HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201988 - 2.8 TO,: , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROrr, HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Contra
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C4)sta
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 Lauren S. ward (applicant ) and -Taylor-Ward Properties (owner ) for
an amended Final Development Plan, for a six-story office building
plus penthouse over a lobby and parking (3019-88 ) , 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 3019-88 with amended conditions
of approval (Exhibit B) , which includes the Amendment of Final
Development Plan 3002-86 , 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
LAUREN S. WARD (Applicant )-TAYLOR/WARD PROPERTIES (Owner ) ,, County File
#3019-88: The Applicant requests approval to amend Final Development Plan
3002-86 involving changes in use (substituting an office building for a hotel )
and design modifications . On December 13, 1988, the Board declared its intent
to approve the certification of the EIR, adopt Final Development Plan 3019-88,
including the amendment of Final Development Plan 3002-861 nd deny the appeal
by the City of Walnut Creek .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND%4KON 0 RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 20 , 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X 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
Lauren S. Ward D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Taylor Ward Properties
Public Works-Tom Dudziak BYaDEPUTY
Assessor
Consolidated Fire Protection District
EXHIBIT A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO STATION OAKS OFFICE
TOWERS PROJECT AND TO AMENDMENT OF FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3002-86 AND APPROVAL OF FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3019-88
FOR AN OFFICE TOWERS PROJECT IN THE
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION SPECIFIC PLAN
AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREAS UPON APPLICATION
OF TAYLOR/WARD PROPERTIES
.iI,. F.INDINGS 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 Station Oaks
Off:ice 'Towers project, SubAreas 7 and 8 of the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Specific Plan, is referred to as the
"Project. " The amendment of Final Development Plan 3002-86 ,
and the readoption of this Plan as amended as Final Development
P;1:an 3019-88 is a related part of the Project .
A. Procedural History.
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
Tt
into one document which was specifically tailored to meet the
needs of the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. The Specific
P.Ian -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
P.1eas,,ant 'Hill and the Walden Improvement Association. The
resul-t'i.ng Specific Plan reflects that cooperative process .
As a part of the adoption of the Specific Plan and the
,ad,opt:ion of certain amendments to the County General Plan, an
environm� ental 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
qiven .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
gen,e-na'lpublic and governmental agencies, both oral and
written, were received, reviewed and considered by the County.
Following the receipt of those comments, responses to the
comment swere prepared by and at the direction of County staff,
and. copies thereof made available to the general public and
2
L'
d
. 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 purpose of these
findings, the area within the Specific and Redevelopment Plans
may be 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
L`
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
$146.. 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
yr
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.
TheAgency' s activities are expected to generate
increased development in the Plan Area, including development
of the Project,, resulting in the increased property value of,
and increased tax revenue from, such development property. The
incremental -increase in property values from development
pursued in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan produces an
incremental increase in tax revenues above the '.'frozen" value.
This incremental increase is called the "tax increment . "
During the term of the -Redevelopment Plan, the tax increment
from 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
and/or 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
increasedproperty values and tax revenues resulting from
redevelopment)
5
i
As the County staff report dated March 25; 1988
(Pleasant Hill DART Fact Sheet) reflects, on December 23, 1987,
the Agency completed the sale of $7 . 5 million worth of Tax
Allocation Notes secured by the contemplated tax increment
increase which would occur from the development contemplated by
the Redevelopment Plan. The .Project is a component part of the
Redevelopment Plan .and has been contemplated since the Board ' s
adoption of the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The
Agency has sold five-year notes in order to obtain more
up-front capital :for Agency activities, including financing new
public improvements and refinancing prior short-term debt for
public improvements . The five-year notes will have to be
refinanced prior to 'December 1992 . In order to refinance the
current Note issue,, the :Agency will need tax increment monies
(non-housing) of approximately $1 . 1 million. The current
non-housing tax increment for 1988-1989 is approximately
$616,487 . The Agency will need to nearly double its tax
increment over the 'next five years in order to refinance the
Notes. Development as provided for in the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans,, including this Project, is needed to
provide the Agency with sufficient tax increment to accomplish
the required refinancing, and to support additional tax
increment bonds for programmed public improvements . The Agency
also incurred debt in :its early years to, among other things ,
acquire rights-of-way for roadway, drainage and other
infrastructure, and to pay Agency expenses . Currently the
6
s
Agency has outstanding debt obligations totaling 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 will 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 , Taylor/Ward Properties
(hereinafter also referred to as "Developer" ) has , together
with the other owners within Subareas 7 and 8 , entered 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 $1, 136,444 to the Agency for use in the
realignment of Oak Road, Buskirk Avenue and Wayne Drive.
Further, the costs associated with the conveyance of the
properties from the Agency to Developer would be borne by
Developer . The activities contemplated by that Disposition and
Development Agreement are now substantially complete.
As part of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the
draft EIR for the Redevelopment Plan was prepared, circulated
and made available to the public for review and comment as
required by law. That draft EIR included the entire text of
7
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 was given by mailing the .same directly to the
appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals and
additional notice was given by publication and posting in
accordance with CEQA, the lCEQA Guidelines and applicable County
regulations . County 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 information 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 statement 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 . In January sof 1983 , Assessment
District 1983-1 was 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 would take place prior to, or concurrent with,
such development . Asses,smment District 1983-1 bond sales
totaled approximately !$9..3 million. In December of 1985,
Assessment District 1985-3 was formed to further ensure the
construction of needed improvements prior to, or concurrent
8
l
with, Specific Plan Area development . Assessment
District 1985-3 bond sales totaled approximately
$2. 67 million. In 1987, the Assessment District 1987-1 was
formed to refinance Assessment District 1983-1 . The current
total principal and interest ,obl:igations of the 1983-1 , 1985-3 ,
and 1987-1 Assessment District 'bonds amounts to approximately
$36 million. The Assessment .D,istrict .Bonds are repaid by the
assessments paid by property owners within the Assessment
Districts . The Project, together with the projects in
Subarea 7, is subject to assessments under Assessment Districts
1983-1 and 1987-1 , with a pr'.imcpal and interest obligation of
approximately $4 ,306, 646. 'This assessment will be credited in
full towards the Project' s "°.Spe,cific Plan Fee" obligation.
4 . On January (6,, 1986, applications were
submitted to the County requesting rezonings to P-1 (Planned
Unit Development) of Area 8 ko:f the Specific Plan
(Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan No . 2658-RZ) .
Concurrently with the P-1 zoning request on SubArea 8 , the
applicants also submitted Final :Deve.lopment Plan applications
.for a hotel and office project on SubArea 8 (Final Development
Plan 3002-86) .
On March 18, 1986, Rezoning/Preliminary Development
Plan No. 2658-RZ, and Final :Deve.1opment Plan 3002-86 was
approved. Preliminary Development Plan '2658-RZ rezoned
approximately ten acres of land comprising Area 8 of the
Specific Plan to P-1 , Planned Unit District, and provided for
'9
175.000 gross square feet and 165, 564 net square feet of
office, and a hotel with a maximum size of 171 , 845 'square
feet . Final Development Plan 3063-85 applied to SubArea 8, and
contained the same limits upon office and hotel space.
The current approval request before this Board involves
SubArea 8, and seeks to amend Final Development Plan 3002-86
.and -readopt that Development Plan as amended as Final
Development Plan 3019-88 . The purpose of this amendment and
adoption of a Final Development Plan is to delete the
originally authorized 171 , 845 square foot hotel and to
substitute in its place office building of 125,800 square feet,
including 115,800 square feet of office space and 10, 000 square
feet of retail space. Final Development Plan 3019-88,
therefore, simply consists of the substitution of this smaller
office building for the originally approved larger hotel , and
the readoption of the prior Final Development Plan as amended,
as a new Final Development Plan 3019-88 .
5 . On June 13 , 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 3019-88 , 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,
10
T
size (square footage, height, appurtenant structures, etc . ) ,
office use and County File and approval numbers;
b. A clear statement that the County
intended to use the EIR 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,
California and at the Contra Costa County Central Library,
.1758 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
11
Floor-North Wing, Martinez, California 94553 , or by telephone
toJane Hershberger at 646-2031 .
This Board 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
P:roject ' s impacts and mitigation measures (on a site-specific,
Plan-wide, and cumulative basis) , reference to the Specific
Plan 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
12
Development Plan 3019-88) public review period, conducted by
the County pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 , which
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 3019-88 approval
request,. 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
the County. 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
develqpment 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 ,G, uidelines and County regulations, that it adequately
assesses the individual and cumulativeair 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 3019-88 .
7. During the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission f "Planning Commission" ) proceedings regarding the
13
Project 's Final .Development Plan 3019-88, the City of Walnut
Creek ;submitted a letter dated June 24 , 1988, requesting that
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
e:nviro,mental assessment of the Project or the County' s
""not: cing'" of that <environmental assessment, excepting only
that the City submitted general comments relating to traffic
impacts of the .Project, without specifically tying those
impacts to specific sections or discussions within the Program
E R (or the notice .of the environmental assessment period. The
County eompleted .its mandatory review of the Specific Plan on
July :19, .1988, prior to the Planning Commission' s actions
regarding the Project ' s .Final Development Plan 3019-88, and
thus .satisfied the only specific request contained in the City
of 'Walnut Creek's letter .
8,. On August 16, 1988, the Planning Commission
adopted the Air <Quality Addendum, certified that the Program
El'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 3019-88, and
approved Final :Development Plan 3019-88 . On August 26, 1988 ,
the Cita' of 'Walnut Creek filed an appeal with this Board,
14
raising for the first time its specific concerns over the
adequacy of the CA documentation relied on by the Planning
Commission when approving the Project ' s Final Development
Plan 3019-88 . The focus of those City concerns have been the
adequacy of the ,'County's traffic impact analysis, its Notice of
Intent to Rely on a Prior FIR prepared in conjunction with the
Project 's Final Development Plan 3019-88 , 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 Protect.
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 3019-88 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 30,19-88 will supersede those of the
Planning Commission. Therefore, the adequacy of the Planning
Commission's actions, ;determinati;.ons and findings is no longer
at issue.
15
B. The Environmental Documentation Relied Upon.
The environmental assessment of the Project and its
Final Development Plan 3019-88 consists of the Specific Plan
EIR, as amended by certain supplements and addenda including,
without limitation,, the Realevel,opment Plan EIR (which contains
by reference the full text of the Specific Plan EIR) and the
Air Quality Addendum,, described above. The Board hereby finds
that those documents alone ,adequately and properly assess the
environmental impacts and effects of the Project and its Final
Development Plan 3019-88,, and wakes findings , determinations
and certifications to that :effect, herein.
As explained in gr.eater detail in the draft EIR for
the Redevelopment Plan (pages 1-4) with minor ( insignificant)
exceptions, the Redevelopment plan proposes no new development
not already contemplated in the Specific Plan. In essence, the
Redevelopment Plain provides a financing mechanism for the
public improvements required by the Specific Plan, and assists
with the assemblage or development sites upon which the
Redeveloopment Plan's tax increment financing is based.
Therefore, the County determined that the Specific Plan EIR
(which assessed the need 'f or those improvements and the
assemblage of those development sites) fully applied to the
Redevelopment Phan,, and that the Redevelopment Plan EIR need
only address and assess ithhe .si,gnificant impacts, if any,
associated with the imposition of the Redevelopment Plan ' s tax
increment financing. The Redevelopment Plan EIR concluded that
1fi
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 reaffirmed its impacts assessments, mitigation measures
and other determinations, the Board and the Planning Commission
have found and determined in prior actions that the combination
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 reasons 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 ,
17
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
from either the express requirements of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans or the implementation efforts arising out
Of those :Pl;ans ' 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
mediate, long-term and cumulative effects of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans as a whole, as well as the impacts of the
18
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
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
E.IRs 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
twi.th :such E.IRs limiting their focus to those new effects) .
This Board finds and determines that the Program EIR
is .pro.per 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
19
is apartof those Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and that
the Pra(gram 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
,be characterized as "one large project" and are related as
f o.111ows
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 ®:r ,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 Pun' s area-wide planning approach and will provide
the necessary tax increment, assessment levies , developer fees
an,d :ricght-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
20
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
d. The component development projects are
activitiescarried out under the same Specific and
Redevelopment Plan authority :and have similar environmental
effects which can, have been, and will continue to be, fully
mitigated through similar Plan--nide 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
Specific .Plan and Redevelopment; Plan EIRs , constitutes a
Program EIR 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
Specific Plan, including development of the Project, constitute
a single project which was deemed approved at the time of
adoption of the Specific Plan. Further, pursuant to CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines Section 1518:0 , this Board and this Agency find
and determine that all public and private activities or
undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Redevelopment
Flan, including the development of the Project, constitute a
21
single project which was deemed approved at the time of
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
2 . No ;Bubsecruent 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
3019-88 does not constitute a subsequent activity in the
Specific or Redevelopment 'Plano , 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 thatno subsequent nor supplemental EIR or
env.i:r+oent.al determination, -nor further addendum to the
Program BIR, other than the Air Quality Addendum, is necessary
for the ;Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan or the Project (which
22
constitutes an individual component of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans) for the following reasons :
a. From and after the preparation of the
Program EIR, no substantial or significant changes have been
made in either the Specific Plan or Redevelopment Plan, their
individual component projects or the Project which would
require any revisions to the Program EIR. With the sole
exception of the inclusion of a hotel in the approval of Final
Development Plan 3002-86 and the current substitution of a
smaller office building for that hotel in this Final
Development Plan, the uses, density, and other related planning
criteria contemplated for Area 8 of the Specific Plan have
remained the same since the adoption of the Specific Plan and
Redevelopment Plan, and the Project and its Final Development
Plan 3019-88 is consistent with that criteria. The Board
earlier found and determined that the approval of Final
Development Plan 3402-8'6 -did ,ac;-l": necessitate any revisions or
additions to either the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan,
or the Program EIR. This `Board reaffirms and readopts those
earlier findings and determinations and again recognizes that
the whole of the development which would be allowed in Areas 7
and 8 of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans with the approval
of the Project and -its .F.inal Development Plan 3019-88 will not
differ significantly from that development originally
contemplated in the Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and
environmentally assessed in the Program EIR, and that,
23
therefore, the exchange did not create any new potentially
significant or substantial environmental impacts or mitigations
not already addressed in the Specific and Redevelopment Plans
and the Program EIR. In addition, this Board finds that the
change in one of the approved uses from a 171 , 845 square foot
hotel to a 125,800 square foot office building with 115, 800
square feet of office space and 10,000 square feet of retail
space does not create any n4ew potentially significant or
.substantial environmental impacts or mitigations not already
addressed in the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and in the
Program EIR. The Board finds that there is substantial
evidence supporting this conclusion, and this substantial
evidence consists of the stuff report dated August 16, 1988,
which determines that this office wilding is "roughly
equivalent" and "comparable"' to the originally proposed hotel ,
as well as the Wilbur Smith Associates traffic study concluding
that this change will have a limited impact on traffic
conditions, which study is referenced in and appended to the
aforementioned staff report,
b. leo 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 any new significant or substantial environmental
impact not covered in the Program EIR. Regional growth and
traffic generation have occurred as contemplated. The original
24
traffic analysis and subsequent Plan Area studies all reveal
that the circulation and parking mitigation measures
established by, financed through, and implemented in
furtherance of, the Specific and Redevelopment Plans and their
component projects ' ( including the Project ' s) conditions of
approval avoid and/or 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 Redevelopment 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 available, including without limitation, ( i) any
information which would show that the Specific and/or
Redevelopment Plans, their individual component projects , or
the Project would have significant ;effects not discussed in the
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 Project than was discussed in the Program EIR;
(iii) any information that mitigation measures previously found
feasible have become infeasible; or ( iv) information that other
25
alternatives or mitigation measures exist which were not
considered in the Program 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 Iand 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 un{der , and in accordance with, CEQA,
the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable regulations of the
County, including without limitation, all requirements of
published, posted and mailed notices pursuant to all of the
foregoing, statutes, Guidelines and regulations . The
environmental review process has been carried out with full and
adequate opportunities for review and comment by members of the
public and .interested public agencies . No person or agency has
.been deprived of full and fair opportunity and ample time to
comment on each document comprising the Specific Plan,
Redevelopment Plan, Program EIR or the Project . This Board
further finds that the Project, its Final Development
26
Plan 301.9-88, 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
than 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 :3019-88 .
This Board hereby finds and determines that the
Program EIR as addended by A .r Quality Addendum adequately
assesses the impacts and effects of the Project and its Final
Development Plan 3019-88 .
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
recmmends specific mitigation measures for each such effect .
ane ,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
27
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 .
1 . The Record.
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings identified
hereint 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.
28
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.
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 .
29
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
folle,win+g 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
al:r <quali.ty impacts may be significant during cold start
'periods because of the concentration of parking facilities
vi-thin the Plan area.
Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
adverse ion-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
laoca:lized air quality impacts identified in the Program EIR,
will substantially lessen air quality impacts elsewhere in
Contra Costa County and other major travel corridors and
em-plooymezast icenters in the Bay Area.
(1) An air quality impact assessment
wi.11 be required before any major parking improvement project
,.will be ;permitted within the Redevelopment Plan Area and
30
specf'ic mitigation measures designed to minimize local air
qu,a1i, y impacts will be required of parking improvements
proj eats,.
(2) Require support for , and
part:i(cip.ation 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
oard '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 S.pec°ific Plan proposes to maintain high air quality by
estaab'lishing a land .use pattern which supports a transit option
aura represents a change from automobile-oriented development
patterns. By attracting future growth to an area having
_ 1,
e cceent 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
fac:ia:it:ies, the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan actually
reduceidependency �on the automobile. The alternative
development pattern of more distributed growth, while avoiding
localized air quality impacts , would necessitate far greater
dependenncy 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
31
beneficial impact on regional air quality, the Program EIR
projects that as a result of the new BART parking facilities
permitted b�y 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-
specific TSM 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 and deter mines that the air quality impact is further
mitigated to ;acceptable levels by the conditions of approval to
the Project"s Final Development Plan 3019-88 which require that
the Project camply with the County Transportation Systems
Management ('TSM) Ordinance and that the Developer work with the
Pleasant 'Bili BART Station Area TSM Committee ( "TSM Committee" ) .
Conclusion: To -the e-�t,ent 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
32
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.
b. No i s e ITkact .
Facts: The Program EIR projects increases in traffic
on the 1-680 corridor and Treat Boul-evard 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 following mitigation 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 process to include review of acoustical attenuation
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
33
projections . Whenever 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, torientation 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 Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds and determines that noise impacts are 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 r.edu^e the amount of traffic on the
I-680 and Treat Boulevard corridors .
This Board further finds sand determines that the noise
impact is further avoided and,/for mitigated to a level of
insignificance by other conditions of approval to the Project ' s
34
Final Development Plan 3019-88, which 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 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 .
Conclusion: To the extent that noise 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
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 EIR 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:
35
(1) 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 .
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
36
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.
Additional Mitigation Measures : This Board further
finds and determines that the energy impacts are further
zv,oided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
conditions of approval to the Project ' s Final Development Plan
3019-88 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
'laterbe .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
�.e5:cr -bed in Section H, "Statements of Overriding
,Considerations, " contained herein.
37
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
Spec.ifIc and Redevelopment Plans .
Findings and Mitigation Measures : With regard to the
t.ransportat-ion and circulation impact, the Board has adopted
and hereby readopts the following mitigation measures and finds
that ,theeir adoption substantially lessens the significant
indlivIdual and cumulative impacts of the Project alone and as a
component of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans , and of the
Spec'ific and Redevelopment Plans, as identifiedinthe Program
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 1-680
off-rapp. ,,onto the east-bound direction of Treat Boulevard.
38
(4) Amend the Specific Plan to provide
potential future financing for an additional right turn
movement from the north-bound North Main direction onto 1-680,
providing an additional freeway lane for merging traffic .
(5) Amend the Specific Plan to include
restrictions on lane direction movements within development
area,s II .and 12 to eliminate through north-south movement
between, Treat Boulevard at Oak Street to Buskirk and Las Juntas .
(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
the maximum extent feasible, increased access of BART patrons
through the addition of local transit service before permitting
additional BART patron parking at the Station Area .
(7) Revise the parking requirements
included in the Specific Plandownward. Establish no minimum
parking requirement except for convenience retail uses , and
lower 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
participation in a `TSM service.
Discuss-ion: The above mitigation measures are
suggested in the Specific Plan EIR and were adopted by the
Board ofZupervisors by Resolution No. 83/805 on June 7, 1983 .
39
'The Program EIR indicates that traffic volumes will
increase in the local area as a result of the development
permitted by the Specific 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 accommodate projected increased traffic in the area.
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 significant environmental impact identified in the
Program EIR,
,,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
which the Project has been assessed substantial development
fees, agood portion of which has been, and will be, used for
the construction of transportation and circulation improvements
including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Treat Boulevard widening;
2 . Oak Road extension and widening;
40
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 .
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 3,019-88 which require the following,
(1) Unless exceptions are specifically
granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road
Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code . This
includes constructing road improvements along the frontage of
Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road, 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 will be
required to complete these improvements .
(2;) Furnish proof to the Public Works
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
improvements .
41
(3) Submit improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department,
. Engineering Services D-.3J.VJLS1*On, 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
improvement plans shall the submitted to the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services 'Division, prior to the
issuance of any building permillE . 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 improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post
bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the
work.
(4) Prior to issuance of building
permits, either assist in the creation of and participate in
parking fee assessment district or pay a one-time fee of $0 . 50
per gross square foot .
(5) Pay Pleasant Hill BART Specific
Plan fee. It is acknowledged -.Jaat the applicant has, by virtue
of participation in Assessment Districts 1983-1 and 1987-1 ,
prepaid its Specific .Plain Fee for 410,274 gross square feet of
building on the property.
42
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 fully 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 and Redevelopment Plans, and the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans themselves . This Board finds and
determines that the data used by the authors of the Program EIR
-are accurate, that the Program EIR properly assesses all
Project mipacts, including cumulative impacts, and, as more
fullyset forth above, 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 studies this Board reviewed and
considered and which studies are a portion of the substantial
upon wich this Board relies) , the short-term, I
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 substantial evidence
contained in recent traffic studies ( including without
Limitation,, the traffic studies conducted by Wilbur Smith
43
Associates, Abrams & Associates and the City of Walnut Creek)
when determining that the Program EIR's and the Project ' s
mitigation measures regarding cumulative impacts are adequate.
. 'These studies have presumed a rate of regional growth
(development) as well as the development in the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans . Those regional growth assumptions have
,been accepted by all local agency representatives on the
Steering Committee, and were considered by this Board prior to
making the findings and determinations contained herein.
b. To the extent that traffic/circulation
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 impact later be discovered to remain despite such
mitigation measures, this Board hereby finds and determines
that the impacts are overridden by the specific economic,
,s,ocial andother benefits described in Section H, "Statements
of Overriding Considerations, " contained herein.
e. Public Services and Facilities Impact .
Facts : The Program EIR 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
44
of the mitigation measures described herein are necessary to
address this impact, as the central 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
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 to provide a mechanism for financing necessary public
improvements, including road aria sewer improvements .
Therefore, the Program EIR concludes that no measures are
required to mitigate the Project ' s impact on public services
and facilities .
45
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 3019-88 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 .
(2) Unless exception are specifically
granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road
Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. This
includes constructing road improvements along the frontage of
Buskirk Avenue, (yak Road and Wayne Drive. The 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
46
of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and
drainage improvement.
(`6) Submit improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department,
Engineering Serv.ices .Division, for review and pay the
inspection, pian 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 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
completionof the work.
(7) Prior to issuance of building
permits, either essist in the creation of and participate in a
parking fee assessment district or pay a one-time fee of $0 . 50
per gross square foot.
(8) Pay Pleasant Hill BART Specific
Plan fee. It is acknowledged that the Developer has , by virtue
47
of participation in .Assessment District 1983-1/1987-1, prepaid
its Specific Plan Fee for 410,274 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
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 B, "Statements of Overriding
Considerations," contained herein.
E. Findings Relating to Impacts Found to be
Insignificant.
1. 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 not include impacts upon water resources 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 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
4,8
}
. Redevelopment Plans ' implementation, this Board finds and
determines 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
significant 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
measurers set forth below.
Mitigation Measures : As stated in the Program EIR,
the Specific Plan included the following two items relating to
water impacts:
a. Site Analysis by a certified engineer prior
to Site Development.
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 plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No . 83-805 on
June 7, 1983 . 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 impact 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
49
to a level of insignificance by the conditions of approval to
the Project's Final Development Plan which required that the
irrigation system conform to the County Water Conservation -
Policy, that the Project comply with Division 914 (Drainage) of
the Subdivision Ordinance, 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 Board findsend determines that the
above-stated conditions of approval and mitigation measures
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 Plans, 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
'5 0
r
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 Pians and Is a part of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans' atnp.lementation, this Board finds and
determines that the Pr,oJ ect will not have any significant
adverse earth impact. In 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 impact's aremitigated to a level of
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 ig ,nds .and determines that this
site analysis eitherwas performed as a part of the development
approvals prior to this :F':inal Development Plan, or will be
completed prior to dev,e.li®.pment .o.f 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.- '.T.o the extent that the earth impacts of
the Project are significant, this Board finds and determines
'S1
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.
3 . Plant and Animal Life Impacts .
Facts: The Program E11 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
listinglof 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
52
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
in the Plan adopted by the Board by Resolution No. 83-805 on
June 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
53
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
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 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
54
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 .
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
Sectson `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
aesthetic impacts in its listing of unavoidable adverse impacts .
Findings: Based upon the foregoing, this Board finds
that the 'Program EIR determined the aesthetic impacts of the
55
Specific and Redevelopment Plans to be insignificant . Because
the "P:r ject 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
adver.sse impact relating to aesthetics . In the alternative, to
theextent that any impact of he Project may be considered to
be a ,sigificant 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 wand massing of buildings, height limits, street setbacks
and property line setbacks, public spaces, pedestrian
cirtcryulat.ion, :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
dune 7 119`8.3 .
Additional Mitigation Measures : The Board further
finds that any aesthetic impacts of this Project are further
ave1ded .,or ;mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
conditions ofapproval to the Project ' s Final Development Plan
whi•.c~h require any changes to building materials and colors to
be ;approved by the 'Zoning Administrator , require any
56
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 parking
area' s 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
avoided and/or mitigated such impacts to a level of
insignificance. Should such impacts later be discovered to
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 .
.11. 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
57
the area' s increased demand for public services and facilities
and which will a.11ow a mechanism for funding, constructing
and/or encouraging the :completion and use of public
transportation f,,aci,lities such as BART, bus lines and other
public facilities. Should any such impacts later be discovered
to remain despite such mitigation measures, this Board finds
and determines that �suxch impacts are overridden by the specific
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 Guidelines recognize that
with certain proJe.cts,, the only feasible mitigation for
cumulative impacts muay involve the adoption of planning
regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a
project-by-project basis. Further., CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines recognizie that a summary of projections contained n
an adopted planning program which is designed to evaluate
regional or areawide ,conditions is adequate and proper when
discussing cumulati\ve in- pacts. 'This Board finds and determines
that the Program 'EIR as addended adequately assesses the
cumulative impacts resulting from the Specific and
'58
Redevelopment Plans and their component parts and projects,
including the Project, in that theSpecific 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
constructed. Because the Specific and Redevelopment Plans are
regional/area-wide in scope, because they contain a summary of
their component projects, and because the Program EIR has
addressed and assessed those area-wide impacts caused by those
Plans , their component projects, 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.
59
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 Plan, this Board finds and determines that it is also
appropriate to consider them as alternatives to the adoption of
the Redevelopment Plan, and its component projects, including
the Project, as the Specific Plan could not be implemented
without adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and its component
projects ( including the Project) .
1 . No Proiect 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. Ira other words, the "no project"
alternative would have been the continuation of the County
policies in the 1975 County Area General Plan without the
:Specific and Redevelopment Plans, and their component projects ,
including the Project, and without the General Plan amendments
needed to adopt those plans . The County Area General Plan,
prior to Specific Plan adoption (and General Plan amendment)
60
r
incorporated the same mix of residential and commercial/office
uses as the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, but differs
in detail as to precise location and provides 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.
As the Specific Plan EIR 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 . Underutilization of the project area would
lead to more dispersed development in areas with less transit
ac.ce.ss, 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
61
of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the "no
project" analysis regarding the Specific and Redevelopment
P'lans 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 the development of its
-component projects, including the Project (as set forth in
Final Development Plan 3019-88) . The "no project" alternative
as it relates to the Project would, therefore, result in a lack
of tax increment from SubArea 8, which in turn could jeopardize
the Agency' s ability to repay its obligations, including the
Tax All.ocation 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 residentialdensity 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
62
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
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
63
provided by BART and 1-680, 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
and housing in the Station area so as to better utilize the
regional transit :accessibility provided by BART. " Specific
Plan 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 increm-entgenerat I ed from its component projects,
including the ,Project, the -assessment of alternative sites for
the component projects, including the Project, is likewise not
applicable.
d. 'Given the passage of time and the
establishment, formation and execution of Plan-wide
improvements, 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 app icable, and inappropriate.
'The Board hereby reiterates and reaffirms the findings
of the Board contained in Ordinance 84-30(RD) specifically
relating to the infeasibility of the Project alternatives . In
addition, this Board finds and determines that the
establishment and formation of the Assessment Districts
described herein, the Agency and its tax increment financing
approach, and the creation of assessments and expected tax
increment upon and from the Project property for the purpose of
providing funds for the implementation of the Specific and
Redevelopment Plans (and their component projects, including
this Project) is further reason why the project alternatives to
the Specific and Redevelopment Plans , their component projects,
including 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
already constructed and others of which will be constructed in
the future.
65
H. Statements of Overriding Considerations .
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant
impacts and their mitigation measures described above, the
Board has found and determined and this Board hereby again
finds and determines pursuant to CEQA and Section 15093 of the
CEQA Guidelines that the benefits of the Specific Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan and their component parts and projects,
including the 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.
With reference to the above findings and in
recognition of those facts which are included in the record,
the Board has determined that the Specific and Redevelopment
Plans and their component parts and projects, including the
Project, would contribute to a localized air quality impact
which is considered adverse. Further, to the extent that any
other impacts recognized in the Program EIR (as addended) have
not been avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance
(including without limitation all traffic, parking, noise,
water , earth, plant :and animal life, energy, public service and
facilities, housing 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
substantial adverse impacts . These reasons are as follows :
6.6
1 . Although the Specific and Redevelopment Plans
(and their component projects, including the
Project) may have an adverse impact on localized
air quality, the Plans will significantly lessen
air quality impacts elsewhere in Contra Costa
County and other major travel corridors and
employment centers in the Bay Area;
2 . The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component projects, including the Project)
provide an opportunity for the County to make
necessary physical improvements to the road
system, sewer system, and other public
infrastructure systems which could not otherwise
be made, as no other public or private funds are
available for this purpose at the present time or
in the foreseeable future. These improvements
will benefit both the Plan Area and the entire
County;
3 . The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component project's, 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
provided by BART and Interstate 680 , the area ' s
central location in Contra Costa County, and the
67
public and private investment in the surrounding
areas;
4 . The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component projects, including the Project) will
prevent preemption of land suitable for
intensification by low intensity development or
uses which will not contribute to increased
regional and local transit usage;
5 . The Specific and Redevelopment Plans (and their
component projects, 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 component projects (including the Project)
68
ensure, to the extent feasible, that the existing
need for community services 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
and payment of assessments and fees, that
Plan-wide improvements (mitigation measures) are
commenced and completed.
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH
THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, 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
69
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
that the goals applicable to the Specific Plan area include
orderly organization of land 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
Tong-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 hands west and south of the BART Station is
established to provide for administrative and professional
office development . This Board finds that this Final
Development Plan, including the substitution of a 125,800
square foot office building for a larger hotel , furthers this
70
designation in the General Plan, and is consistent with the
remaining provisions of the General Plan. 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.
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
discussed above, this Board finds that the Project is
consistent with the County General Plan.
B. Consistency With the 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. 2658-RZ
and .Final Development Plan No. 3002-86, the Board determined
that those plans were consistent with the Specific Plan. This
Board finds that the aforementioned Preliminary Development
71
Plan, and Final Development Plan 3002-86 as amended by this
action, continue to be consistent with the Specific Plan, and
incorporates herein by reference, reaffirms and readopts the
findings made in connection with the adoption of those
preliminary and final development plans .
In addition, the Staff Report confirms that the
substitution of a 125,,800 square foot office building for the
previously approved 171,815 square foot hotel is consistent
with the Specific Plan designation for Subarea 8, and that this
office building is comparable to the originally approved
hotel . Based on the foregoing, and because the gross square
footage of the office building is within the limits allowed for
Subarea 8 in the Specific Plan, this Board finds that this
Project is consistent with the Specific Plan.
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 made 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
thattheProject 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 the Specific
72
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 Staff Report, the Preliminary
Development Plan provided for two hotels and one office
building, in addition to .an :existing office building, within
Subareas 7 and 8 of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Specific Plan. This `Project provides for a 125,800 square foot
office building in place of the previously approved 171 , 845
square foot hotel . 'The Staff Report concludes that this office
building is comparable t,o the hotel . This Board concurs with
that conclusion and, accordingly, finds and determines that
this Project is consistent with the Preliminary Development
.Plan.
III . FINDINGS RELATIVE TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
AND APPROVAL
The amendment and approval of the final development
plan for the Project requires certain findings pursuant to
'Section 84-66 . 1406 o:f the Contra ,CostaCounty Code . The
approval of this Final Deve'llopment Plan as amended also
requires certain findings relating to a minor variance from the
Specific Plan policy on compact parking spaces, including
findings pursuant to Section 26-2.2006 of the Contra Costa
County Code. The Board hereby makes the findings set forth
below.
73
A,. Findings Required Under Section 84-66 . 1406 .
1 . The Developer has informed the County that
it expects to commence construction of the Project pursuant to
the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement entered
into with th e Agency. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds
that the time at which the Developer intends to start
construction of the Project is consistent with the requirements
of CountyCode 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 toprovide adequate commercial facilities of the type
proposed. 'The location of office improvements
ovements 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 3019-88, and based upon the Wilbur Smith
traffic study in the Staff Report) this Board finds
and det=ermines that the change in land use will have a limited
impact upon area traffic, traffic congestion will not likely be
created by the Project and any increased traffic will be
74
mitigated by presently projected improvements and by provisions
in the Final Development Plan 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 and determines that the
Project, together with the Specific Plan, constitutes a plan
for the harmonious and integrated development of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area and particularly Subareas 7 and 8, and
further finds that the development of a harmonious, integrated
plan for the Project justifies exceptions from the normal
application of theContra Costa County Code.
B. Findings Related To The Minor Parking Variance .
The Staff Report states that approximately 55% of the
parking spaces which are to be provided in the integrated
parking plan for Subareas 7 and 8 are compact spaces , and that
this amount is slightly over the Specific Plan limit of 50% for
compact spaces . The Staff Report recommends approval of this
minor variance to the parking policy on compact spaces . Staff
also recommends certain revisions to the dimensional
requirements in the parking plans as set forth on page 6 of the
Staff Report. This Board finds and determines that the
aforementioned minor variances and modifications from the
specific provisions of the Specific Plan as set out above are
75
allowable and desirable from the standpoint of fostering
flexibility of design and location of parking improvements, and
that said variances and modifications fully satisfy and comply
with the intent and direction of the Specific Plan. In
particular , the Board finds that these minor variations in the
dimensions of standard spaces and in the ratio of compact
spaces to standard spaces, do not, based on the Staff Report,
adversely affect the parking capacity within Subareas 7 and 8 .
The Board further finds and determines that pursuant to the
order of the Board issued April 10 , 1984 , adopting the
amendments to the Specific Plan contained in Resolution
No . 15-1984 of the County Planning Commission, the Board is
empowered to approve variances from the provisions of the
Specific .Plan upon a finding, as set forth herein, that the
intent of the Specific Plan is satisfied.
In addition, pursuant to Section 26-2 . 2006 of the
Contra Costa County Code, the Board makes the following
findings :
1 . The Board finds that these minor variances
and modifications relating to parking do not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other
properties in the vicinity and the Specific Plan area. In
particular , the Board finds that these minor variations are
consistent with the Specific Plan, as set forth above, and with
other final development plans which have been approved within
the Specific Plan area.
76
2 . The Board finds that, because of the unique
and special location of this property close to the BART
station, and because of the special circumstance represented by
the formulation of a completely integrated parking plan for
Subareas 7 and 8, the strict application of the parking
::dimensions and the compact-to-standard space ratio in the
Specific Plan would deprive the subject property of rights
which are enjoyed by other properties in the Specific Plan
area, including other properties which have received final
development approvals .
3 . As set forth above, the minor variance and
modification authorized as a part of this final development
plan approval substantially meets the intent and purpose of the
Specific Plan
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 3019-88 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 ' p
77
submittals, all relating to the Project and its Final
Development Plan 3019-88 .
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
reference 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 any
particular subject matter of the Project or its Final
Development Plan 3019-88 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 3019-88, including, without limitation, that
presented in hearings on the Project and Final Development
Plan 3019-88 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.
MHZ:kp/5
0551Y/12 . 19 . 8
16798. 100/14676 . 010
78
EXHIBIT "Bre
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3019-88:
1. This final development plan is approved for one 125,800 gross square foot
office building as generally shown in the following attached plans and
renderings:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Preliminary Landscape Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
Exhibit D - Section
Exhibit E - Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Parking Plan
Exhibit C - Pedestrian Plaza
Any modifications or revisions to the approved plans shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
2. Approval is based on the aforesaid exhibits, and following conditions,
however all conditions are subject to further review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan shall
serve as the basis for review and it may be that additional requirements,
conditions and/or modifications may be specified following further review.
3. The building materials and colors for the exterior of the office shall be
as shown on the approved sample board. Any charges proposed to the ap-
proved materials and colors shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
4. This approval is limited to a maximum of 125,800 gross square feet and
118,125 net square feet of office development.
5. Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses
which may be conditionally allowed as listed in the Specific Plan (conve-
nience retail sales; eating and drinking establishments; business support
services; financial insurance and real estate offices; medical services;
research services) are subject to review and approval by the Zoning Admin-
istrator.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits final landscape, irrigation and plaza
(hardscape) plans shall be submitted subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator.
A The landscape and irrigation plans shall conform with the County. Water
Conservation Policy. The applicant shall submit a letter from a
landscape architect certifying conformance with the Water Conservation
Policy.
B. The landscape plans shall be designed to. provide ample shading in the
plaza,- and particularly for the outdoor seating areas, during - the
summer months. Minimum plant sizes shall be 24 inch box trees and
five gallon shrubs.
` -2-
C. Landscape screening shall be provided to visually screen all utility
meters., air conditioning and mechanical equipment.
D. The parking areas shall be visually screened in an attractive manner
from all public vantage points through the use of landscaped berms,
trellises and plant materials. Plans, elevations and section shall be
provided of the trellises 'lproposed around and in the parking area.
Perspectives from the public viewing points shall also be provided. ,
The landscape plans shall include the proposed plant materials for
these trellises.
E. The final plaza plans shall include samples of the proposed pavers and
paving patterns. The pavers shall be coordinated with the exterior
building materials and colors. The review of the paving colors will
. include consideration of the reflective value of the material with
respect to light and heat.
F. The final plaza plans shall incorporate benches for outdoor seating in
the grove of trees near the entrance to the parking lot on the Wayne
Drive frontage of the site.
7. Prior to approval of final building plans or final landscape plans a wind
study for the Station Oaks office and all of the developments in Sub Areas
7 and 8 shall be prepared and submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval . The reports recommendations relative to the plaza
areas shall be incorporated into the plaza and landscape plans. Modifica-
tions to the structure may be required as a result of this study.
8. , Prior to issuance of building permits, pians for pedestrian/bike paths
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval . A
separate path may be provided for bicycle traffic. A pedestrian/bicycle
path should be incorporated under a trellis or arbor running from Oak Road
along the rear boundary of the amended area to the northern end of the
Station Oaks office, and then branching east towards Oak Road or west to-
wards Buskirk Avenue.
9. Plans for providing secured bicycle storage on the site with easy access
shall be submittedvfor review and approval by the Zoning Administrator
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, revised parking plans shall be sub-
mitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator using the fol-
lowing dimensions:
Standard spaces = 9 X 19 feet Aisle Width = 24 feet
Compact spaces = 7 1/2 X 15 feet Aisle Width = 24 feet
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed sign program shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval . The number
and location of signs shall be limited to those presented in the conceptual .
sign program (Exhibit H) (2 wall signs at. the parapet on the west
7.
-3-
a
elevation; 1 numeric address sign over the main entrance on the east ele-
vation; 1 monument plaza sign; and one retail tenant identification for
each shop to be located over the door on the east elevation) . The detailed
sign program shall include guidelines and specifications for the sign siz-
es, materials and lighting. Solid metal letters with matt finish are rec-
ommended for the signage on the west building elevation and the plaza mon-
ument sign. A granite or architectural concrete base matching the exterior
building material is recommended for the monument plaza sign.
12. Comply with the County Childcare Ordinance.
13. Comply with the County TSM Ordinance and work with the Pleasant Hill BART
Station TSM Committee.
14. A watering program (complete coverage twice daily) shall be employed for
dust control during project construction.
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 removal 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.
18. If archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other
on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall
be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the So-
ciety for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of
the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary.
19. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows: 1.
A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, . this development shall
conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdi-
vision Ordinance. - Conformance with the Ordinance Code includes the
following requirements:
1. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed
.:and__banks.-or'_to= an exi sti n ade nate storm drainage a facility. -`-
2.
l i t
9 = q 9 Y--.__ _
2. Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of
the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
r
^W;:..,. ,,;-. ... .._. - ..:-. . r .. � ...... ._...n-a-..�.;,.....•..w:::t,.:� '�`a""•r.7"x'.r... y.�`,ce.,,,x.u.::.x."".'wa.',•`.,".r
-4-
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. Construct frontage. improvements along Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road,
and Wayne Drive. Frontage improvements including curb and pave-
ment widening have been constructed along all of the frontages.
A portion of the required sidewalk improvements have been con-
structed along the frontage of the existing building at the
southwest corner of the site. The applicant will be required to
construct sidewalk along the remaining portion of the site`s
frontage.
C. Install all new utility distribution services underground.
D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in 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
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or 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 re-
view; 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 the issuance of building permits, pay the 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 410,274 gross square feet of building on the
'property'.:'. _... _.. .
H. The applicant shall further mitigate traffic impacts by participating
equitably in a regional transportation mitigation fund by consenting
to, and assisting with the creation of, and participation in; a park-
_.t___ing ..f ee_:.assessment -district or .by the payment of a one time -'50� LL per -
gross square foot fee.
20. All lease agreements and future tenants shall agree to use Pleasant Hill
addresses.
♦� 1
21. 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.
22. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. , Monday through Friday.
The following requirements are not Conditions of Approval , however the applicant
and developer should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits.
Building Inspection Department
1. A soils engineering report is required prior to issuance of building and
grading permits.
2. A supervised grading permit is required and final grading reports will be
required.
3. Building permits are required.
Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District
1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire
District. (See attached letter dated June 13, 1988. )
Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division
1. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environ-
mental Health Division. (See attached letter dated June 22, 1988. )
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
1. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
(See attached letter dated July 12, 1988) ,
Contra Costa County Mater District
1. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Water District.
JH:vpl
H2/a:3019-88.rnb
Revised 8/16/88
Revised. 12/13/88
•
ti f•
1 - Gos*�coyr' •
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT
2010 GEARY ROAD '"� nissa�La PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523-4694
{415)930.5500
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
June 13, 1988
A ch rn
tta %MP17ts
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Jane Hershberger
Subject: 3019-88, Oak Rd,
Dear Ms. Hershberger:
We have reviewed the development plan to establish a 125,000
square foot office building at the subject location. This
project is regulated by codes and ordinances administered 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 rwquired:
I. 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
2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water
supply for fire protection as set forth in the Uniform Fire
Code. (10.301c)UFC
3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of
not less than 20 feet_ unobstructed width, and not less than
13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel
distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every
building. Access 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
PParatus(31 --tons)
- •
o. d.-Y#.ra 5sr,-u-wn+ya�•a-: r„-,r. - _.. ..._.,.-: .. : ___._ .r....: .. .. . _ _ ._E ...a
• '' CCC Community Development
3019-88, Oak Rd. _,
Page 2
NOTE: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have
curbs painted red and "NO PARKING" signs posted.
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.
Roads divided into one-way lanes bya 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 otherwise required by
this or any other code. (10.207)UFC
4. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet
long shall be provided with approved provisions for the
turning around of fire department apparatus. (10.207a)UFC
5. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service
prior to combustible construction. (10.301d)UFC
6. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such
-numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily
visible from the street. (10.208)UFC
7. 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.
S. A pro-rata fee of 20Q per square foot shall be assessed to
partially offset initial expenditures for- additional
necessary fire service resources.
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.
..,.+..::..,....,. ...:-.,...:: e,= r�..�se?;£. K=+rk ,.:,ma§ ,.yrs:.. �..x.:. .......r. ,c ,... x+x... ...w ,ter+• +..r.n..,svy :+ar'• sr-.r«.!R +` ^.u....-..
• CCC Community Development
3019-88, Oak Rd.
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this ma tter, :please contact
the undersigned.
Since el;,
Chester Nelson
Fire Inspector
CSN:vw
cc: Lauren Ward
File
»... _ ....:<.».,.. r-,.,;,:u r„�'»..wrr�+*".+:.'•w. w+cs.. .. . xr-., .._. -,+.. -.,.... ... .. .,t..s1-'s= _ _ .. . :r-+:*.�-r.•...;rw-ic�caa*r.:.._.
CONTRA COSTA Cir JTY .
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL. HEALTH DIVISION
To: Community Development Department Date: June 22, 1988
From: Daniel C. Bergman Subject: Development Plan 3019-88
Assis
t S/t#7HZlth""' Pleasant Hill area
Dire c - e
rJ �
This division has reviewed the tentative map of Development
Plan 3029-88, Pleasant Hill 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 Plan shall be provided by the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District.
2. Water supply serving the properties concerned shall be by
the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
3. -Health Services Department-Environmental Health Division
approval of plans is required for any proposed swimming pool,
spa and restaurant 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 May 23, 1988 shall be
.resubmitted for review to determine if such deviations or
changes for the Development Plan can be considered acceptable
to the Health Officer.
DCB:EBJ:sm
cc: "-Lauren S `V,Ward/Taylor-Ward Properties
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
East Bay-.Municipal Utility District
3A-9 $/$1 SM
us•J%ac .+ :t�.Y-+.e- :..a.k - ,�• r:�aa .-sac r—z--a-- „�..„-.. r,'„
,. e...........r«u_..+w... tR;w y! ?`;w^,a2., -a+v'*s"".F`y!t�sp'^u`awl. i.. ,.. __ _ ..,- .. ._.,. ....+.<�•. _.. - _,...� . •
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
• GkJ Lwtu..rr
wrrs s.llwlro
. Cove.rl/or IAe Dutrfct
. (4I5)938-1430
July 12, 1988 ��� "
secrContra Costa County
Community -Development Department-
County- Administration
epartmentCountyAdministration Bldg., North Wing
P.O. Box 951 "
Martinez, CA 94553
ATTENTION: MS. JANE HERSHBERGER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE PRIOR EIR
(COUNTY FILE 13019-88)
WS: 23
THOMAS BROS. LOC.: 4983
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. We request that the following comments be,
addressed in the final EIR.
1. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND GENERAL DISTRIcr REQUIREMENTS
1.1 The project. site is within the CCCSD boundaries, 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 flow from this project appears to be
domestic .wastewater--such as.. from residential, school, office, or
__.___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
•• LO: ,
County
651 POW
14th Fla.,'' Contra Costa County
Martino Page 3 -
Phone: July 12, 1988 .
I
The Sanitary .District must review and approve any construction plans
involving work on the public sewer system prior to the -developer's
pplying for a building permit. The District's Permit Section will
receive and process the construction plans.
Sincerely,
r �
r
Jack H. Case
Associate Engineer
JHC:ae
J
P
or