation.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 365 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 380
sf/sp under the southern office space. 762 structured spaces.
Demand /Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Office = 547 spaces (3.3/1000 sq ft) Total Structured Parking = 762
Retail = 76 spaces (4.0/1000 sq ft)Total On-Street Parking = 24
Total = 623 spaces Total = 786
Attachment R - Page 78
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan72 - 5.0 The Plan
Block B Parking Levels (-.5) and (+0.5)
Configuration Semi-rectangular footprint will allow improved efficiency. Consider " squaring up" a
portion of the perimeter along Jones Rd. to improve efficiency. Full utilization of site
will require that control equipment be placed within the structure thereby reducing
efficiency.
Access Proposed ingress/egress from the west side of this structure should be moved north to
eliminate conflict with proposed Block "A" ingress/egress. A total capacity of 365 in
this structure could be served with only one ingress/egress point. The Jones Rd.
location would be preferred if the bulk of traffic accesses the site from the north,
however placement further from the street intersection will improve egress and
minimize stacking.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 350 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 380
sf/sp under the perimeter residential and retail space. 365 structured spaces.
Demand /Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Residential = 187 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking = 365
Retail = 72 spaces (4.0/1000 sq ft)Total On-Street Parking = 63
Total = 259 spaces Total = 428
Block C Parking Levels (-.5) and (+0.5) (add optional ground floor parking=204 spaces)
Configuration The angular configuration of this parcel with residential and retail space at the full
perimeter will create a column grid that will impact efficient parking layouts.
Perimeter configurations will create a substantial percentage of tandem spaces, which
could be utilized on this block by residential occupancy.
Access Ingress/egress points at the north and south of the structure will permit adequate
access. Ramping solutions localized in the inefficient southeast corner of the
structure may dictate relocation of ingress/egress points to expedite access to/from the
ramp.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 350 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 380
sf/sp under the perimeter residential and retail space. 452 structured spaces. (+204
optional)
Demand /Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Residential = 127 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking = 452
Civic = 42 spaces (6.0/1000 sq ft)Total On-Street Parking = 66
Total = 169 spaces Total = 518
Attachment R - Page 79
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 73
Block D & E Parking Levels (-1.0), (0.0), (+1.0), (+2.0) through (+6.0)
Configuration Tie into the existing parking facility with a semi clear-span or a clear-span column
solution. Footprint size would permit a parked ramp design with the ramp possibly
occurring near the center of the structure leaving horizontal lines at the perimeter. At
least two additional traffic circuits will be required to accommodate a 2,991 space
expansion with 957 spaces being office usage, generating morning and evening
peaks coinciding with rail peaks. Proposed structured parking addition of 2,991
spaces includes the full build-out on the subterranean level as was shown in the
preliminary concept.
Access The three additional access points as proposed will aid in dispersing traffic volumes
between Oak and Las Juntas way and offer operational flexibility.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 320 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 335
sf/sp at the grade level. 2,991 structured spaces. (Includes 1,477 BART replacement
spaces)
Demand /Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Residential = 96 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking = 2,991
Office = 957 spaces (3.3/1000 sq ft)Total On-Street Parking = 65
BART Replacement = 1,477 spaces
Iron Horse Parking = 581
Total = 3,111 spaces Total = 3056 spaces
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES - BLOCKS A, B, C, D & E
Blocks A & B - Some consideration should be given to a concept which combines the below grade
parking structure footprints of Block A with Block B. Each of these parcels yields a relatively small
parking footprint, which will reduce the parking efficiencies achievable on each individual parcel.
By connecting these two structures below grade, additional square footage can be captured and the
overall efficiency of the combined structures can be improved. Additional costs associated with the
construction of the supported roadway between these two parcels would have to be weighed against
the increased capacity achievable. Other benefits of this option may include opportunities to
combine ramping and access points, reduce vehicular congestion at grade and to improve pedestrian
movement to the grade level.
Block C - The Block C parcel will yield less efficient parking layouts due to the non-rectangular
shape of the footprint and the potential perimeter column arrangement associated with residential
and retail structures above. As a desired parking capacity is identified, variations on the footprint
should be studied to identify any configurations that may result in a more efficient relationship
between floor area, column spacing and parking capacity. Combining Block C with Block B in an
underground configuration can also be explored for the same reasons cited in the Block A and Block
B example. Another way to mitigate the inefficiencies of the non-rectangular footprint of Block C
Attachment R - Page 80
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan74 - 5.0 The Plan
would be to utilize express ramps for vertical circulation and to locate these ramps in the least
efficient portion of the overall footprint.
Blocks D & E – The preliminary configuration of this addition results in good site utilization and the
footprint will accommodate a number of ramping alternatives. At least two additional traffic circuits
will need to be created within the addition to accommodate 3,000+ additional spaces and the
resulting ingress/egress peaks. International Parking Design’s only alternative recommendation
would be to reduce the footprint of the (-1.0) level southwest corner to match the ground level
footprint above. This will reduce the (-1.0) level area by approximately 12,400 sf, or 38 spaces and
eliminate the need for costly supported grade level construction, which would otherwise occur above
this area.
Mechanical ventilation and fire sprinkling systems will be required on all of the lower, enclosed
parking levels on site. Utilization of open cut perimeters around some of the footprints may
eliminate the required mechanical ventilation and fire sprinkling systems, thereby reducing cost.
Due to the proposed configurations, this option may only be a possibility on Blocks A and Blocks D/
E.
TOTALS
Demand /Parking Demand Estimate Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Residential = 410 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking = 4,570
Retail = 148 spaces (4.0/1000 sq ft)Total On-Street Parking = 200
Office = 1,504 spaces (3.3/1000 sq ft)
Civic = 42 spaces (6.0/1000 sq ft)
BART Replacement = 1,477 spaces
Iron Horse = 5 81 spaces
Total = 4,162 spaces +/-Total = 4,770
CONCLUSION
The figures indicated above are based on the Charrette design and subsequent refinements. With the
exception of the required BART replacement parking, the actual parking counts will be adjusted up
or down as plans are refined by the developer during the individual building and site design process.
Increased detail of design necessary for financing, permitting and construction will yield more
precise parking figures. For example, the Charrette plan drawings are based on a scale of 1 inch =
100 feet. The documents typically used for permitting and construction will be scaled to 1/8 inch =
1 foot or larger. These detail-scale drawings will indicate specific street and garage parking spaces
where an exact number can be quantified.
The buildings and uses described in the Charrette plans reflect a projection of square foot quantities
and locations on the site. The Urban Codes that guide the development of the BART site are flexible
in terms of the quantities of office, retail, residential and civic uses that are eventually built to
accommodate changing markets and other conditions. For example, the Codes describe maximum
and minimum square feet of allowable office, retail and civic, and the number of residential units.
Attachment R - Page 81
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan - 75
As described in the data above, each use allocates a different parking requirement that, when
developed, will dictate the actual amount of parking relative to the amount of each use provided.
As the BART Urban Village is developed, the parking required for commuters, residents, retail and
civic-use patrons, office employees and visitors will be accommodated without conventional surface
parking lots. Through the design of convenient on-street parking spaces for business and visitors,
and parking garages for commuters, business, residents and visitors that are visually buffered, the
development will evolve into an attractive, convenient and safe place that balances all transportation
and pedestrian needs.
Attachment R - Page 82
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan76 - 6.0 Appendices
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, MODEL ASSUMPTIONS, AND STRUCTURE
The financial model had several purposes. Developed by CSG Advisors Inc. in concert with
Strategic Economics based on input from the County, BART, and the developers, the model was
designed to test the relative feasibility of various program alternatives proposed by the design team
during the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette. To assess the feasibility of alternatives, the model
provided three ways of showing return: internal rate of return, cash on costs, and the debt coverage
ratio for each land use. It also shows how much subsidy each use requires to meet the developer’s
return expectations or the surplus each use provides after meeting such return expectations. The
model informed the design team’s work with market reality and represented to Charrette participants
the balance between the cost of public improvements and necessary office and residential revenue.
The model also provided a starting point for negotiations between the key parties involved in the
development of the BART site. Most importantly, the financial model and the economics team’s role
in public presentations expanded public confidence in the Charrette process.
BACKGROUND AND KEY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
Any financial model is only as good as its assumptions. Strategic Economics provided construction
costs, rents and operating expenses from a survey of comparable developments in similar markets.
Together, the economics team conducted sensitivity analyses of various development, income and
expense assumptions to fine-tune the model. The team prepared a range of assumptions for each
input, so that each scenario could be evaluated using aggressive, moderate, and baseline
assumptions. (In practice, most final model scenarios were run with the aggressive assumptions in
order to achieve target developer return.) Over the course of the Charrette and wrap-up meetings of
February to April 2001, operating expenses were raised to partly reflect California utility cost
increases.
Prior to the Charrette, CSG and Strategic Economics met with the entire Charrette team on several
occasions to refine the model’s purpose and assumptions. Before the public meetings, the economics
team used data from a Lennertz Coyle Associates draft scheme to test the instrument. The results
were circulated and comments used to refine the model. During the Charrette, economics team
members worked with the designers to test plans as they were devised, running several scenarios for
use in a mid-point presentation with BART, the County and the developers. For the final Charrette
public meeting on February 27, the economics team prepared model runs for two final alternatives.
For the wrap-up meetings on April 9 and 10, the team ran four versions of the model, demonstrating
various options of homeownership and rental components as well as office vs. residential on specific
parcels. The designers further refined the plan after these meetings, and the final model runs reflect
these refinements.
Each different design scenario from the Lennertz Coyle team was represented in the model as a
series of inputs: gross square footages, number of units, configuration of parking, type of
construction. The financial analysis, therefore, is dependent on the accuracy of these inputs provided
by the design team.
Attachment R - Page 83
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 77
MODEL STRUCTURE AND FORMAT
The starting point for the financial analysis is the assumption of a threshold return to the developer.
The underlying premise is that for the project to be built, regardless of the urban design pattern
chosen, the developer needs a baseline feasible balance of office, residential and storefront land uses
as well as desired public improvements to attract capital and investors. This model works well for
illustrating the implications of a ground lease.
The model solves for a threshold developer return measured as Internal Rate of Return, which
compares initial sunk costs to revenue streams over time. Each land use component of the plan was
analyzed separately to test whether its return exceeded the threshold (meaning it could accommodate
additional initial investment, such as funding some public improvements, and still reach the return
target) or fell short of the threshold (meaning it required subsidy to achieve the return target). The
results for each land use were then compiled on a summary sheet and compared to non revenue-
producing public improvement costs for an overall snapshot of the scenario’s feasibility.
Additionally, the model solved for the cash on cost (stabilized net operating income divided by cost)
and debt coverage ratio (net operating income over loan payment) for each land use to measure the
feasibility of proposed alternatives.
The format of the financial model separates the proposed project components first by land use, then
by block. Each land use is considered separately so that construction and operating costs could be
estimated for the specific use. The model summarizes the non-income producing elements of the
plan including infrastructure costs and public improvement costs. For the purposes of this analysis,
“infrastructure” is defined as major prerequisites to development with assigned funding sources,
such as the replacement BART parking (to be funded by the County Redevelopment Agency) and the
overall site work (to be funded by the developer). “Public improvements,” on the other hand, are
elements in the development scenario that define the public experience of the Pleasant Hill BART
station area. New streets and streetscape work, the signature plaza facing the BART station,
architectural enhancements to the BART Station, new parks, as various public kiosks and structures
are crucial to the new urbanist concept of the plan, and have significant costs, but do not generate
revenue. Because they are not self-financing and not directly related to the residential, office, and
storefront financings on the primary blocks, these costs were enumerated separately. The rough cost
for such public improvements as estimated in this model is approximately $8 million.
The model analyzes three primary land uses (residential, office and storefront) looking at both their
sources and uses (development budgets) and their cash flows. The sources and uses schedules
calculate development costs per block for each land use, subdividing blocks that include varying
products such as rental and for-sale housing or Class A and Class B office space. In the development
budget, the overall site work costs are pro-rated across land uses per relative square footage. The
cash flow analysis of each land use calculates developer return based on an assumed sale of the asset
in year five of operations. Sources and uses as well as cash flow models were also created for a hotel
land use but were not used during the Charrette, as the design team did not formulate a design for this
option.
Attachment R - Page 84
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan78 - 6.0 Appendices
The economics related to parking for the project was a handled in three different ways. The parking
associated with the new development is incorporated into the financial model. Each proposed use
had certain parking requirements. For each 1000 square feet of office space, 3.3 parking spaces need
to be built. Residential calls for 1.35 spaces for each rental apartment and 2 for each for-sale town
house. Retail or storefront space requires 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. The cost of building the
parking spaces required for each use were charged to each use in the development budget and is
reflected in the return numbers. Street parking spaces were deducted from the retail space count and
not deducted from the public improvement costs.
The 1480 surface BART parking spaces that need to be replaced first for the project to proceed were
treated separately from the private development. The assumption is that the cost of this replacement
parking would be paid for with public funds. The 581 parking spaces currently in the Iron Horse
Trail were also treated distinctly from the private development. The fees charged to future users of
these spaces would underwrite the cost of building the structure needed to house these spaces. Any
additional moneys from the parking fees would contribute to a station area shuttle.
Attachment R - Page 85
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 79
APPENDIX B: FREQUENTLY ASKED ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT
WHY INVEST PUBLIC DOLLARS?
A development project at the Pleasant Hill BART station that replaces the 1480 parking spaces
currently used by BART patrons, creates the pedestrian-oriented transit village that emerged during
the Charrette, and meets the requirements of the area’s specific plan is economically infeasible
without public subsidy. There are at least five compelling reasons why Contra Costa County should
invest public funds to enable the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
•Increased tax revenues – the additional development on the site will generate significant
property and sales tax revenues for the County.
•Generate lease revenues – over time, the proposed project will generate ground lease
revenues for the County and BART.
•Create more housing and jobs – the proposed project promises to deliver at least 300
additional units of housing and approximately 1,500 new jobs. These new residents and
employees will contribute significantly to the County’s economy.
•Utilize existing infrastructure rather than invest in new infrastructure elsewhere – by
encouraging the County’s new developments to areas with existing infrastructure and
services, the County reduces its responsibilities to provide such infrastructure and services to
outlying, less accessible places; thus the costs to the County and the public for an infill
project like the one proposed at the Pleasant Hill BART station is of a magnitude less than a
similar project in a currently undeveloped area.
•Maximize the area’s location efficiency – creating a transit village will increase the “location
efficiency” of the Pleasant Hill BART station, benefiting both current and future residents
and employees in the area. The pluses of location efficiency include reduced transportation
costs, fewer car trips, increased mobility options especially for children and seniors, and the
other amenities related to a walkable, mixed-use environment.
Public subsidy for the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station should be limited to
only the minimum amount necessary to enable the realization of the alternative that emerges from
the Charrette process. Care also needs to be taken at each step in the process to maximize the
County’s return on every public dollar invested.
FOR SALE VS. RENTAL HOUSING
The issue of for-sale housing at any BART station reflects two legitimate interests: local residents
living near a BART station and the region’s taxpayers who support BART. Any development at the
Pleasant Hill BART station needs to reconcile these two interests. To date, BART has been willing
to balance the local interests with the more regional interests by considering 50 units of for-sale
house. This approach would allow for some housing diversity in the area, while still ensuring that
BART will control enough of the site to ensure its long-term integrity as a regional transit facility.
Local residents who live around a BART station typically want new residential development in their
neighborhood to be ownership housing. Ownership housing is perceived as providing more long-
term stability to a neighborhood as well as preserving and enhancing property values.
Attachment R - Page 86
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan80 - 6.0 Appendices
The taxpayers who have paid for the BART system and who want transit to remain a critical part of
the region's mobility network generally wish to ensure that the land uses around BART stations
remain transit supportive and transit friendly. To support these constituents, the BART Board has
adopted a strong policy to lease, rather than sell, land around BART stations. The four main reasons
for this policy are as follows:
•Control over land uses: BART's continued ability to ensure that land uses adjacent to its
stations support transit ridership and are transit friendly.
•Share in increased property values: BART's ability to share in additional revenue generated
by increases in property values and revenues created by development will help support the
cost of operating the train system and will enhance the public's investment in the BART
infrastructure.
•Density: To take maximum advantage of the public's investment in BART's infrastructure,
higher density at the BART stations is preferred. In general, ownership housing is built at
lower density than rental units.
•Parcelization of ownership constrains Transit Oriented Development: To build the station
and supporting infrastructure, BART and the County assembled many smaller parcels into
larger parcel. Subdividing into smaller privately owned plots (condos or town homes)
reverses this effort and may limit future options.
How to determine how much land to convert to private ownership and how much to preserve in
public ownership to protect the public's interest is a difficult decision to make and one that should be
made by elected officials with public input. The Charrette highlighted this issue and identified it as
an issue that will need further discourse. People interested in ownership housing should work with
the County Board of Supervisors and the BART Directors to evaluate a new policy and programming
options.
The overall development program on the site, including the total number of residential units, does
not change significantly based on whether or not the units are for-sale or for rent. Therefore, the
planning process should focus on establishing a basic number of units to be built on the site. The
ownership issue can be resolved at a later date and through a different process that reflects these
diverse interests.
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FEASIBLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS?
According to the Specific Plan, the maximum number of residential units on the site is 60 units per
net acre. To replace the surface BART parking to make room for new development requires building
structured parking that takes up 4.3 acres, leaving 14.9 acres. Of these remaining acres, about 20%
of the land would be required for roads and public access. Seven hundred and fifteen units could be
built on the remaining 11.9 acres assuming the maximum density.
Attachment R - Page 87
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 81
The economics team has not modeled this alternative because it does not create the village or town
center environment emphasized during the Charrette process. For one, it does not recognize the
importance of a mix of uses to support each other economically and create a sense of place. Second,
it does not encourage a mix of housing types that also contributes to place-making. Finally, the
return on residential does not generate the additional income that would help fund the desired public
Attachment R - Page 88
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan82 - 6.0 Appendices
APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC COUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT BACKGROUND DATA
TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation numbers for the “final” development plans are listed below. These numbers for
the plan are estimates, based on ITE trip generation rates and assumptions in the previous EIR. The
trip generation numbers for the various scenarios from the previous EIR are also listed for
comparison.
Plan Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
w / 345 apts 6,170 627 739
w / 370 apts 6,414 634 749
Scenario
1 8,861 1,481 1,357
1B 8,869 1,482 1,359
2 2,767 218 269
3 14,434 829 1,513
4 10,631 698 1,408
4B 8,219 n/a n/a
5 11,962 903 1,391
Attachment R - Page 89
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 83
Attachment R - Page 90
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan84 - 6.0 Appendices
Attachment R - Page 91
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 85
APPENDIX D: LOG OF PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS
Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants
38
65
25
50
108
10
25
49
57
135
153
23
54
0 50 100 150 200
1
Number of Participants
April Closing Mtg (4/10/01)
April Drop-ins (4/9-10/01)
April Opening Mtg (4/9/01)
Charrette Closing (2/27/01)
Charrette Drop-ins (2/22-27/01)
Charrette Traffic Mtg (2/26/01)
Charrette Centre Mtg (2/26/01)
Charrette BART Mtg (2/26/01)
Charrette Sat. Workshop (2/24/01)
Charrette Neighbors Mtg (2/24/01)
Charrette Opening (2/22/01)
Transp. Focus Group (2/8/01)
Reception (1/31/01)
Bus Tour (1/18/01)
Kickoff Mtg (1/16/01)
Total Number of Participants: 522
Total Number of Hours of Open Studio Hours: 80
Total Number of Participant Hours: over 2,700 (length of events x number of participants)
Attachment R - Page 92
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan86 - 6.0 Appendices
Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants
Attending Multiple Events
295
91
53
27
13 10 11 9 13
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
12345678>8
# Events Attended# PeopleAttachment R - Page 93
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 87
APPENDIX E: DESIGN PROCESS ITERATIONS
FEB. 22 - SCHEME 1 A
Attachment R - Page 94
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan88 - 6.0 Appendices
FEB. 22 - SCHEME 1B
Attachment R - Page 95
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 89
Not enough residential.
Poor retail exposure on Treat.
FEB. 24 - SCHEME 2A
Attachment R - Page 96
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan90 - 6.0 Appendices
Provides more developable
blocks for residential and good
retail exposure
FEB. 24 - SCHEME 2B
Attachment R - Page 97
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 91
Emphasizes the importance of a
strong connection between the
Iron Horse Trail and the Station.
FEB. 25 - PARTICIPANT’S SCHEME
Attachment R - Page 98
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan92 - 6.0 Appendices
Provides more residential and
larger public open space
SCHEME 3B
Attachment R - Page 99
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 93
APPENDIX F: PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE DURING EVENTS
JAN 16TH, 2001 – KICKOFF MEETING
(Public Comments grouped by Issue)
BUILT FORMS:
• Human scale, sense of neighborhood & community
• “Make it look like California, not Anywhere, USA”
• Local serving uses, not a regional destination
• Smaller blocks, walkable with mixture of uses (downtown Walnut Creek)
• Building frontage on streets, not parking
• Horizontal and vertical mix of uses to generate activities throughout the day and night
• Village center, gathering place, town square feel
• Higher activities closer to the station and parking further out, up to 1/4 mi.
• Architectural variety, but with aesthetics that blend together buildings with character
• No more high-rises
• Tallest buildings West of the station lower buildings on East side
• Roof top parks, elevated open space
PROGRAMMING:
• Community center, gathering space, with meeting room facilities
• Swim club/exercise facility, there are no close substitutes to losing the current club
• Affordable housing near the station
• Affordable office space
• Bank/ATM
• Small retail such as coffee shops, book stores, post office, bike shop, dry cleaner, florist
• appeal to locals so we do not end up with more traffic
• Grocery store
• Restaurants, cafes, delis, bakery, serving local office space, close to BART
• Day care, playground, small science observatory, and other services/spaces for kids
• Dog park
• Library
• Concert hall, community theater
• Smaller art-house independent theater, no cinema multiplex
• A fountain, easy place to identify & meet (Walnut Creek example)
• Senior facilities, housing/meeting space
• Bowling ally or roller rink, some physical or social aspects
• Healthcare component
• Pleasant Hill redevelopment connect to Old Wards shopping center (North off map) and old Co-
op building (West off map across freeway)
• Hotel/motel is not a viable use for the property on the Northeast corner of Jones & Treat (demise
of Amerisuites)
Attachment R - Page 100
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan94 - 6.0 Appendices
TRAFFIC & PARKING:
• Provide parking that is not a “dead place”
• Conflicting opinions regarding parking availability, majority requested adding more
• More levels or entire buildings of structured/security parking
• Parking demands of BART are not being met
• Provide off-site BART parking, shuttle drivers onto site
• Encourage using public transportation
• Parking fees, carpool/vanpool preferences
• Other nearby parking uses want access to BART lots
• Traffic is congested on Treat Blvd., it’s a neighborhood divider but a necessary artery
• Bad intersection at Treat & Oak, and Treat & I-680
• Its impossible to merge left and avoid being forced onto I-680 North
• Connect Jones Road to Treat Blvd.
• Pedestrians and traffic interacting
• Bus lanes are too difficult to walk over
• Oak Street is too wide for pedestrians
• Traffic backs up (along Jones) waiting for pedestrians
• Deadly intersection at BART tracks and Jones
• Consider widespread traffic impacts from the design
• Traffic flow from Bancroft—Mayhew—Las Juntas freeway
• Clear local roads, keep non-residents on the main arteries
• Jones Road between Oak and Treat Blvd.
• Too many dead-end streets
• Realignment of Jones Road, South of Treat Blvd.
• Concerns about what parking would be available during construction
• FHWA funded on site parking structure, it cannot be restricted to BART patrons only or be used
to meet local parking zone requirements
BART STATION CHARACTER:
• Create a place to meet neighbors, not a nighttime wasteland, add uses across the tracks from the
station, perhaps build on top
• Improve the platform, longer length, connection from parking structure levels
• Provide lockers for luggage, lockers and/or parking for bicycles, scooters
COMMUNITY SAFETY:
• Must feel safe walking and bicycling
• May increase crime, especially from Monument
• Thieves brought via BART to local residential houses
• 20 year vision, secure with low crime, safe area
PUBLIC TRANSIT:
• Provide Incentives for public transit, alternatives to park & ride for to BART
• Ridership education needed
Attachment R - Page 101
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 95
• Airport shuttles
• Connect to neighboring communities, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill downtown
• Light rail
• Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, & Concord to feed the BART system
• Alleviate traffic on Treat Blvd.
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLES:
• Make access to Pleasant Hill BART pedestrian friendly with a walkable community, provide
“town square” feel.
• Bike/pedestrian circulation is currently disconnected, unpleasant
• Make a clear, safe route through the area, connect nearby housing and retail
• Better lighting, white not yellow
• Softer trails, not concrete
• Handicap access sidewalks
• Improve the dangerous intersections on Treat Blvd.
• Bridge or tunnel at Oak and at Jones, the bridge idea was more favored
• Bridge or tunnel across freeway towards N Main
• Other dangerous areas crossing Jones, especially at the Northeast site corner
• Improve bicycle facilities, trails and parking
• Bike access not in traffic or pedestrian area, bike lanes on Treat and Oak
• Any overhead bridges should be level enough for a handicap bike to make it up and over
IRON HORSE TRAIL:
• Continue and integrate the Iron Horse Trail through the site in a manner consistent with the
Regional Trail system (ex: Colony Park). The Regional Trail connects swim club, buses, BART,
hotel, fitness center, and historic buildings along side.
• Improve the intersection between the trail and Treat Blvd. (underpass or bridge)
• Provide a respite area along the East side, just North of Treat (named for Del Hambre)
• Possible community garden space
ENVIRONMENT:
• 20 year vision, deciduous shade trees, no palms, native and drought resistant, flowers, shrubs,
park benches, bike parking, bike trails, human scale
• Timing of green space implementation along trail
• Improve the open and green spaces, but preserve the existing Oak trees, especially at the edges
(Southwest corner of site, Northwest corner of site and the last open space along BART Tracks in
the Northeast corner of site)
• Save the beautiful view of Mt. Diablo from the BART Station tracks
• Provide more views, not the East side blocking West side views
• 20 year vision, neighborhood generates some of its own electric power
• Block the Southwest wind, it is too windy
• Buffer the noise level of I-680 and the traffic through the site
Attachment R - Page 102
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan96 - 6.0 Appendices
COMMUNITY QUESTIONS & CONCERNS:
• How to keep “new urbanism” from creating a stereotypical image of an urban area and
contributing to the sameness of America?
• I am very concerned about Bill saying “we solved this by bringing the buildings to the street.”
• Will the green space be built to specific plan?
• How will this development affect property values?
• People are not familiar with what is already planned for the development South of Treat Blvd. off
the BART Station site.
• For future on-site meetings: It is too dark to walk at night to meeting from site and the walk
from station to meeting was circuitous.
• Project labor agreement with Contra Costa Building Traders for construction
FEB. 22ND-27TH, 2001 – CHARRETTE PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Comments from Public Meetings grouped by Topic)
PARKING
• There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same
as 581 free spots. Add to parking tower.
• Where are the 581 spaces of parking form the green space going to be? This plan does not show
the promised parking. Look elsewhere!
• 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club).
• Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan.
• Expand parking structure first.
• We need more parking not less.
• Develop the expanded parking structure first before development of retail, office space, etc..
• Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this
design?
• The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it!
• How many stories? Make it low.
• Place parking at North Concord stop
• Where’s the parking garage?
• New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet
• Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars
• If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you
will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding.
• Don’t lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience.
• Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today’s parking supply should be a baseline.
• Is there space for buses?
• Main street parallel parking doesn’t seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle
parking
• Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat
• Do we really need cars all the way around the green?
• Drop offs and taxis?
• Where is the Kiss and Ride area?
Attachment R - Page 103
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 97
TRAFFIC
• Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns.
• Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for
traffic flow –cars in looking for non existent parking than backing out again will have a very
adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents.
• No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more
service outlets at this end of Main and around Square.
• Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in
Concord.
• Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road
• Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat
and continue bridge design planning.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
• Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680.
• Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat.
• Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road.
• Much concern about crossing Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart.
There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars.
• It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a
park.
• The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only.
• “Buffer” comfort for peds.
• Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat.
• Blinking light pedestrian /bike crosswalk form Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the
direction of the Station Plaza).
• Bike storage for residents who don’t have covered storage.
ENVIRONMENT
• Preserve air right for future greater density.
• Is there an incorporation of solar energy?
• Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick?
• Save the view of Mount Diablo
• I’m worried about our Mount Diablo view from the station platform…we should see it from all
along the platform, not just one little spot
PROGRAMMING
• Either activate linear park (market, etc..) or give up for larger square.
• Larger community Center on Larger Green
• Mix office and residential on the same properties.
• Plan should allow future air rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and
Green to Iron Trail.
Attachment R - Page 104
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan98 - 6.0 Appendices
• Have a post office annex.
• Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else?)
• Strong landscape feature or fountain.
STATION GREEN
• Green should be a bit larger.
• The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central
greed…or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc..) or anchored by retail
(restaurant)?
• What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green) Civic space is good,
move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here?
• This building is too big.
• This space is ‘not doing anything’-what about a playground?
• Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden)
• Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park.
RETAIL
• Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store.
• Preserve space along green for retail expansion
• Maintain future retail around Station Plaza.
• Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners-tap into their networks of
potential retail tenants.
• No fast food!
• Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west.
HOUSING
• More housing, more affordable housing-inclusionary, not segregated.
• Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units.
• Look beyond the site for more long term solution (look outside the box).
• Mix houses/office on same block.
• Like housing above retail.
WALDEN
• Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with
walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on
this.
• Walder Center or Walden Square for name.
• There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old
homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd.
POOL
• Why not public “community” pool?
• Agreed that use should be recreational.
• Pool becomes village pool.
Attachment R - Page 105
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 99
BUILT FORM
• No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories
• Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower.
• Need good codes to get this architecture
• Need regulating codes to be available.
• Is the Station Building included in financial analysis?
• Scale back 7-story building on Treat: decrease to 4 stories or increase set-back.
BART STATION CHARACTER
• Lose the towers next to BART
• How about an old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a
flagpole.
• Destination is key concept.
• Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history.
• Put drawings on the web.
FEB. 8TH, 2001 - TRANSPORTATION FOCUS GROUP MEETING
(Questions with responses in italics underneath)
1. Re-establish existing conditions (not 1997 LOS) - need new baseline for comparison (incl. unbuilt
but approved development)
• The daily and peak traffic volumes were just counted this year (2001). Both the existing and
existing plus Charrette project traffic volumes fit with the counts and projections from the 1997
Traffic Study. The 1997 Traffic Study forecasted traffic by adding to existing traffic the new trips
from unbuilt but approved development, future development of the BART property, plus a certain
amount of regional growth based on growth forecasts for areas outside the Specific Plan
boundaries. The 2001 traffic counts reaffirm the data and assumptions of the 1997 Traffic Study,
which found that future development in the Specific Plan area will not cause traffic conditions on
Treat Boulevard to violate the standards for congestion that were established by central county
jurisdictions and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the Measure C
Growth Management Program. An update to the traffic service objective (TSO) monitoring for
Treat Boulevard (considered a Route of Regional Significance) was completed by the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority in 1999. The measured speeds and delay index values ranged
from 21 miles per hour (mph) to 28 mph and 1.35 to 1.75, respectively. These values are well
above the average speed TSO requirement of 15 mph and well below the Delay Index TSO
requirement of 2.0.
2. Specific Plan limit on growth based on certain traffic levels - (Spec. Plan p. 33)
• Traffic Service Objective (TSOs) apply for regional and local routes. As noted in the Specific
Plan, "In the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, Treat Boulevard is designated as a Route of
Regional Significance. The remaining streets in the area are Basic Routes and are subject to
traffic service objectives defined in local general plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan
(1991) designates the land use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area as 'central business
Attachment R - Page 106
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan100 - 6.0 Appendices
district.' The traffic level of service (LOS) for this type of land use is defined as low E (volume-
to-capacity ratio of 0.90 to 0.94)."
3. Based on maximum parking ratio of 3.3 (spaces) / 1000 (sq. ft. office) would result in 2,600
vehicles.
• Comment noted.
4. Can parking for office be less than 3.3/1000 sq. ft.?-This is max in plan.
• Yes, parking studies would be required for less than the maximum. Lending institutions tend to
prefer as much parking as can be achieved, particularly in suburban areas.
5. Through the Charrette process can less than the 600,000 sq ft. minimum development be proposed?
• The minimum is based on legally vested development rights, set forth in the Development
Agreement.
6. John Muir has higher employee density that exceeds the parking supply 2.7-2.8 (spaces) / 1000
(sq ft. office) - resulting in valet parking and bank parking in the temporary lots.
• Comment noted.
7. Bicyclists have to pay for bike lockers at BART, whereas parking is free, incentives for alternative
modes need to be increased.
• The Specific Plan requires that a Bike Station will be included in any development plan.
8. Need to look at regional transportation planning.
• This work has been done, particularly in the 1997 Traffic Study for the Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report. Roadway and other improvements were required and were built
through an Assessment District in the Specific Plan area.
9. Cannot eliminate the through traffic on Treat.
• Comment noted.
10. Integrate into a regional master plan the impacts of this project with the impacts of other
developments in the county.
• See 8 above. Also note there is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (a congestion and
growth management agency) which fosters cooperative transportation planning through the
local planning groups in each area of the County, including TRANSPAC in central county,
TRANSPLAN in east county, WCCTAC in west county, SWAT in the Lamorinda area and TVTC
in south county. The 1997 Traffic Study was managed by staff from the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority and the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was reviewed by the central
county cities through TRANSPAC and the Plan was changed based on their review.
11. Solutions will work better if there is more cooperation and collaboration among regional
projects.
• See 8 and 10 above.
Attachment R - Page 107
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 101
12. Time of day is an important element to consider -focus on peak commute ingress and egress to
BART parking.
• Comment noted and was considered.
13. Improve overall accessibility to the development.
• Part of the process.
14. Develop uses that don't attract as much traffic from the region.
• Part of the process and included in the "final" plan from the Charrette.
15. Focus on TDM incentives to use alternative modes.
• Part of the process.
16. Need to take into account traffic from bicyclists' and pedestrians' perspectives, especially 6:00-
8:00am. Improve ped. & bicycle environment (also 4:00-6:00pm)
• Issues for bicyclists and pedestrians have been and continue to be an important part of the
process.
17. Crossing Coggins is difficult for pedestrians. "Blind" corner at BART access. Island w/ Oak tree.
Lanes narrow from 2 to 1
• Improvements are part of the process.
18. Difficult access to Canal Trail--- must go through temporary parking.
• Improvements are part of the process for the Iron Horse Trail.
19. Unclear whether bicyclists should use streets or Iron Horse Trail.
• Comment noted and part of the process.
20. Confusing intersection at Treat and Jones where trail crosses Treat for Iron Horse Trail users.
• Comment noted and part of the process.
21. Accessing BART in a.m. Treat-left turn when going north on Coggins.
• Part of the process.
22. Better channelization of traffic into BART parking lot---keep traffic moving and minimize
conflicts between flows.
• Part of the process.
23. Area acts as park & ride. Look at area to north-west (N. Main St. area/old Co-op location) as
alternative park & ride. Consider Sun Valley Mall in Concord (utilizing excess parking).
Montgomery Wards parking lot (to be served by shuttle). Consider park & ride at future hotel/
office site (former AmeriSuites site)
• Outlying Park and Ride lots examined by the PH BART Steering Committee and can be
considered in the process.
Attachment R - Page 108
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan102 - 6.0 Appendices
24. At the Bike/Ped overcrossing at Jones, consider closing the south side of Treat and east side of
Jones to provide a direct connection to the Trail.
• These are details that will be considered in the design of any overcrossing.
25. Improve access through the BART lot to office buildings.
• This is a part of site planning, and is a policy of the Specific Plan.
26. Consider Church parking lots as park & ride lots (Orinda model).
• Similar to 23, part of process.
27. How can we attract employers who value alternatives to SOV, and give their employees
incentives to do it?
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) issue was considered in the 1997 Traffic Study. The
County is pursuing the Study's recommendations to promote the use of alternate modes of access
to the Specific Plan area and these activities are part of the process.
28. Reward the behavior that you want to encourage (e.g. amenities for bikes, pedestrians) - El
Cerrito Station example of bike lockers.
• See 7 above, Bike Station, part of the process.
29. If you want more people to use BART, consider increasing amount of BART parking to keep
traffic off the regional streets.
• Want "transit-oriented" development. The BART Board policy is currently set for the number of
parking spaces at each station. The BART Access Plan for PH BART suggests greater use of
alternate modes, not more parking.
30. Retain existing number of parking spaces at BART (3,450)
• Part of Specific Plan. Permanent BART parking has been set by the BART Board and was
incorporated in the Specific Plan at 2806 spaces. The additional spaces identified in the
comment include the temporary parking spaces. Providing additional permanent BART patron
parking beyond the 2,806 spaces was considered in the Charrette.
31. BART lots are empty on nights and weekends, so may consider evening (complementary) uses.
• Part of process and previous studies.
32. Is BART going to replace the parking in the park ROW?
• The Steering Committee is acting on a variety of measures, and the Charrette "final" plan
includes some replacement parking.
33. Reducing BART parking encourages land use patterns that generate more traffic.
• No plans to reduce BART parking below the established 2806 permanent spaces. Additional
BART patron parking was considered in the Charrette (see 32 above).
Attachment R - Page 109
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 103
34. Don't just focus on the commute times- need retail or other off-peak uses.
• Comment noted and was considered.
35. Consider parking structures with retail on the ground floor (e.g. Horton Plaza).
• Comment noted and considered as part of process.
36. Can you put a swimming pool on top of a parking garage?
• Technically possible, but economically difficult. Considered as part of process.
37. Dual turn lanes are difficult for bicyclists… like at Treat & Oak
• Considered as part of process, but may be difficult to change due to traffic volumes.
38. "Pass through" traffic from Bancroft to Mayhew to Las Juntas is a problem for neighbors (also
Las Juntas to Bancroft to Buskirk - neighborhood impacts).
• Traffic calming may be appropriate and is provided for in the Specific Plan (Automobile
Circulation Policy #5, page 34.
39. Develop Buskirk as four-lane all the way to Monument Blvd.
• Previously considered as part of the 1997 Traffic Study. Widening to four lanes was not needed
to mitigate traffic impacts from the Specific Plan. With redevelopment of the Contra Costa
Shopping Center (Wards, Century Theater), the City of Pleasant Hill is expected to re-examine.
40. Pedestrians "do not have the right of way" in the crosswalks.
• See 38 above under Traffic Impacts. Traffic calming may be appropriate.
41. What is Oakland's mode split? How can we increase Centre's mode split?
• Part of the process and with TDM, see 27 above.
42. Can we predict mode split of new development going in?
• Previously considered in the 1997 Traffic Study.
43. Increase development rights in lieu of parking.
• "Density bonus" was removed from the Specific Plan. Can be considered as part of process.
44. What is this area going to look like in 20 years?
• The Charrette process was planned to answer this question, and hopefully has done so.
45. We need better transit service. How can we pay for it?
• The process considers designs/land uses that are expected to emphasize transit use. TDM will be
a consideration in evaluating the alternatives. It is Important to match the design with the
available transit.
Attachment R - Page 110
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan104 - 6.0 Appendices
46. We don't want traffic to be any worse than it is today, but we want it to be a vital area.
• Studies indicate the traffic will increase, even without any additional development on the BART
property. Property owners of vacant parcels in the Specific Plan area have already funded and
built significant upgrades to roads in the Specific Plan area to accommodate traffic generated
from development on these parcels. The Charrette "final" plan seems to balance traffic
generation and vitality.
47. Opportunity to create a transit village.
• Yes, important consideration for the process.
48. Will Fehr & Peers focus at the Charrette be on BART transit or on the car?
• Fehr & Peers is focusing on transportation and traffic, with Nelson-Nygaard focusing on transit
and buses.
49. Last EIR and traffic study projections re: modal splits that were not accurate.
• Higher alternate mode splits were identified as potentially achievable in the 1997 Traffic Study.
However, the Traffic Study work assumed current levels of alternate mode splits, which are
relatively high for a suburban location. This process emphasizes actual mode splits.
50. Different things affect number of people who will walk, ie: weather, hours worked, other things
they have to do, etc.
• Comment noted.
51. Envision Iron Horse Transit Corridor - Light Rail, etc.- We need to plan for the connections to it
whether walking/bicycle trail or light rail.
• Yes, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access issues are important considerations for this process.
This access includes access to and from the BART Station and to and from the trails.
52. This is our last opportunity to do it right.
• This is important consideration for the Charrette.
53. We need to think 20 years out and put the infrastructure for it in now.
• This is also an important consideration for the Charrette. This was the philosophy of the Specific
Plan when it was adopted in 1984. Property owners were assessed over $40 million for road and
other infrastructure upgrades to serve their development. These infrastructure upgrades were
completed in the late 1980's.
54. Transportation system in London works because stop spacing is short - we need a light rail
system with frequent stops.
• It is important to consider transit operations and usage as part of the Charrette. These
considerations should not be done in isolation, but considered with other issues.
55. Quit thinking temporary solutions and think long term.
• This was also an important part of the process.
Attachment R - Page 111
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 105
56. Would County consider changing the streets, light rail, etc. ? How far can we go?
• This Charrette process began with few "absolutes." The BART tracks, the columns, the actual
station location and trees may be considered "givens." On-site roadways can be changed. It
would be difficult to make major changes to Treat Boulevard, Oak Road and Jones Road.
Internal roadway changes and other minor changes are considered.
57. Can the streets in the area be modified?
• See 56.
58. Can we consider one-way streets?
• One-way streets are possible, particularly for internal roadways. Major streets such as Treat
would not be included.
59. How will parking at BART for airport be handled?
• BART is developing policies for airport parking separate from this Charrette process.
60. Flex hour spaces
• These BART policies are not specifically a part of the process, but these issues have been
considered and have been brought to the attention of BART by the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Steering Committee.
61. Parking is never temporary.
• Comment noted.
62. Parking = Traffic
• Comment noted.
63. Need improved walking entrance thru BART parking lot to the station.
• Access is an important part of the process, for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorized vehicles.
E-MAIL AND FAX QUESTIONS
(Note issues covered in the 2/8/01 Focus Group meeting issues list are not repeated here. A total of 9
e-mails, 1 fax, 1 letter were received, with 1 personal conversation.)
• Leisure Sports Inc. (now Renaissance ClubSport Hotel & Fitness Resort ) gained approval for a
project in subarea 15 of the Specific Plan Area. A condition of approval was offers of Right of
Way dedication on Jones Rd. and Oak Rd. The purpose of these dedications were to mitigate loss
of the right turn lane from Jones to Treat to accommodate a pedestrian overcrossing of Treat for
the Iron Horse Trail.
• Promote future development that encourages living, service and recreational usage. Providing
feeder mini buses that run to and from various neighborhoods in a timely fashion synchronizing
their timetables to those of BART would greatly reduce current and future traffic congestion.
• The Specific Plan for the Redevelopment Area contains excellent instructions about trails and
paths as a means of getting people to the BART station and through the area on foot or on bikes.
Attachment R - Page 112
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan106 - 6.0 Appendices
They have not yet been implemented.
• Primary need for area is enormously more free parking and free or extremely low-cost (10 cents)
transportation to downtown Pleasant Hill main shopping area, downtown main shopping in
Walnut Creek on an every 10 minutes or less basis.
• Small stores are having trouble recruiting staff as they cannot pay a living wage in this area. So
putting in more "strip mall local shopping areas" does not make sense. Groceries, small
bookstores, coffee shops already proliferate in this general area. We do not need to compete with
these.
• Parking in two subterranean levels and on street level. Shops on the second level flanking the
train platforms. Shops on the third level, and restaurants on the top level. This is to be in a
terraced design providing greenspaces and plazas about the periphery.
• Parcels 11 and 12 are public assets that should not be used for speculative development.
• Provide local services, avoid becoming a regional mall.
• Need improved access for the handicapped, particularly along the roadways to the north, some
without sidewalks.
FEB. 26TH, 2001 - CHARRETTE EMPLOYEE / EMPLOYER MEETING
(Comments from local area employers and employees)
What special things do you want here?
• Day spa, Restaurants, Bank/ATMs, Pet Store, Dry Cleaners, Post Office, Sheriff’s Annex, Small
drug store, Small gift or Hallmark store, Barber, Shoe Repair, Bakery, Yogurt Shop
• Coffer Shop: Peets? Or Starbucks?, Lunch Places, Breakfast Places, Jamba Juice or something
like that, Shopping/Window Shopping, Nail Salon, Good Dinner Restaurant, Movies (crossed
out, marked “OK”), Any Night Life, Theater (ones here need to be entirely renovated), Togo’s,
Greeting Card Store
• Brewery/Brew Pub, Flower Shop, Dress Shop, Gym/Health Club (there’s one going in), Day
Care, Jazz Club (place to get a away on Friday and unwind before hitting the road), Place to go
to eat your lunch and get out of the building…somewhere to sit, benches, etc.., Bookstore.
• Public gathering place, not necessarily green space (Redwood Park examples), Rooftop park like
in the city, Adolescent-friendly design (lot of schools in the area where parents would like their
kids to be able to use BART), Make it welcome for people of all ages.
Attachment R - Page 113
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 107
APRIL 9TH, 2001 – ISSUES AND CONCERNS
(Comments and Issues from Public Meeting and Studio Drop-Ins)
What people liked
• Public greens
• Local-serving retail uses
• Overall sense of place
• Parking garages wrapped in nicer uses
• Main Street environment
• Better bus access
• Better pedestrian access
• How views of the platform and within the project were respected
• How it reaches out to the Iron Horse Trail
• (Some liked) the balance achieved between those who wanted more parking and those who
wanted less
• Like uses across from like uses (i.e. - office across from office, residential across from
residential)
• How height steps down from high buildings next to freeway, to lower buildings by the trail
• Creation of entrance/gateway to the Iron Horse Trail
• Creation of a real place
• Eliminated the need for parking on Swim Club site
Concerns/Issues Outstanding
• Ultimate uses of the Las Juntas Swim Club site
• Bike/pedestrian overcrossings
• Parking: Some want more for access to BART and BART-to-airport parking
• Parking: Some want less because more parking = more traffic
• Parking: Construction staging and how it will affect parking
• Parking management
• Building use and building mass: people prefer more residential and lower towers... but office is
what funds all the other positive things about the plan
• Traffic
• How bus, taxi, kiss & ride will work
• Paid parking in BART structure --- consider change in BART policy?
• Traffic flow, circulation to and from parking structures
• What public benefits come from the investment in this project?
• The needs of the 600 people who drive in and use BART everyday and don’t have other options
• Coding changes to the Specific Plan
• Drawings/sketches are not to scale or true-to-life and are misleading
• The trees shown in the green space on the Iron Horse Trail cannot be put there because of
underground utilities
• Use of adjacent streets for parking
• Difficult to access station
• Signal timing: difficult to cross the street
Attachment R - Page 114
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan108 - 6.0 Appendices
• Mix of uses
• Different figures from those presented at Feb. 27th meeting and now
• Lodging seems to have snuck in the plan. We don’t want more hotels.
• “Underground parking has no limits” --- what does this mean?
• Decision about block size - considered things “out of the box?”
• No one asked for a 12-story office building
• We asked for market-rate housing
• Remember the original intent: form needs to follow function and people need to be able to get to
work
• We have parkland all around and we have a downtown - in Walnut Creek
• Will the economic analysis look at the “no project” alternative?
• Only 10% of the people who work here ride BART
• How does the project affect/benefit people who live within 1/2 to 3 miles of the station?
• Parking garage frontage along Oak Road - concern about safety for people who walk past there
• Drawings don’t show parking on-street
• Include a view with the surrounding buildings within a block or two on each side
• In architectural standards: “human habitation” and “not less than 450 square feet” are not
compatible. Others say this may be okay.
• Range of sizes is best, with percentage of each type
• 12-story building with horizontal lines: would that be typical of the 12-story tower?
• Circulation plan: may not need all the parking on-site if you have amenities for people who bike
or walk
• Efficiency of bus bays for buses coming from all 4 directions
• Do not show parking on Oak Road - not possible
• People crossing Jones Road from the Iron Horse Trail to access the site --- show a gap in the
parked cars at the intersection
• Show where the bridges might come down in the site plans
• Take the same amount of care in planning the Oak Road side
• “Parking Placement” just shows parking for autos and not for bikes
• Specify bike parking: the number of spaces and where they’re located
• Address management issues
• Hercules’ Charrette --- what’s happening and why?
• As write changes to the Specific Plan, plan so that if back-sliding occurs, the community can live
with the result
Written Comments:
• The code is far too complex to cover in this forum. There is a real fear that someone will think it
is okay when it isn’t understood.
• “Parking - some want more; some want less” --- this is a misleading statement. The DVCA and
commuters just want to maintain current parking levels which include the 581 “temporary” spots
being displaced by the Iron Horse Trail.
Attachment R - Page 115
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 109
• The DVCA will contact Steve Coyle to thoroughly review work being conducted with the
planning consultant.
• The County and BART should be very concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing Jones
Road at the entrance to the site. Doubling the number of cars along Jones going into the parking
garage will make crossing the street very difficult in the am and pm commute hours.
• Why have retail along Treat Blvd. - as you are driving west along Treat, there is no time to be
looking at retail stores or window displays. This could cause problems is the retail windows had
interesting displays.
• Are you conscious of earthquake movement here? This ground can go in waves... so no brick
frontage, etc.
• The bike station is for commuters mainly. It needs to be close the fare gates (what about on the
southwest corner of Block C, or moving it to the west end of the residential green next to the
plaza?). Reward the access modes you want to encourage! Access from the bike station (where it
is currently located) will require crossing two roadways and be further than for people walking
from most ground-floor parking spaces.
• Where will expanded BART on-demand bicycle racks be located?
• We want the same number of parking spaces as in the present configuration (including the 581
spaces in the Iron Horse Trail alignment).
• I do not patronize retail establishments where I have to pay for parking.
• RE: Iron Horse Trail bridge: John Muir Building people are concerned about users seeing into
their windows. They say they replaced their windows that had a sun-ray coating because it was
peeling. Why not replace the old coating (that disallows people seeing in) with a coating that is
more durable? Have the cost be born by the bridge project cost.
• Free replacement parking for all current spaces (including the “temporary” 581 spaces) is
essential!
• BART costs $7/day (expensive). Parking costs on top (of that) tilt the balance toward driving to
San Francisco and the resulting flexibility.
• Current suggested parking alternatives are impractical. They’re only easy for those who don’t
have to use them. Ten spots here off-site and 20 more somewhere else off-site won’t work as
alternatives. Bus needs massive improvement before it’ll work. Until you’ve provided
workable, low-stress alternatives to driving alone, we need parking! To punish people who take
public transit (by taking away BART parking access) is unconscionable. The current planned
“transit village” benefits the Walden area residents with higher property values at the expense of
Attachment R - Page 116
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan110 - 6.0 Appendices
• I request a circulation plan to not less than 5 miles around the BART station, including the costs
of user-free, zero-emission buses and user-free refreshment buildings (of bathrooms and eateries)
maybe not less than 200 feet apart, and unbundling of commercial and residential units from
minimum tenant and user-free parking spaces so far as government is concerned. The number of
user-free parking spaces BART-commercial-residential per acre should be limited and BART
government should not be permitted to give away land use at tax expense or BART ticket-payers
expense to selected few against good planning. It is a prostitution of civic planning and
capitulate suppression of exploration of ideas with constraint of current BART “policy.”
APRIL 10TH, 2001 – ISSUES AND CONCERNS
(Comments and Issues from Public Meeting)
A. PARKING
1. There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same as
581 free spots. Add to parking tower.
• The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan provides for the Iron Horse Corridor to be converted to a
Greenspace use. In order to implement, the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has been
evaluating measures to mitigate removal of temporary BART spaces. Multiple mitigations for
temporary parking removal include enhancements to alternative modes (146 spaces), BART
operations (230 spaces), relocation of Route 70 stop (40 spaces), and replacement temporary
parking (250 spaces). The 250 net new BART patron spaces on the BART property are over and
above mitigations previously identified by Steering Committee. Cost to develop 250 net new
spaces is over $3.5 million. Additional parking for visitors to shoppers to the new projects will
ensure that parking spaces are available throughout the day, including BART patrons.
2. Where are the 581 spaces of parking from the green space going to be? This plan does not show
the promised parking. Look elsewhere!
• See A-1
3. 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club).
• Two hundred fifty spaces will not be on line for at least two years; temporary parking mitigations
are still being pursued.
4. Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan.
• If parking is part of joint development program, an amendment to Specific Plan would be
needed.
5. Expand parking structure first; Develop the expanded parking structure first before development
of retail, office space, etc.
• Phasing program not yet firmly established; preliminary indications are that BART patron
replacement parking would likely occur first.
Attachment R - Page 117
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 111
6. We need more parking not less.
• BART access planning policy and County policy encourage alternative mode enhancement, not
the development of more and more parking. Just as many people argue that there should be less
parking, since providing parking results in more congestion. The recommended 250 spaces
represents a compromise between competing interests. BART’s new parking policy would allow
for consideration of new paid parking facilities and public/private partnerships to construct
additional parking facilities.
7. Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this
design?
• Expansion structure is same height and has the same number of floors as the existing structure.
8. The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it!
• We concur. Liner buildings and other exterior/interior modifications can be developed to
enhance the neighborliness of this corner.
9. How many stories? Make it low.
• The proposed number of stories is needed to fully provide for our replacement parking
obligation. All building heights throughout the project have been designed to be lower on the
east side near residential uses, and higher adjacent to office uses on the western perimeter.
Further, the costs of building parking further below ground is significant given the areas high
watertable. In addition, we have made sure to preserve views of Mt. Diablo from the Station
platform.
10. Place parking at North Concord stop.
• BART enhancements to N. Concord service among the temporary parking mitigations. Currently
there are over 400 unused spaces at N. Concord. Hopefully running additional trains to this
Station will encourage about 100 BART patrons at Pleasant Hill to use N. Concord.
11. Where’s the parking garage?
• BART replacement parking proposed to be west of existing structure. Private uses all provide for
their parking needs in the back of the buildings.
12. New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet.
• BART specifies minimum of 8.5 foot width.
13. Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars.
• Compact and full spaces to be provided. A parking consultant has been engaged to optimize
parking program. BART has recently estimated that an additional 80 spaces are achievable from
restriping the existing garage.
14. If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you
will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding.
• Pricing has a strong effect on demand, and encourages alternative modes. BART policy requires
Attachment R - Page 118
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan112 - 6.0 Appendices
that BART-dedicated parking be provided free to BART patron’s only. We assume that all
additional BART and project parking within the project will be priced at market rates. Revenues
received may be able to help cover costs to construct, and to operate the parking facility.
15. Don’t lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience.
• We have worked to significantly improve pedestrian, transit and bicycle access to the Station,
while still providing for significant auto access. There will be safe, comfortable, interesting
pedestrian routes from all sides of the project to the Station. There will be a strong connection
for bikes and pedestrians to the Iron Horse Trail, with a Bike Station placed next to the BART
Station. Access for transit will be greatly improved, with additional bus bays, improved
passenger amenities and room for expansion. Management of taxis will also be improved,
eliminating queuing on surrounding residential streets. Further, the Specific Plan and the
Concept Plan acknowledges the importance of this regional facility by providing for a
concentration of uses conveniently located within easy walking of the BART platform.
16. Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today’s parking supply should be a baseline.
• See A-6 above.
17. Is there space for buses?
• Bus queuing and loading areas provided for at west end of property. Also, see A-15.
18. Main street parallel parking doesn’t seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle
parking.
• Parking consultant is examining on and off street parking. Our experience with parallel parking
on main streets all over the country is generally very positive. In addition, 45-degree angle
parking can pose hazards for bicyclists.
19. Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat.
• On-street parking will not be allowed during times when it might back up traffic onto Treat.
During off-peak times, it will provide extra parking spaces, will act as a traffic-calming device,
and will improve the pedestrian environment on the sidewalks.
20. Do we really need cars all the way around the green?
• On-street parking helps provide buffer for safety; issue can be further examined.
21. Drop offs and taxis?
• See A-17.
22. Where is the Kiss and Ride area?
• Kiss and Ride opportunities are around the Station Plaza, and just north of the station.
B. TRAFFIC
1. Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns.
• The bridges will be designed to accommodate turning motions/site lines at intersections.
Attachment R - Page 119
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 113
2. Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for
traffic flow – cars in looking for non-existent parking rather than backing out again will have a
very adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents.
• The existing setting on Del Hombre is to be improved as part of Greenspace projects. Adequate
turning areas are to be provided.
3. No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more
service outlets at this end of Main and around Square.
• See A-20. To be examined.
4. Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in
Concord.
• A connector trail to the David/Minert area is suggested in the Specific Plan, and is being
examined. A public process to discuss alternative alignments to be conducted.
5. Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road.
• The two bridges serve entirely different populations. One bridge for both pedestrians along Oak
Road (south) and Iron Horse Trail users not functionally feasible.
6. Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat
and continue bridge design planning.
• Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is fully funded. Final design process/determination to proceed to
be undertaken.
C. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
1. Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680.
• Acknowledged. Future alternative mode enhancements may address, and is suggested in the
Specific Plan.
2. Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat.
• Grass can be provided in appropriate locations. Water conservation ordinance discourages
small areas of grass.
3. Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road.
• Part of Specific Plan; design alternatives, siting, and localized impacts need to be assessed and
considered in final siting decisions.
4. Much concern about crossing Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart.
There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars.
• Safe pedestrian access alternatives to BART property from Iron Horse Trail are being evaluated.
Potential improvements include a pedestrian refuge/median on Jones; raised crosswalks, in-
pavement, pedestrian-activated crosswalk beacons; and/or a pedestrian activated stoplight.
Attachment R - Page 120
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan114 - 6.0 Appendices
5. It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a
park; The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only.
• Size of square, and use of parked cars to buffer from traffic lanes is concept being employed. See
also A-20.
6. “Buffer” comforts for peds.
• Trees along the curb and parking part of buffering.
7. Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat.
• Viability as an alternative is being evaluated for April 9th meeting. Potentially constrained by
underground utilities, cost, and safety/security concerns of users. Most pedestrians feel unsafe
walking in a long tunnel.
8. Blinking light pedestrian /bike crosswalk from Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the
direction of the Station Plaza).
• Need for/type of signalization is to be determined when project level traffic studies are
completed. See also C-4.
9. Bike storage for residents who don’t have covered storage.
• Can be provided for in residential projects similar to requirements of commercial projects in
area.
10. Better coordination of traffic signals to accommodate pedestrians.
• Signal time now controlled by Walnut Creek for Treat Corridor; pedestrian overcrossings
designed to address.
11. Pedestrian flow from Oak (south of Treat) to platform is too convoluted.
• Shortest route would have pedestrians continuing north along Oak to BART viaduct and into the
Station; this movement is provided for. Pedestrian overcrossing design will need to
accommodate a staircase to come back to ground level to facilitate multiple directions for
desired pedestrian movements.
12. Area west of grove of trees at Oak/Treat doesn’t have uses that would provide observation/
security for pedestrians.
• Uses can be considered for the area, so long as trees are not impaired. Observation from street
does occur.
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserve air right for future greater density.
• Development over BART facilities is technically possible, but difficult to accomplish in a
financially feasible way given need to protect BART operational requirements.
Attachment R - Page 121
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 115
2. Is there an incorporation of solar energy?
• Energy conservation features encouraged by County General Plan policy and implementing
ordinances. Energy costs bode positive for energy considerations in site design and equipping.
3. Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick?
• No recent arborist reports exist. May be part of Final Development Plan special studies.
4. Save the view of Mount Diablo; I’m worried about our Mount Diablo view from the Station
platform. We should see it from all along the platform, not just one little spot.
• Specific Plan policy/diagrams denote Mt. Diablo viewshed; concept plan is consistent with
Specific Plan. Expansive views will be preserved.
E. PROGRAMMING
1. Either activate linear park (market, etc.) or give up for larger square.
• Denoted uses for the linear park are intended to be exemplary. Uses might include playground,
public art, stage, etc. The provision of additional space for a larger square is being further
examined; preliminary indications are that it would compromise the ability to park adjacent
blocks.
2. Larger community Center on Larger Green.
• Siting of a community center within the complex has a number of alternative locations; use
connotes operation and maintenance source of funds.
3. Mix office and residential on the same properties.
• Plan doesn’t preclude; mixing can complicate building program, parking.
4. Plan should allow future air rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and
Green to Iron Trail.
• See D-1.
5. Have a post office annex.
• This type of use will be among the many potential uses considered by the BART developer.
6. Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else)?
• Will consider alternative locations.
7. Strong landscape feature or fountain.
• Will be considered; part of Final Development Plan.
8. Create an activity center at Treat/Oak west of grove of trees.
• Can be considered; See also C-12.
Attachment R - Page 122
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan116 - 6.0 Appendices
F. STATION GREEN
1. Green should be a bit larger.
• See E-1.
2. The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central
green. Or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc.) or anchored by retail
(restaurant)?
• Programming of uses along link road can accommodate mixed uses. Restaurant feature better to
site at Station Plaza (west) end of link road. Median green may be considered for playground,
but other locations exist – Greenspace or Station Plaza. See also E-1.
3. What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green). Civic space is good,
move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here? This building is too big.
• This building is not contemplated to be a community center. The concept was to create a
sheltered space that would provide benefit to users such as arts and crafts shows, etc.
4. This space is “not doing anything” - What about a playground?
• Play areas can be part of Station Plaza.
5. Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden).
• Can be considered.
6. Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park.
• Can be considered; see also E-1.
G. RETAIL
1. Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store.
• Definitely a desired use; operator will have to be determined.
2. Preserve space along green for retail expansion.
• Provided for.
3. Maintain future retail around Station Plaza.
• Provided for.
4. Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners tap into their networks of
potential retail tenants.
• Operators to be determined.
5. No fast food!
• Specific Plan precludes drive-thru establishments; all restaurants would have to be walk-up.
Restaurants of all types desirable – sit down to convenience.
Attachment R - Page 123
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 117
6. Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west.
• Would be provided.
H. HOUSING
1. More housing, more affordable housing - inclusionary, not segregated.
• Mixed income housing contemplated; some affordability required by Law.
2. Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units. Look beyond the site
for more long-term solution (look outside the box).
• Housing program includes some for-sale units; outside the Specific Plan area is substantially
built out, except for two smaller areas.
3. Mix houses/office on same block.
• See E-3.
4. Like housing above retail.
• Provided for.
I. WALDEN
1. Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with
walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on
this.
• BART, County, and Developer are open to evolving this concept to establish an identity.
2. Walden Center or Walden Square for name.
• Walden Center name is already used by shopping center at Treat/No. Main.
3. There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old
homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd.
• Acknowledged.
J. POOL
1. Why not public “community” pool?
• Among the alternatives; City of Walnut Creek would have to agree to operate and maintain if a
“public” pool. City declined prior offer to operate Swim Club.
2. Agreed that use should be recreational.
• See J-1.
3. Pool becomes village pool.
• See J-1.
Attachment R - Page 124
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan118 - 6.0 Appendices
4. Corporate memberships for Swim Club.
• Not a design issue, but could be considered by Swim Club.
K. BUILT FORM
1. West of BART; No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories.
• Specific Plan allows up to 12 stories to be considered on Area 11 (west of BART platform).
2. Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower.
• Both office uses would not fit without substantially increasing building mass or height, or both.
3. Need good codes to get this architecture; Need regulating codes to be available.
• Coding document being prepared.
4. Is the Station Building included in financial analysis?
• All built forms are reflected in financial analysis.
5. Scale back 7-story building on Treat; Decrease to 4 stories or increase setback.
• Specific Plan allows seven; would impact project economics if FAR reduction required, or
increase mass of building.
L. BART STATION CHARACTER
1. Lose the towers next to BART.
• See K-1.
2. How about an old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a
flagpole?
• Can be considered; idea reflected in concept plan.
3. Destination is key concept.
• Creating a sense of place for residents, employees, and BART patrons is desired.
4. Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history.
• Architectural style rendered was a vernacular that reflects local area; other styles are possible
and will be evaluated with visual preference survey on April 9th and 10th.
5. Put drawings on the web.
• Accomplished.
Attachment R - Page 125
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Resident Deputy Sheriff
Contra Costa Centre Association members, which consist of fourteen (14)
commercial property owners and five (5) apartment owners including
Avalon Walnut Creek, Park Regency, Coggins Square and Eaves/Walnut
Ridge (formally Archstone apartments) fund a 40-hour a week Contra
Costa County Deputy Sheriff.
The Deputy Sheriff services the commercial buildings, apartments and
single family residences within the Contra Costa Centre MAC Area. Below
is a breakdown of the Deputy Sheriff’s costs paid for by the Contra Costa
Centre members and apartment owners.
Contra Costa County Sheriff Contract $210,000
Contra Costa Centre Member Contribution $146,000
Apartment Owner Contribution $ 64,000
In-kind expenses from 3003 Oak Road $ 8,300
Contra Costa Centre Sheriff paid expenses $ 2,000
(Expenses paid for include computer
equipment, Internet, IT support, mobile phone,
bicycle patrol equipment, etc.)
"UUBDINFOU4
Reports Generated
Contra Costa Centre
March 2015
Investigations Division
Crime Analysis Unit
1980 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
David O. Livingston, Sheriff
Total Crimes: 13
Crime Analyst Mike Voss
925-313-2535
Crime Analyst Jody Sicheneder
925-313-2722
Reported_Date Reported_Time Location Report_NoIncident_Type
ALCOHOL - DRUNK IN PUBLIC 1
3/8/15 2156 1400 TREAT BL 150003972647F
BATTERY - DOMESTIC 1
3/17/15 1211 3160 OAK RD #308 150004535243E
BURGLARY - AUTO 3
3/8/15 0951 3146 OAK RD 150003946459A
3/9/15 0925 3156 OAK RD #404 150003984459A
3/4/15 0907 3156 OAK RD #417 150003700459A
CHILD - ABUSE 1
3/23/15 0823 3003 OAK RD #150 150004880273A
DR NUMBER ISSUED IN ERROR 1
3/20/15 1311 1345 TREAT BL 150004748ERR
FRAUD 1
3/6/15 1049 832 AVALON AV 150003839532
GRAND THEFT 1
3/31/15 1612 2805 JONES RD 150005410487
INTERFERING WITH PUBLIC OFFICER 1
Page 1 of 24/1/2015
Reported_Date Reported_Time Location Report_NoIncident_Type
3/17/15 1203 1001 HARVEY DR 150004529148
MISD CREDIT CARD FRAUD 1
3/18/15 1520 1001 HARVEY DR 150004614484GM
PROPERTY - FOUND 1
3/18/15 0930 2805 JONES RD 1500045781731
THEFT - IDENTITY 1
3/27/15 1435 2805 JONES RD 1500051595305
"Statistics are for the Contra Costa County unincorporated area or contract city listed above. Statistics may not
include reclassified or ungeoverified incidents. This report includes data pertaining to the primary crime
classification only. Information regarding secondary charges are not electronically available and are therefore
excluded. Additionally, due to reporting requirements and computer processing procedures, statistics may not be
consistent with State of California Department of Justice statistics."
Page 2 of 24/1/2015
David O. Livingston, Sheriff
SELF
INITIATED
TOTAL
CALLS
DUI
ARRESTSWARRANT
CODED
OUT WRN
CODED OUT
AS AIC
CODED OUT
AS ARRDRs
1711
CITES
1710
CITES
CITES
TOTAL
DEPUTY ACTIVITY REPORT
1X14
March 02, 2015 to March 31, 2015
1X14
BROOKS,JEFFREY 11 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
111X14 Totals: 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 81
81TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE
Page 1 of 14/1/2015
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE PUBLIC CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
By Final Call Type
Onview Org. Call Fin. Call AddressRec. DateCall Number RPT #Cites Arrests Dispo
March 01, 2015 to March 31, 2015
911 ABANDONED
P150691012 N 911ABN UNF911ABN 0 003/10/2015 1200 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150691012
911 HANGUP
P150850872 N 911UNK UTL911UNK 0 003/26/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150850872
ALARM NFI
P150680191 N 1033A CAN1033 0 003/09/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150680191
P150901085 N 1033A STC1033 0 003/31/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150901085
AUTO BURGLARY
P150630300 N 459A RTF459A 0 0SP15000370003/04/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150630300
P150640261 N 459A RTF459A 0 0SP15000376103/05/2015 1300 Block LAS JUNTAS WY, WCR
P150640261
P150670252 N 459A RTF459A 0 0SP15000394603/08/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, PHI
P150670252
P150680263 N 459A RTF459A 0 0SP15000398403/09/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150680263
Page 1 of 54/1/2015
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE PUBLIC CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
By Final Call Type
Onview Org. Call Fin. Call AddressRec. DateCall Number RPT #Cites Arrests Dispo
March 01, 2015 to March 31, 2015
BATTERY DOMESTIC MISD
P150760477 N 243 RTF243E 0 0SP15000453503/17/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, PHI
P150760477
BEAT INFO
P150710248 Y 1059 STCINFO 0 003/12/2015 PARK REGENCY
P150710248
CHILD ABUSE
P150820189 N 273A RTF273A 0 0SP15000488003/23/2015 3000 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150820189
CIVIL
P150790551 N CIVIL CON1734 0 0SP15000474803/20/2015 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, WCR
P150790551
P150790749 N 602 CON1734 0 003/20/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150790749
P150830592 N 415D CON1734 0 003/24/2015 1300 Block LAS JUNTAS WY, WCR
P150830592
DRUNK IN PUBLIC
P150760412 N 370 ARR647F 1 0SP15000452903/17/2015 1000 Block HARVEY DR, WCR
P150760412
P150760412
FRAUD CREDIT CARD
P150770790 N 5305 RTF484G 0 0SP15000461403/18/2015 1000 Block HARVEY DR, WCR
P150770790
IDENTITY THEFT
P150860674 N FOUND RTF5305 0 0SP15000515903/27/2015 2800 Block JONES RD, WCR
P150860674
MEDICAL HOSPITAL
Page 2 of 54/1/2015
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE PUBLIC CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
By Final Call Type
Onview Org. Call Fin. Call AddressRec. DateCall Number RPT #Cites Arrests Dispo
March 01, 2015 to March 31, 2015
P150780515 N 5150 CON1730 0 003/19/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150780515
OUTSIDE ASSIST
P150660436 N INFO STC1738 0 003/07/2015 1200 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150660436
PATROL REQUEST
P150690955 Y 1702 STC1702 0 003/10/2015 PARK REGENCY
P150690955
P150760341 Y 1059 STC1702 0 003/17/2015 2800 Block JONES RD, WCR
P150760341
P150830637 N SSUBJ CON1702 0 003/24/2015 1400 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150830637
P150860598 Y PAC STC1702 0 003/27/2015 2800 Block JONES RD, WCR
P150860598
P150900842 Y 1702 STC1702 0 003/31/2015 PARK REGENCY
P150900842
SECURITY CHECK
P150620487 Y 1059 STC1059 0 003/03/2015 AVALON COMPLEX
P150620487
P150640351 Y 1059 STC1059 0 003/05/2015 AVALON APT COMPLEX
P150640351
P150680421 Y 1059 STC1059 0 003/09/2015 PARK REGENCY
P150680421
P150900545 Y 1059 STC1059 0 003/31/2015 AVALON APT COMPLEX
P150900545
SERVICE TO CITIZEN
P150600773 N CSB CON1744 0 003/01/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150600773
P150610179 N 911UNK CON1744 0 003/02/2015 2900 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150610179
P150620130 N 459A CON1744 0 003/03/2015 2900 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150620130
Page 3 of 54/1/2015
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE PUBLIC CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
By Final Call Type
Onview Org. Call Fin. Call AddressRec. DateCall Number RPT #Cites Arrests Dispo
March 01, 2015 to March 31, 2015
P150630598 N 911ABN STC1744 0 003/04/2015 3000 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150630598
P150630976 N 459A CON1744 0 003/04/2015 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, WCR
P150630976
P150640167 N 459A CON1744 0 003/05/2015 1300 Block LAS JUNTAS WY, WCR
P150640167
P150691102 N SCIRC STC1744 0 003/10/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, WCR
P150691102
P150701113 N 459A UTLSTC 0 003/11/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, PHI
P150701113
P150750532 N 459A CON1744 0 003/16/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, PHI
P150750532
P150760402 N 370 CON1744 0 003/17/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150760402
P150770163 Y 1059 STC1744 0 003/18/2015 AVALON APT COMPLEX
P150770163
P150780245 N 911UNK CON1744 0 003/19/2015 1300 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150780245
P150780639 N 911ABN CON1744 0 003/19/2015 1400 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150780639
P150831007 N PARKER UTL1744 0 003/24/2015 2800 Block JONES RD, WCR
P150831007
P150890449 N 1664 CON1744 0 003/30/2015 7000 Block SUNNE LN, WCR
P150890449
P150890449
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
P150640427 N SUPP CON1739 0 003/05/2015 1300 Block LAS JUNTAS WY, WCR
P150640427
SUSP VEHICLE STOP
P150900937 Y 96 CON1715 0 003/31/2015 1400 Block TREAT BL, WCR
P150900937
SUSPICIOUS SUBJECT
P150650044 N SSUBJ UTLSSUBJ 0 003/06/2015 PARK REGENCY, WCR
P150650044
Page 4 of 54/1/2015
CONTRA COSTA CENTRE PUBLIC CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
By Final Call Type
Onview Org. Call Fin. Call AddressRec. DateCall Number RPT #Cites Arrests Dispo
March 01, 2015 to March 31, 2015
P150680687 N 602 UTLSSUBJ 0 003/09/2015 1000 Block HARVEY DR, WCR
P150680687
VEH BLOCKING DRIVEWAY
P150900705 N 22500E UTL22500E 0 003/31/2015 3100 Block OAK RD, PHI
P150900705
P150900705
VERBAL DISPUTE
P150710760 N 243 CON415V 0 003/12/2015 7000 Block SUNNE LN, WCR
P150710760
WELFARE CHECK
P150830113 N WC CONWC 0 003/24/2015 7000 Block SUNNE LN, WCR
P150830113
11 Valley Station Totals: 0 10 2 50Total Calls
Page 5 of 54/1/2015