Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01252000 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ✓. �. Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: JANUARY 25, 2000 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE DESIGN REVIEW OF A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 180,000 SQ. FT. (SEVEN STORY) OFFICE BUILDING, 15,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL SPACE AND A PARKING GARAGE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OAK ROAD AND WAYNE DRIVE, IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA (JORDAN WOODMAN DOBSON APPLICANTS AND THOMAS PROPERTIES - OWNER), FILE #DP993001 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. APPROVE the final design for Development Plan #993001 as submitted on January 20, 2000. 2. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration as adequate and in compliance with CEQA. 3. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring program. 4. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Cle . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE LAAkel RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEA N OF BOA COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER 7 SIGNATURE (S): \ ACTION OF BOARD ON J a n it a ry 25 , 2 0 0 0 APPROVED AS RECOMMLYNDEDXX OTHER I VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT -- _ } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Maureen Toms 335-1250 ATTESTED J a ri u a r y_ 25 , 2000 cc. Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Public Works Department SUPERVISORS AND OUNTY ADMININISTRATOR B , DEPUTY l January 25,2000 Board of Supervisors File#: Development Plan#993001 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None, the applicant pays all costs associated with processing the application. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Condition of Approval # 4 for Development Plan #993001, approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1999, requires the applicant shall participate in a design review process with representatives from the Walden District Improvement Association, Fox Creek Residential Association, and the Madison Owners Association. The purpose of the design review process is to develop a joint recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the design of the project. The parties have met on several occasions to go over the design of the project. The applicant and representatives of the Walden District Improvement Association, Fox Creek Residential Association, and the Madison Owners Association unanimously agree with the revised design program. Issues related to the exterior design; building placement footprints; setbacks and variances; internal circulation, the concept of pedestrian friendly streetscape and a design that involves engagement of the street were addressed through this process and are reflected in the proposed design. Following is a description of features of the design, which have been agreed to by the applicant and neighborhood representatives. Building Footprints: The proposed project includes subarea 8 and a portion of subarea 7B of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan allows a total of 401,800 sq. ft. for subareas 7B and 8. The two hotels approved for subarea 7B total 151,000 sq. ft. There is 250,800 sq. ft. of commercial uses allowed for remaining at the site. The proposed project includes the development of 180,000 sq. ft. of office space, a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space and a parking garage on a 2.4 acre site. The office building is seven stories (109 ft.) in height and the parking garage is four stories (43 ft.) in height. The approved 195,000 sq. ft. project is substantially less than the 250,800 sq. ft, allowed by the Specific Plan. The intensity of the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan. The applicant has prepared revised plans that bring all the buildings closer to both Oak Road and Wayne Drive. The building setbacks vary from zero to 25 ft. from the property line and generally follow the curve of Oak Road. Retail uses are planned for the ground floor of the parking garage and the office building along Oak Road. Depending on market conditions, the ground floor office uses along Wayne Drive may be available for retail uses. The main entrance to the office building is located at the corner of Oak Road and Wayne Drive. A January 25,2000 Board of Supervisors File#: Development Plan#993001 Page 3 plaza, rear access to the office building, some surface parking, and the access to structured parking are planned for the rear of the property. Exterior Design The proposed design of the project has been revised. The office building has been brought closer to both Oak Road and Wayne Drive. The revised plans call for matted textures on the exterior of the building with warm colors. In addition, the applicant is proposing to non- reflective glass for the buildings. The building design at the street level includes more detail appropriate for retail uses. Details include columns, decorative glass, awnings, and decorative lighting to enhance the retail activities in the evening. A marquee main entrance to the office building is proposed for the corner of Oak Road and Wayne Drive. The parking garage varies in height from 43 ft. in the front and 38.5 ft. in the rear. Five levels of parking are included. The ground floor of the parking garage facing Oak Road contains retail space and the upper levels of the parking garage facing Oak Road have a faux office appearance. The faux office appearance is also included on the north and east elevations of the parking garage. Variances and Setbacks: The variances originally requested for parking aisle width and parking stall sizes have not changed with the design revision. The deviations of the Specific Plan setback requirements (20 ft. setback from Oak Road and Wayne Drive and the 40 ft. stepped setback along Oak Road for the fourth floor and above) are also still requested by the applicant. In fact, since the building is now proposed closer to both Oak Road and Wayne Drive, the deviation from the specific plan requirements is greater with the revised design. A. Variance to 28 foot parking aisle width required by the zoning ordinance to allow a 26 foot aisle width. The applicant has requested approval of the variance to allow a 26 ft. aisle width in the parking garage. The County Code requires the following findings be made prior to the approval of a variance. 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result of the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the property is located. Other projects in the area have received variances from zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. Aisle widths of 25 ft. were recently approved for the Amerisuites, Homestead Village, and the Bridge Housing Projects. It should be noted January 25,2000 Board of supervisors File#: Development Plan#993001 Page 4 that although the proposed parking aisle width does not comply with the County's 28 ft. parking aisle width, it is consistent with the 25 ft. parking aisle width for the City of Walnut Creek. A double-aisle parking garage could fit, without variances, in the deepest portion of the site, the comer of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. However, Specific Plan policies identify this area as an important area for pedestrian oriented retail uses. The parcel is not deep enough for the required aisle width and a double loaded garage in the most desirable portion of the site. Based on the County's past experience, double loaded garages are necessary to reduce the overall mass and impact of the garage, and a reduction in aisle width is justified if necessary to achieve this objective. Strict application of the requirements would require parking garage redesign and massing in undesirable locations, resulting in difficulty in meeting the overall objectives of the Specific Plan. The property's size and shape, combined with the Specific Plan objectives to maximize pedestrian circulation on the site and view corridors from adjacent parcels and to focus retail uses at the corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road, justifies a reduction in parking aisle width. Since the appeal was withdrawn, the variance findings made by the Planning Commission remain. B. Variance to the 19 foot parking space depth required by zoning ordinance to allow 16 foot parking space depth for compact parking spaces:The applicant has requested approval for 80 compact parking spaces with a 16 ft. depth. The findings required for approval of a variance are as follows: 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result of the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the property is located. The Specific Plan policies for commercial parking allows for 50 percent of the parking spaces to be small car spaces (pg. 34). However, the County Zoning Ordinance does not have regulations for compact parking spaces. When needed, the approval of compact spaces are generally handled through variances. The City of Walnut Creek's ordinance allows for 50 percent of parking spaces, intended for long-term employee parking, to be compact spaces. Walnut Creek's minimum requirements for compact spaces is 7.5 ft. in width and 15 ft. in depth. Less than 20 percent of the parking spaces are proposed to be compact. Other projects have received variances from zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. The Bridge Housing project received variance approval for compact parking spaces and over one-half of the parking spaces in the Treat Towers project are compact spaces. As discussed above, the property's size and shape are such that a double-loaded, cam'. January 25,2000 Board of Supervisors File#: Development Plan#993001 Page 5 double aisle parking garage does not fit without the variances in the most appropriate part of the site. The no-variance alternative to the proposed parking garage, would result in one of the aisles of each level of the garage to be loaded on one side only. This configuration would result in a taller parking structure, which would block views from the adjacent Amerisuites hotel. Strict application of the requirements would result in parking garage redesign and massing in undesirable locations. Based on the County's past experience, a double-loaded garage is necessary to reduce the overall mass and impact of the garage, and a reduction in aisle width is justified if necessary to achieve this objective. The overall goals of the Specific Plan are better met with the approval of this variance. In addition, the approval of variance for compact spaces is consistent with Specific Plan policies. Since the appeal was withdrawn, the variance findings made by the Planning Commission remain. C. Deviation from the Specific Plan standards of a(1) 20 ft. setback from Oak Road and Wayne Drive and (2) the 40 ft. stepped (above the fourth floor) setback from Oak Road and 20 ft. stepped setback from Wayne Drive. The minimum setback for structures fronting Oak Road and Wayne Drive is 20 ft. The applicant has requested a minimum setback of zero ft. for some portions of the building. The majority of the building is setback ten ft. from the property line, while some sections of the building have a greater setback. Approximately six ft. of stepped profile is proposed for the office building, however the stepping is not great enough to meet the Specific Plan standard. Through the design review process, the applicant and neighborhood representatives preferred the design that engaged the street by bringing the building closer to the road, resulting in a more pedestrian friendly development. As discussed previously, the depth of the parcel is such that a two-aisle, double-loaded parking garage does not fit without the variances and deviations to the development standards. By locating the most efficiently designed parking garage in the proposed location, with requests for variances and deviations to the development standards, the overall Specific Plan goals and objectives can be met. An alternative parking garage design, meeting all the code requirements and development standards, would result in a taller parking structure to accommodate the required number of parking spaces. The taller structure would obstruct view corridors from the Amerisuites hotel and would not meet the Specific Plan goal of a coordinated design. The County has routinely balanced Specific Plan standards to achieve overall consistency with the Specific Plan. Where appropriate, other projects have similarly construed setback minimums on an overall project basis. Thus, the required finding for approving a deviation to the Specific Plan standard, that the overall goals and objectives of the Specific Plan can be made. Internal circulation: The Specific Plan requires an interior circulation route to serve pedestrians. A six ft. wide interior route is planned for the rear of the property. It is aligned with the interior pedestrian route located on the Spieker Properties Treat Towers development, across Wayne Drive (subarea 10A). The interior route connects easily to the plaza in the back of the office building, �;r January 25,2000 Board of Supervisors File#: Development Plan#993001 Page 6 intersects with the walkway between Oak Road and the porte cochere of the Amerisuites hotel, and continues north to the site of the proposed Homestead Village project. The pedestrian walkway from Oak Road, between the two retail buildings and parking structure, and lines up directly with the porte cochere of the Amerisuites hotel. Vehicular access to the site is via a driveway off Wayne Drive and a driveway entrance from Oak Road shared with both of the hotels. The concept of Pedestrian friendly streetscape and a design that involves engagement of the street: The Specific Plan contains provisions specific to subareas 78 and 8. These provisions include orienting buildings to face Oak Road and to provide a well-defined, pedestrian-scaled street frontage with ground floor retail uses related to the pedestrian environment; locating commercial serving retail uses near the corner of Wayne Drive Oak Road, and the entire development area shall be designed as an integrated project. The minimal street setback along Wayne Drive and Oak Road, together with the buildings oriented to face Oak Road and Wayne Drive provide a well-defined, pedestrian-scaled street frontage with ground floor retail uses related to the pedestrian environment. The revisions to the retail component of the buildings result in a design that increases the project's interaction with the street. The requirement for locating commercial serving retail uses near the corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road is also met with this site plan. CONCLUSION The proposed project, as revised by the design review process, is consistent with the Pleasant Hill SART Station Area Specific Plan. The design review process addressed the exterior design; building placement footprints; a design that involves engagement of the street; issues of setbacks and variances; the concept of pedestrian friendly streetscape and internal circulation as required by Condition of Approval #4. The applicant has agreed to continue working with the neighborhood representatives to develop the detailed elevations, architectural design of the buildings and sign program, as required by Condition of Approval #6. Therefore, staff recommends that the final design for development plan#993001 be approved. Contra lrG! .�. �ennis( .far ;Ori`tmiunity ° t � t! ��'IS Development COSI li u � Y L3evetoperyt,L7irector Department County � :county Administration Building i51 Pine Street ith door.North Wing , S_ WEtR,COf1ftlY ttfC dartinez.California 94553-0095 J,'liv CO :� '�1tTY x .,q r•*...� . SY � �� .PfJTY i 'hone: ` (925)335-1250 "°t�� August 11, 1999 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File # DP993001 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: .IORDON.WOODMAN DOBSON(Applicant)and THOMAS PROPERTIES.(O%yncr), County file#DP993001: Tile proposed project involves the development of up to 235,00 sq. ft.of office space and 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space on a 2.4 acre site(Subarea 713/8) in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area.The proposed project is located at the north west intersection of Oak Road and Wayne Drive in die Pleasant Hill BART Station Area of Contra Costa County. Potentially significant impacts related to aesdictics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and public services have been identified in the initial study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated %0iich reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. A copy of (lie Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department,and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, ' Martinez,during;normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on die adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M:, Wednesdrrf,, September 1, 1999. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the folio-wing address: Maureen Toms,Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor - Martinez,CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday,September 14, 1999. The meeting is anticipated to be held at 7:00 pm at the Board Chambers at 651 Pine Street, Martinez,CA. It is expected that the Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at the same meeting. Interested parties may contact stall at the above number to confirm the time and date of the hearing. Maureen Toms Senior Planner cc:COUCI(}'CUAA(thee'(2 Copies) Public Works-Steve Wnglit C u)ATA\Wtwa\rttwt rv.?oat Ht Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&Sth F=ridays of each month Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: DP993001 (Thomas Properties OfBcetRetail Project) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street.,North Wing-4th floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Maureen Toms (925)335-1250 4. Project Location: The proposed projed is located at the north gest intmection of Oak Road and Wayne Drive in the Pleasant Hilt BART Station Area of the County(APN 148-130-011). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas Properties 3100 Oak Road,Suite 140 Walnut Creet,CA 94596 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use(M-3) 7. Zoning: Planned-Unit District(P-1) 8. Description of Project: The proposed project involves the development of 235,00 sq. ft.of office space and 15,000 sq. ft.of retail space on a 2.4 acre site (Subarea 8 and a portion of Subarea 7B) in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. Surrounding land uses include office buildings, hotels (existing and proposed), multiple-family residential complexes, and retail businesses. The 1-680 freeway is approximately one block:to the tivest of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose.approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval,or participation agreement): None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED° The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the cliecklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ — Public Services Population&Housing Circulation — Utilities & Service Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy & Mineral i Aesthetics Air Quality Resources — Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of a Hazards — Recreation Significance Noise J No Potentially Significant Impacts Identified z DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: , I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ✓ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effcrA on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect is a'potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that aldiougli the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. `= �����.�.�j August I 11999 Signal e Date Maureen Toros CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Environmental Impact Report(certified on October 6, 19998)is a program EIR prepared in accordance tivith Section 15168 of the California Environmental Act(CEQA)Guidelines. CEQA enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for individual development projects proposed for die Specific Plan area. The prograin EIR addressed all of the significant ciiinulative impacts of the amendments to die Specific Plan. Subsequent activities (i.e.,development plans) in the program(specific plan) must be examined 'tit the light of die program EIR to detenniiie wlietlux an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in die program EM,a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Doclaration oC EIR. The applicant provided additional site specific studies,at dic County's rcgticst, to supplement previous analysis prcparod for the Specific Plan Elft. These include traffic analysis, wind and shadow study,and a visual massing study. 1 3 The EIR included the evaluated a project of the dimensions and density as that which is proposed on Subareas 713 and 8. The EIR found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a las than significant level. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed project and arc identified with an asteriskk in the document(i.e.,Mitigation Measure*). The proposed project does not result in additional significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated by the County in that EIR_ Project specific mitigation measures, which reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level, are also incorporated into the project.. SOURCES In the process of preparing the Check-list and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street.Sth Floor- North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: I. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System-Quad Sheet Panels - Brentwood,CA 2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996)and EIR on the General Plan(January 199 1) 3. General Plan and Zoning Maps 4. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and EIR(October 1998) 5. Project Description 6. Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance prepared for DP963037/LP972076 (two hotels) (April 1998) 7. "Wind Effects Review of a proposed height increase-Thomas Properties Officc/Retail Development, Pleasant Hill BART(June 22, 1999). 8. Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed©fCice/Retail Mixed Use Project in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area (June 15, 1999). 9. Visual analysis(massing and photo simulations) 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: " Notaitia[iy signifiatN Patentialty Unless U=dun signiGaat Mitigation sigair'ant No ientad inwmomtion tnwa`i;t I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effW on a / scenic vista?(Source 1,2,45) b. Substantially damage scuuc resources, ✓ including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(Source 1,2,4,5 ) C. Substantially degrade the existing d .1 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source 1,2,4,5 ) d. Create a new source of substantial light ✓ i or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source 5 } SUMMARY: The proposed project includes an office buildings up to 9 stories in height, a total of 135 ft. in height with the mechanical equipment(120 ft.not including the mechanical equipment). A parking garage up to two-and a half stories above grade(36 ft. in height) with retail uses on(lie ground levels is also proposed at the site. The parking garage is proposed,with retail uses on the frontage along Oak.Road. The retail uses and the office buildings will be oriented toward Oak Road,providing a pedestrian friendly environment. The visual impacts of the parking garage will be minimi=d with the retail frontage on the ground floor, facade on the second floor and above. The architecture of the two buildings are compatible with existing buildings in the vicinity. The property is highly visible from 1-680. However,this portion of I-680 is not designated as a scenic highway in the General Pian. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with building scale and style incompatibilities within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area,the Specific Plan states an objective which places high intensity, less sensitive uses west of (lie BART Station and tower intensity local-serving uses near adjacent neighborhoods. Since the site is on the west side of the BART Station,the impacts associated with the scale of the building are avoided or substantially lessened. The Proposed project,particularly the parking garage has the potential to add light and glare to the area. These impacts can be minimized by requiring lighting to be directed on the applicants property only and die design of the garage to be such that headlights of cars using the parking garage do not shine toward the residential areas. According to the tree survey prepared for the site,Ove Siberian elm trees and one oak may be removed as a result of(lie proposed project. llic following mitigation measures adopted as pari of(lie Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan will be incorporated into the proposed project: ,: 5 Potentially Significant Effect: New construction and future uses could have a significant impact on trees. Mitigation Mcasures«flay: 1. Replace trees on a 2:1 basis. Use drought-resistant species. Require developers to inventory all trees on property and submit to Community Development Department.. 2. Integate tree planting with open space,landscaping and pedestrian circulation plans to unify station area and circulation among the subareas. 3. Enforce the County Tree Ordinance regarding preservation of trees. Impact: The project proposes to introduce additional exterior lighting to the area which includes residential uses. Mitigation Measure(lb): 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. Light standards shall be low-lying and exterior lights on the building shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties; all subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. Impictnentation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially Significant Polentialty t kilo b=than Significant Mitigation significant No frupacl Incorporation Impact Impact CC. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining, u4iedwx impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project.: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, v _ or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source 2,4,5) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 2,3,4,5) c. Involve other changes in the existing cuvironntct►t which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Source 2,3,4,5) G SUMMARY: Tltie site is can-cndy vacant and undeveloped. Since the site is not associated with any agricultural uses,the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. t'ecentiatty significant P®tcMiatty Utd4 s LA=dean sipir'C" hGagatian signitioa& No Imnaa (nawrWaaen Impgd ad Ill. Alli QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source 2,4,5) b. Violate any air quality standard or .� contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(Source 2,4,5 ) C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source 2,4,5) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Source 5 ) C. Create objectionable odors affecting a _ ✓ substantial number of people?(Source 5) SUMMARY: The EIR prepared for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area adequately addressed air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project.. The following mitigation measures adopted for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan will be incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially Srvinificant Environmental Effect.. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulate. Mitigation Measures" (IIIa). During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust controt measures such as the following: 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils,sand and other materials that can be blou7i b)`the-wind daily. 3. Cover all trucks hauling,soils,sand and other loose material or require all construction hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. �J 7 4. Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep street daily,preferably with water sweepers,if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Arca. All Specific Plan alternatives would generate more than g0 pounds of regional pollutants(ROG,NO,PM10). Mitigation Measures*(111b): Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel modes discussed in the Section C above. To mitigate regional air quality impacts: 1. Provide secure and convenient residential and non-residential bicycle parking 2. Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking garages. 3. Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART. 4. Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR_ 5. Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally possible. Po(owtially significant Potentially Unb= Less than significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomocation fmnact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ✓ a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source 1,2,4,5) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any a .� riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source 1,2,4,5) c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,cic.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or oilier means? (Source 1,2,4,5) d. interfere substantially with Clic movement ✓ of any native resident or migratory fish or tvild(ife species or%VL established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or intpcde the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source 1,2,4,5) t z� C. Conitict with any local policies or � f ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source 1,2,4,5) f Conflict with the provisions of an ✓ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state Habitat conservation plan? (Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: The County Resource Mapping System, the department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base,and the Contra Costa Water District Interim Service Area Listed Species Occurrences and Potential Habitat Map,showed no unique,threatened,or endangered species of plants or animals in the project area. Plant life in the project area consists ofnon-native grasses and weds and an oak tree and some elm trees. Mitigation measures adopted Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan to mitigate for the loss of trees will be incorporated into the proposed project(see I-Aesthetics). Potentially siarzwant Potentially Unless Lass than Sigtificant Mitigation Significant No Imp ad lnco�ation Imnact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the protect: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the — _� ✓ significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? (Source 1,2,4,0 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the — i ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?(Source 1,2,4,5) C, Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?(Source 1,2,4,5) d. Disturb any human remains, including _ .! those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the site,dated October 23, 1997,was prepared by Archeo--Tec. Based on surface reconnaissance and a surface archaeological testing program,the report concludes that there is no evident of any archeological resources of potential significance within(lie confines of the subject property. Pocentiaily . Si�ifecant Potentially unless Less dun Significant Mitigation sipLificant No Imnact Inconroration Imtsact ln� act Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would(lie project? a. Expose people or structures to potential 15� 9 substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source 2) 2. Strong seismic ground shaping? ✓ (Source 2) 3.Scisnuc-related ground failure,including liquefaction?(Source 1,2) 4. Landslides?(Source 1,2) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ✓ of topsoil?(Source 1,2,4) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ✓ unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or on-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source 1,2,4) d. Be located on expansive soil,as defiled in 1 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source 1,2,4) e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?(Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: Geotechnical reports have been submitted for the proposed site in conjunction `vith previous development plan applications. At the time ofthe submittal,the reports were reviewed by the County consulting geologist. T'he following mitigation measures adopted for the Specific plan are incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Strong to violent earthquake ground shaking on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements,and in extreme cases, loss of life. Mitigation-Measures*(Via): Require geoteclinical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement and liquefaction. (1) Engineered Glls in the planning area shall be property designed and adequately compacted (t.c, minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by ASTI 131557) to significantly re duce both seismically-induced and natural Gil sculement. (2) All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement ti rithout failure.(3) Final design of irnprovenients shall be made in conjunction with a design level gcotechnica investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation sliall include dccp borings and 14 10 evaluation of liquefaction potential and die report shall estimate the magnitude of differential scalcment. If a high liquefaction potential exists,the report shall include measures to control drainage,including measures aimed at controlling damage to buildings,buried pipelines and surface parking. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect:Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations,slabs and pavements. Mit4tation Measures*(V1b): 1. The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed. Design-tevet geotecluiical investigation for individual projects shall provide criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and County Code requirements on the- basis of subsurface exploration. and laboratory testing. 2. Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations,reinforced slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-level geotechnical investigation. Potentially significant Potendaily Unless Less tfian significant Mitigation Signffieant No Icnnad Incoax"tion Cm»ad Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public _ f or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials?(Source 5) b. Create a significant hazard to the public _ ✓ or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Source 5) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?(Source 5) d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled i pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or die environment? (Source 5) e. For a project located within an airport land 1 use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within tu,o miles of a public airport or public use airport,would die project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in (lie project area. (Source 1,2,4,5) 11 C For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would die project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source 1,2,4,5) g. Impair implementation of or physically .% interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source 5) h. Expose people or structures to a significant _ J risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?(Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: The project has the potential to release hazardous substances,such as accidental petroleum spills, during construction. These potential impacts are minimized to a less than significant level with standard safety practices(i.e.,installing sufficient signs warning about construction and detours,marking of underground lines before trenching,etc.). According to the EIR prepared for the Specific Plan, increased traffic in the area could result in an increase of response time for emergency vehicles. A prior applicant for a project on this site paid a mitigation fee to Contra Costa County for microwave enhancement. incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a less than significant level: Potentially Significant Environmental Effect All alternatives would increase traffic which would have die effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. Mitigation Measures*(Vila): 1. Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. 2. Require new commercial buildings to have life safely systems that include sprinliers, smoke detectors,early warning system, fire rated walls and other requirements of the building code. 3. Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies-and features that address fire suppression,training,traffic signalization to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to facilitate fire protection. Pote 6ally significant Dote n(Ully (JCLII a LAms than significant Mitigation significant No t,Mact tncorxroraiion tmtiad tmnad VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a. Violate any water qualify standards or _ J waste discharge requirements?(2,4,5,6) i b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater(able level(c.g., (lie production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not k-1 12 support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?(2,4,5,6) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓ pattern of the site or area,including through a the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?(2,4,5,6) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓ patternn of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?(2,4,5,6) e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff`? (2,4,5,6) C Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?(2,4,5,6) g. Place housing within a 144-year flood ✓ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (2,4,5,6) li. Place within a 144-year flood hazard area ✓ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (2,4,5,6) i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, — including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2,4,5,6) j. Inundation by seiclie,tsunami,or mudflow? / (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The site is not located within a floodplain or located near a body of water where water-related hazards to people or property could result. The proposed project would increase the impervious surface of the site. The applicant will be required to collect and convey runoff,as specified in Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. This will result in an increase in runoff to the drainage facilities,however the increase in surface«Pater is not considered significant_ The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to a less(Ilan significant level. Impact: The proposed project could result in(lie discharge of sit( from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. Mitigation Measure('Villa): At least 34 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erasion control plan shall be submitted for (lie review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, cxr-avation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15)only,and �f I3 all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15,only erosion control work shall be allowed by die grading permit. Any modification to llre above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspoction Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially sivwlcant Potertialty LW= toss elan sivdfiesnt Mitigation signiricant N40 m ad [noorpaeation rad ac{ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? (2,4,5,6) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (2,4,5,6,7,9) c. Conflict with any applicable habitat J conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The site currently has a General Plan/Specific Plan designation of Mixed-'Use and a Planned-Unit District(P-1)zoning. The Specific Plan identifies die site as sub-area 8 and a portion of sub-area 7B. Specific Plan policies for these sub-areas are as follows: • allows a total of 401,800 sq.fl,which includes 151,000 sq. fl. for the approved hotel uses and 250,800 sq.fl.ofoffice uses and requires 20 percent of usable open space. The maximum story height permitted is five stories,seven stories conditionally permitted and up to ten stories may be allowed under individual circumstances. • Commercial/community uses on Subarea 8 should be primacy unless contained in other aspects of a mined use project on subarea 7B/8. Projects shall have a minimum of 100 feet of frontage along access roads. • Buildings shall be oriented to face on Oak Road and to provide a well defined.,pedestrian-scaled street frontage with ground floor retail uses related to the pedestrian environment. In order to provide for the implementation of the overall plan objectives and area wide policies,the entire development area shall be designed as an integrated project. The landowner shall prepare a master development plan for the entire development area that incorporates the provisions of tile Specific Plan. Primary access to the parcels shall be from Oak Road with secondary access points from Wayne Drive and Buskirk. Commercial retail serving station area employees, BART patrons and Station Area residents in Subarea 7/8 shall be located central to ilio Station Area near the comer of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. The retail design shall incorporate a continuous pedestrian route connection to plazas and pedestrian corridors. • The Specific Plan states that additional building height,up to ten stories, may be allo,,vcd as a result of etre Development Plan process,based on individual circumstances. The project proposes up to 235,000 sq. ft.of office space, 15,000 sq. fc of retail space,and up to 732 parking 14 spaces. The office building will be up to nine stories in height (120 ft. high, excluding mechanical). The applicant also proposed a parking garage with a facade of retail uses at the ground level. The applicant has requested approval of additional height(nine stories total) for the office building. Although the applicant is requesting a nine story building,the square footage of the proposed building docs not exceed the 250,000 sq. ft.allowed in the Specific Plan_ The applicant has considered alternative designs of the project„including a seven story(over a podium). The seven story building over a podium would be measured from the finished grade, which is the podium level. The measurement of buildings from the podium level has been the standard practice in the Pleasant Evill BART Station Specific Plan area. It should be noted that the seven story building(measured from finished Parade)over the podium would be the same height(120 ft.,excluding mechanical)as the nine story building(measured from existing grade)without the podium. The Specific Plan conditionally allows up to seven stories and 108 feet with the following findings: The increase in height (1)will not excate shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space;(2)will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites from other sites in the Station Area;and(3)where a subarea is in multiple ownership,a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed by all property owners within the subarea. In addition,the Specific Plan allows height ofup to ten stories and 150 ft. (pg. 50),based on individual circumstances. The applicant prepared a virtual project analysis,including building mass,elevations,architectural design,shade and shadow analysis,and building height The study demonstrated that the project would not obstruct views from offsite areas nor result in substantial shading of public spaces. A wind analysis was prepared and confirmed that the project would not substantially effect existing wind patterns and would not adversely effect public open spaces. A visual analysis was also prepared and demonstrated that existing views from offsite areas would not be substantially altered Wath project implementation. Last,the proposed project appears to meet the Master Plan requirement for subareas 7B and 8,since the site plan has been prepared so that it is compatible with the uses (two hotels)proposed for the remainder of subarea 713. A project is also allowed to exceed 108 feet under individual circumstances including: (1) statement of extraordinary circumstances;(2)statement of consistency with the intent of the intent of the Specific Pian and the environmental documents certified in conjunction with the adoption of the Specific Plan relative to visual impacts;and(3)visual documentation of the relationships of the proposed building and existing,approved or allowable building within the Specific Plan area. The applicant states that the project meets extraordinary circumstances justifying the proposed building height of 120 ft. (12 feet over the 108 feet allowed for a 7 story building). The project design reduces building mass on the pedestrian level. Therefore,the project is more pedestrian friendly from the park and other-adjacent uses and better relates to neighboring properties. Attention to pedestrian-level use and the relationship to neighboring properties justifies 12 additional feet in height over the otherwise conditionally permitted 108 ft. for a seven-story building. The project meets the intent of the Specific Plan in that it is well within the pemiittedlconditionally permitted maximum building heights of 150 feet and 10 stories. The proposed building height was evaluated in the EIR for the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan,certified on October G, 1998 and,therefore;docs not result in new significant impacts not previously examined by the County. In addition,the visual relationship of the proposed project was examined in context with adjacent uses in the aforementioned sturdics submitted by the applicant. The Specific Plan requires a 3.3 packing spaces per 1,000 sq.fl.of net rentable area for commercial/office space and up to 4.5 parking spaces for per 1,000 sq. ft_of net-rentable area for large-scale retail sales. The proposed project cxcceds the maximum required parking spaces by tk%o percent(15 parking spaces). The applicant has agreed to revise the plan so that the maximum number of parking spaces allowed is not exceeded. c4 15 Patcxaially sigrrilicant Potentially Unraxs L=Chun s4pirw4nt Mitigoioa Significant No imgad (nootr+omtionitmact impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: - S. Result in the loss of availability of a Down ✓ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2,4,5,6) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- _ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project and the site description,the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources. Potattia(ly Significmt Potentially Unless Cess than significant Mitigation Significant No rmnact (n4:*n! ation Icnnad (_rnPad XC. NOISE o Would the project? a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,2,4,5,6) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of J excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(1,2,4,5,6) C. A substantial permanent increase in � J ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1,2,4,5,6) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing%vithout the project? (1,2,4,5,6) c. For a project located within an airport land J use plan or,N%,liere such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in tic project area to excessive noise levels? (1,2,4,5,6) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private •[!»�T l Y G 16 airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The primary source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic on 1-680,trains on the BART system and tragic on local streets. A noise assessment prepared in 1997 for a previous proposal at the site is on file with the Community Development.Depariarnent. The report indicates that the future noise level on the project site is 66-84 dB. The noise element of the County General.plan contains the land use compatibility guidelines for community noise. For office buildings,a noise level of 68-78 dB is conditionally acceptable. Short-term noise levels will also occur during construction. However, standard conditions of approval that include restricting construction hours,traffic flow and heavy equipment usage will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level: Potentially S, ignificant Environmental erect Mvelopment in subareas 713/8 ,l0A and 14A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of 'normally unacceptable! and 'clearly unacceptable'noise levels for development. Mitigation Measures*(Xla): (I)Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site planning and/or use of soundwalls, and(2) interior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows,insulation, full air-conditioning,or building facade treatments. Potentialty Sianifxcant Environmental Effect. Short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific flan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. Mitigation Measures*(3ab): implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM- 5 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: * All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition * Use 'quiet' gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. * Retain a disturbance coordinator-to monitor construction activities and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed,consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the E1R. Potentials Significant Environmental Etlect The proposed parking structure could result in an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. Mitigation Measures(Xdc): Exterior noise levels,emitted from the parking structure,shall not exceed County established acceptable level of 70 dFBA. This may be accomplished through appropriate site planning and/or use ofdesign features of tic parking structure. The projected noise level of(lie parking structure shalt be verified by an acousOcail study to be submitted prior to issuance of the building permits. 17 Pota�tiatly si�rtir�.rn Potentially UW= Leas Uun swicard Mitigation significant No �� Inoctrnocatian Imam( Imnact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: . a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either dircody(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or directly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1,2,4,5,6) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1,2,4,5,6) C. Displace substantial numbers of people, — — necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(1,2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project,no impacts to housing will occur as a result of the project. Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less than Signifiant Mitigation significant No t ME( Innomoration Im act Cmnact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated With the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:(1,2,4,5,6) 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? — 4. Parks? J — 5. Othee Public facilities? SUMMAR The proposed project is within emsting urban boundaries served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, County SlicritTs Dcparttnent, and the various County Departments scning (lit: arca. incorporation oftlic follol,'Mig ntitigation measure will reduce impacts to Police and Dire Services to a less than significant level. v 18 Potentially Significant Environmental Effect All alternatives would increase traffic which would have the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. Mitigation Measures!(XIIla): 1. P4*iire sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Eire District 2. Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprink=lers, smoke detectors,early warning system,fire rated walls and other requirements of the building code. 3. Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies-and features that address fire suppression,training,traffic signalization to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to facilitate fire protection. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. Mitigation Measures*(XIIIb): 1. For new developments, work with Sheriff s office to identify design features of project which discourage criminal behavior. 2. Development in the station area may be required to provide a BART police station depending on the scale of development. 3. If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9,7A,b and 8,discussions should tal=e place among the BART, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creck Police Departments and the County Sheriffs Department to determine if and when BART police should be part of the enforcement effort for these areas. 4. As an increase in traffic is expected to have an increased demand for BART police services, the BART Police Department should be involved in developing the circulation plan at the station area. Potentially Significant potentially thdcss bms than Significant Mitigation Sigritecant hlo Imnad Inoomoration ad ff" act XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of _ existing neighborhood and regional paries or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source 1,2,4,0 b. Does die project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which Wright have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(Source I,2,4,5) SUMMARY: Due to die nature ofthe proposed project,a couuncrciaUrctail development,no significant impacts to parks and recreation are anticipated. 19 roccattatty siVMifiran( e««uiztty trot« LA=titan sicnirwwt Mitigation 8iGufiou i NO �xd ttwoori+ocatioa [mnxd fttvsatx XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: . a. Cause an increase in traffic which is — substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? (Source 1,2,4,5,8) b. Exceed,either`individually or ruminatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(Source 1,2,4,5,8) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ✓ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(Source 1,2,4,5,8) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?(Source 1,2,4,5,8) C. Result in inadequate emergency access? � ✓ (Source 5,8) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source 5,8) g. Conflict with adopted policies,plazas,or � � v •! programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Source 1,2,4,5,8) SUMMARY: The traffic study prepared in conjunction with the EIR for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan included an analysis of the proposed site, based on specific development assumptions. These assumptions are consistent with the proposed project. In addition to the traffic study for the Specific Plan,the applicant submiticd a focused traffic analysis for the proposed project. The additional traffic analysis assessed the traffic report prepared for the Specific Plan EIR and concluded that the street network impacts assessed in the ElR would remain relevant for the proposed project.. The County General Plan designated the Pleasant Hill BART Station area as a Central Business District and hence a LOS of up to E is acceptable in the area. According to the EIR., the LOS at the signalized steady intersecdons operate at CAS C or better during peak[tour. All movements of the unsig7nalizcd study intersections in[lie vicinity of the proposed project operate at LOS D or better in during the peak hours. Thus the proposed project will not significantly impact transportation or circulation in the area. The traffic study prgiared for the Specific Plan Amendment did not identify airy significant curaula6ve impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. Tltus the cumulative impacts due to this project is insignificant. cit' 20 The recommendations identifxcd in the traffic report will be' ted as conditions of approval for the project. Mitigation measures discussed in VII-Hazards and Hazardous Materials reduce potential impacts related to emergency access to a less than significant level. potentiatty sigs�iCicaat ' pow tw(y ual= [.est tfu�n sivewsnt Mkigatioa siodficant No LffWAC* XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,4,5,6) b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,4,5,6) C. Require or result in the construction of new f storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,4,5,6) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed?(2,4,5,6) C. Result in a determination by the wastewater J treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?(2,4,5,6) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient ✓ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2,4,5,6) g. Comply with federal,state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The proposed project is within existing urban boundaries,served by various utilities, including PG& E,Telephone companies,Contra Costa Water District, Central Sanitation District,and Flood Control District. Since the proposed project is within the service boundaries,the project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the utilities. 21 Lf i Potaxtiaity sivlirwAnt Po(agially U tIcss Less tion sipuGpm Mitigation SionirWAW No Imo,ct InconlonGon ad trtu-act XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade — — ✓the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- idually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, /and the effects of probable future projects)? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) c_ Does the project have environmental effects _ — ✓ — which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (1,2,3,495,6,7,&8) SUMMARY: The project:does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,significantly impact biological resources(see#1V-Biological Resources)or eliminate major period of California history or prehistory(see#V-Cultural Resources). No impacts that cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project have been identified. Mitigation measures identified under I-Aesthetics, Ili-Air Quality, VI -Geology and Soils, V11-Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII-Hydrology and Water Quality, XI-Noise,and XIII-Public Services Nvill ensure that adverse effects on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. CMATAMP601PHW993001.IS August to,1999 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM COUNTY FILE #DP993001 The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Development Plan #DP993001 - Thomas Properties (Owner) and Jordan Woodman Dobson (Applicant), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, requiring the establishment of mitigation monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency. I. Potentially Significant New construction and future uses could have a significant impact on trees. Mitigation Measure:* (Ia): 1. Replace trees on a 2:1 basis. Use drought-resistant species. Require developers to inventory all trees on property and submit to Community Development Department. 2. Integrate tree planting with open space, landscaping and pedestrian circulation plans to unify station area and circulation among the subareas. 3. Enforce the County Tree Ordinance regarding preservation of trees. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #14 Method of Verification: Submittal of tree inventory and landscaping plan Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department 2. Potentially Significant Impact: The project proposes to introduce additional exterior lighting to the area which includes residential uses. Mitigation Measure: (lb): 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. Light standards shall be low-lying and exterior lights on the building shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties; all subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Implementing Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #6 Method of Verification: Submittal of lighting Plan Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department 3. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulate. MitigationMeasure: * (IIIa): During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Water or cover stock piles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. 3. Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all construction hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 4. Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #26-I Method of Verification: Submittal of plans and implementation during construction Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit and inspections during construction Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department and Building Inspection Department 4. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Area. All Specific Plan alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants (ROG, NO, PM10). MitigationMeasure:* (IIIb): Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel modes, to mitigate regional air quality impacts: 1. Provide secure and convenient residential and non-residential bicycle parking 2. Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking garages. 3. Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART. 4. Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR. 5. Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally possible. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #11 Method of Verification: Submittal of plans and evidence of programs Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit through completion of the project. Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department 5. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Strong to violent earthquake ground shaking on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements, and in extreme cases, loss of life. Mitigation Measures: * (VIa): Require geotechnical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement and liquefaction. (1) Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately compacted (i.e. minimum 90%relative compaction as defined by ASTI D1557) to significantly reduce both seismically-induced and natural fill settlement. (2) All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure. (3) Final design of improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation shall include deep borings and evaluation of liquefaction potential and the report shall estimate the magnitude of differential settlement. If a high liquefaction potential exists, the report shall include measures to control drainage, including measures aimed at controlling damage to buildings, buried pipelines and surface parking. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #20 Method of Verification: Submittal of geotechnical report Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Building Inspection Department 6. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements. MitigationMeasures: * (VIb): 1. The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed. Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects shall provide criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and County Code requirements on the-basis of subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing. 2. Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations, reinforced slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-level geotechnical investigation. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #21 Method of Verification: Submittal of engineers report Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Building Inspection Department 7. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: All alternatives would increase traffic which would have the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. MitigationMeasure: * (VIIa): 1. Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. 2. Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprinklers, smoke detectors, early warning system, fire rated walls and other requirements of the building code. 3. Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies -and features that address fire suppression, training, traffic signalization to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to facilitate fire protection. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #8/9 Method of Verification: Submittal of Plans Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency 8. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. MitigationMeasure: (VIIIa): At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #25 Method of Verification: Submittal of plans and inspections during construction Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Building Inspection Department and Community Development Department L 9. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Development in subareas 7B/8,10A and 14A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of'normally unacceptable' and 'clearly unacceptable'noise levels for development. MitigationMeasure: * (XIa): 1. Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site planning and/or use of soundwalls; and 2. Interior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows, insulation, full air-conditioning, or building facade treatments. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #27 Method of Verification: Submittal of Accoustical Report Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Community Developement Department 14. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Plan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. MitigationMeasure: * (XIb): Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM - 5 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: * All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; * Use 'quiet' gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. * Retain a disturbance coordinator -to monitor construction activities and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed, consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #26B Method of Verification: Submittal of Plan Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit and inspections during construction Responsible Department/Agency: Building Inspection Department 11, Potentially Significant Environmental Effect The proposed parking structure could result in an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. MitigationMeasure: (XIc): Exterior noise levels, emitted from the parking structure, shall not exceed County established acceptable level of 70 dBA. This may be accomplished through appropriate site planning and/or use of design features of the parking structure. The projected noise level of the parking structure shall be verified by an acoustical study to be submitted prior to issuance of the building permits. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #27 Method of Verification: Submittal of Accoustical Report Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department 11. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. MitigationMeasure: * (XIIIb): 1. for new developments, work with Sheriff s office to identify design features of project which discourage criminal behavior. 2. Development in the station area may be required to provide a BART police station depending on the scale of development. 3. If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9, 7A, b and 8, discussions should take place among the BART, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek Police Departments and the County Sheriffs Department to determine if and when BART police should be part of the enforcement effort for these areas. Implementation Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementing Condition or Mechanism: Condition of Approval #7 Method of Verification: Submittal of Plan Timing of Verification: Prior to issuance of a building permit Responsible Department/Agency: Community Development Department, Sheriffs Department and BART Police Department. C ADATA\WP60\PHOP993001.MTT r1��