HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201988 - 2.7 'TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contm
FROM: HARVEY E . BRAGDON,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: December 20 , 1988 Cointy
SUBJECT: DECISION on appeal of the Walnut Creek City Council from the decision
of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission approving the request
by Merle Gilliland (applicant) and Treat Corner Partnership (owner )
for approval of two office buildings with a combined total of 375 ,000
square feet (3012-88 ) , Pleasant Hill BART station area .
SPECIFIC REQUEST( S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS( S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Certify the EIR as being adequate and adopt CEQA findings
(Part I of Exhibit A)
2 . Approve Final Development Plan 3012-88 with amended conditions
of approval (Exhibit B) and adopt related findings (Parts II
through IV of Exhibit A)
3 . Deny the appeal by the City of Walnut Creek .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
MERLE GILLILAND (Applicant )-TREAT CORNER PARTNERSHIP (Owner ) , County File
3012-88: The Applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan 3019-88
for two office buildings . On December 13, 1988 , the Board declared its intent
to approve the certification of the EIR, adopt Final Development Plan 3019-88 ,
and deny the appeal by the City of Walnut Creek .
en
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM D ON F B
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE( S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 20, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED w OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development (Orig. ) ATTESTED December 20 , 1988
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
City of Walnut Creek THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Merle Gilliland D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Treat Corner Partnership
Public Works-Tom Dudziak BY Q4,744 DEPUTY
Assessor
Consolidated Fire Protection District
a
E)(HIBIT A
_BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA- COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELAATIVE TO TREAT CORNERS OFFICE
TOWERS PROJECT AND TO APPROVAL OF FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3012-88
FOR AN OFFICE 'TONERS PROJECT IN THE
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION SPECIFIC PLAN
AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREAS UPON APPLICATION
OF SLE D. GILLILAND AND
TREAT CORNERS PARTNERSHIP/WALLACE-OLSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
I . ' FINDINGS RELATIVE 'TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" )
For purposes of these findings, the whole of the
actions necessary for the development of the Treat Corners
Office Towers project,, SubArea 10A of the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific :Plan., is referred to as the "Project . "
The approval of Final Development Plan 3012-88 is a related
part of the Project.
A. Procedural .Hstory.
1. On June 7, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County, California (the "Board" ) approved and
adopted the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (the
"Specific Plan" ) . The Specific Plan was prepared and adopted
in accordance with Section 65450 et seq. of the Government Code
of the State of California and was designed to combine planning
policies, zoning regulations, capital improvement programs,
detailed development standards and other regulatory schemes
1
}
into one document which was specifically tailored to meet the
needs of the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. The Specific
Plan. was prepared under -the direction of the "Steering
Committee, " which was comprised of representatives of the
County of Contra Costa (the "County" ) , the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District, the City of Walnut Creek, the City of
Pleasant Hill and the Walden Improvement Association. The
--resulting Specific Plan .reflects that .cooperative process .
As a part of the adoption of the Specific Plan and the
adoption of certain amendments to the County General Plan, an
environmental impact report was prepared (the "Specific Plan
EIR") . In the course of certifying the Specific Plan EIR as
complete, the draft of that EIR was circulated to the
appropriate agencies and made available to the public . A
Notice of Completion of that draft EIR was given by mailing
same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations and
individuals entitled to such notice. Additional notices were
given by publication and posting in accordance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and applicable County regulations . Public
hearings were conducted on that draft EIR and comments from the
general public and governmental agencies, both oral and
written, were received, reviewed and considered by the County.
Following the receipt of those comments, responses to the
comments were .prepared by and at the direction of County staff,
and copies thereof made available to the general public and
2
L ,
public agencies' to the extent required by CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and applicable County regulations .
The Specific Plan- EIR.was certified by the Board on
June 7, 1983, as . complete and adequate to provide the
environmental information necessary to allow the Board to make
a reasoned decision on the adoption of the County General Plan
amendments and the Specific Plan, and the information in that
EIR -as well as all other relevant oral and written evidence was
reviewed and considered by the Board prior to its adoption of
the County General Plan amendments and the Specific Plan.
2. On July 10, 1984, the Board, acting as the
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency" ) , adopted
Ordinance 84-30(RD) adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the
Pleasant Hill BART. Station Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Redevelopment Plan" ) pursuant to the Community Redevelopment
Law of the State of California. For the purposes of these
findings, the area within the Specific and Redevelopment Plans
may hereinafter referred to as the "Plan Area. " As a part
of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the County Planning
Department conducted an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA and
determined that a supplement to the Specific Plan EIR would be
required for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The
purpose of the Redevelopment Plan was determined by the Board
to .be to help provide a. financing mechanism to fund public
improvements required by the Specific Plan and to assist in
assemblage of development sites upon which the Redevelopment
3
Plan's tax increment financing approach (explained herein)
would be based. The Board found and determined that the
;provisions of the. two Plans were consistent .
At the time of the adoption of the Specific Plan, it
was estimated that the infrastructure improvements to be
undertaken under the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan
would cost approximately $30 . 5 million. Several sources of
funding were available to finance a portion of that cost,
including state and federal transportation funds, Assessment
District proceeds, and a "Specific Plan Fee" paid by developers
in the Plan Area. It was anticipated by the Agency that
revenue from these sources would total approximately
$13. 6 million, leaving a revenue shortfall of approximately
$16.9 million in funds necessary to construct the required
infrastructure improvements. The Agency expected that these
costs would be funded through "tax increments" paid to the
Agency pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law.
.In recent years, the tax increment funds available to
redevelopment agencies under the California Community
Redevelopment Law have been the major financing source for
redevelopment activities in California. When a redevelopment
plan is adopted, the total value of all taxable properties in
the redevelopment project area at the time of plan adption is
determined by the County Tax Assessor and, for purposes of the
county:taxing agencies, that property valuation is "frozen" at
this pre-redevelopment level . During the period when a
4
redevelopment plan is in effect, all the taxing agencies which
:levy taxes on the properties subject to the redevelopment plan
(e.g. , the County, school districts, special districts, etc . )
- :continue to receive property taxes at this "frozen" value.
The Agency' s activities are expected to generate
increased development in the Plan Area, including development
(af the ,Project, resulting in the increased property value of,
, ,and lncreased tax -revenue from, such. development property. The
-incr�eme.ntal increase in property values from development
7pursued in ,compliance with the Redevelopment Plan produces an
incremental increase in tax revenues above the "frozen" value.
'Ti s incremental increase is called the "tax increment . "
During the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the tax increment
f om `the Redevelopment Area is allocated to the Agency to pay
the ,costs of its redevelopment activities . The Agency may
incur these costs directly or it may borrow funds or issue
bonds . The tax increment is used by the Agency for its direct
costs and to repay its borrowing and its tax allocation notes
;andlor bonds . When all the loans, advances, and other
.indebtedness of the :Agency are paid off, generally timed to
,coincide with the expiration of the term of the Redevelopment
!Plan, the Redevelopment Plan financing is completed, the tax
Increment -funds stop flowing to the Agency, and the entire tax
revenue for the properties in the Plan Area once again flow to
the regular taxing agencies (which then benefit from the
5
increased property values and tax revenues resulting from
redeve1 opment) .
,As the County staff report dated March 25, 1988
(Pleas,ant 'Hill BART Fact Sheet) reflects, on. December 23 1987,
the ,A,gency completed the sale of $7 . 5 million worth of Tax
AlLoeatIon Dotes secured by the contemplated tax increment
incra&se :which would .occur from the development contemplated by
the Redevelopment Phan. = The Project is .a component part of the
Rad:eve1opment Plan and has been contemplated since the Board' s
adcption of the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The
Agency has sold five-year notes in order to obtain more
up-,f.Zont capital for Agency activities, including financing new
pdb'11(c Improvements and refinancing prior short-term debt for
- pu1b'11c :improvements . 'The five-year notes will -have to. be
ref:inaiia+c,ed prior to December 1992 . In order to refinance the
cur:ent :Dote issue, the Agency will need tax increment
(non-housing) of .approximately $1 . 1 million. Current
upon=houis1ng tax increment for 1988-1989 is approximately
$t6a 4tffi'r7,. The Agency will need to nearly double its tax
increment over the next five years in order to refinance the
Dotes. :Development as provided for in the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans, including this Proj.,ect, is needed to
-prawi(de the ,Agency with sufficient tax increment to accomplish
the. .xequired refinancing, and to support additional tax
i-acrement bonds for programmed public improvements . The Agency
also incurred debt in its early years to, among other things,
6
acquire :sights-sof-way for roadway, drainage and other
infrastructure, and to pay Agency expenses . Currently the
Agency has outstanding debt obligationstotaling approximately
$4 .9 million:. The primary lender on this debt is the County.
In order for the Agency to repay its debt obligations, the tax
increment w:il have to increase. Development as provided for
in the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, including this
Project, ;is -needed to -provide sufficient. .tax increment to
retire Agency ,debt obligations .
The applicant/owner of the Project (Merle D.
Gilliland., applicant; Treat Corners Partnership/Wallace-Olson
Associates, Inc. , owner--hereinafter also referred to as
"Developeris presently negotiating a Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Agency which would provide for
the acquisition of certain privately owned properties by the
Agency and the subsequent conveyance of said properties along
with other publicly owned properties to the Developer . Under
that Agreement, the Developer would be required to convey
(dedicate) certain properties valued at approximately $490 , 716
to the Agency foruse in the realignment of Oak Road, Buskirk
Avenue, Treat 'Bou'levard and Wayne Drive. Further, the costs
associated with the conveyance of the properties from the
Agency to Developer would be borne by Developer .
As part of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the
draft EIR :for the Redevelopment Plan was prepared, circulated
and made ava liable to the public for review and comment as
7
required by lase. 'That draft EIR included the entire text of
the Specific Plan EIR prepared previously for the Specific Plan
..adoption. Public hearings on that draft. EIR were held, and
.responses to comments received were prepared. A Notice of
Completion wasgiven by mailing the same directly to the
appropriate agencles,, organizations and individuals and
additional notice was given by publication and posting in
accordance with QA;, the CEQA Guidelines :and applicable County
regulations. Counct� y Ordinance 84-30(RD) certified as complete
and adequate the final .EIR for the Redevelopment Plan (as
explained below, also referred to as the "Program EIR" ) , and
the inforimat.ion in that EIR as well as all other relevant oral
and written evidence was reviewed and considered by the Board
prior to .its adopting the Redevelopment Plan. The Board also
adopted a statetentt +of significant environmental impacts,
findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations
which were contained in Exhibit "B" attached to Ordinance
84-30(RD) and :incorporated therein by reference.
3. Ln ,January of 1983, Assessment
District 19.83-1 wa:s :formed to ensure, pursuant to the Specific
Plan, that the construction of major infrastructure
improvements needed to -mitigate the impacts of Specific Plan
Area development wound take place prior to, or concurrent with,
such -development. Assessment District 1983-1 bond sales
totaled approximately X9 .3 million. In December of 1985,
Assessment .D:ist.rict 1985-3 was formed to further ensure the
8
construction of needed .improvements prior to, or concurrent
with, ..Specific Plan Areca. development . Assessment
District 1985-3 bond sales totaled approximately
$2 . 67 million. 1n 19187., the Assessment District 1987-1 was
formed to refinance Assessment District 1983-1 . The current
total principal and interest obligations of the 1983-1 , 1985-3 ,
and 1987-1 Assessment District bonds amounts to approximately
$36 million. The Assessment District Bonds are repaid by the
assessments paid by property owners within the Assessment
Districts . The Project is subject to assessments under
Assessment Districts :1:983-1 and 1987-1, with a principal and
interest obligation of approximately $3,344,967 . This
assessment will be credited in full towards the Project ' s
"Specific Plan Fee"' obligation.
4 . On :December 17, 1985, applications were
submitted to the County requesting rezonings to P-1 (Planned
Unit Development) of Area 10 (comprised of SubAreas 10A and
10B) of the Specific Plan (Rezoning/Preliminary Development
Plan No. 2656-RZ) . Pursuant to the Specific Plan (at page 63) ,
although SubAreas 10A and 10B are separate parcels of property
under separate ownership,, together they comprise Area 10 , which
must be designed as an integrated, overall project (however, no
minimum area for either .individual project shall be required) .
Concurrently with the :P-1 zoning requests on SubAreas 10A and
10B, .the applicants also submitted Final Development Plan
applications for a hotel and office structure use on
9
SubArea 10A (Final Development Plan 3063-85) and a parking
structure and two office structures on SubArea 10B (Final
Development Plan 3003-56) .
On March 18, 19'86, Rezoning/Preliminary Development
Plan No. 2656-RZ, and Final Development Plans 3063-85 and
3003-86 were approved. Preliminary Development Plan 2656-RZ
rezoned approximately ten acres of land comprising Area 10
• (SubAreas 10A and 10B) of -the Specific Plan to P-1, Planned
Unit District, and included a condition of approval (number 16)
which allowed for a reallocation of floor area ratio ( "FAR" )
(.including the use of transferred FAR) , subject to the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Final Development
Plan 3063-85 applied to Developer 's SubArea 10A, and allowed a
ten-story office building and an eleven-story hotel . Final
Development Plan 3003-86 applied to Area 10B (Taylor Woodrow)
and allowed a six-story office building and a ten-story office
building, with a six-story parking garage.
In November of '98.6, the applicants for SubAreas 10A
and 10B requested an exchange or reallocation of the approved
uses and FAR between these 'SubAreas, as allowed by Condition 16
of Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 2656-RZ. The
requested exchange did not involve an increase in overall
building intensity or FAR.. On November 14 , 1986, the Zoning
., Administrator approved the requested exchange, which resulted
in: two ten-story office buildings for SubArea 10A, and one
ten-story office building ,and one ten-story hotel for
10
SubArea 10B. Thereafter, the applicant for SubArea 10B (Taylor
i
Woodrow) sought and received approval of its Final Development
. Plan for a ten-story hotel.
The current -approval request before this Board
involves Developer' s Final Development Plan 3012-88 for
Subarea 10A. Final Development Plan 3012-88 consists of two
ten-story office buildings over three levels of parking. As
- described above, the -use- of the site for .two office buildings
has already been approved by the County under
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 2656-RZ, Final
Development Plan 3063-85 and 3003-86, and the Zoning
Administrator's action dated November, 1986 . Final Development
Plan 3012-88, therefore, simply consists of the design review
approval for the two office buildings .
5. On April 22, 1988, a Notice of Intent to Use
a Prior EIR (the "Notice" ) was prepared and duly noticed in
conjunction with the County' s consideration of the Project ' s
Final Development Plan 3012-88. This Board finds and
determines that the Notice satisfied the requirements of CEQA,
the CEQA Guidelines and applicable County regulations in that
the Notice contained all of the following:
a. A clear identification and description
of the Project including its location, .Specific Plan SubArea,
size (square footage, height, appurtenant structures, etc . ) ,
office use and County File and approval numbers;
11
i
b. A clear statement that the County
.intended to use the .E.IR prepared in conjunction with the
Specific Plan in 1982 and 1983 (the Program EIR) ;
C. A clear statement that the EIR was
available for review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, Fourth Floor-North Wing, Martinez,
-Ca ifornia and at the Contra Costa County Central Library,
1750 .Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill , California; and
d. A clear statement that the key issues
involving the use of that EIR are whether the EIR should be
used for the Project and whether there are any additional ,
reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be
considered as ways of avoiding or reducing the significant
. impacts and effects of the Project .
Further, the Notice clearly stated that it, together
with its attached Initial Study and Vicinity Map, would
constitute formal notice pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15153, that those persons who were abutting property
owners or otherwise interested persons or organizations were
invited to submit any .comments regarding the Project and the
environmental review process, and that any such comments or
-concerns should be conveyed to the Contra Costa County
-Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Fourth
1oor North 'Wing, Martinez, California 94553, or by telephone
to .-Jane Hershberger at 646-2031 .
12
T'hi.s :Eoard further finds and determines that the
. Specific Plan EIR and Redevelopment Plan EIR (which, as
described herein, comprise the Program .EIR) contemplated and
- addressed the impacts of the Project and every other component
project which collectively comprise the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans. Further, because the County has employed
a Program EIR approach to the environmental assessment of the
Plans and -their --component .projects, including the Project, and
because the entire text of the Program EIR is relevant and
necessary to the complete and adequate evaluation of the
.Project's impacts and mitigation measures (on a site-specific,
Plan-wide, and cumulative basis) , reference to the Specific
P1an .EIR and Redevelopment EIR in their entirety in the
Project's Notice of Intent to Rely on a Prior EIR was necessary
and proper .
6. During the consideration and subsequent
adoption of the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan and the
formation. and establishment of the related (and
above-described) Assessment Districts, no protests or adverse
comments against those planning documents, their planning
policies or their financing mechanisms were made by the City of
Walnut Creek.
Similarly, no such protests or comments were made by
the City of Walnut Creek during the Project ' s (and its Final
Development Plan 3012-88) public review period, conducted by
the County pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, which
13
commenced with the County' s publication of the above-described
Notice of Intent to Rely on a Prior EIR prepared in conjunction
with the Project's Final Development Plan 3012-88 approval
reest. The only comment received by the County during that
public review period was from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. In response to that comment, the addendum
entitled "Air Quality Impacts of the Treat Corners and
Taylor/Ward Properties Projects".(hereinafter the "Air Quality
Addendum" ) was prepared by Donald Ballanti , as a consultant to
theCounty. In its letter to the County dated July 14 , 1988,
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District stated that the
Air Quality Addendum adequately analyzed the air quality
impacts of not .only the Project, but also the cumulative
development in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area.
This Board finds, determines and certifies that the
Air Quality Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and County regulations, that it adequately
assesses the individual and cumulative air quality impacts of
both the Project and the Plan Area, and that this Board
reviewed and considered the Air Quality Addendum in conjunction
with the Program EIR prior to taking action on the Project and
its Final Development Plan 3012-88 .
7. During the Contra Costa County Planning
Comiss on ("Planning Commission" ) proceedings regarding the
Project' s Final Development Plan 3012-88, the City of Walnut
Creek submitted a letter dated April 29 , 1988, requesting that
14
the County not approve any development in the Specific Plan
Area prior to the County' s "mandatory review" of the .Specific
Plan, pursuant to the provisions of the Specific Plan.
- However, the City of Walnut Creek made no comments or
allegations regarding -the general adequacy of the County' s
environmental assessment of the Project, the County' s
"'noticing"' of that environmental assessment, or the specific
adequacy of the traffic impacts analysis regarding the
Project. The County completed its mandatory review of the
Specific Plan on July 19, 1988, prior to the Planning
Commission"s actions regarding the Project ' s Final Development
Phan 301:2-88, and thus satisfied the City of Walnut Creek ' s
request.
8. On August 9, 1988, the Planning Commission
adopted the Air Quality Addendum, certified that the Program
EI.R and the Air Quality Addendum were adequate and that the
information contained therein had been reviewed and considered
by the Planning Commission prior to the Planning Commission ' s
actions on the Project' s Final Development Plan 3012-88, and
approved FinalDevelopment Plan 3012-88 . On August 18, 1988,
the City of Walnut Creek filed an appeal with this Board,
raising for the first time its concerns over the adequacy of
the CA documentation relied on by the Planning Commission
when approving the -Project' s Final Development Plan 3012-88 .
The focus of those City concerns have been the adequacy of :
the County's traffic impact analysis, its Notice of Intent to
15
Rely on a .Prior EIR prepared in conjunction with the Project ' s
Final Development Plan 3012-88, and the Planning Commission' s
CEQA findings. Walnut ..Creek has not .raised concerns and/or
presented any evidence regarding other aspects or impacts of
the Project..
9 . This Board finds and determines that
although—this Board' s administrative review of the Planning
Commission"s actions regarding the Project and its Final
Development Plan 3012-88 is called an "appeal , " it is actually
conducted as -a "hearing de novo, " in which the entire case is
reheard., additional and/or new oral and written evidence is
received and considered, and .all necessary actions are repeated
by this Board.. As such, the actions, findings and
determinations of this Board as they relate to the Project and
Final Development Plan 3012-88 will supersede those of the
Planning icommission. Therefore, the adequacy of the Planning
Commission's actions, determinations and findings is no longer
at issuer
B.. The Environmental Documentation Relied Upon.
:The =environmental assessment of the Project and its
Final Development Plan 3012-88 consists of the Specific Plan
EIR„ as amended .by certain supplements and addenda including,
without limitation, the Redevelopment Plan EIR (which contains
by reference the full . text of the Specific Plan EIR) and the
Air Qua:1:i't.y Addendum, idescribed above. The Board hereby finds
16
that those documents alone adequately and properly :assess the
environmental :impacts and effects of the Project and . its Final
Development .Pl.an 3012-88, and makes findings, determinations
and certifications to that effect, herein.
As explained in greater detail in the draft EIR for
the Redevelopment Plan (pages 1-4) with minor (insignificant)
exceptions, the :Redeve.lopment Plan proposes no new development
not , already conteapl;ated . n .the_Specific Plan. In essence, the
Redevelopment :Plan provides a financing mechanism for the
public improvements required by the Specific Plan, and assists
with the assemblage of development sites upon which the
Redevelpment Plan's tax-increment financing is based.
Therefore, the County determined that the Specific Plan EIR
(which assessed the :need for those improvements and the
assemblage of those development sites) fully applied to the
Redevelopment Plan„ and that the Redevelopment Plan EIR need
only address and assess the significant impacts, if any,
associated with the -reposition .of the Redevelopment Plan' s tax
increment financing.. The Redevelopment Plan EIR concluded that
no such significant :impacts would result under the
Redevelopment Plan.
As discussed in greater detail below, because the
Redevelopment Plan EIR incorporated all of the Specific Plan
EIR. and rea.ff:i.rmed ;its impacts assessments, mitigation measures
and other determinations, the Board and the Planning .Commission
have found and determined in prior actions that the combination
17
a
of the Specific Plan EIR and the Redevelopment Plan EIR, which
are contained in whole in the Redevelopment Plan EIR, resulted
in a ."Program EIR"' which addresses and assesses the impacts and
effects associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan
and the Redevelopment Plan as a whole, as well as the
implementation of each of their component projects and related
improvements. Therefore;, for the purposes of these findings
and for the r-easons discussed in .detail .below, the Specific
Plan EIR and :Redevelopment Plan EIR will be referred to
collectively .as the "Program EIR. "
This Board further finds and determines that the
traffic studies conducted since the preparation of the Program
EIR, which have indicated that the circulation impacts of the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans and their component projects ,
including the Project, will be no greater than that which would
have occurred if the Specific and Redevelopment Plans had not
been adopted, were reviewed and considered by this Board in
determining whether the Program EIR adequately assessed the
circulation and other impacts of the Project . These studies,
therefore, comprise a :portion of the substantial evidence
relied upon by this Board when determining that the Program EIR
adequately and properly assesses Project impacts and mitigation
measures and that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is
-necessary. Further, this Board has considered all of . the
Plan-wide, component project and proposed Project-specific
mitigation measures (and conditions of approval) which stem
18
from either the express requirements of the Specific and
. Redevelopment . Plans or the implementation efforts arising out
of those Plans ' goals, policies and objectives in determining
whether those impacts will be avoided, mitigated to a level of
insignificance or allowed because of specific overriding
social, economic or other considerations .
C. The Program EIR.
1 . Generally.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage public agencies
such as the County to use a "program EIR" approach in
circumstances involving the implementation of a series of
related. projects. As explained above, the County has
determined that such an approach can be used effectively with
its decision to carry out the Specific Plan, Redevelopment
Plan, and their "component projects, " including the Project,
because it allows the County to examine and assess the overall
immediate, long-term and cumulative effects of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans as a whole, as well as the impacts of the
individual improvements and component projects, including the
Project, of which those Plans are comprised. Further, as
explained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Program EIR
provides for a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual
action, it ensures consideration of cumulative impacts that
might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, it avoids
19
duplicative reconsideration of the basic policy considerations
underlying the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, it allows the
County to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide
mitigation measures at a time when the County had greater
flexibility to deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts,
and it allows a reduction in paperwork.
Under this approach, the County has taken steps to
avoid unnecessary adverse - environmental -effects on both a
Plan-wide and individual component project basis . Further,
subsequent or supplemental EIRs relating to such improvements
or component projects would be needed only if new substantial
or significant effects, not known or assessed before in the
Program EIR become evident (with such EIRs limiting their focus
to those new effects) .
This Board finds and determines that the Program EIR
is proper for analyzing both the overall (short-term,
long-term, and cumulative) impacts of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans as comprehensive planning programs, as well
as the individual and cumulative impacts of each individual
improvement and component project, including the Project, which
is a part of those Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and that
the Program EIR satisfies CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
applicable County regulations, including CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15168 and 15180, because the collective and individual
activities making up the Specific and Redevelopment Plans can
20
be characterized as. "one large project" and are related as
follows:
a. The individual component development
projects are related geographically in that . they are all within
the Specific and Redevelopment Plan Area boundaries and are all
near or adjacent to the Pleasant Hill BART Station; and
b. The component development projects are
all logical and necessary parts . in .the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans ' "chain of contemplated actions" which have
made those Plans a planning and financing reality in that the
component development projects will bring to fruition the
Specific Plan's area-wide planning approach and will provide
the necessary tax increment, assessment levies, developer fees
and right-of-way dedications contemplated by both the Specific
Plan and Redevelopment Plan (and relied upon by the Agency when
it sold the five-year Tax Allocation Notes described above) ; and
C. The component development projects are
all related and necessary to the continuing financial and
future planning viability of both the Redevelopment and
Specific Plans, and are in fact needed to realize the tax
increment (by which the Tax Allocation Notes are secured) , the
retirement of Assessment District bonds, the payment of
developer fees and the dedication of land, which constitute the
financing sources upon which the Specific and Redevelopment
Plans are largely based; and
21
d. The component development projects are
activities carried out under the same Specific and
Redevelopment Pian authority and have similar environmental
effects which can, have been, .and will continue to be, fully
,mitigated through similar Plan-wide and component
project-specific mitigation measures .
This Board finds and determines that the Project is a
component -of both the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan
and that the EIR certified as complete at the time of the
.adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, which contains both the
4pec fic Plan and Redevelopment Plan EIRs, constitutes a
Program E R under CEQA.
Pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168,
this Board finds and determines that all public and private
activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the
;Speci:fic Plan, including the development of the Project,
,constitute a single project which was deemed approved at the
time sof adoption of the Specific Plan. Further, pursuant to
A and CEQA Guidelines Section 15180, this Board and this
:Agency finds :and .determines that all public and private
actvities .or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the
Redevelopment Plan, including the development of the Project,
constitute a single project which was deemed approved at the
time sof adopt 1 on _of the Redevelopment Plan.
22
2. No Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Needed.
Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable
County regulations, this Board finds and determines, based on
the record as a whole, including the Board' s review and
consideration of the thorough and complete examination by
County staff at the Planning Commission and Board levels, all
oral ,and written evidence submitted, the list of relevant
planning documents submitted into the record during the public
hearings relating to this appeal , and all other written and
oral evidence received by this Board, its Planning Commission
and its staff, that the Project and its Final Development Plan
3012-88 does not constitute a subsequent activity in the
Specific or Redevelopment Plans, or their component parts and
projects that would require additional environmental
documentation.
More particularly, pursuant to CEQA, including without
limitation, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, and the
CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation CEQA Guidelines
,Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168 and 15180, this Board finds
and determines that no subsequent nor supplemental EIR or
environmental determination, nor further addendum to the
Program EIR, other than the Air Quality Addendum, is necessary
for the Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan or the Project (which
constitutes an individual component of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans) for the following reasons :
23
a. From and after the preparation of the
Program E:1R, no substantial or significant changes ,have been
. made :an either the Specific Plan or Redevelopment Plan, their
individual component projects or the Project which would
requ:irte any revisions to the Program EIR. The uses, density,
and other xalated planning criteria contemplated for Area 10 of
the (Spec:i:fIc Playa (of which this Project, SubArea 10A, is a
part) have remained the same since the. adoption of the Specific
Plan and :Redeve:lopment Plan, and the Project and its Final
Development Plan .3012=88, is consistent with that criteria.
F'urtthe.r;, the County earlier found and determined that the shift
in uses and FAR between SubAreas l0A and 10B did not
necefsssttatte any revisions or additions to either the Specific
and :Red,eve'lcopment Plans or the Program EIR, since the
deve:�lotpment contemplated for Area 10 as a whole had not
changed.. 'This Board reaffirms and readopts those earlier
findings and determinations and again recognizes that the whole
of the tdemelopment which would be allowed in Area 10 of the
Speciflsc and. Redevelopment Plans with the approval of the
Projzect and sts -Final .Development Plan 3012-88 will not differ
fromrth--at -development originally contemplated in the Specific
and .Redevel-opment Plans., and environmentally assessed in the
Program :SIR;, and that, therefore, the exchange did not create
any inew potentially significant or substantial environmental
impacts +or mitigations not already addressed in the Specific
and Medeve1opment .Plans and the Program EIR;
24
ba No significant or substantial changes
have occurred :in any of the circumstances under which the
Specific and/or Redevelopment Plans, their component projects,
or the Project, are being undertaken which may result in the
involvement of iany new significant or substantial environmental
impact not covered `in the Program EIR. Regional growth and
traffic generation have :occurred as contemplated. The original
traffic- analysis and subsequent Plan Area studies all reveal
that the circulation and parking mitigation measures
established by, finanaced through, and implemented in
furtherance of,, the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and their
componentprojects, '' (including the Project ' s) conditions of
approval avoid andtor mitigate .to a level of insignificance the
individual ;and collective short-term;, long-term and cumulative
circulation and parking impacts, and to the extent that the
impacts are not :so mitigated, they are allowed given the
specific overriding considerations described herein; and
C . No .new information of substantial or
significant importance to the implementation of the Specific
and/or Redeve'lopme2nt Plans, .their individual component
projects, or the Project, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the .Program EIR was certified has
become avai'lab'le, including without limitation, ( i) any
.information whidh would --,show that the Specific and/or
Redevelopment Plans, their individual component projects, or
the Project would have significant effects not discussed in the
25
Program EIR; (ii) information that significant effects
previously found to exist will become more severe under the
Specific and/or Redevelopment Plans, .their individual component
projects, or the Pro.ject than was discussed in the. Program EIR;
(iii) any information that mitigation measures previously found
feasible have become infeasible; or (iv) information that other
alternatives or mitigation measures exist which were not
considered in the. Progr:am .EIR.
This Board .finds, determines and certifies that the
Program EIR as addended by the Air Quality Addendum is
complete, adequate and in full compliance with all requirements
of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable County
regulations, and that all proceedings for both the
environmental review process in preparation of the Program EIR
and the Air Quality Addendum and the review and notice of
intent to rely on that 'EIR as it relates to the Project have
been conducted and completed in full compliance with the policy
and specific requirements of CEQA,, the CEQA Guidelines and all
applicable County regulations. All of the hearings and
proceedings held :in conjunction with the certification of the
Program EIR were conducted under, and in accordance with, CEQA,
the _CEQA Guidelines .and all applicable regulations of the
County, including without limitation, all requirements of
published, posted andimaled :notices pursuant to all of the
foregoing, statutes.., Guidelines and regulations . The
environmental review 'process has been carried out with full and
26
i
adequate opportunities for review and comment by members of the
public and interested ;public agencies . No person or agency has
been deprived of -full and fair opportunity and ample time to
comment on each document comprising the Specific Plan,
Redevelopment Plan, Program EIR or the Project . This Board
further finds that the Project, its Final Development
Plan 3012-88, and the environmental review conducted in
connection therewith, has incorporated and is in conformance
with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement dated
July 1, 1986, concerning the matter Edward A. Dimmick v, Board
of Supervisors of Contra Costa County filed with the County on
April 17, 1986 .
Further, this Board finds, determines and certifies
that the Program EIR as addended by the Air Quality Addendum
was presented to, and that the information contained therein
and all other relevant oral and written evidence in relation
thereto was reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to
taking any action on the Project and its Final Development
Plan 3012-88.
This Board hereby finds and determines that the
Program EIR as addended by the Air Quality Addendum adequately
assesses the impacts and .effects of the Project and its Final
.Development Plan 3012-88.
27
D. Findings Relating to Significant Environmental
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .
The Program EIR identifies a number of significant
environmental effects of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans,
their individual component projects and the Project, and
recommends specific mitigation measures for each such effect .
'The Board, acting as the legislative body of the County when
approving and adopting the Specific Plan, and as the Agency,
when approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan, has
previously made specific findings with respect to each such
significant effect as well as statements of overriding
consideration regarding certain of those effects . This Board
hereby readopts and reaffirms those specific findings and
determinations, and finds and determines that the significant
impacts and effects of the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment
Plan, their component projects, and the Project, as described
in the Program EIR, have been avoided, mitigated to a level of
insignificance, and/or overriden by the specific social ,
economic, or other concerns stated herein.
Further, this Board finds and determines that the
significant effects discussed in the Program EIR are
additionally and further mitigated by the "Additional
Mitigation Measures" set forth herein. Said Additional
Mitigation Measures are expressly deemed to be in addition to
those adopted by the County previously and not required by
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and/or applicable County regulations .
28
• I
1 . The Record. j
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings identified
herein, the record of the Board relating to the this action
includes without limitation the following:
a. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan.
b. The Preliminary Report on the
Redevelopment Plan.
C. The Redevelopment Plan.
d. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan.
e. The Fiscal Review Committee Report on
the Redevelopment Plan.
f. All documentary and oral evidence
received and reviewed by the Planning
Commission, the Agency, and the Board
during the public hearings on the
Specific Plan, the Specific Plan
Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan,
the Redevelopment Plan EIR
(collectively the Program EIR) , the
Project, and the appeal of the Project .
g. The June 19, 1984 letter from Sedway
Cooke Associates to Goldfarb & Lipman,
the Redevelopment Agency counsel,
clarifying the impact findings in the
Specific Plan EIR.
h. The Specific Plan.
29
i . All matters of common knowledge to the
Board which it considers such as :
(1) The County General Plan.
(2) . The County zoning code.
(3) Other formally adopted County
policies and regulations .
2. Significant Impacts .
The Program EIR identifies the following impacts
attributed to the Specific and/or Redevelopment Plans and .their
component parts and projects, including the Project . As
required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including without
limitation, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093, the Board makes the
following findings for which there is substantial evidence in
the record as a whole:
a. Air Quality Impact .
Facts : The Program EIR states that specific on-site
air quality .impacts may be significant during cold start
periods because of the concentration of parking facilities
within the Pian Area.
.Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
adverse on-site impacts on air quality, the Board has adopted
and 'hereby readopts the following mitigation measures and finds
that their adoption, while only partially mitigating .the
localized air quality impacts identified in the Program EIR,
30
will substantially lessen air quality impacts elsewhere in
Contra Costa County and other major travel corridors ;and
employment centers in the Bay Area.
( 1) An air quality impact assessment
will be required before any major parking improvement project
will be permitted within the Redevelopment Plan Area and
specific mitigation measures designed to minimize local air
qu:a:lity impacts will be required of parking improvements
;projects..
(2) Require support for, and
participation in, .a station area-wide Transportation Systems
Management Service.
Discussion: The above mitigation measures are
suggested in the Specific Plan EIR and were adopted by the
'Board by Resolution No. 83/803 on June 7, 1983 .
The Program EIR indicates that impacts to air quality
within the region are attributable to automobile emissions .
'The Specific Plan proposes to maintain high air quality by
establishing a land use pattern which supports a transit option
and �r,epresents .a change from automobile-oriented development
patterns . :By attracting future growth to an area having
excellent connections with local and regional transit carriers
and .by accommodating a substantial portion of the anticipated
- _demand for growth . in the central County area near these transit
f,aci:lities, the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan actually
:reduce dependency on the automobile. The alternative
31
development pattern of more distributed growth, while avoiding
localized air quality impacts, would necessitate far greater
dependency on the automobile for work trips thereby producing
.far greater air =quality impacts on a regional basis .
While the Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component projects, including the Project) will have a
beneficial impact on regional air quality, the Program EIR
projects -that as a result of the new BART parking facilities
permitted by the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, as well
as the parking required for commercial/office development,
there may be ;significant localized air quality impacts,
particularly where automobiles are confined to structures or
'idling in queues and during cold-start periods, when engine
efficiencies are at their lowest . By focusing on parking
facilities, the first adopted mitigation measure is designed to
minimize this :localized impact on air quality. Further, the
adoption of the Transit Systems Management Service and Project-
specifi+c T,SM Ordinance compliance, also discussed in detail in
the Energy Impact Section below, will help reduce automobile
usage, further minimizing the localized impact on air quality.
Additional Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds nand determines that the air quality impact is further
matigated to acceptable levels by the conditions of approval to
the .Proj ect 's 'Fnal Development Plan 3012-88 which require that
the Project comply with the County Transportation Systems
32
Management ('TSK) Ordinance and that the Developer work with the
Pleasant Sill BART Station Area TSM Committee ( "TSM Committee" ) .
Conclusion: To the .extent that said air quality
impacts ,are significant, this Board finds and determines that
the above-stated mitigation measures have avoided and/or
mitigated such impacts to a level of insignificance . Should
such impacts nonetheless remain despite such mitigation
measures., the 'Board -hereby finds and determines that the
impacts are overridden by the specific economic, social and
other benfefitsdescribed in Section H, "Statements of
overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
b. Noise impact .
Facts: The Program EIR projects increases in traffic
on the 1-680 corridor and Treat Boulevard corridor and a
resulting .increase in the ambient noise environment in portions
of the BART Station Area beyond the recommended level for
residential :land uses-
Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
adverse noise impact, the Board has adopted and hereby
re-adopts the followingmitigation measure and finds that its
adoption substantially lessens that significant environmental
,impact .identified in the Program EIR as it relates to the
Project:
(1) Expand the scope of the design
review proce,,&s to 'include review of acoustical attenuation
33
measures to ensure compliance with maximum noise levels
consistent with adopted standards .
Discussion: The above mitigation measure is suggested
- in the Specific Plan EIR and was adopted by the Board by
Resolution No. 83/805 on June 7, 1983 .
The Program EIR indicates that noise levels in the
Project area will increase due to increased traffic
- projections. Mhenever possible, the Specific Plan and
Redevelopment Plan .locate areas of residential land use in
areas where projected noise levels do not exceed the noise
standards set by the ,State of California for conventionally
construed multiple family residential buildings . In those
instances where residential structures will be within areas
where noise levels exceed the normally acceptable level, the
County will require developers to include noise insulation
measures in :building and project designs . Such measures
include, but .are not limited to, orientation of structures,
setbacks, shielding, and sound insulation of individual
buildings. Through the design review process, the County has
ensured compliance with the State of California "Noise
Insulation 'Standards, " thereby substantially lessening the
noise impact identified in the Program EIR as it relates to
this Project.
Additional litigation Measures This Board further
finds and determines that noise impacts are further avoided
and/or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
34
requirement by the Community Development Department that a
sound wall be constructed between the residential areas south
and east of Jones Road along the Urban West Project frontage.
Also, this Board finds that the impact is further avoided
and/or mitigated to ,a level of insignificance by the
requirement that the .Developer comply with the County TSM
Ordinance and work with -the TSM Committee since the effect of
such conditions will 'be to -reduce the amount of traffic on the
I-680 and Treat Boulevard corridors .
This Board further finds and determines that the noise
impact is further avoided :and/or mitigated to a level of
insignificance by other (conditions of approval to the Project ' s
Final Development Plan 310:12-58, which require that if the hotel
on Area 10B is occup ed :by the time of construction of the
Project, noise generating construction activities shall be
limited to the hours of 8::00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, and which further require that the Developer shall
require all contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition,
to locate stationary .no <se-generating :equipment such as air
compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from occupied
buildings as possible, and to access construction sites via
routes which pass the :fewest dwellings .
Conclusion. 'Tothe extent that noise impacts are
significant, this Board finds and determines that the
above-stated mitigaitiontmeasures have avoided and/or mitigated
35
such impacts to a level of insignificance. Should such impact
later be discovered to remain despite such mitigation. measures,
the Board -hereby finds and determines that the impact is
overridden by the specific economic, social and other benefits
-described in Section H, "Statements of Overriding
Considerations, " contained herein.
C . Energy .Impact.
Facts : The Program E.IR projects increased energy
consumption in the transportation sector .
Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
adverse energy impacts in the transportation sector, the Board
has adopted and hereby re-adopts the following mitigation
measures and finds that their adoption substantially lessens
that significant environmental impact identified in the Program
EIR as it relates to the Project:
.( l) Require support for and
participation in a Station Area-wide Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) service.
(2) Amend the Specific Plan to require
the preparation and periodic update of a Parking Management
Plan for the joint development projects at the BART-owned lands .
(3) Include in the design review
. criteria provisions for evaluating the energy efficiency of
proposed Project.
36
Discussion: The above mitigation measures are
suggested in the Specific Plan EIR and were adopted by the
.Board by Resolution No. 83/805 on June 7, 1983 .
The Program EIR indicates that automobile use
constitutes the single- largest component in the consumption of
non-renewable energy resources in the project area. While
energy average efficiencies are expected to continue to improve
in the foreseeable future,. the increased development expected
in Central Contra Costa County will contribute to an increasing
level of consumption of liquid fuels for transportation.
The adopted mitigation measures therefore focus on
energy conservation in the transportation sector . The
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) service promotes energy
conservation by coordinating van-pooling and car-pooling,
,acting as a liaison with local transit service, promoting
staggered work-hours to lengthen peak hour commute arrival and
departure periods, and similar activities . Participation in
the TSM is mandatory for project area developers and their
tenants, with the County providing -staff assistance.
Other adopted mitigation measures require a parking
management plan for BART owned lands, and the inclusion of
energy efficiency criteria in the design review of proposed
projects. Together with successful implementation of the TSM
program, these mitigation measures will substantially lessen
the energy impact identified in the Program.EIR.
37
a
Additional Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds and determines that the energy impacts are further
avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
.conditions of approval to the Project ' s Final Development Plan
3012-88 which require that the Project comply with the County
TSM Ordinance and that the Developer work with the TSM
Committee.
Conclusion: To the extent that the energy impacts are
significant, this Board finds and determines that the
above-stated mitigation measures have avoided and/or mitigated
to a level of insignificance such impacts . Should such impacts
later be discovered to remain despite such mitigation measures,
the Board hereby finds and determines that the impact is
overridden by the specific economic, social and other benefits
described in Section H, "Statements of Overriding
Considerations, " contained herein.
d. Transportation and Circulation Impact .
Facts : The Program EIR forecasts increased traffic
congestion due to increased development potential at the
Pleasant Hill BART station area, and parking provisions in the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans .
Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
transportation and circulation impact, the Board has adopted
and hereby readopts the following mitigation measures and finds
that their adoption substantially lessens the significant
38
individual and cumulative impacts of the Project (alone and as
a component of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans) and of the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans as identified in the Program
'E1R:
The following mitigation measures concerned the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans at the time of their adoption.
(1) Amend the Specific Plan to provide
an additional right-turn movement exiting the Station Area from
,Oak onto Treat Boulevard going west .
(2) Amend the Specific Plan to provide
an additional right-turn movement from the west-bound Treat
Boulevard direction onto the north-bound North Main Street, and
incorporate this change into the capital improvement program
:and development fee calculation -for circulation improvements .
(3) Amend the Specific Plan to provide
an additional right-turn movement from the north-bound I-680
off-ramp onto the east-bound direction of Treat Boulevard.
(4) Amend the Specific Plan to provide
potential future 'financing for an additional right turn
,movement from the north-bound North Main direction onto I-680,
providing an additional freeway lane for merging traffic .
(5) Amend the Specific Plan to include
restrictions on lane direction movements within development
areas 11 and '12 to eliminate through north-south movement
between Treat Boulevard at Oak Street to Buskirk and Las Juntas .
39
(6) Require reevaluation of traffic
impacts in the Station Area prior to the construction of
additional BART patron parking space above the 1,200 spaces
provided for in Phase I of the BART Access Plan. Require, to
thie >maximum extent feasible, increased access of BART patrons
through the addition of local transit service before permitting
additio:nal ;BART patron parking at the Station Area.
(7) Revise the parking requirements
ino:lude,d in the Specific Plan downward. Establish no minimum
parking requirement except for convenience retail uses, and
lover :and maximum permitted from the present 3 .3 per thousand
square feet of office space. Remove the burden of establishing
the lower parking ratio with a traffic report .
(8) Require support for and
p,art.1cbpation in a TSM service.
Discussion: The above mitigation measures are
suggested in the Specific Plan EIR and were adopted by the
Board ;of Supervisors by Resolution No. 83/805 on June 7, 1983 .
The Program EIR indicates that traffic volumes will
increase in the local area as a result of the development
permitted by theSpecific Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The
mitigation measures were suggested as a result of a traffic
study performed by a traffic engineering consultant, which
study is appended to the .Specific Plan EIR. It should be noted
that a primary goal of the Specific Plan is to provide a means
to acoosmuodate projected increased traffic in the area.
40
Further, a primary purpose of adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan :is the provision of a method for financing the road
improvements proposed in the Specific Plan and the adopted
mitigation measures . The Board, . therefore, finds that adoption
of the mitigation measures, as well as adoption of the
Redevelopment plan itself, will substantially lessen the effect
of the significantenvironmental impact identified in the
Program BIR.
Additional Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds .and determines that said significant impacts have been
further mitigated by the creation of Assessment Districts,
including Assessment Districts 1983-1 and 1987-1, pursuant to
wh.ic'h 'the Project has been assessed substantial development
fees, a good portion of which has been, and will be, used for
the construction of transportation and circulation improvements
includi:ng,, but not limited to, the following:
I . Treat Boulevard widening;
2.. Oak Road extension and widening;
3. Jones Road improvement west of Oak Road;
4. Wayne Court extension;
5. Buskirk Avenue widening; and
6. Signal modification or installation on Treat
Boulevard at Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and
Jones Road and on Oak Road .at Jones Road and
the .BART parking lot access .
41
This ;Board further finds and determines that such
impacts are further avoided and/or mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the conditions. of approval to the Project ' s
.Final Development "Plan 3012-88 which require the following:
(1) Unless exceptions are specifically
granted;, damply with 'the requirements of Division 1006 (Road
Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. This
includes ccnstructing :road improvements along the frontage of
Treat Bou evard Buskirk Avenue and Wayne Drive. The Treat
Boulevard and 'Buskirk Avenue frontage improvements have been
constructed .as part -,.Of 'the Assessment District 1983-1
improvements,. 'The Wayne Drive frontage improvements have been
constructed except for the sidewalk and curb returns . The
Developer vil.l be .required to ;complete these improvements .
(2) Furnish proof to the Public Works
Departmentt., .Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition
of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the conastruction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road
improvements.
(3) Submit improvement plans prepared
by a registered cIvi`l engineer to the Public Works Department,
Engineering tS,e:rv:ices Division, for review and pay the
inspection,, plan review and applicable lighting fees . These
plans sha'l'l 'ind1unde any -necessary traffic signage and striping
plans for :r,ewiew by the County Traffic Engineer . The
improvement -plans :thall >be submitted to the Public Works
42
Department, EngIneer: ng Services Division, prior to the
issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement
plans and payment_(of all fees shall be completed prior to the
clearance of any :building for final inspection by .the Public
Works Department,. If final inspection is requested prior to
construction, o:f ,improvements, the applicant shall execute a
road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post
bonds required by tthe agreement to guarantee completion of the
work.
(4) Prior to issuance of building
permits, pay a 50.50 per square foot Regional Traffic
Mitigation fee.,
(5) Pay Pleasant Hill BART Specific
Plan fee. It is acknowledged that the applicant has, by virtue
of participation :in Assessment Districts 1983-1 and 1987-1,
prepaid its Specific Plan Fee for 375, 000 gross square feet of
building on 'the property.
Conclusion: 'This Board finds and determines as
follows:
a:. The ,analysis of transportation and
circulation as contained -in the Program EIR is adequate and
complete to .fu.l.ly ,analyze the individual and cumulative
transportation and circulation impacts of this Project as well
as all of the other component projects and parts of the
Specific anal atedevelpopment Plans, and the Specific and
Redevelopment P';ans themselves. This Board finds and
43
determines that the data used by the authors of the Program EIR
is accurate, properly assesses all impacts, including
cumulative impacts, and, as more fully set forth above,
expressly finds that there have been no changes in the Specific
or Redevelopment Plans or their component parts or projects,
including the Project, nor in the facts surrounding their
implementation which would .require any additional traffic
analysis . As all studies conducted since the adoption of the
Program EIR have shown (which this Board reviewed and
considered and which is a portion of the substantial evidence
upon which this Board relives), the short-term, long-term and
cumulative circulation impacts caused by the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans and their component projects, including the
Project, have been properly mitigated. In particular, this
Board has considered the stibstantial evidence contained in
.recent traffic studies (including without limitation, the
traffic studies conduacted :by William Smith Associates, Abrams &
Associates, and the City of 'Walnut Creek) when determining that
the Program EIR' s and Project 's mitigation measures regarding
cumulative impacts are adequate. Certain of those studies have
presumed a rate of regional �growth (development) as well as the
anticipated development in the Specific and Redevelopment
Plans. Those regional growth assumptions have been accepted by
the County and all other local agency representatives on the
Steering Committee, and were considered by this Board prior to
making the findings and determinations ,contained herein.
44
b. To the extent that traffic/circulation
impacts are significant, this Beard finds and determines that
the above-stated mitigation measures have avoided and/or
mitigated to a level of insignificance such impacts . Should
such impacts later be discovered to remain despite such
mitigation measures, this Board hereby finds and determines
that the impacts are overridden by the specific economic,
social and other benefitsdesc:ribed in Section H, "Statements
of Overriding Considerations,,'" contained herein.
e. Pub.l.ic Services and Facilities Impact .
Facts : The Program F:I:R indicates that increased
development will lead to increased demand for public services
and facilities, particularly sanitary sewer .
Findings and Mitigation :Measures : With regard to the
impacts on demand for public services and utilities, the Board
finds that no separate mitigation measures other than the total
of the mitigation measures described herein are necessary to
address this impact, as the icentral purpose of the
Redevelopment Plan itself is to provide a method for financing
'necessary public improvements in the area. 'The Redevelopment
Plan is also designed to allow for high density development
that will eventually maximize the property tax revenue
available to the local agencies responsible for meeting the
area' s increased demand for public services and facilities .
'This Board, therefore, finds that adoption of the Redevelopment
45
.Plan substantially lessened the effect of the significant
environmental impact identified in the Program EIR as it
-.relates to the Project .
Discussion: The Program EIR indicates that an
increased demand for public services and facilities,
particularly sanitary sewer, will be an unavoidable adverse
impact of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. However , the
Program EIR further indicates that the projected increase in
tax revenues in the area, resulting from development under the
Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, will enable local
government agencies to meet the increased demand for services
,and facilities . The central purpose of the Redevelopment Plan
is toprovide a mechanism for financing necessary public
improvements, including road and sewer improvements .
Therefore, the Program EIR concludes that no measures are
required to mitigate the Project ' s impact on public services
and facilities .
;Additional Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds and determines that public services and facilities
impacts are :further avoided and/or mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the conditions of approval to the Project ' s
Final Development Plan 3012-88 which require compliance with
the following:
(1) Unless exceptions are specifically
granted, the Project shall conform to the requirements of
Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
46
i
(2) Unless exception are specifically
granted, comply with the requirements of Division 100.6 (Road
.Dedication and Setbacks) of :the County Ordinance Code. This
includes constructing road improvements along the frontage of
'T'reat Boulevard, Buskirk Avenue and Wayne Drive. The Treat
Boulevard .and Buskirk Avenue frontage improvements have been
constructed as part of the AD 1983-1 improvements . The Wayne
Drive frontage improvements have been constructed except for
the sidewalk and curb returns . The applicant will be required
to complete these improvements .
(3) Install all new utility
distribution services underground.
(4) Prevent storm drainage,
originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated
manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways .
(5) Furnish proof to the Public Work
Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition
of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and
drainage .impr.ovement .
(6) Submit improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department,
'Engineering Services Division, for review and pay the
inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees . These
plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping
plans .for review by the County Traffic Engineer . The
47
improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the
issuance of any building permit . The review of improvement
plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the
clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public
Works Department. If final inspection is requested by the
Public .Works Department . If final inspection is requested
prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall
execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County
and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee
-completion of the work .
(7) Prior to issuance of building
permits,, neither pay a $0 . 50 per square foot Regional Traffic
MitigatIon fee,, or participate in a parking fee assessment
district .
(8) Pay Pleasant Hill BART Specific
Plan fee. It is acknowledged that the Developer has, by virtue
of participation in Assessment District 1983-1/1987-1 , prepaid
its Specific Plan Fee for 375, 000 gross square feet of building
:on :the property.
Conclusion: To the extent that the impacts are
significant, this Board finds and determines that the
above-stated mitigation measures have avoided and/or mitigated
such impacts to a level of insignificance. Should such impact
Tater be discovered to remain despite such mitigation measures,
the Board hereby finds and determines that the impact is
overridden by the specific economic, social and other benefits
48
describled an .Section 'H, " Statements of overriding
Considerations, " contained herein.
E,. Findings Relating to Impacts Found to be
Insignificant.
L . Water Impacts .
Facts: The Program EIR states that no mitigation
measures are 'required for the impacts of the Specific or
Redevelopment Plans upon water resources, and the Program EIR
does ,Dot include impacts upon water resources in its listing of
unavoidahll.e adverse impacts .
Findings: Based upon the foregoing, this Board finds
and determines that the Program EIR determined the impacts of
the Specific =and .Redevelopment Plans and ensuing development
upon water resources to be insignificant . Because the Project
is consistent with, and a component of, the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans and is a part of the Specific and
.Redevelopment Pians ' implementation, this Board finds and
determiner that the .Project will not result in any significant
adverse impact relating to water . In the alternative, to the
extent that any impact of the Project may be considered to be a
si4gni-f1cant adverse impact .relating to water, this Board finds
and determines that -any -such impact will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation
measures set forth 'below.
Mitigation Measures: As stated in the Program EIR,
the ;Spec-ifi.-c 'Plan included the following two items relating to
water impacts:
49
a. Site Analysis by a Certified Engineer prior
to Site 'Deve'lopment.
b. Incorporation of the drainage improvement
plan formulated by the Contra Costa County Flood Control
Drainage Area.
Discussion: The above measures were a part of the
Specific Plan evaluated by the Program EIR, and were included
in the p:l,an adopted ;by the Board by Resolution No. 83-805 on
June T, 198:3 . The Program EIR stated that no mitigation
measures apart from these components of the Specific Plan were
required.
.Additional Mitigation Measures : To the extent that
any 1ppact of this .Project upon water resources may be
significant, the Board further finds and determines that any
such significant adverse impact is further avoided or mitigated
to a level ,of insignificance by the conditions of approval to
the Pr.o,ject 's Final Development Plan which required that the
irrigatiton .system conform to the County Water Conservation
Policy,, that the .Project comply with Division 914 (Drainage) of
the Saabdiv1s1on ;Ord%Hance, and that the Project prevent storm
drainage from draining across sidewalks and driveways .
:Conclusion: .Based upon the EIR, this Board finds and
determines that the water impacts of this Project are
insignificant. To the extent that any such impacts are
significant,, this Beard finds and determines that the
above-.stated condit%onsof approval and mitigation measures
50
have avoided and/or mitigated such impacts to a level of
insignificance. Should such impacts later be discovered to
remain significant despite such mitigation measures, 'the Board
hereby finds and determines that the impacts are overridden by
the specific economic;, social and other benefits described in
Section H, "Statements ,of Overriding Considerations, " contained
herein.
2. Earth Impacts.
Facts: The Program EIR states that no mitigation
measures are required for the earth impacts of the Specific and
Redevelopment Playas, :and the Program EIR does not include earth
impacts in its listing of unavoidable adverse impacts .
Findings. Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds
and determines that the Program EIR determined the earth
impacts of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and ensuing
development to be insignificant. Because this Project is
consistent with, and ;a component project of, the Specific and
Redevelopment Plus and is a part of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans' implementation, this Board finds and
determines that the Project will not have any significant
adverse earth impact. 3n the alternative, to the extent that
any earth impacts of the Project may be considered to be a
:.significant adverse impact, this Board finds and determines
that any such impacts are mitigated to a level of
51
insignificance by the :imposition of mitigation measures set
forth below.
Mitigation Measures: As stated in the Program EIR,
the EIR stated that future project development would require
site analysis by a soils engineer with structural standards and
foundation design criteria applied to meet special site and
soil conditions. This Board finds and determines that this
- site analysis either was performed -as .a part of the development
approvals prior to this Final Development Plan, or will be
completed prior to development of the property.
Discussion: The above measure was a part of the
Specific Plan evaluated by the .Program EIR, and was included in
the Plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No. 83-805 on
June 7, 1983.
Conclusion; To the extent that the earth impacts of
the Project are significant, this Board finds and determines
that the above-stated mitigation measure has avoided and/or
mitigated such impacts to a level of insignificance. Should
such impacts later be discovered to remain significant despite
such mitigation measure:, the Board :hereby finds and determines
that the impacts are overridden by the specific economic,
social and other benefits described in Section H, "Statements
of overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
52
i
- i
3 . Plant anal .Animal Life Impacts .
Facts : The Program EIR states that no mitigation
measures are required for the impacts of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans upon plant and animal life, and the Program
EIR does not include impacts upon plant and animal life in its
listing of unavoidable adverse impacts .
Findings: Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds
and determines that the Program EIR determined the impacts of
the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and ensuing development
upon plant and animal life to be insignificant . Because the
Project is consistent with, and a component project of, the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans and is a part of the Specific
and Redevelopment Plans ' implementation, this Board finds and
determines that the Project will not have any significant
adverse impact relating to plant and animal life. In the
alternative, to the extent that any impact of the Project may
be considered to be a significant adverse impact relating to
plant and animal life, this Board finds and determines that any
such impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of mitigation measures set forth below.
Mitigation Measures: As stated in the Program EIR,
the Specific Plan included the protection of the majority of
:large natural oaks within the study area and the preservation
of the existing dry stream channel .
Discussion: The above measures were a part of the
Specific Plan evaluated by the Program EIR, and were included
53
in the Plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No . 83-805 on
Dunce 7, 1983 .
Conclusion: To the extent that any impact of this
Project on plant or animal life could be significant, this
Board finds and determines that the above-stated measures
incorporated into the Specific Plan have avoided and/or
mitigated such impacts to a level of insignificance. Should
- any such impacts later be discovered to remain despite such
measures, this Board hereby finds and determines that the
impacts are overridden by the specific economic, social and
other benefits described in Section H, "Statements of
Overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
4 . Housing and Community Development Impacts .
Facts: The Program EIR states that no mitigation
measures are required for the impacts of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans upon housing and community development, and
the Program EIR does not include impacts upon housing and
community development in its listing of unavoidable adverse
impacts .
Findings : Based upon the foregoing, this Board finds
and determines that the Program EIR determined the impacts of
the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and ensuing development
upon housing ,and community development to be insignificant .
Because the Project is consistent with, and a component project
of,, the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and is a part of the
54
:Specific and Redevelopment Plans ' implementation, this Board
finds and determines that the Project will not have any
significant adverse impact relating to .housing and community
development . In the alternative, to the extent that any impact
of the Project may be considered to be a significant adverse
impact relating to housing and community development, this
Board finds and determines finds that any such impacts are
' 'mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
mitigation measures set forth below.
Mitigation Measures: As stated in the Program EIR,
the Specific Plan included the following measures relating to
impacts upon housing and community development :
a. . Urban design guidelines for setbacks of
taller buildings for view protection.
b. Facility design and site placement
requirements to assure provision of open space and landscaping.
c. Detailed development review criteria for
each subarea to promote land use patterns producing pedestrian
amenities and to achieve large enough buildings to meet market
.demand without requiring excessive height.
d. The Specific Plan included 610 dwelling
units..
Discussion: The above measures were a part of the
Specific Plan evaluated by the Program EIR, and were included
in the Plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No. 83/805 on
June 7, 1983
55
Conclusion: To the extent that any impacts of the
:Project on housing and community development could be.
significant, this Board finds and determines that the
•above-stated.mitigation measures have avoided and/or mitigated
such impacts to a level of insignificance. Should such impacts
later be discovered to remain despite such measures, this Board
hereby finds and determines that the impacts are overridden by
the specific economic, . social and other benefits described in
Section H, "Statements of Overriding Considerations, " contained
herein.
5. Aesthetic Impacts .
Facts: The Program EIR states that no mitigation
measures are required for the aesthetic impacts of the Specific
and Redevelopment Plans, and the Program EIR does not include
aestheticimpacts in its listing of unavoidable adverse impacts .
Findings : Based upon the foregoing, this Board finds
and determines that the Program EIR determined the aesthetic
impacts of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans to be
insignificant. Because the Project is consistent with, and a
component project of, the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and
is a part of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans '
implementation, this Board finds and determines that the
Project will .not have any significant adverse impact relating
to aesthetics. In the alternative, to the extent that any
impact of ,the .Project may be considered to be a significant
56
impact relating to aesthetics, this Board finds that any such
impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of mitigation measures set forth below.
Mitigation Measures: As stated in the Program EIR,
-the Specific Plan included design review criteria relating to
form and massing of buildings, height limits, street setbacks
and property line setbacks, public spaces, pedestrian
circuilation,, .signage, and building design.
Discussion: The above measures were a part of the
Specific Plan evaluated by the Program EIR, and were included
in the Plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No . 83/805 on
June 7, 1983 .
Additional Mitigation Measures : The Board further
finds that any aesthetic impacts of this Project are further
avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
conditions of approval to the Project ' s Final Development Plan
which require any changes to building materials and colors to
be .approved by the Zoning Administrator, require any
modifications to the pedestrian plaza elements to be approved
by the Zoning Administrator, require submission of final
landscape and irrigation plans with screening for the garage
ventilation grills, and limit the number of tenant
identification signs and provide standards for those signs .
Conclusion: To the. extent that the aesthetic impacts
of this Project are significant, this Board finds and
determines that the above-stated mitigation measures have
57
avoided and/or mitigated such impacts to a level of
insignificance. Should such impacts later be discovered to
i
.remain despite such mitigation measures, the Board hereby finds
and determines that the impacts are overridden by the specific
economic, social and other benefits described in Section H,
"Statements of Overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
F. Other Impacts.
1 . Growth Inducing Impacts .
The Program EIR points out that to a certain extent
the Redevelopment and Specific Plans will be growth inducing
within the study area.. This Board finds and determines that
any-growth inducement caused by the Redevelopment Plan, its
component parts and projects or the Project is mitigated to a
level :of insignificance by the implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan and its component parts and projects,
including the Project, which will maximize the property tax
revenue available to the local agencies responsible for meeting
thearea's increased demand for public services and facilities
and which will allow a mechanism for funding, constructing
and/or encouraging the completion and use of public
transportation facilities such as BART, bus lines and other
alio facilities . Should any such impacts later be discovered
toremain des.pit<e :such .mitigation measures, this Board finds
and determines that such impacts are overridden by the specific
58
economic, social and other benefits described in Section H,
"Statements of Overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
2. Cumulative Impacts .
The Program EIR as a whole considered the cumulative
impacts resulting from the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and
their components projects, including the Project . The Program
EIR also recognized that development outside the Plan Area
would continue. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelilnes recognize that
with certain projects, the only feasible mitigation for
cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of planning
regulations .rather than the imposition of conditions on a
project=by-project basis . Further, CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines recognize that a .summary of projections contained in
an adopted planning program which is designed to evaluate
regional or are.awide conditions is adequate and proper when
identifying and discussing cumulative impacts . This Board
finds anddetermines that the Program EIR as addended
adequately assesses the .cumulative impacts resulting from the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans and their component parts and
projects„ including the Project, in that the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans and the Program EIR have necessarily
addressed and assessed the environmental impacts of the
Specific and .Redevelopment Plans at "build-out, " when all
--contemplated component (cumulative) projects and improvements
have been cco structed. Further, because the Specific and
59
Redevelopment Plans ar-e regional/area-wide in scope, because
they contain a summary of their component projects (including
the Project) , and because the Program. EIR has addressed and
Assessed those area-wide impacts caused by those Plans, their
component projects (including the Project) , and adjacent
development, this Board finds and determines that any such
cumulative impacts resulting from the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans and their component projects, including the
Project, have been avoided and/or mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the whole of the mitigation measures arising
out of the Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan, their component
project and the Project conditions of approval , and all other
mitigation measures contained herein. Should any such impacts
later be discovered to remain despite such, mitigation measures,
this Board finds and determines that such impacts are
overridden by the specific economic, social and other benefits
described in ,Section H, 'Statements of Overriding
Considerations, " contained herein.
G. Alternatives .
Several alternatives to Specific and Redevelopment
Plans and their component parts and projects, including the
Project, are addressed in the Program EIR. While all of the
alternatives discussed are alternatives to the adoption of the
Specific elan, this Board finds and determines that it is also
appropriate to consider them as alternatives to the adoption of
60
the Redevelopment Plan, and its component projects, including
the Project, as the S,pezific Plan could not be implemented
without adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and its component
projects (including the Project) .
1 . Wo :Project .Alternative.
Because of the special area-wide nature of the
Specific Plan and the 'Redevelopment Plan, and because under the
Program EIR approach„ each component project of those Plans
(particularly the Redevelopment Plan) was deemed approved at
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the "no project"
alternative is tantamount to no Specific Plan or no
Redevelopment Plan, In other words, the "no project"
alternative would have been the continuation of the County
policies in the 195 ,County .Area General Plan without the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans, their component projects,
including the Project and without the General Plan Amendments
needed to adopt those Plans . The County Area General Plan
prior to the Specific Plan adoption (and General Plan
amendment) incorporated the same mix of residential and
commercial/office uses as the Specific Plan and Redevelopment
Plan, but differed in detail as to precise location and
provided for a lesser :intensity of uses. A detailed comparison
of development intensities under the prior General Plan versus
the Specific Plan can 'be found in Section 3 . 9 .2 of the Specific
Plan EIR.
61
As the Specific Plan EER indicated, the "no project"
alternative would not be feasible because it would lead to
underutilization of the Specific Plan Area, which eventually
would intensify -the adverse ,environmental impacts associated
with new development in Contra Costa County. The project
area' s close proximity to both BART and Interstate-680 makes it
a prime location for high intensity office, hotel and
- residential development . . 'The County desired and continues to
desire, to encourage such high intensity development in areas
accessible to mass transit., in order to minimize the air
quality, traffic congestion, and other impacts associated with
new development . Underutil.ization of the project area would
have lead to more dispersed development in areas with less
transit access, thereby exacerbating the adverse environmental
impacts of new development in the County. The Board therefore
rejected and again rejects that "no project" alternative as
infeasible.
Under the Program EIR., as it related to the adoption
of the Redevelopment Plan by the Agency, the Project was deemed
approved at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan. Therefore, the 'ono project" analysis regarding the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans would likewise apply to the
Project . Nonetheless, this Board hereby also rejects the "no
project" alternative as infeasible as it relates specifically
to the Project because the continued viability of the
Redevelopment Plan' s tax .increment financing is dependent upon
62
• i
the development of its component projects, including the
Project (as set forth in Final Development Plan 3012-88) . The
no project" alternative (as it relates to the Proj'ect) would,
therefore, result in a lack. of tax increment from SubArea 10A,
-which in turn could jeopardize the Agency' s ability to repay
its obligations, including the Tax Allocation Notes .
2 . Alternative Land Use Intensity Patterns .
Three alternative land use intensity levels were
analyzed for office and residential development in the area:
1) low intensity development consisting of an office FAR of 0 . 5
and a residential density- of 20 dwelling units per acre;
2) moderate intensity development with an office FAR of 1 . 0 and
a residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre; 3) high
intensity development with an office FAR of 1 . 5 and a
residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre.
The Specific Plan accommodates a moderate intensity of
development with approximately 925 dwelling units and 2, 655,000
square feet of office/commercial space. This level of
development was .selected as a feasible way to meet the County' s
need for increased development of jobs and housing, while
minimizing the local and regional impact of such development .
The lower intensity alternative was rejected as infeasible
because it would underutilize the project area, fostering
. dispersed development and resulting in County-wide adverse
traffic and air quality impacts . The high intensity
63
. I
alternative was rejected as infeasible because it would
intensity the localized environmental impacts in the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area to an unacceptable level .
3 . Alternative Sites Analysis .
A recent California Appellate Court decision (Citizens
of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa
Barbara) clarified and expanded CEQA requirements for EIRs,
ruling that in certain factual settings, an EIR may need to
include an evaluation of alternative sites for the project, in
addition to project alternatives located on the same site.
That=ruling also noted that such an evaluation is not required
in all cases, and depends on the facts and circumstances of
each project. This Board finds and determines that it is
inappropriate to evaluate different project sites in respect to
the Specific and/or Redevelopment Plans, or their component
projects, including the Project for the following reasons :
a. The Specific Plan' s announced goals and
objectives focus on the high level of regional accessibility
provided by BART and I-680, the area' s central location in
Contra Costa County, and the public and private transit
improvement investments which collectively give the area "a
:special value and importance which should be recognized and
properly utilized. " Specific Plan at p. 11 . Those goals and
`objectives stress among other things the importance of
increasing "the concentration of high intensity employment uses
64
and housing in the Station area so as to better utilize the
regional transit accessibility provided by BART. " Specific
PIan at p. 11 .
b. There are no other locations in or out
'of the County that would provide the amount of vacant land and
proximity to major transportation corridors and alternatives
('BART) necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the
Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan.
C . Because the Redevelopment Plan is
necessary to finance the public improvements required by the
Specific Plan, and because the Redevelopment Plan is reliant on
the tax increment generated from its component projects,
including the Project, the assessment of alternative sites for
tie component projects, including the Project, is likewise not
applicable.
d. Given the passage of time and the
establishment, formation and execution of Plan-wide
immprovements, .Assessment Districts, developer land dedications
and fee payments, tax increment financing, and other County,
:Agency and developer actions and obligations, the assessment of
alternative sites at this point in the process is inappropriate.
Therefore, given the particular facts regarding the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and their component projects,
including the Project, the assessment of alternative sites is
.not applicable, and inappropriate.
65
The Board hereby reiterates and reaffirms the findings
sof the Board contained in Ordinance 84-30(RD) specifically
zea<aiting to the infeasibility .of the Project alternatives . In
add:itilon, this 'Board finds and determines that the
est:ab.lzshment and formation of the Assessment Districts
ades:cr bed herein, the Agency and its tax increment financing
epproaeh,, and the creation of assessments and expected tax
increment upon and from the Project property for the purpose of
p:rov.iding funds for the implementation of the Specific and
:Redevelopment Plans (and their component projects, including
-th:i;s Project) is further reason why the project alternatives to
the :gip cific and Redevelopment Plans , their component projects,
ino'l'adi gig" this Project,, are infeasible. This Board finds and
determines that the Developer of the Project and the Agency
?have subjected the Project property to significant assessments
.and tax increment obligations in order to provide funds for the
construction of public improvements, some of which have been
z1ready ,constructed and others of which will be constructed in
the future.
�3.. Statements of Overriding Considerations .
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant
}mpa-cts and their mitigation measures described above, the
Board has :f:ound .and .determined and this -Board-hereby again
:finds and determines pursuant to CEQA and Section 15093 of the
CEI.QA Guidelines that the benefits of the Specific Plan and the
66
Redeve1opment ,2 wn =and their component parts and projects ,
includIng tie :Project, outweigh any remaining adverse impacts
which have :not been avoided and/or mitigated to a level of
insignificance,, and that the Project should be approved.
',.Withreference to the above findings and in
I
ecognition of those "facts which are included in the record,
the Board aaa:.s ;determined that the Spec i f i c and Redeve 1 opment
Plans -,and the.ix copponent parts and projects, including the
Project,, would contribute to a localized air quality impact
which is �mnszdered adverse. Further, to the extent that any
other :impacts 'recognized in the Program EIR (as addended) have
not been a vet Ided or mitigated to a level of insignificance
(including ,without limitation all traffic, parking, noise,
water, earth;, plant and animal life, energy, public service and
facil:itikes, bhousing and community development and aesthetic
impacts),, this Board specifically finds and determines and
makes these ;specific statements of overriding considerations
that there are ;special social, economic, and other reasons for
approving the Project, which outweigh any such potential
substanta:aa adverse .impacts . These reasons are as follows :
'1. Aathough the Specific and Redevelopment Plans
;(and their component projects, including the
Project) may have an adverse impact on localized
air quai-ity, the Plans will significantly lessen
air quality impacts elsewhere in Contra Costa
County and other major travel corridors and
remployment �centers in the Bay Area;
67
i
I
2. TheSpecific and Redevelopment Plans '(and their
ncomponent projects, including the Project)
prav:ade .an opportunity for the County to make
secessary. physical improvements to the road
;system,, sewer .system, and other public
infrastructure systems which could not otherwise
'be )made;, :as ono other public or private funds are
;ava:11at a for :this purpose at the present time or
in tthe foreseeable future. These improvements
v1H benefit both the Plan Area and the entire
Count.y;
30 `Thhe .Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
c(amyponent projects, including the Project) allow
an .increase in the concentration of high
intensity employment uses and housing in the Plan
Area to benefit the community and to better
utilize the regional transit accessibility
prtovited by BART and Interstate 680, the area ' s
tc(esntral location in :Contra Costa County, and the
pub c and private investment in the surrounding
�areas.
4.. The Specific .and Redevelopment Plans (and their
eorqponent projects, including the Project) will
-. prevent preemption of land suitable for
ntcensification by low intensity development or
u,s(es >which will not contribute to increased
regional and .local transit usage;
68
5. The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
conTonent ,profects, . including the Project) will
improve public transit and maximize its use by
improving ,automobile ..access to the .Pleasant Hill
BART Station, expanding BART parking facilities,
providing for safe and convenient pedestrian
movement in the area, expanding the regional
trail :system, and providing. for implementation of
a TSM program;
6. The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component projects, including the Project) will
encourage a :balanced mix of new development which
will increase the supply of housing, provide
employment opportunities, and generate
significant additional long-term property tax
revenues :for needed public improvements and
facilities . At the same time, the Plans and
their corqponent projects (including the Project)
ensure;, to the- extent feasible, that the existing
meed for communityservices and facilities, open
space and public improvements are adequately
addressed,; and
7. The Project will help ensure that the tax
increment needed to refinance the Agency' s Tax
Allocation Notes will occur, and will further
help ensure, through the dedication of property
69
and payment of assessments and fees, that
Plan-wide improvements (mitigation measures) are
commenced and completed.
II . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH
THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Board hereby finds and determines that the
Project is fully consistent with .the the County General Plan,
the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan and the Preliminary
Development Plan for the Project, as more specifically set
forth below.
A. Consistency With The County General Plan.
In the Board' s approval of the Specific Plan in
Resolution 83-805, the Board found and determined, based upon
the substantial evidence in the record, including the Program
EIR, that the Specific Plan was consistent with the County
General Plan. This Board now incorporates herein by reference,
.reaffirms and readopts all findings and determinations made in
connection with the approval of the Specific Plan, and again
finds and determines that the Specific Plan and this Project
are fully consistent with the County General Plan.
In particular, the Program EIR evaluated the
-consistency of the Specific Plan with the General Plan,
including the .1975 Area General Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station (pages I-22 and following) . The Program EIR stated
70
that the goals applicable to the Specific Plan Area include
orderly organization of lana uses, recognizing the BART
station' s -potential to attract employment-creating uses,
requiring large tract conversions, and providing .access and
circulation. In addition to the findings incorporated by
reference and reaffirmed above;, this Board also finds and
,determines that the Specific Plan is consistent with the
General Plan because -development pursuant to the Specific Plan
will provide employment opportunities and generate significant
.long-term property tax revenues and will also ensure that
existing needs for community services, facilities, open space
and public improvements are adequately addressed.
In addition, as set out in the Program EIR at
page 1-23, the Area General Plan states that the office
designation for lands west and south of the BART Station is
established to provide for administrative and professional
office development . In conformance with the goals and
objectives of the County General Plan, the Project as an
implementation of a portion of the Redevelopment Plan will
encourage a balanced mix of new development which will,
together with other projects implementing the Specific Plan,
increase the supply of housing, provide employment
opportunities and generate significant long-term property tax
. revenues and will also insure that existing needs for community
services, facilities, open space and public improvements are
adequately addressed.
71
Based on the foregoing, on the consistency of this
Project with the Specific Plan as set forth below, and on the
consistency of the Specific Plan with the General Plan as
,discussedabove, this Board finds that the Project is
consistent with the County General Plan.
B. Consistency With Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan, at pages 11 through 13 , sets forth
a series of overall plan objectives . This Board finds that
this Project is consistent with those Specific Plan objectives,
as more specifically discussed below.
In approving Preliminary Development Plan No. 2656-RZ
and Final Development Plan No. 3063-85, the Board determined
that those plans were consistent with the Specific Plan. In
addition., this Board affirms and restates the Board' s earlier
finding that the reallocation of FAR and use between areas 10A
and 10B by the Zoning Administrator is consistent with the
maximum limits allowed for the two SubAreas in the Specific
Plan. Because the gross square feet in the two office
buildings within this Project and the floor area ratio for this
Project are within the limits allowed for Subarea 10A in the
Specific Plan, this Board finds that this Project is consistent
with the Specific Plan.
This Board further finds that Final Development Plan
3812-88 is consistent with the Specific Plan. Based on the
evidence in the record, including without limitation County
72
staff's reports .and Developer ' s presentations before the
Planning Commission and this Board (which included without
limitation, artist renderings, building material samples and
color boards) , this Board finds and determines that the
development (twin office buildings) on SubArea 10A have been
designed to harmonize with the development approved for
SubArea 10B so as to present an overall integrated project for
Area 10 as required by the Specific Plan. The specific details
evidencing this harmonizing of design and planning integration,
including without limitation the location, placement, design,
landscape and other related aspects of the Project, are set
forth in full in the County staff report regarding Final
Development Plan 3012-88 dated August 9 , 1988, which is hereby
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full .
;C. Consistency With Redevelopment Plan.
The Board by adopting Ordinance 84-30(RD) has
determined that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the
Specific Plan. In Section "B, " above, this Board makes
findings and determinations that the Project is consistent with
the Specific Plan and the Board hereby reiterates and reaffirms
its findings that the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan
are fully :consistent . In addition, the Board finds and
determines that the Project is consistent with and in full
compliance with the Redevelopment Plan. In each and every
place in these findings where the Board finds consistency with
73
the Specific Plan, such findings are to be read as finding
consistency with the Redevelopment Plan.
D. Consistency With The Preliminary Development Plan.
As discussed in the County staff report dated
August 9, 1988, the Preliminary Development Plan provides for
611 ,887 gross square feet and '581 ,293 net square feet of office
space on Subareas 10A and 10B of the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan. 'This Project provides for two office
buildings with 187, 500 square feet of office space each, for a
total of 375, 000 gross square feet in Subarea 10A. Because
these square footage figures and the other aspects of this
Project are within the limits set forth in the Preliminary
Development Plan and are otherwise consistent with that Plan,
this Board finds that Final Development Plan 3012-88 is
consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan.
III . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
The approval of the Project ' s Final Development Plan
3012-88 requires certain findings pursuant to Section
84-66. 1406of the ContraCosta county Code. The Board hereby
makes the findings set :forth below.
1 . The Developer has informed the County that
it expects to commence construction of the Project pursuant to
the terms of the Disposition and Develpment Agreement to be
entered with the Agency. Based on the foregoing, the Board
finds that the time at which the Developer intends tostart
74
I i ,
construction of the Project is consistent with the requirements
of Section 84-66. 1406.
2. Based on the . discussion and findings set
forth above under the heading "Consistency with the County
General Plan, " this Board finds that the Project is consistent
with the County General Plan.
3 . This Board finds that the commercial
development provided by this Project .is needed at the proposed
location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type
proposed. The location of office improvements and support
facilities at this location close to the BART Station is an
important part of the County General Plan and the Specific
Plan. Due to the inclusion of mitigation measures in the
Specific and Redevelopment Plans and their component projects,
including the conditions of approval on the Project ' s Final
Development Plan 301-288, traffic congestion will not likely be
created by the Project and any increased traffic will be
mitigated by presently projected improvements and by provisions
in the Final Development Pian for proper ingress and egress and
by internal provisions for traffic and parking. The Project
will be attractive and efficient and will fit harmoniously into
and will have no adverse effects upon adjacent or surrounding
development
4. 'This :Board .finds that this Project, together
with the Specific Plan, .constitutes a plan for the harmonious
and integrated development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station
75
Area and particularly SubArea 10A with SubArea 10B (as
described above in Part III , Section C) and further finds that
the development of 'a harmonious, integrated plan for the
'Project justifies exceptions from the normal application of the
..Contra Costa County Code.
`IV. GENERAL
'This Board makes the following findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this Project and its Final Development Plan 3012-88 approval
and to all findings and determinations, as a whole, contained
herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings ,
the Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, the Program EIR,
resolutions , conditions of approval and the Developer ' s
.submittals, all relating to the Project and its Final
Development Plan 3012-88 .
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
r-eference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations, that any finding and/or determination required
or ;permitted to be made by this Board with respect to jany
76
i
particular subject m tter of the Project or its Final
Development Plan 301.2-88 shall be deemed made if it appears in
any portion of these findings and determinations . All of the
foregoing constitute findings and determinations by this Board
whether or not .any particular sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the substantial evidence, both
oral and written, contained in the entire administrative record
relating to the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and their
component projects, including the Project and its Final
Development Plan 30`12-88 including without limitation that
presented in hearings on the Project and Final Development Plan
3012-88 before the :Planning Commission and the Board. The
findings and determinations constitute the independent findings
and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully
and completely supported by the substantial evidence in the
administrative record as a whole.
MPD:gy/6
0539Y/12. 19,8
16798 . 100
77
EXHIBIT "Ber
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN #3012-88
1) This final development pian is approved for two 10-story office buildings
as shown generally in the following plans and drawings dated received by
the Community Development Department on June 6, 1988:
Exhibit A) Site Plan/Preliminary Landscape Plan
Exhibit B) Elevations
Exhibit C) Sections
Exhibit D) Floor Plans
Exhibit E) Enlarged Partial Elevation
Exhibit F) Parking Plans
Any modifications to the approved plans shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
2) The building materials and colors shall be as shown in the sample board
dated received by the Community Development Department on June 6, 1988. Any
modifications to the approved building materials and colors shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
3) The development for the Area 10A site shall be limited to 375,000 gross
square feet and 356,250 net square feet of office space.
4) Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses
which may be conditionally allowed as listed in the Specific Plan are sub-
ject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
5) The preliminary plans for the pedestrian plaza, including the conceptual
hardscape and landscape plan dated received June 6, 1988 by the Community
Development Department, the fountain and proposed outdoor furniture,
lights, trash receptacles and plant pots shown in the drawings dated re-
ceived by the Community Development Department on May 26, 1988, are ap-
proved.
Any modifications to the pedestrian plaza elements shall be subject to the
review and approval of' the Zoning Administrator.
The applicant shall continue to work with the developers and architects of
the Area 10 block to coordinate and integrate the design plans for the
outdoor plaza and related developments.
6) Prior to issuance of building permit plans the applicant shall submit final
landscape and irrigation plans subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The applicant shall continue to work with the land-
scape architects and developers of the .Area 10 block to coordinate and in-
tegrate the landscape plans for these developments. The landscape and
irrigation plans shall conform to the County Water Conservation Policy. The
_ app1.isant-_shall_.:submi t-.a-..1 etter f rom=a 1 i censed' 1 andscape-archi tect certi-
fying that the plans conform to the Water Conservation Policy. The final
landscape plans shall include landscape screening for the garage ventila-
tion grills to include small trees and shrubs. The fountain feature must
make use of. we]1 water and be designed to recycle the water supply.
-2-
7) The sign program submitted for the Treat Towers project dated June 6, 1988
is approved, subject to the following modifications:
A) Only one tenant identification sign shall be allowed per office
building at� theparapet. The tenant identification sign may by lo-
cated on either -the north or the south elevation of the building.
B) 'The letters for the.-tenant identification sign shall be solid metal or ,
metal finish. The finish shall be matt.
C) For the visitor's entrance/restaurant identification sign, Alternate
#1 is approved for the sign materials (solid metal letters mounted on
an architectural concrete wall with flood lights recessed in the
landscaping) .
8) All lease agreements and future tenants shall agree to use Pleasant Hill
addresses.
9) Comply with the County Childcare Ordinance.
10) Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall
conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdi-
vision Ordinance.
B. . Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the require-
ments of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County
Ordinance Code. This includes the following:
1. Constructing road improvements ,along the frontage of Treat Boul-
evard, Buskirk Avenue and Wayne Drive. The Treat Boulevard and
Buskirk Avenue frontage improvements have been constructed as
part of the AD 1983-1 improvements. The Wayne Drive frontage
improvements have been constructed except for the sidewalk and
curb returns. The applicant will be required to complete these
improvements.
C. Install all new utility distribution services underground.
D. Prevent-storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyedTin .a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering-,,Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights,of entry, . permits
_easements.for the construction of off-site,-temporary nor.-.per -"
manent, road and drainage improvements.
F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered --civil ^�-engineer,_�to
the Public Works Department,,...Engineering Services :. Division, for
_3_
review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees.
These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping
plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement
plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The
review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed
prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the
Public Works Department. If final inspection is requested prior to
construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road im-
provement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required
by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work.
G. Prior to issuance of building permits, pay a $0.50 per square foot
Regional - Traffic Mitigation Fee, or participate in a parking assess-
ment district were one established.
H. Pay Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan fee. It is acknowledged that the
applicant has, by virtue of participation in Assessment District
1983-1/1987-1, prepaid its Specific Plan Fee for 375,000 gross square
feet of building on the property.
11. The applicant shall perform another wino analysis which shall test the
Treat Towers and adjacent Area 10 projects in a boundary layer wind tunnel
using a scale model , to determine the severity and extent of wind acceler-
ation from off the south building faces, the optimum spacing of the build-
ings and the usability of the proposed outdoor areas. Revisions to the
site plan may be required based on the results of the report.
12: Comply with the County TSM Ordinance, and work with the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area TSM Committee.
13. A watering program (complete coverage twice daily) shall be employed for
dust control -during -project construction.
14. If the hotel on Area 10B is occupied by the time of construction of Treat
Towers, noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. .Monday through Friday.
15. Project sponsors shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit
all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition.,
to locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from occupied buildings as possible, 'And to
access construction sites via routes which pass the fewest dwellings.
16. Clean up and. removai of rubble, trash and fire hazards shall be completed
continually during construction.
17. All construction equipment, materials and employee vehicles shall be kept
within the project perimeter to reduce street congestion:
.,..t,.r,..,'-...•.+<rX,.r,""°:'^�-L..,'�p.`.
-4-
18. Before the issuance of building permits the applicant shall participate
with the Contra Costa Centre Association in jointly implementing a public
information program approved by the Community Development Department and
Redevelopment Agency about the Pleasant Hill BART Station planning and the
benefits of jobs/housing balance.
The following requirements are not Conditions of Approval . However the devel-
oper(s)
evel-
opers) should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits- for this
project:
Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District
Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Dis-
trict (see attached letter dated April 27, 1988) .
Health Services Department - Environmental Health Division
Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department Environmental
Health Division (see attached letter dated May 9, 1988) .
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (see
attached letter dated May 9, 1988) .
JH:vpl
OPIV/a:3012-88.coa Revised 8/16/88
Revised 12/13/88 df
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
.,
ROGER 1.DOlAX
GeneralMana,er
- UJef ttrstneer
fAItES L HAZARD
Cotta.el for the tkstrltt-
1415)93,-1,4"
loycrE_A&May 9, 1988 :"Marr Of the Dotrot
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN !RECEIPT REQUESTED
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department t- r
County Administration Bld
. ty g., North Wing
P.O. Box 951
Martinez, CA 94553 '_ ca
ATTENTION: MS. JANE HERSHBERGER
PLANNER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE A PRIOR EIRP COUNTY FILE 3012-88
APN: 148-242-003, 994, 005, 011# 012, 013, 015
WS: 23
THOMAS BROS. LOC. : 49B4
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is a Responsible Agency for
the proposed project under CEQA. The District is responsible for
determining the route and design capacity of sewers serving property
within its boundaries and for providing wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal services. The District agrees with the prior EIR relative
to wastewater collection# treatment, and disposal service issues.
However, the following information is provided for the county and the
developer.
1. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
1.1 The project site is within the CCCSD boundariesv and sewer
service has been planned for this area.
1.2 The District's sewer system is adjacent to the proposed
project.
2. SOURCE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
The District -has reviewed this project for source control
requirements. . Base wastewater now from this project appears to be
y..- ... _ W... .._ ......... --��- r
a
r 1
•
Contra Costa County
Page 2
May g, 1968
domestic wastewater such as from residential, school, office,
church sources. Specific source control requirements are normally
not applicable to domestic wastewater. However, materials such as
gasoline, oil, sand, paint, pesticide residues, or other toxic
substances are prohibited from being introduced into the District's
sewer system.
3. SEWER CAPACITY AND MINIMUM PIPE SIZE
The 15-inch-diameter sewer adjacent to the proposed project has
adequate capacity for the proposed project.
The District's capital improvement fee system may be revised this
year based upon a study that is currently in progress. The
developer will be required to pay capital improvement fees that are
applicable at the time at which the fees are due. Current policy
requires that fees be paid ,just prior to connection to the sewer
system; however, the District is studying the possibility of
collecting fees at the time of building permit issuance.
4. PRIVATE SEWERS
This project includes a site collector system. A site collector
system is a privately owned and maintained side sewer system,
normally six or eight inches in diameter, installed to serve
multi-unit structures on single ownership properties such as
apartments, mobile hones, parks, planned unit developments, or
schools, etc.
District .policy requires that the developer be responsible for the
installation of the system and the property owner be responsible for
operation and maintenance of the system. District review of the
design and inspection of the work on the system shall in no way
constitute our acceptance of any responsibility for maintenance or
damage to property due to construction and subsequent operation and
maintenance of the system.
The design intent of the Standard Drawings in Section 32 of the
CCCSD "Standard Specifications," 1986 Edition, is to reduce the
amount of rainfall and groundwater that will infiltrate the system,
thereby avoiding unnecessary pumping and treatment costs. The .;
Standard Drawings are not intended to meet the geotechnical,
structural, or drainage req ui rements- of special situations.
_ ry
a
Contra Costa County
Page 3
May 9, 1988
S. TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
The District's current permit is for an average dry weather daily
flow rate of 45 million gallons per day (mgd) based on a secondary
level of treatment. The actual average dry weather daily flow rate
is 36.4 mgd based upon the past three years. The 45-mgd treatment
plant capacity should be adequate until the mid-1990's based upon
historical connection rates to the District's collection system.
However, modifications due to unforeseen circumstances in the Plant
Expansion Program and actions imposed by state, federal, or regional
authorities could affect the availability ' of sewer connections at
any time.
The Sanitary. District must review and approve any construction plans
.involving work on the public sewer system prior to the developer's
applying for a building permit. The District's Permit Section will
receive and process the construction plans.
Sincerely,
Jack H. Case
Associate Engineer
J HC:be
cc: Nr. Merle D. Gilliland
Wallace Olson Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 215
Noraga, CA 94556
,: • - CONTRA COSTA COL( TY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
TO: Community Development Department Date : May 9 , 1988
Daniel Bergman Development Plan 3012-88
From: Assist t Hei e4-ac-lt
subject : Walnut Creek area
Direct a enh Assessor ' s No . 148-242-003 ,004
005 ,011 ,012 ,013 ,015
Assessor ' s No . 148-252-058 ,059
060
This division has reviewed the tentative map of Development
Plan 3012-88 , Walnut Creek area . The following comments are
to be included as the Health Officer ' s conditions of approval
that must be met before the final map can be filed :
1 . Sewage disposal serving the properties concerned in this
Development Pian shall be provided by the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District .
2 .' Water supply serving the properties concerned shall be
by the Contra Costa Water District.
3 . Health Services Department-Environmental Health Division
approval of plans is required for any proposed food facilities ,
swimming pool or spa pool prior to construction or installation .
The applicant should contact this division if he has
any questions . Proceeding without obtaining Health Services
Department-Environmental Health Division approval .can '
result in a financial penalty.
4. Abandoned septic tanks and wells to be destroyed per Health
Services Department requirements .
5 . Any deviations or changes affecting the concept of the
Development Plan on file with the Health Services Department-
Environmental . Health Division and dated April 6 , 1988 sh411
be resubmitted for review to determine if such deviations
or changes .for the Development Plan can be considered
acceptable to the Health Officer .
DCB : JLK:sm
cc : Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Contra Costa Water District
Merle D .Gilliland
Treat Corners Partnership
G�tyt NA GOST�
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY1 CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT
2010 GEARY ROAD ��Ql OtStAtGS PLEASANT HILL. CA 94523-4694
(415)930-5500
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
April 27, 1988
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
P. 0. Box 951
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Jane Hershberger
SUBJECT: 3012-88
Treat Corners Partnership
Treat Blvd. & Buskirk Ave.
Dear Ms. Hershbearger:
We have reviewed the development plan to establish commercial office buildings at
the subject location. This project is regulated by codes and ordinances adminis-
tered by this Fire District relative to Contra Costa County Ordinance 86/71 and
the State Fire Marshal's Regulations. If approved by your office, the following
shall be required:
1. The developer shall submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications
of the subject project, including built-in fire protection systems (when
required) , to this office for review and approval prior to construction to
insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety.
Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (2.206)C.C,C. Ord. 86/71
The developer shall provide one hydrant of the East Bay type. Hydrant shall
be located near the main entrance on Buskirk. (10.301c)UFC
3. Provide access.roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20
feet unobstructed width, and not less than 1316" of vertical clearance, to
within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of
every building. Acce$s roads shall not exceed 20% grade, shall have a
minimum inside turning radius of 35 feet, and must be capable of supporting
the imposed loads of fire._apparatus (31 tons).
Note: . Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have curbs painted
red and "NO PARKING" signs posted with provisions for off-street
parking.
Roads 28 feet in width shall- have the curb painted red and "NO PARKING"
signs -posted, allowing for parking on one side only.
Roads 36 feet in width allow for parking on both sides.
r
.,..,.«.-�.�..,...e.:.f....,._..+r-i... x,:`3•`,-t�rF+�k avw.,�v,+.-,v.�a; w+�a-;1 _.,,..., :. -,_.- .. ... .. ....,. .w ...,.._w �4"4n'�u..i++�..a+"w.,�.,,...�,. ,.r._oca..w.��. :�.
C.C.C. Comm. Dev. Dept./Jane Hershberger
RE:1` 3012-88
April 27, 1988
Page 2
•Roads divided into one-way lanes by a curbed divider or similar
obstacle shall be not less than 12 feet in clear width on each
side of the divider. Parking shall be prohibited.
When conditions prevent conformance with the above, the Chief may permit the
installation of fire protection systems; provided such systems are not other-
wise required by this or any other code. (10.207)UFC
4. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall
contrast with their background and -be readily visible from the street. '
(10.208)UFC
5. When traffic signals are installed/modified or when proposed development will
cause undue traffic congestion, the developer shall provide a suitable
number of traffic signal pre-emption systems (Opticom) as approved by the
Traffic Engineer and this office. .
6. A pro rata fee of 20C per square foot may be assessed to partially offset
initial expenditures for additional necessary fire service resources.
7. The proposed high-rise office buildings shall comply with Section 2-1807,
Title 24, California Administrative Code (State Fire Marshal's Regulations
for such structures) .
It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project
be forwarded to this. office when compiled by the planning agency.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned,
Sincerely,
Chester H. Nelson
Fire Inspector
CHN:vw
cc: Treat Corners Partnership
Contra Costa Water District/LeeAnne Cisterman
Merle D. Gilliland
File
Y...i r.. -
,•. ..:'.:.•:s+ x.... .r%:'1•.;'�+�.'ti r-+:a�s,.Tz'�'E`y"'r ,,.�� .c-... , .. - ...a... .E .- .-r.. _ _��.d_...._ ,._u-w.' w�'.',,,'".,�-
z