Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10192004 - SD6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) Contra REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mosta FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR t DENNIS BARMY, AICP, ,�',> CountvCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement, and Development Agreement—Area 7B, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION($)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: For the purpose of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), DETERMINE the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the project on March 22, 2001 is adequate for the proposed amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement; ACCEPT the resolution of the Zoning Administrator recommending approval of the Development Agreement; FIND the amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement and Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan; APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Redevelopment Director to execute an Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement and Development Agreement between the County of Contra Costa,the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, EOP — Oak Road 1, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and EOP — Oak Road II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company for Area 7B, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area; and DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. No General Funds are involved. i;J t CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: Q YES SIGNATURE: A (� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC04MENPATION O BARD COMMITTE F1 APPROVE ® OTHER % ' It SIGNATURE(S): f ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED [4 OTHER Ej VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XCORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND t r° UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS/AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN• ATTE .Eq...- Contact: q.-Contact: Jim Kennedy—335-1255 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERk OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/AGENCY SECRETARY cc: CAO County Counsel � Community Development By: Deputy Redevelopment Agency via: Redevelopment Agency • Equity Office Properties • Goldfarb&Lipman G;\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Board Orders and Greenies\RDA.BOARD.Area7B.PHBART.10.04.doc BACKGROUND: In 1986, Taylor/Ward Properties and Sonspirit Properties entered into a DDA with the Redevelopment Agency. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65854 et seq. (the"Development Agreement Statute"), the County, Taylor/Ward and Sonspirit also entered into a Development Agreement dated as of February 22, 1989 setting forth certain agreements regarding development of the Property. The Development Agreement was entered into to eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Property, assure installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to development of the project, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the County at the least economic cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. The EOP Parcels are at varying stages in the development process. The Central Parcel has a preliminary development plan #DP01-39019, approved on April 24, 2001, providing for the development of a two(2)story, 49,000 square foot office building. The North Parcel has an approved final development plan#DPOO-3050, approved on April 24,2001, providing for the development of a seven (7)story, one hundred fifty eight thousand (158,000)square foot office building and a parking structure. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project. The subject amendment to the development agreement extends the term of the Development Agreement until February 22, 2011, unless such term is earlier terminated as provided in the Development Agreement. The amended Development Agreement also provides for the lease of the property for temporary parking during construction of the expanded BART Parking Garage. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, EOP shall not have the right to develop the North Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the North Parcel FDP, and shall not have the right to develop the Central Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the Central Parcel PDP and the approved Central Parcel FDP that is consistent with the Central Parcel PDP. Taylor/Ward's and Sonspirit's ownership interest in the EOP Parcels, and their rights and obligations under the DDA and the Development Agreement with respect to the EOP Parcels were eventually transferred to EOP. The term of the Development Agreement was set to expire on February 22, 2004, but was extended by they County until October 22, 2004, pursuant to a series of operating memoranda executed by the County and consented to by EOP. G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Persona[\Board Orders and Greenies\RDA.BOARD.Area7B.PHBART.10.04.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Contra Costa.County Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street, 4h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94533 Attention: Deputy Director-Redevelopment AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (North and Central Parcels) This Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement and Development Agreement("Amendment") is made as of , 2004 (the "Effective Date")by and among the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency("Agency"), the County of Contra Costa(the "County"), EOP-Oak Road I, L.L.C. ("BOPI"), a Delaware limited liability company, and EOP- Oak Road II, L.L.C. ("EOPII"), a Delaware limited liability company, with reference to the following: A. EOPI and EOPII(collectively, "EOP"),own that certain real property in the County of Contra Costa, State of California described in the attached.Exhibit A, Exhibit B. and Exhibit C. The real property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B is referred to herein as the "North Parcel" and the real property described in Exhibit C is referred to as the "Central Parcel." The North Parcel and the Central Parcel are referred to in this Amendment collectively as the "EOP Parcels." The EOP Parcels are part of a larger area(the "Property") that is the subject of the Disposition and Development Agreement("DDA") described below. B. Taylor/Ward Properties, a California general partnership ("Taylor/Ward") and Sonspirit Properties, a California general partnership("Sonspirit")previously owned the Property. Taylor/Ward and Sonspirit also entered into,with the Agency, that certain DDA dated June, 26, 1986 and recorded against the Property on dune 30, 1986 in the Official Records of Contra Costa County(the "Official Records")in Book 12971 at Page 462 and that certain First Amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement dated February 22, 1989 and recorded against the Property March 2, 1989 in the Official Records in Book 14914 at Page 275. The agreements described in this Recital B are collectively referred to in this Amendment as the "DDA" C. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et M. (the "Development Agreement Statute"), the County,Taylor/Ward and Sonspirit also entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as of February 22, 1989 (the "Development Agreement")setting forth certain agreements regarding development of the Property. The Development Agreement was recorded against the Property on March 6, 1989, in Book 14919, Page 193 of the Official Records. The Development Agreement was entered into to eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Property, assure installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to development of the 320\01\177001.6 1 Project, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the County at the least economic cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. D. The term of the Development Agreement was set to expire on February 22, 2004, but was extended by the County until 2004,pursuant to a series of operating memoranda executed by the County and consented to by EOP. E. On or about January 13, 2004, the Agency conveyed to EOPI,pursuant to that certain Grant Deed recorded January 13. 2004 in the Official Records as series Number 11345, that certain real property located in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto. It is the intention of EOP and the County to incorporate such property into the property subject to the Development Agreement. F. Taylor/Ward's and Sonspirit's ownership interest in the EOP Parcels, and their rights and obligations under the DDA and the Development Agreement with respect to the EOP Parcels were eventually transferred to EOP. Such transfer is evidenced in that certain Consent and Assignment Agreement dated December 11, 2001 by and between EOP,the Agency and the County(the "Consent Agreement"). G. The EOP Parcels are at varying stages in the development process. The Central Parcel has a preliminary development plan No. 01-3019, approved on April 24,2001, and effective on May 3, 2001 (the "Central Parcel PDP"), providing for the development of a two(2) story, forty nine thousand(49,000) square foot office building on the Central Parcel (the "Central Parcel Improvements"). The North Parcel has an approved final development plan No. 00-3050, approved on April 24, 2001, and effective on March 3, 2001, (the "North Parcel FDP"), providing for the development of a seven (7) story, one hundred fifty eight thousand (158,000) square foot office building and a parking structure as set forth in the conditions of approval and related drawings for the North Parcel FDP (the "North Parcel Improvements"). H. The development schedule regarding the construction of the North Parcel Improvements and the Central Parcel Improvements is set forth in Exhibit E to the DDA(the "Development Schedule"). Pursuant to Recital F and Exhibit D of the Development Agreement, the Development Schedule is also incorporated into the Development Agreement. I. Section 3 and Section 5 of the Consent Agreement modified the Development Schedule by setting forth certain requirements concerning the timing of the development of the EOP Parcels. The Consent Agreement modified the dates by which EOPII was to apply for the Central Parcel final development plan (the "Central Parcel FDP"), and commence construction of the Central Parcel Improvements. The Consent Agreement also modified the dates that EOPI was to commence construction of the North Parcel Improvements. J. The County, Agency and EOP wish to extend the term of the Development Agreement,the deadline for EOPI's application for the Central Parcel FDP and commencement of construction of the Central Parcel Improvements, and the deadline for EOPII's commencement of construction of the North Parcel Improvements. 3201011177001.6 2 K. Such extensions are consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan(the "General Plan")and the update to the Pleasant Dill BART Station Area Specific Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County on October 6, 1998 (the "Specific Plan Update"). The General Plan land use designation for the Property is Mixed Use. The Specific Plan Update allows the development of four hundred one thousand eight hundred (401,800) gross square feet of general commercial/office/hotel development on the Property(the "Project"). The Final Environmental Impact Report("EIR") for the Specific Plan Update certified by the County on October 6, 1998 evaluated as one of several development alternatives, the environmental impacts related to the development of the Project. L. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing on , 2004, the Zoning Administration of Contra Costa County voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County approve this Amendment. M. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing on , 2004, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County found this amendment consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan update pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65867.5 and approved this Amendment in its entirety, by adoption of Ordinance No. N. The County, Agency and EOP also wish to provide for the possible use of the EOP Parcels as an interim parking lot on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Extension of Development A rg eement. Section 1.2 of the Development Agreement is amended to extend the term of the Development Agreement until February 22, 2011,unless such term is earlier terminated as provided in the Development Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, EOP shall not have the right to develop the North Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the North Parcel FDP, and shall not have the right to develop the Central Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the Central Parcel PDP and the approved Central Parcel FDP that is consistent with the Central Parcel PDP. If EOP desires to propose a change in an approved preliminary or final development and such change is approved by the County, such change shall be incorporated in the Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 of the Development Agreement, which sections require either an Operating Memoranda or a formal amendment to the Development Agreement depending on the nature of the change. Section 2. Development Schedule. The Development Schedule as set forth in the Exhibit E to the DDA and Exhibit D to the Development Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and amended as set forth in Section 2(a)-(c)below. 320101\177001.6 3 (a) Central Parcel FDP. EOPII shall apply to the County for the Central Parcel FDP no later than the date permitted by the County under the Central Parcel preliminary development plan No. 01-3019 (which was approved by the County on April 24, 2001 and became effective on May 3, 2001) and applicable County rules, but in no event later than June 30,2006. (b) Central Parcel Construction. EOPII shall complete construction plans, apply for and obtain building permits and commence construction of the Central Parcel Improvements within the time permitted by the Central Parcel FDP and applicable County rules, but in no event later than two (2)years after the County's approval of the Central Parcel FDP. (c) North Parcel Construction. EOPI shall complete construction plans, apply for and obtain building permits and commence construction of the North Parcel Improvements no later than the date permitted under the North Parcel final development plan No. 00-3050 (which was approved by the County on April 24, 2001 and became effective on May 3, 200 1) and applicable County rules, but in no event later than December 31, 2006. Section 3. Extensions Granted By Executive Director. The Executive Director of the Agency may, at his or her discretion, and upon request from EOP agree in writing to modification or extension of the dates and times set forth in Section 2, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.12 of the DDA. Section 4. Consent Agreement. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Consent Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 5 of the Consent Agreement shall also be deleted in its entirety. All other provisions Consent Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect. Section 5. DDA and Development Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment and the Consent Agreement, all other provisions of the DDA and Development Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect. Section 6. Option to Lease. For the consideration set forth in this Amendment, EOP grants the option to lease the EOP Parcels (the "Option")to the Agency or the Agency's designee (the Agency or its designee shall be referred to as the "Optionee"), which designee may include but is not limited to: (a) a joint powers authority made up of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a rapid transit district established under Public Utilities Code Sections 28500 et seq("BART"); and/or the Agency and/or the County; or(b)the developer developing the property adjacent to the Pleasant Hill Bart Station owned by BART. The term of the Option shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall expire three(3)years thereafter(the "Option Term"). At any time prior to the expiration of the Option Term,the Optionee may exercise the Option by giving EOP written notice; provided however, that EOP may reject the exercise of the Option if, within the ten(10)business days following EOP's receipt of the notice of Option, EOP provides the Agency with a letter of intent between EOP and a prospective purchaser or lessee of the North Parcel or the Central Parcel which letter of intent shall include the following terms: (i)the customary terms for the lease or purchase of the EOP Parcels; (ii) a provision requiring the parties to negotiate in good faith to an agreement evidencing the lease or purchase of the EOP Parcels with 320101\177001.6 4 such negotiations to be completed or terminated within a specified period of time; and(iii) a provision providing for the commencement of construction of the Central Parcel Improvements or North Parcel Improvements within eighteen(18)months following the date of such letter(the "Binding Letter of Intent"). Within fifteen(15) days of the Optionee's exercise of the Option, EOP and the Optionee shall enter into a lease(the "Lease")which shall be substantially in accordance with the following and which shall include other industry Standard terms (e.g. commercially reasonable insurance, security deposit,prohibition on assignment and sublettings, prohibition on Optionee encumbering the EOP Parcels)the specifies of which shall be negotiated by the Optionee, and which shall be approved in advance by the Agency if the Agency does not exercise the Option itself. The Optionee shall have no right to occupy the EOP Parcels except as provided within the Lease. (a) Term. The term of the Lease shall be for an initial term of two(2)years, which may be extended upon mutual agreement of EOP and Optionee(the "Lease Term"): (b) Rent. The Optionee shall pay rent in the amount of One Dollar($1)per year(the "Rent"). Rent shall not include any costs and expenses associated with Optionee's use of the premise subject to the Lease and Optionee shall pay for all such costs and expenses. (c) Use. The Optionee shall use the EOP Parcels only for the purposes of providing interim parking for users of the Pleasant Hill Bart Station owned by BART. (d) Construction and Operation of Improvements. The EOP Parcels shall be delivered to Optionee free and clear of all improvement and tenants and Optionee shall, at its own expense, construct any improvements related to its use of the EOP Parcels (The "Leasehold Improvements"). EOP shall reasonably cooperate with Optionee, at no cost to EOP, in the Optionee's efforts to secure permits and approvals related to its use of the EOP Parcels and its construction of the Leasehold Improvements. Construction of the Leasehold Improvements shall not commence until EOP has provided its written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Optionee shall be responsible for both the operation of the Leasehold Improvements and the maintenance of the EOP Parcels and the Leasehold Improvements during the Lease Term, including taking all necessary measures to prevent any environmental contamination to the EOP Parcels. (e) Taxes and Assessments. Optionee shall pay for all taxes, fees, and charges imposed on the EOP Parcels during the Lease Term. (f) Termination of Lease. At no fault of and at no cost to either party, the Lease may be terminated by either EOP or the Optionee upon three(3)months prior written notice to the other party; provided,however, that EOP may only terminate the Lease prior to the expiration of the Lease Term if EOP provides the Binding Letter of Intent to the Agency. (g) Ownership of and Removal of Improvements. Concurrently with the termination or expiration of the Lease,the EOP Parcels shall be surrendered to EOP in the same condition as they existed at the commencement of the Lease Term. Optionee shall be solely 3201011177001.8 5 responsible for any such restoration of the EOP Parcels, including but not limited to the removal of the Leasehold Improvements. (h) Indemnification. The Optionee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless EOP from and against all claims, demands, damages, costs, or expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever, including but not limited to any claims related to environmental contamination of the EOP Parcels, that may arise from or in any manner relate to any act performed or omitted to be performed in connection with the EOP Parcels, except for any claims, demands,damages, costs, or expenses caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of EOP, its officers, agents, and employees. In the event Optionee is a governmental and/or public entity,the indemnity provisions of this Section 6(h) shall not be affected by any immunities the Optionee may have by virtue of its status as a governmental and/or public entity, whether under the California Tort Claims Act or otherwise. (i) Non-Disclosure of Binding Letter of Intent. In the event EOP provides a Binding Letter of Intent to the Agency pursuant to this Section 6,the Agency, at the request of EOP, shall take all actions necessary to ensure that,to the extent legally possible, such Binding Letter of intent is not subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, it being the understanding of the Agency and EOP that a Binding Letter of Intent may contain proprietary and confidential information the disclosure of which could adversely affect efforts to obtain the development contemplated by the Development Agreement and the DDA. Section 7. Property subject to Development Agreement. The term "Property" as defined in Recital C of the Development Agreement and as used in the Development Agreement, is amended to include that certain real property described in Exhibit B. Section 8. Default. In the event EOP fails to comply with any of the terms of this Amendment, following the applicable notice and cure provisions in the DDA or Development Agreement,EOP shall be deemed to be in breach of the terms of the DDA or Development Agreement, as applicable and the Agency and County shall be entitled to all remedies set forth in the DDA or Development Agreement, as applicable. Section 9. Parties Bound. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest and assigns of each of the parties to this Amendment. Any reference in this Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor,heir, administrator, executor or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Amendment or under law. Section 10. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement,binding on all parties, even though all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Section 11. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date. 3201011177001.6 6 Section 12. Attorney's Fees' Enforcement. If any attorney is engaged by any party hereto to enforce or defend any provision of this Amendment, the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Section 13. California Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 14. Invalidi . Any provision of the Amendment that is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof. Section 15. Headings. The headings used in this Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this Amendment. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic By: James Kennedy, Deputy Director COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a subdivision of the State of California By: James Kennedy,Deputy Director 320\01\177001.6 7 EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company By: EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A Delaware limited partnership, its sale member: By: EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST, A Maryland real estate investment trust, its general partner By: Name: Title: EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company: By: EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, its sole member: By: EQUITY OFFICE TRUST, A Maryland real estate investment trust, its general partner: By: Name: Title: 920101\177001.6 8 EXHIBIT A A Portion of The North Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 320\01\177001.6 with 177001.2 A-1 EXHIBIT B A Portion of the North Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 320\011177001.6 with 177001.2 B-1 EXHIBIT C The Cental Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 320\01\177001.6 with 177001.2 C-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public in and said County and State,personally appeared personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that,by signature(s) on the instrument,the person(s)or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On , 2004,before me, the undersigned notary public in and said County and State,personally appeared personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that,by signature(s) on the instrument,the person(s) or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s)acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on 3201011177001.6 with 177001.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public in and for said County and State,personally appeared i personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that,by signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s)or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s)acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on 320101\177001.6 with 177001.2 RESOLUTION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EOP-OAK.ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD Il, L.L.C, The Zoning Administrator of Contra Costa County finds that: A. On February 22, 1989, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 89-9, the County entered into a Development Agreement ("Agreement") with Taylor/Ward Properties, a California general partnership, relative to the development known as Station Oaks. This Agreement was subsequently assigned to Homart Development Co., Sears Development Co., Inc., and Spieker Properties,with the County's consent. Through a series of transactions, Spieker Properties was merged into EOP Operating Limited Partnership and Equity Office Properties Trust. The subject property is currently held by EOP-Oak Road I and EOP-Oak Road II ("Developer"), subsidiaries of EOP Operating Limited Partnership and Equity Office Properties Trust. The County consented to the transfer to EOP-Oak Road I and EOP-Oak Road in a Consent and Agreement, between County and Developer, dated December 11, 2001. B. Pursuant to the County's Procedures and Requirements for the Consideration of Development Agreements (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 85-412) and the Agreement, the Agreement has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator each year beginning in January of 1990, to inquire into the good faith compliance of Developer with the terms of the Agreement(the"Annual Review"). C. The term of the Development Agreement was set to expire on February 22, 2004, but was extended by the County until October 22, 2004, pursuant to a series of operating memoranda executed by the County and consented to by EOP. D. The EOP Parcels are at varying stages in the development process. The Central Parcel has a preliminary development plan #DP01-3019, approved on April 24, 2001, providing for the development of a two (2) story, 49,000 square foot office building. The North Parcel has an approved final development plan #DP00-3050, approved on April 24, 2001, providing for the development of a seven (7) story, one hundred fifty eight thousand (158,000) square foot office building and a parking structure. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project. E. The subject amendment to the development agreement extends the term of the Development Agreement until February 22, 2011, unless such terra is earlier terminated as provided in the Development Agreement. The amended Development Agreement also provides for the lease of the property for temporary parking during construction of the expanded BART Parking garage. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, EOP shall not have the right to develop the North Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the North Parcel FDP, and shall not have the right to develop the Central Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the Central Parcel PDP and the approved Central Parcel FDP that is consistent with the Central Parcel PDP. i NOW, THEREFORE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' HEREBY RESOLVES, CERTIFIES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Zoning Administrator considered all prior environmental review for the project site, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the County Planning Commission on March 22, 2001, and hereby incorporates them by reference and finds that no further environmental review is required for the Development Agreement Amendment under the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Based upon the Zoning Administrator's review and consideration of the Staff Report and Proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement, the Zoning Administrator recommends approval of the Amendment to the Development Agreement with EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C. Adopted on: October 4, 2004 Zoning Ad s ator of Contra Costa County 2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925)335-1250 Contact Person: Maureen Tams Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location:FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN#DP003050 and DP013019(SPIEKER PROPERTIES.-APPLICANT AND OWNER) The proposed project involves the a final development plan (DP003050) for the development of an approximately 157,370 sq. ft. office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road and a preliminary development plan (DP013019) for the development of an approximately 49,000 sq. ft. office building at 3035 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill SART Station area of Walnut Creek,in Central Contra Costa County. The project was approved on April 24,2001 by the County Planning Commission. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified. The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Report was not required. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. The Project will have a significant environmental effect. X I Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project. F� A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date:April 24,2001 /} Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: De artment of Fish&Game Fees Due: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EIR-$850 Total Due:$ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Nea. Dec.-$1.250 Total Paid: ATTN: MAUREEN TOMS X DeMinimis Findings-$0 X I Countv Clerk-$25 Receipt Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Development Plan#DP003050 and Development Plan#DP013019 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 project is located at 3035 and 3055 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Area of Central Contra Costa County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Speiker Properties 1255 Treat Blvd.,#150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use 7. Zoning: Planned-Unit District 8. Description of Project: The proposed project involves the a final development plan (DP003050) for the development of an approximately 157,370 sq. ft. office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road and a preliminary development plan(DP013019)for the development of an approximately 49,040 sq. ft. office building at 3035 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area of Walnut Creek, in Central Contra Costa County. 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), single-family residential, multiple-family residential complexes, retail businesses and the BART station. 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 checklist on the following pages. ® Land Use and Planning ` Transportation/ � Public Services ® Population&housing Circulation _ Utilities&Service Systems Geological Problems _ Biological Resources _ Aesthetics Water — Energy & Mineral i Cultural Resources Air Quality Resources _ Recreation Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards ✓ No new Potentially Significance — Noise Significant Impacts Identified,if mitigation measures incorporated UAMArTleasant Hill BARTWpo03050A.doc 2 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 effect 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(l)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 although 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. \-nm March 22, 2001 Signature Date Maureen Toms CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project for Subarea 7B of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area totals approximately 206,800 sq.ft. As shown on the project application,the development on Subarea 7B is divided between Subareas 7B- North and 7B-South. The proposal for Subarea 7B-North involves a final development plan(#DP003050)for the construction of an office building consisting of approximately 157,370 gross sq.ft.,approximately seven stories and 102 ft. in height to the top of the building parapet;the mechanical penthouse on a portion of the roof will reach approximately 115 ft, in height. Supporting the building will be a parking structure approximately five stories in height and accommodating roughly 530 parking stalls. The portion of the project proposed for Subarea 7B-South involves a preliminary development plan(#DP0013019)and consists of an office building with approximately 49,000 gross sq.ft.,approximately two-stories and roughly 36 ft.in height to the top of the parapet; the mechanical enclosure/penthouse on a portion of the roof will reach U:\JMATVleasant Hilt BART\#003050.is.doc 3 approximately 45 ft. in height. The proposal for Subarea 7B-South includes approximately 155 surface parking stalls. The original project approved for this property consisted of a 135-room Homestead Village extended stay hotel and an 89, 875 sq. ft. 152-room Amerisuites Hotel. A 195,000 sq. ft. office/retail project have been approved to the south of the site. The buildings on the Subarea 7B-North property maintain a close relationship with the Oak Road street frontage. A formal public garden links the office building and garage and the sites are integrated through pedestrian walkways,landscaping and signage. The building on Subarea 7B-South will also link to Oak Road via a pedestrian connection through the retail portion of the Station Oaks project as well as a walk along the shared access drive. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Environmental Impact Report(also referred to as the Supplemental EIR),certified on October 6, 1998, prepared for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan is a program EIR, prepared in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. CEQA enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for individual development projects proposed for the Specific Plan area. The program EIR addressed all of the significant cumulative impacts of the amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsequent activities(i.e.,development plans)in the program(specific plan)must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR:, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Declaration or EIR. The applicant provided additional site-specific studies, at the County's request, to supplement previous analysis prepared for the Specific Plan EIR. These include traffic analysis,noise,view,wind and shadow study. The initial Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,certified in 1983, (the"Specific flan EIR")and the supplement to the Specific Plan EIR,certified in 1998, (the"Supplemental EIR") prepared in connection with the adoption of the initial Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan, were both duly certified by the Contra Costa County (the "County") Board of Supervisors. The 1983 Specific Plan EIR and the 1998 Supplemental EIR analyzed projects on Subarea 7B- North and Subarea 7B-South (and Subarea 8) in sufficient detail to permit the County to approve various development scenarios for Subareas 7B and 8 in excess of 426,272 sq. ft.. For CEQA purposes,the 1983 Specific Plan EIR and the 1998 Supplemental EIR analyzed development impacts for Subareas 7B and 8 in excess of the proposals covered by this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Earlier approved plans and entitlements for these sites included (1)a Disposition and Development Agreement(the"DDA")between the County Redevelopment Agency(dated June 26,1986)(the"Agency") and the original developers of the Property,which plans included(i)retention of an existing 3-story,51,000 sq. ft,office building, (ii)a new 7-story, 175,000 sq, ft. office building located on top of a 3-level parking structure on Subarea 7B-South,(iii)a 12-story,308-room hotel on Subarea 8,and(iv)a 10-story,254-room hotel on Subarea 7B-North;(2)development plans in the First Amendment to the DDA(dated February 22, 1989), which plans included (i) a 7-story, 175,000 sq. ft. office building, including required parking, on Subarea 7B-South(ii)a 6-story, 125,000 sq.ft.office building,including required parking,on Subarea 8 and (iii)a 10-story,254-room hotel,including required parking,on Subarea 7B-North,(3)the February 22, 1989 LTAMAWleasant Hill BART1dp00305O.is.doc 4 Development Agreement between the County and the original developers of the Property,which approved development plans for(i)a 7-story, 175,000 sq. ft. office building,including required parking, on Subarea 7B-South(ii)a 6-story, 125,000 sq. ft.office building,including required parking,on Subarea 8,and(iii)a 10-story,254-roam hotel,including required parking,on Subarea 7B-North. The 1998 Supplemental EIR covered the updated Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan,which analyzed various development scenarios for Subarea 7B/8 totaling 401,800 sq.ft. The current Final Development Plan for Subarea 7B/8 consists of a Final Development Plan for Subarea 8 authorizing 195,000 sq.ft.of office and retail development and a Final Development Plan permitting development of a 61,000 sq.ft.,4-story, 135- room hotel on Subarea 7B-North and an 89,875 sq. ft.,7-story, 152-room hotel on Subarea 7B-South. The 1998 Supplemental EIR included and evaluated a project of the dimensions and density as that which is proposed on Subareas 7B and 8. This EIR found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed project and are identified with an asterisk 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 the 1998 Supplemental 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 Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. 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 1991) 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. Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance prepared for DP993001(office building)(September 1999) 8. Wind Tunnel Test for 3055 Oak Road Building,at the Pleasant Hill BART Station(December 29,2000) 9, Station Oaks Traffic Data Update(August 13, 2000). 10. 3055 Oak Road Traffic Study(October 13,2000) 11. Environmental Noise Study for Station Oaks Office Building, Contra Costa County, California (December 22,2000) UAMA'nPleasant Hill BART #003050.is.doc 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓ vista?(Source 1,2,4,5) b. Substantially damage scenic 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 visual ✓ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source 1,2,4,5 ) d. Create a new source of substantial light or ✓ glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source 4,5 ) SUMMARY: The proposed project includes two office buildings,one approximately seven stories and 115 ft. in height with mechanical equipment(102 ft. not including the mechanical equipment). The second proposed building will be approximately two stories and 45 ft. in height with mechanical equipment(36 ft. not including the mechanical equipment). The visual impacts of the parking garage will be minimized with the facade on the front of the garage, along Oak Road. The architecture of the office building and the parking garage are compatible with other proposed buildings in the Subarea and the existing buildings in the vicinity. The property is highly visible from I-680. however,this portion of I-680 is not designated as a scenic highway in the General Plan. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with building scale and style incompatibilities within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area,the Specific flan states an objective which places high intensity,less sensitive uses west of the BART Station and lower 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 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan EIR assumed and analyzed these office building view shed and light and glare impacts. 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 the design of the garage to be such that headlights of cars using the parking garage do not shine toward the residential areas. Fact: The project proposes to introduce additional exterior lighting to the area which includes residential uses. UAMAnPleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 6 Mitigation Measure (Ib): 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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Il. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether 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 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 r' environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source 2,3,4,5) SUMMARY The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Since the site is not associated with any agricultural uses,the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. UAMAT leasant Hill BARPdp003050.is.doc Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR 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:2,4,5,8) 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 2,4,5) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓ substantial number of people?(Source 2,4,5) SUMMARY: The EIR prepared for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area adequately addressed air quality impacts resulting from the proposed total 206,800 sq. ft. office project. Consistent with smart growth and New Urbanism principles, locating these office building employment centers near other office buildings, higher density homes and BART will promote use of mass transit within a mixed use redevelopment project, thereby reducing overall regional air emission impacts. The following mitigation measures adopted for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific flan will be incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially-Significant Environmental Effect. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulate. Mitigation Measures*(Ilia): During construction require implementation ofBAAQMD 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 ft. of freeboard. UAMAWleasant Hill BART1dp003050.is.doc 8 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 Area. All Specific Plan alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants(ROG,NO,PM10). Mitivation Measures*(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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No 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 f 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, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?(Source 1,2,4,5) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or IJAN[AnPleasant Hill 13ARndp003050.is.dcc 9 wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source 1,2,4,5) e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ✓ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source 1,2,4,5) f. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ✓ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (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 of non-native grasses and weeds, There are no existing trees on the proposed project site. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ✓ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) d. Disturb any human remains, including those ✓ interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) 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 evidence of any archeological resources of potential significance within the confines of the subject property. UAMATNPleasant Hill BARTtdp003050.is.doc 10 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential ✓ 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 2,4,5,6,7) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source 2,4,5,6,7) 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1,2,5,6,7) 4. Landslides?(Source 1,2,5,6,7) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ! unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in V Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) 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 1,2,4,5,6,7) SUMMARY: Geotechnical reports have been submitted for the proposed site in conjunction with previous development plan applications. At the time of the submittal,the County consulting geologist reviewed the reports. The Specific Plan EIR and earlier CEQA documents addressed area wide geological, geotechnical UAMATTleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc ll and soil conditions. The 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. Mitimation-Measures* Ma): 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. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect: Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations,slabs and pavements. Mitigation Measures* (Vlb): I. 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(UEC)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 or similar measures designed using criteria provided by the design- level geotechnical investigation. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ✓ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source 5) UAMATTleasant Bill BART#003056.is.doc 12 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 pursuant to Government code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source 5) C. For a project located within an airport land ✓ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source 1,2,4,5) f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source 1,2,4,5) 9- 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 ✓ 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 the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. LJAMATVleasant Hill BART\dp00305O.is.doc 13 Mitigation Measures* (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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?(2,4,5,6) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or plannedusesfor which permits have been granted)? (2,4,5,6) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (2,4,5,6) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff"in a 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) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water UAMAWIewant Hill BARTidp003050A.doc 14 quality?(2,4,5,6) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ✓ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(2,4,5,6) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ✓ structures that 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 seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ✓ (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The site is flat and is not located within a floodplain nor looted 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 water 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 than significant level. Impact: The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. Mitigation Measure(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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ,/ (2,374,5,6,7) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, UAMATVleasant Hill BARn#003050.is.doc 15 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? (2,3,4,5,6,7) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat ✓ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (2,3,4,5,6) 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 the site as Subarea 7B. Specific Plan policies for this Subarea are as follows: • Allows a total of 401,800 sq.ft,(with Subarea 8),which include 157,000 sq.ft.for Subarea 7B North and 49,000 sq. ft. for Subarea 7B South and requires 20 percent of useable 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. + Projects shall have a minimum of 100 ft, 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 the 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 the Station Area near the corner 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 allowed as a result of the Development flan process,based on individual circumstances. The project proposes two office buildings totaling 2.06,800 sq. ft. Development Plan #DP003050 is an application for a final development plan for a 157,370 sq.ft.office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road. Development Plan#DP013019 is an application for a preliminary development plan fora 49,000 sq. ft. office building. The applicant worked with staff, adjacent property owners,and community members prior to developing and submitting the proposed design for Development Plan#DP003050. Since the design for the 49,000 sq. ft. office building is preliminary, future development on the site will require approval of a final development plan. The Specific Plan conditionally allows up to seven stories and 108 ft. with the following findings: The increase in height (1)will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space;(2)will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites 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. 1n addition,the Specific Plan allows height of up to ten stories and 150 ft. (pg. 50),based on individual circumstances. U AMAnPleasant Hill BART\#003050.is.doc 16 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 since landscape trees are included as part of the proposal. Due to the orientation of the building on the site,which is at the northern end of the block,will not create shadow conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor areas. In addition, 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 proposed for the remainder of the subareas. The applicant submitted a master development plan for Subarea 7B/8 indicating common design and circulation elements. A common signage designer has been used on all 3 parcels. The seven-story office building on Subarea 7B-North has been scaled with a similar symmetry presentation to the seven story office tower recently approved for the south parcel. The preliminary design of the two story Subarea 7B-South office building has been scaled to complement the 4-5 story parking garage on the south parcel. The streetscape finishes,landscape material and site circulation have been coordinated. Pedestrian linkages and pathways have been coordinated to link the retail on the south parcel to the northern parcels. Within the three parcels within Subarea 7B/8,ground floor retail has been concentrated on the south parcel most proximate to BART. The northerly sites are constrained by heightened freeway off-ramp proximity and distance from the central BART station area,thereby providing a more pedestrian-hostile environment. The Specific Plan requires up to 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.of netrentable 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 530 space parking garage on Subarea 7B-North and the proposed 155 surface parking stall on Subarea 7B-South area consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ✓ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (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 plant? (1,2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project and the site description,the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources. UAMATTleasant Hill BART1dp003050.is.doc 17 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ✓ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ ✓ excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ✓ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase ✓ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,11) e. For a project located within an airport land ✓ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) SUMMARY: The primary source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic on I-680,trains on the BART system and traffic on local streets. An environmental noise study was prepared for the proposed project. The report evaluated potential noise impacts from increased traffic,autos using the parking garage, mechanical equipment to be installed on the office buildings and parking garage,and construction noise. In contrast with earlier hotel entitlements,the office proposals would provide lower overall noise impacts on adjoining neighborhoods. The noise study concluded that noise resulting from the increased traffic,autos using the parking garage,and mechanical equipment to be installed on the office buildings and parking garage would not be significant. Significant short-term noise levels could 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: UAMA'RPieasant Hill BART#003050.is.doc 18 Potentially Significant Environmental Effect Development in Subareas 713/8 ,10A and 14A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of'normally unacceptable' and 'clearly unacceptable'noise levels for development. Mitigation Measures*(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. Potentially Sit?iiificant 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. Mitigation Measures*(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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a. induce substantial population growth in an ✓ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(1,2,3,4,5) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing ___ ✓ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(1,2,3,4,5) C. Displace substantial numbers of people ✓ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(1,2,3,4,5) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project,no impacts to housing will occur as a result of the project. UAMAnPieasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 19 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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: (1,2,4,5,6,7) 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other Public facilities? SUMMARY: The proposed project is within existing urban boundaries served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,County Sheriff s Department,and the various County Departments serving the area. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to Police and Fire Services to a less than significant level: 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* (XIIIa): 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. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. Mitigation Measures*fXlllb): 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 maybe required to provide a BART police station depending on UAMAT Tleasant Hill BART1dp0030501s.doc 20 the scale of development. 3. If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9, 7A, 7B 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. 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 Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of ✓ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source 1,2,4,5) b. Does the project include recreational ✓ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the proposed project, a commercial office development, no significant impacts to parks and recreation are anticipated. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. TRANSPORTATIONfITUFFIC — 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)?(1,2,3,4,56,7,9,10) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a _ _ ✓ level of service standard established by the UAMA'IAPleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 21 county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source 1,2,3,4,56,7,9,10) 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 1,2,3,4,56,7,9,10) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ✓ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?(Source 1,2,3,4,5;6,7,9,10) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓ (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ✓ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) 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. Traffic data updates prepared for the project found that the current proposal would increase the peak hour or daily trip generation by 41 tripends in the AM peak and 23 tripends in the PM peak hour. This miner change in trip generation is not likely to result in any changes in levels of service at the original study intersections. Since the assumptions in the traffic report prepared for the Specific Plan EIR are generally consistent with the proposed project, impacts assessed in the EIR would remain relevant. 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 study intersections operate at LOS C or better during peak hour. All movements of the unsignalized study intersections in the 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 prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment did not identify any significant cumulative impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. Thus the cumulative impacts due to this project is insignificant. The recommendations identified in the traffic report will be incorporated 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. UA MAT1Pleasant Hill BAR`f1dp00305O.is.doc 22 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ✓ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,4,5) 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) C. Require or result in the construction of new ✓ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(2,4,5) 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) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ✓ 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) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient ___ ✓ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(2,4,5) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes ✓ and regulations related to solid waste?(2,4,5) 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. UAMAWleasant Hill BARndp00305O.is.doc 23 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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) b. Does the project have impacts that are ✓ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable„ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,) C. Does the project have environmental effects ✓ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) SUMMARY: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources (see #IV- Biological Resources) or eliminate major period of California history or prehistory(see#V-Cultural Resources). No impacts that are cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project have been identified. Mitigation measures identified under I-Aesthetics,III-Air Quality,VI-Geology and Soils,VII-Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII-Hydrology and Water Quality, XI-Noise,and XIII-Public Services will ensure that adverse effects on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. UAMATMeasant Hill BART1dp00305£I.is.doc r .th v _ vrrW:r'i: %"fiY: 4' ::•hx'4 :t+i:-::v.x:4;xx,4:G`:{ •:Ff{nyv:.•. r:.:4ii: •n'C• :•}.:..=.1.•..:isf>�?r{..'$}.33:..<.':'•.n.:.5.:.:':` ...Ms . '"v v.:it$}},::'•°?.",.'�i�•n{�i:iS}:�}i}:�ir.v.,..:.":�.•'•F,:}:vxvi4"rv.: .Yi'.,'.::Y±Y''.�.x•..'Ci•rt€�. �:."::•€?.. "ro.{�.r::;;4h. #�..4:: > '•3a f,� •4 ✓ `2'$, - 4"y'5,�,'.1'�:. r 'x > •:,,€'•,+4�:.: v', 3.. 4 ;a`£\�c•+':� 'iia - }`4, ��•�tj{•{� ,.. �: '• �h`5�,;��T�Y�{S�' < �>.:,•. ...y .,z x: � r��'''ti.'�, ,� .#4 ti`; '4"rK {'+:d '�: r .x r " nsi•?;. w•�: ?}•;,�•', t .. `��� # { �.`. -,�.kriv'ti, {•..•.;..e:#. `:r�,:rr'�" , ,�Y•�€.:5. �? t4`: •:{� �, •:t4.t �. t . iw•��.x£:� t J,�yS�''�� i�•.t+ .4 .4<'"'y'' t #, '•'+•:;L'}+} •4,p,, �2 .4 a,t• L .,r hi tc3� t �,4 €�'.,.Jyrr� •,.. �: {y.�' y : +t :,f '�`}�" •:�••- ti �� �.:": J"+ r }�yG2,:#`•#:r•S,L: t7�+�x, 4 �''"�� •:�•:•`c::j¢"�#�{•��4 �`.: •.,,€:• , k` h,�•,$�x ��w�' rte„ ;, ...:�z�;w,,.• ;.:. tom::, �� ,'3i '}x::,S }$ y ,;S,7.;?vy i.-•5�,•}', `y4":v } h ff. }.$?�'�e"�. .4 'Y .,,45$• r>�t';�r,.'2::t-.5�:':...3,:.::,;..�:vx{.<,nS:o:;N.�#.:�J`.#•:"*":�•:�:#•..•�f.�}�}:;s,,•:.k a,: :•.. .,..:uk €..5:.•.x,•.v.•�.•- � .;,::.. .. k:.v? •€S'?k:t .. .. �. `#.4;.;..,:.,c:r,•,•.,r+.�,,�� .. .# {.i..3 ,:t�€. '.wfi.tx..,c, 1C cfr 1f =/ 4N 7B LAS A)MTAS WAY q cr x Q8 � D � TWAT BLVD d$ 15 JONES RD t�5 16 N 9 ' � U Al z till I N5 t t7 m �bC7d S ai I it i o. f; vM _t ( � �l a.R f::Ii Ir 1 It OA • , � ail I 1 � ,��_;_�"=, � � ' 5 1 ry RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA '94533 Attention: Deputy Director- Redevelopment AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (North and Central Parcels) This Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement and Development Agreement("Amendment") is made as of , 2404(the "Effective Date")by and among the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency("Agency"), the County of Contra Costa(the "County"),EOP-Oak Road 1, L.L.C. ("EOPI"), a Delaware limited liability company, and EOP- Oak Road Il, L.L.C. ("EOPII"), a Delaware limited liability company, with reference to the following: A. EOPI and EOPII (collectively, "EOP"), own that certain real property in the County of Contra Costa, State of California described in the attached Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. The real property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B is referred to herein as the "North Parcel" and the real property described in Exhibit C is referred to as the "Central Parcel." The North Parcel and the Central Parcel are referred to in this Amendment collectively as the "EOP Parcels." The EOP Parcels are part of a larger area(the "Property")that is the subject of the Disposition and Development Agreement("DDA") described below. B. Taylor/Ward Properties, a California general partnership("Taylor/Ward") and Sonspirit Properties, a California general partnership ("Sonspirit")previously owned the Property. Taylor/Ward and Sonspirit also entered into,with the Agency, that certain DDA dated June, 26, 1986 and recorded against the Property on.lune 30, 1986 in the Official Records of Contra Costa County(the "Official Records") in Book 12971 at Page 462 and that certain First Amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement dated February 22, 1989 and recorded against the Property March 2, 1989 in the Official Records in Book 14914 at Page 275. The agreements described in this Recital B are collectively referred to in this Amendment as the "DDA". C. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et L . (the "Development Agreement Statute"), the County, Taylor/Ward and Sonspirit also entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as of February 22, 1989 (the "Development Agreement") setting forth certain agreements regarding development of the Property. The Development Agreement was recorded against the Property on March 6, 1989, in Book 14919, Page 193 of the Official Records. The Development Agreement was entered into to eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Property, assure installation of necessary improvements,provide for public services appropriate to development of the 320\01\177001.6 1 Project, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the County at the least economic cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. D. The term of the Development Agreement was set to expire on February 22, 2044, but was extended by the County until 2004,pursuant to a series of operating memoranda executed by the County and consented to by EOP. E. On or about January 13, 2004, the Agency conveyed to EOPI,pursuant to that certain Grant Deed recorded January 13. 2004 in the Official Records as series Number 11345, that certain real property located in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto. It is the intention of EOP and the County to incorporate such property into the property subject to the Development Agreement. F. Taylor/Ward's and Sonspirit's ownership interest in the EOP Parcels, and their rights and obligations under the DDA and the Development Agreement with respect to the EOP Parcels were eventually transferred to EOP. Such transfer is evidenced in that certain Consent and Assignment Agreement dated December 11, 2001 by and between EOP, the Agency and the County(the "Consent Agreement"). G. The EOP Parcels are at varying stages in the development process. The Central Parcel has a preliminary development plan No. 01-3019, approved on April 24, 2001, and effective on May 3,2001 (the "Central Parcel PDP"),providing for the development of a two(2) story, forty nine thousand(49,004) square foot office building on the Central Parcel(the "Central Parcel Improvements"). The North Parcel has an approved final development plan No. 00-3050, approved on April 24, 2001, and effective on March 3, 2001, (the "North Parcel FDP"), providing for the development of a seven(7) story, one hundred fifty eight thousand(158,000) square foot office building and a parking structure as set forth in the conditions of approval and related drawings for the North Parcel FDP (the "North Parcel Improvements"). H. The development schedule regarding the construction of the North Parcel Improvements and the Central Parcel Improvements is set forth in Exhibit E to the DDA(the "Development Schedule"). Pursuant to Recital F and Exhibit D of the Development Agreement, the Development Schedule is also incorporated into the Development Agreement. I. Section 3 and Section 5 of the Consent Agreement modified the Development Schedule by setting forth certain requirements concerning the timing of the development of the EOP Parcels. The Consent Agreement modified the dates by which EOPI.I was to apply for the Central Parcel final development plan(the "Central Parcel FDP"), and commence construction of the Central Parcel Improvements. The Consent Agreement also modified the dates that EOPI was to commence construction of the North Parcel Improvements. J. The County,Agency and EOP wish to extend the term of the Development Agreement, the deadline for EOPI's application for the Central Parcel FDP and commencement of construction of the Central Parcel Improvements, and the deadline for EOPII's commencement of construction of the North Parcel Improvements. 320\011177001.6 2 K. Such extensions are consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan(the "General Plan") and the update to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County on October 6, 1998 (the"Specific Plan Update"). The General Plan land use designation for the Property is Mixed Use. The Specific Plan Update allows the development of four hundred one thousand eight hundred(401,800) gross square feet of general commercial/office/hotel development on the Property(the "Project"). The Final Environmental Impact Report("EIR") for the Specific Plan Update certified by the County on October 6, 1998 evaluated as one of several development alternatives, the environmental impacts related to the development of the Project. L. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing on , 2044,the Zoning Administration of Contra Costa County voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County approve this Amendment. M. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing on , 2004, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County found this amendment consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan update pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65867.5 and approved this Amendment in its entirety, by adoption of Ordinance No. N. The County, Agency and EOP also wish to provide for the possible use of the EOP Parcels as an interim parking lot on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Extension of Development Agreement. Section 1.2 of the Development Agreement is amended to extend the term of the Development Agreement until February 22, 2011, unless such term is earlier terminated as provided in the Development Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, EOP shall not have the right to develop the North Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the North Parcel FDP, and shall not have the right to develop the Central Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the Central Parcel PDP and the approved Central Parcel FDP that is consistent with the Central Parcel PDP. If EOP desires to propose a change in an approved preliminary or final development and such change is approved by the County, such change shall be incorporated in the Development Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 of the Development Agreement, which sections require either an Operating Memoranda or a formal amendment to the Development Agreement depending on the nature of the change. Section 2. Development Schedule. The Development Schedule as set forth in the Exhibit E to the DDA and Exhibit D to the Development Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and amended as set forth in Section 2(a)-(c)below. 3201011177001.8 3 (a) Central Parcel FDP. EOPII shall apply to the County for the Central Parcel FDP no later than the date permitted by the County under the Central Parcel preliminary development plan No. 01-3019 (which was approved by the County on April 24, 2001 and became effective on May 3, 2001) and applicable County rules, but in no event later than June 30, 2006. (b) Central Parcel Construction. EOPH shall complete construction plans, apply for and obtain building permits and commence construction of the Central Parcel Improvements within the time permitted by the Central Parcel FDP and applicable County rules, but in no event later than two (2)years after the County's approval of the Central Parcel FDP. (c) North Parcel Construction. EOPI shall complete construction plans, apply for and.obtain building permits and commence construction of the North Parcel Improvements no later than the date permitted under the North Parcel final development plan No. 00-3050 (which was approved by the County on April 24, 2001 and became effective on May 3, 200 1) and applicable County rules, but in no event later than December 31, 2006. Section 3. Extensions Granted By Executive Director. The Executive Director of the Agency may, at his or her discretion, and upon request from EOP agree in writing to modification or extension of the dates and times set forth in Section 2,pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.12 of the DDA. Section 4. Consent Agreement. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Consent Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 5 of the Consent Agreement shall also be deleted in its entirety. All other provisions Consent Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect. Section 5. DDA and Development Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment and the Consent Agreement, all other provisions of the DDA and Development Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect. Section 6. Option to Lease. For the consideration set forth in this Amendment,EOP grants the option to lease the EOP Parcels (the "Option")to the Agency or the Agency's designee (the Agency or its designee shall be referred to as the "Optionee"), which designee may include but is not limited to: (a) a joint powers authority made up of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a rapid transit district established under Public Utilities Code Sections 28500 et seq("BART"); and/or the Agency and/or the County; or(b)the developer developing the property adjacent to the Pleasant Hill Bart Station owned by BART. The term of the Option shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall expire three(3) years thereafter(the "Option Term"). At any time prior to the expiration of the Option Term, the Optionee may exercise the Option by giving EOP written notice;provided however, that EOP may reject the exercise of the Option if,within the ten(10)business days following EOP's receipt of the notice of Option, EOP provides the Agency with a letter of intent between EOP and a prospective purchaser or lessee of the North Parcel or the Central Parcel which letter of intent shall include the following terms: (i)the customary terms for the lease or purchase of the EOP Parcels; (ii)a provision requiring the parties to negotiate in good faith to an agreement evidencing the lease or purchase of the EOP Parcels with 32M01\177001.6 4 such negotiations to be completed or terminated within a specified period of time; and(iii) a provision providing for the commencement of construction of the Central Parcel Improvements or North Parcel Improvements within eighteen(18)months following the date of such letter(the "Binding Letter of Intent"). Within fifteen(15)days of the Optionee's exercise of the Option, EOP and the Optionee shall enter into a lease(the "Lease")which shall be substantially in accordance with the following and which shall include other industry Standard terms (e.g. commercially reasonable insurance, security deposit,prohibition on assignment and sublettings, prohibition on Optionee encumbering the EOP Parcels)the specifics of which shall be negotiated by the Optionee, and which shall be approved in advance by the Agency if the Agency does not exercise the Option itself. The Optionee shall have no right to occupy the EOP Parcels except as provided.within the Lease. (a) Term. The term of the Lease shall be for an initial term of two (2) years, which may be extended upon mutual agreement of EOP and Optionee (the "Lease Term").' (b) Rent. The Optionee shall pay rent in the amount of One Dollar($1)per year(the "Rent"). Rent shall not include any costs and expenses associated with Optionee's use of the premise subject to the Lease and Optionee shall pay for all such costs and expenses. (c) Use. The Optionee shall use the EOP Parcels only for the purposes of providing interim parking for users of the Pleasant Hill Bart Station owned by BART. (d) Construction and Operation of Improvements. The EOP Parcels shall be delivered to Optionee free and clear of all improvement and tenants and Optionee shall, at its own expense, construct any improvements related to its use of the EOP Parcels (The "Leasehold Improvements"). EOP shall reasonably cooperate with Optionee, at no cost to EOP, in the Optionee's efforts to secure permits and approvals related to its use of the EOP Parcels and its construction of the Leasehold Improvements. Construction of the Leasehold Improvements shall not commence until EOP has provided its written approval,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Optionee shall be responsible for both the operation of the Leasehold Improvements and the maintenance of the EOP Parcels and the Leasehold Improvements during the Lease Term, including taking all necessary measures to prevent any environmental contamination to the EOP Parcels. (e) Taxes and Assessments. Optionee shall pay for all taxes, fees, and charges imposed on the EOP Parcels during the Lease Term. (f) Termination of Lease. At no fault of and at no cost to either party,the Lease may be terminated by either EOP or the Optionee upon three (3) months prior written notice to the other party;provided, however,that EOP may only terminate the Lease prior to the expiration of the Lease Term if EOP provides the Binding Letter of Intent to the Agency. (g) Ownership of and Removal of Improvements. Concurrently with the termination or expiration of the Lease, the EOP Parcels shall be surrendered to EOP in the same condition as they existed at the commencement of the Lease Terra. Optionee shall be solely 3201011177001.6 5 responsible for any such restoration of the EOP Parcels, including but not limited to the removal of the Leasehold Improvements. (h) Indemnification. The Optionee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless EOP from and against all claims,demands,damages, costs, or expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever, including but not limited to any claims related to environmental contamination of the EOP Parcels, that may arise from or in any manner relate to any act performed or omitted to be performed in connection with the EOP Parcels, except for any claims, demands, damages, costs, or expenses caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of EOP, its officers, agents, and employees. In the event Optionee is a governmental and/or public entity,the indemnity provisions of this Section 6(h) shall not be affected by any immunities the Optionee may have by virtue of its status as a governmental and/or public entity, whether under the California Tort Claims Act or otherwise. (i) Non-Disclosure of Binding Letter of Intent. In the event EOP provides a Binding Letter of Intent to the Agency pursuant to this Section 6,the Agency, at the request of EOP, shall take all actions necessary to ensure that,to the extent legally possible, such Binding Letter of Intent is not subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, it being the understanding of the Agency and EOP that a Binding Letter of Intent may contain proprietary and confidential information the disclosure of which could adversely affect efforts to obtain the development contemplated by the Development Agreement and the DDA. Section 7. Propegy subject to Development Agreement. The term"Property" as defined in Recital C of the Development Agreement and as used in the Development Agreement, is amended to include that certain real property described in Exhibit B. Section 8. Default. In the event EOP fails to comply with any of the terms of this Amendment, following the applicable notice and cure provisions in the DDA or Development Agreement, EOP shall be deemed to be in breach of the terms of the DDA or Development Agreement, as applicable and the Agency and County shall be entitled to all remedies set forth in the DDA or Development Agreement, as applicable. Section 9. Parties Bound. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest and assigns of each of the parties to this Amendment. Any reference in this Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Amendment or under law. Section 10. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement,binding on all parties, even though all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Section 11. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date. 320\01\177001.6 6 Section 12. Attorney's Fees' Enforcement. If any attorney is engaged by any party hereto to enforce or defend any provision of this Amendment,the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Section 13. California Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 14. Invalidity. Any provision of the Amendment that is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof. Section 15. Headings. The headings used in this Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this Amendment. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic By: James Kennedy, Deputy Director COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a subdivision of the State of California By: James Kennedy, Deputy Director 320\01\177001.6 7 EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company By: EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A Delaware limited partnership, its sole member: By: EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST, A Maryland real estate investment trust, its general partner By: Name: Title: EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company: By: EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, its sole member: By: EQUITY OFFICE TRUST, A Maryland real estate investment trust, its general partner: By: Name: Title: 320101\177001.5 8 EXHIBIT A A Portion of The North Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 3201011177001.6 with 177001.2 A-1 EXHIBIT B A Portion of the forth Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 8201011177001.6 with 177001.2 B-1 EXHIBIT C The Central Parcel (See Attached Legal Description) 3201011177001.6 with 177001.2 C-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On , 2004,before me,the undersigned notary public in and said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose names) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that,by signature(s) on the instrument,the person(s)or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA } On , 2004,before me, the undersigned notary public in and said County and State,personally appeared personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that, by signature(s)on the instrument, the person(s)or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on 320101\177001.6;with 177001.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ) ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA } On ,2004,before me, the undersigned notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me[or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies) and that, by signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s)or the entity(ies)upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on 3201011177001.6 with 177001.2 RESOLUTION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR.THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C, The Zoning Administrator of Contra Costa County finds that: A. On February 22, 1989, pursuant to County Ordinance No. 89-9, the County entered into a Development Agreement ("Agreement") with Taylor/Ward Properties, a California general partnership, relative to the development known as Station Oaks. This Agreement was subsequently assigned to Homart Development Co., Sears Development Co., Inc., and Spieker Properties,with the County's consent. Through a series of transactions, Spieker Properties was merged into EOP Operating Limited Partnership and Equity Office Properties Trust. The subject property is currently held by EOP-Oak Road I and EOP-Oak Road II ("Developer"), subsidiaries of EOP Operating Limited Partnership and Equity Office Properties Trust. The County consented to the transfer to EOP-Oak Road I and EOP-Oak Road in a Consent and Agreement, between County and Developer, dated December 11, 2001. B. Pursuant to the County's Procedures and Requirements for the Consideration of Development Agreements (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 85-412) and the Agreement, the Agreement has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator each year beginning in January of 1990, to inquire into the good faith compliance of Developer with the terms of the Agreement (the"Annual Review"). C. The term of the Development Agreement was set to expire on February 22, 2004, but was extended by the County until October 22, 2004, pursuant to a series of operating memoranda executed by the County and consented to by EOP. D. The EOP Parcels are at varying stages in the development process. The Central Parcel has a preliminary development plan #DP01-3019, approved on April 24, 2001, providing for the development of a two (2) story, 49,000 square foot office building. The North Parcel has an approved final development plan #DP00-3050, approved on April 24, 2001, providing for the development of a seven (7) story, one hundred fifty eight thousand (158,000) square foot office building and a parking structure. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project. E. The subject amendment to the development agreement extends the term of the Development Agreement until February 22, 2011, unless such term is earlier terminated as provided in the Development Agreement. The amended Development Agreement also provides for the lease of the property for temporary parking during construction of the expanded BART Parking garage. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, EOP shall not have the right to develop the North Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the North Parcel FDP, and shall not have the right to develop the Central Parcel under the Development Agreement, except in accordance with the Central Parcel PDP and the approved Central Parcel FDP that is consistent with the Central Parcel PDP. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' HEREBY RESOLVES, CERTIFIES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Zoning Administrator considered all prior environmental review for the project site, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the County Planning Commission on March 22, 2001, and hereby incorporates them by reference and finds that no further environmental review is required for the Development Agreement Amendment under the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Based upon the Zoning Administrator's review and consideration of the Staff Report and Proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement, the Zoning Administrator recommends approval of the Amendment to the Development Agreement with EOP-OAK. ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C. Adopted on: October 4, 2004 Zoning Mm'iZIsiai7or of Contra.Costa County 2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925)335-1250 Contact Person: Maureen Toms Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location:FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN##DP003050 and DP013019 (SPIEKER PROPERTIES-APPLICANT AND OWNER) The proposed project involves the a final development plan (DP003050) for the development of an approximately 157,370 sq. ft. office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road and a preliminary development plan (DP013019) for the development of an approximately 49,000 sq. ft. office building at 3035 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill SART Station area of Walnut Creek, in Central Contra Costa County. The project was approved on April 24, 2001 by the County Planning Commission. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified. The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for 1 A Mitgated Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Report was not required. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. The Project will have a significant environmental effect. X Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date:April 24, 2001 Communi Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on i received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: De artment of Fish&Game Fees Clue: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EIR-$850 Total Due:$ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Neo. Dec.-$1.250 Total Maid: ATTN: MAUREEN TOMS X I DeMinimis Findinos-$0 X Countv Clerk-$25 Receint Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Development Plan#DP003050 and Development Plan#DP013019 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 project is located at 3035 and 3055 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Area of Central Contra Costa County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Speiker Properties 1255 Treat Blvd.,#150 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use 7. Zoning: Planned-Unit District 8. Description of Project: The proposed project involves the a final development plan (DP003050) for the development of an approximately 157,370 sq. ft. office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road and a preliminary development plan(DP013019)for the development of an approximately 49,000 sq. ft. office building at 3035 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area of Walnut Creek, in Central Contra Costa County. 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), single-family residential, multiple-family residential complexes, retail businesses and the BART station. 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 checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services Population& Housing Circulation Utilities&.Service Systems Geological Problems — Biological Resources Aesthetics Water � Energy & Mineral _ Cultural Resources Air Quality Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Hazards ✓ No new Potentially Significance Noise Significant Impacts Identified,if mitigation measures incorporated UAIMAnPleasant Hill BARndp0030501s.doe 2 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 effect 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 although 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. March 22, 2001 Signature Date Maureen Toms CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project for Subarea 7B of the Pleasant Mill BART Station Area totals approximately 206,800 sq.ft. As shown on the project application,the development on Subarea 713 is divided between Subareas 7B- North and 7B-South. The proposal for Subarea 7B-North involves a final development plan(#DP003050)for the construction of an office building consisting of approximately 157,370 gross sq.ft.,approximately seven stories and 102 ft. in height to the top of the building parapet;the mechanical penthouse on a portion of the roof will reach approximately 115 ft. in height. Supporting the building will be a parking structure approximately five stories in height and accommodating roughly 530 parking stalls. The portion of the project proposed for Subarea 713-South involves a preliminary development plan(#DP0013019)and consists of an office building with approximately 49,000 gross sq.ft.,approximately two-stories and roughly 36 ft.in height to the top of the parapet, the mechanical enclosure/penthouse on a portion of the roof will reach UAMAT Pleasant Hill BART1dp00305O.is.doc 3 approximately 45 ft. in height. The proposal for Subarea 7B-South includes approximately 155 surface parking stalls. The original project approved for this property consisted of a 135-room Homestead Village extended stay hotel and an 89, 875 sq. ft. 152-room Amerisuites Hotel. A 195,000 sq. ft. office/retail project have been approved to the south of the site. The buildings on the Subarea 713-North property maintain a close relationship with the Oak Road street frontage. A formal public garden links the office building and garage and the sites are integrated through pedestrian walkways,landscaping and signage. The building on Subarea 713-South will also link to Oak Road via a pedestrian connection through the retail portion of the Station Oaks project as well as a walk along the shared access drive. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Environmental Impact Report(also referred to as the Supplemental EIR),certified on October 6, 1998, prepared for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific flan is a program EIR, prepared in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. CEQA enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for individual development projects proposed for the Specific Plan area. The program EIR addressed all of the significant cumulative impacts of the amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsequent activities(i.e., development plans)in the program(specific plan)must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Declaration or EIR. The applicant provided additional site-specific studies, at the County's request, to supplement previous analysis prepared for the Specific Plan EIR. These include traffic analysis,noise,view,wind and shadow study. The initial Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,certified in 1983, (the"Specific Plan EIR")and the supplement to the Specific Plan EIR,certified in 1998, (the"Supplemental EIR") prepared in connection with the adoption of the initial Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan, were both duly certified by the Contra Costa County (the "County") Board of Supervisors. The 1983 Specific Plan EIR and the 1998 Supplemental EIR analyzed projects on Subarea 713- North and Subarea 7B-South (and Subarea 8) in sufficient detail to permit the County to approve various development scenarios for Subareas 7B and 8 in excess of 426,272 sq. ft.. For CEQA purposes, the 1983 Specific Plan EIR and the 1998 Supplemental EIR analyzed development impacts for Subareas 7B and 8 in excess of the proposals covered by this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Earlier approved plans and entitlements for these sites included (1)a Disposition and Development Agreement(the"DDA")between the County Redevelopment Agency(dated June 26, 1986)(the"Agency") and the original developers of the Property,which plans included(i)retention of an existing 3-story,51,000 sq. ft. office building, (ii)a new 7-story, 175,000 sq. ft. office building located on top of a 3-level parking structure on Subarea 7B-South,(iii)a 12-story,308-room hotel on Subarea 8,and(iv)a 10-story,254-room hotel on Subarea 713-North;(2)development plans in the First Amendment to the DDA(dated February 22, 1989), which plans included (i) a 7-story, 175,000 sq. ft. office building, including required parking, on Subarea 713-South(ii)a 6-story, 125,000 sq.ft.office building,including required parking,on Subarea 8 and (iii)a 10-story,254-room hotel,including required parking,on Subarea 713-North;(3)the February 22, 1989 UAMAnP3easant Hill BARTldp003050.is.doc 4 Development Agreement between the County and the original developers of the Property,which approved development plans for(i)a 7-story, 175,000 sq. ft. office building, including required parking,on Subarea 713-South(ii)a 6-story, 125,000 sq. ft. office building,including required parking,on Subarea 8,and(iii)a 10-story,254-room hotel, including required parking,on Subarea 7B-North. The 1998 Supplemental EIR covered the updated Pleasant Dill BART Area Specific Plan,which analyzed various development scenarios for Subarea 7B/8 totaling 401,800 sq.ft. The current Final Development Plan for Subarea 7B/8 consists of Final Development Plan for Subarea 8 authorizing 195,000 sq.ft.of office and retail development and a Final Development Plan permitting development of a 61,000 sq. ft.,4-story, 135- room hotel on Subarea 7B-North and an 89,875 sq. ft.,7-story, 152-room hotel on Subarea 7134South. The 1998 Supplemental EIR included and evaluated a project of the dimensions and density as that which is proposed on Subareas 7B and 8. This EIR found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed project and are identified with an asterisk 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 the 1998 Supplemental 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 Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 5th 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 1991) 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. Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance prepared for DP993001 (offiice building)(September 1999) 8. Wind Tunnel Test for 3055 Oak Road Building,at the Pleasant Hill BART Station(December 29,2000) 9. Station Oaks Traffic Data Update(August 13, 2000). 10. 3055 Oak Road Traffic Study(October 13, 2000) 11. Environmental Noise Study for Station Oaks Office Building, Contra Costa County, California (December 22,2000) UAMAT\T leasant Hill BART1dp003050.is.doc 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓ vista?(Source 1,2,4,5) b. Substantially damage scenic 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 visual ✓ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source 1,2,4,5 ) d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source 4,5 ) SUMMARY: The proposed project includes two office buildings,one approximately seven stories and 115 ft. in height with mechanical equipment(142 ft. not including the mechanical equipment). The second proposed building will be approximately two stories and 45 ft. in height with mechanical equipment(36 ft. not including the mechanical equipment). The visual impacts of the parking garage will be minimized with the facade on the front of the garage, along Oak Road. The architecture of the office building and the parking garage are compatible with other proposed buildings in the Subarea and the existing buildings in the vicinity. The property is highly visible from 1-684. However, this portion of I-684 is not designated as a scenic highway in the General Plan. 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 the BART Station and lower 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 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan EIR assumed and analyzed these office building view shed and light and glare impacts. 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 the design of the garage to be such that headlights of cars using the parking garage do not shine toward the residential areas. Impact: The project proposes to introduce additional exterior lighting to the area which includes residential uses. UAMAT1i'leasant dill BARn#003050.is.doc 6 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 shin;onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties, all subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permit. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Litigation Significant Ii. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact whether 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 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 i ✓ use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source 2,3,4,5) C. Involve other changes in the existing ✓ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source 2,3,4,5) SUMMARY : The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Since the site is not associated with any agricultural uses,the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. UAMATlPleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR 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:2,4,5,8) 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 2,4,5) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓ substantial number of people?(Source 2,4,5) SUMMARY: The EIR prepared for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area adequately addressed air quality impacts resulting from the proposed total 206,800 sq. ft. office project. Consistent with smart growth and New Urbanism principles, locating these office building employment centers near other office buildings, higher density homes and BART will promote use of mass transit within a mixed use redevelopment project, thereby reducing overall regional air emission impacts. The following mitigation measures adopted for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan will be incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially-Significant Environmental Effect. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulate. Miti ag tion Measures*(Ilia): 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 ft. of freeboard. IJAMAT1Pleasant Hill BARn#00305OAs.doc 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. S. 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 Area. All Specific Plan alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants(ROG,NO,PMI D). Mitigation Measures*{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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 ✓ 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, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?(Source 1,2,4,5) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ✓ any native resident or migratory fish or UAMA'nPleasant Hill BARndp00305O.is.doc 9 wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source 1,2,4,5) e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ✓ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source 1,2,4,5) £ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances .� protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (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 of non-native grasses and weeds. There are no existing trees on the proposed project site. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15©64.5?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ✓ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) d. Disturb any human remains, including those ✓ interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) 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 evidence of any archeological resources ofpotential significance within the confines of the subject property. UAMAIVleasant Hill BART #003050.is.doc 10 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - 'Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential 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 2,4,5,6,7) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source 2,4,5,6,7) 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1,2,5,6,7) 4. Landslides?(Source 1,2,5,6,7) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ✓ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ✓ 'fable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source 1,2,4,5,6,7) C. 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 1,2,4,5,6,7) SUMMARY: Geotechnical reports have been submitted for the proposed site in conjunction with previous development plan applications. At the time of the submittal,the County consulting geologist reviewed the reports.The Specific flan EIR and earlier CEQA documents addressed area wide geological,geotechnical UAMAnPleasant Hill BARndp00305O.is.doc 11 and soil conditions. The 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 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. Potentially SignificantEnvironmental Effect: Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements. Mitigation Measures* fVlb): I. 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 or similar measures designed using criteria provided by the design- level geotechnical investigation. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS ANIS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source 5) UAN[AnPieasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 12 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 pursuant to Government code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source 5) e. For a project located within an airport land V use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source 1,2,4,5) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓ airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (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 ✓ 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 ETR 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 the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. UAMATTleasant Hill l3ART\dp00305O.is.doe 13 Mitigation Measures* fVIIa): 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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ✓ discharge requirements?(2,4,5,6) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ✓ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (2,4,5,6) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓ ✓ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (2,4,5,6) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage - pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a 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) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water ✓ UAMAnPleasant Hili BAR Wp0030501s.doc 14 quality?{2,4,5,6} g. Place housing within a 104-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) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area `r structures that 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 seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? (2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: The site is flat and is not located within a floodplain nor 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 water 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 than significant level. Impact: The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. Mitigation Measure(V11la): 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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact No impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ✓ (2,3,4,5,6,7) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ✓ UAMAnPleasant Hili BART#003050.is.doc 15 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? (2,3,4,5,6,7) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (2,3,4,5,6) 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 the site as Subarea 7B. Specific Plan policies for this Subarea are as follows: • Allows a total of 441,800 sq.ft,(with Subarea 8),which include 157,000 sq.ft.for Subarea 7B North and 49,000 sq. ft. for Subarea 7B South and requires 20 percent of useable 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. + Projects shall have a minimum of 100 ft. 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 the 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 the Station Area near the corner 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 allowed as a result of the Development Plan process,based on individual circumstances. The project proposes two office buildings totaling 206,800 sq. ft. Development Plan #DP003050 is an application for a final development plan for a 157,370 sq.ft.office building and a 530 space parking garage at 3055 Oak Road. Development Plan#DPO 13019 is an application for a preliminary development plan for a 49,000 sq. ft. office building. The applicant worked with staff, adjacent property owners, and community members prior to developing and submitting the proposed design for Development Plan#DP003050. Since the design for the 49,000 sq. ft. office building is preliminary, future development on the site will require approval of a final development plan. The Specific Plan conditionally allows up to seven stories and 108 ft. with the following findings: The increase in height (1)will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space;(2)will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites 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 of up to ten stories and 150 ft. (pg. 50), based on individual circumstances. UAMAIVleasant Hill BAI2n#003050.is.doe 16 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 since landscape trees are included as part of the proposal. Due to the orientation of the building on the site,which is at the northern end of the block,will not create shadow conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor areas. In addition, 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 proposed for the remainder of the subareas. The applicant submitted a master development plan for Subarea 7B/8 indicating common design and circulation elements. A common signage designer has been used on all 3 parcels. The seven-story office building on Subarea 7B-North has been scaled with a similar symmetry presentation to the seven story office tower recently approved for the south parcel. The preliminary design of the two story Subarea 7B-South office building has been scaled to complement the 4-5 story parking garage on the south parcel. The streetscape finishes,landscape material and site circulation have been coordinated. Pedestrian linkages and pathways have been coordinated to link the retail on the south parcel to the northern parcels. Within the three parcels within Subarea 7B/8,ground floor retail has been concentrated on the south parcel most proximate to BART. The northerly sites are constrained by heightened freeway ofd ramp proximity and distance from the central BART station area,thereby providing a more pedestrian-hostile environment. The Specific Plan requires up to 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.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 530 space parking garage on Subarea 7B-North and the proposed 155 surface parking stall on Subarea 7B-South area consistent with the requirements of the Specific flan. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (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? (1,2,4,5,6) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project and the site description,the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources. UAMA`I1Pleasant Hilt BAR`fWp003050.is.doc 17 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. NOISE . Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of ___ ✓ excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase ✓ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(l, 2,3,4,5,6,7,11) e. For a project located within an airport land ✓ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11) SUMMARY: The primary source of noise in the project area is vehicular traffic on I-680,trains on the BART system and traffic on local streets. An environmental noise study was prepared for the proposed project. The report evaluated potential noise impacts from increased traffic,autos using the parking garage, mechanical equipment to be installed on the office buildings and parking garage,and construction noise. In contrast with earlier hotel entitlements, the office proposals would provide lower overall noise impacts on adjoining neighborhoods. The noise study concluded that noise resulting from the increased traffic,autos using the parking garage,and mechanical equipment to be installed on the office buildings and parking garage would not be significant. Significant short-terra noise levels could 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: UAMAT\Pleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 18 Potentially Significant Environmental Effect Development in Subareas 713/8,1 OA and I4A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of'normally unacceptable' and 'clearly unacceptable'noise levels for development. Mitigation Measures*(Xla): (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. 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. Mitigation Measures* (Xlb): 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'quief 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. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an 'r area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(2,2,3,4,5) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(1,2,3,4,5) C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(1,2,3,4,5) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the project,no impacts to housing will occur as a result of the project. UAMATIPleasant Hill$ARTWp0030501s.doc 19 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project: 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: (1,2,4,5,6,7) 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Cather Public facilities? SUMMARY: The proposed project is within existing urban boundaries served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,County Sheriff s Department,and the various County Departments serving the area. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to Police and Fire Services to a less than significant level: 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* Mlla): 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. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. Mitigation Measures* IXIIIbI: 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 UAMAnPlmant Hill BARndpO03050.is.doc 20 the scale of development. 3. If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9, 7A, 7B and 8,discussions should take place among the BART`', Pleasant Hill and Walnut geek 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 Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of ✓ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.? (Source 1,2,4,5) b. Does the project include recreational ✓ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source 1,2,4,5) SUMMARY: Due to the nature of the proposed project, a commercial office development, no significant impacts to parks and recreation are anticipated. Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — 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)?(1,2,3,4,56,7,9,10) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a ✓ level of service standard established by the UAMATTleasant Mill BART'\dp003050.is.doc 21 county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source 1,2,3,4,56,7,9,14) 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 1,2,3,4,56,7,9,10) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ✓ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?(Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? _ ✓ (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓ (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or __ ✓ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10) 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. Traffic data updates prepared for the project found that the current proposal would increase the peak hour or daily trip generation by 41 tripends in the AM peak and 23 tripends in the PM peak hour. This minor change in trip generation is not likely to result in any changes in levels of service at the original study intersections. Since the assumptions in the traffic report prepared for the Specific Plan EIR are generally consistent with the proposed project, impacts assessed in the EIR would remain relevant. 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 study intersections operate at LOS C or better during peak hour. All movements of the unsignalized study intersections in the vicinity of the proposed proj ect 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 prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment did not identify any significant cumulative impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. Thus the cumulative impacts due to this project is insignificant. The recommendations identified in the traffic report will be incorporated 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. L3:1MATTleasant Hill BARndp00305O.is.doc 22 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ✓ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,4,5) 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) C. Require or result in the construction of new _ ✓ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(2,4,5) 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) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ✓ 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) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ ✓ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(2,4,5) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes _ ✓ and regulations related to solid waste?(2,4,5) 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. UAMAT%Pleasant Hill BARndp003050.is.doc 23 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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) b. Does the project have impacts that are ✓ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of 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,) C. Does the project have environmental effects ✓ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) SUMMARY: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources (see #IV- Biological Resources) or eliminate major period of California history or prehistory(see#V-Cultural Resources). No impacts that are cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project have been identified. Mitigation measures identified under I-Aesthetics,III-Air Quality,VI-Geology and Soils,VII-hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII-Hydrology and Water Quality, XI-Noise,and XIII-Public Services will ensure that adverse effects on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. U:\MAT\Pleasant Hill BART1dp003050.is.doc .....t..,...x.......................�.... ..... ...?..........a..{.. ., ....F.+. ,.. .,.,.,.,. is i::}:{:�:• <v:�i.: ':'ti::: .... ,v............n.....n.-.- r,..a-.:v..t...ss....._,..,..m... •. •. -.:..n.,..:/i .1r, .:•}:{•i;4.r:$:r-ni:-:r�.v::.t..,..... rF .n, h. ..rv4v...,...,,..,..t•:?•rr::•::r:-:-:r:::.•.v-.v::::::.::.... n. :v:vv..../. vt•}..,,,v.,:.i:•}.:{•�•:::::::.....,:.:.v:v,v;:•v::f,+ { ''•:t•}. : .. ...-. ..:ri n:.v.•.r..Xt....... .:.- ...,} •;,v •`G . S•.•SK+?.^}:°s:t•:r:r:Ff:rii}:.:v:v.:.v .fi+� :.:.v,}3 b•+.�.,.,,.r}.•.. ..v}:::?:••�F }iSL 1'•.4. :i:tkhti•,r;rx,;,., .:}„ :-{ {.. S� y.i}r,+:v '{i�-:•.'-:.v{:i. ..k..t{,;::�i"!ivv::.:v}::...}:,r,..' v"�" •::.v":.: : ':ti}+-.,:°�:r A jjy �::k\•}}*. ,.v`n. a•}{ .'fr. t..}r:'t,,±:s}'r"::}r.. �lS.n�•. .�,:�,•.v *. :� � �'i�, ..:�?...xv ::x>{:: � vrl>Fr.`•vt t ?� }w•' x=}:Ff^::::'•}:y"a:.'};,;}:;ya'•'-'-xr:•}}}:a.s.:'{{-s".f:•�3:�i,�s^:�:.}::`y:?>:•.`:� �St}' "x} k :.,'} ti+:iitr:s:r:..tr: t• ,r_.rr::k•::k •�• , r m'i `wc;.,r,,,„r .f.,. .,.. .a� E: Ffvt •ar•: `.•�m.'a-2?!"yc`�wc•:-.:•. :,t{$:�``.•'k�,.......,._....,....:}•xx::{^r..•..:.:...:.:r....r.•:}2,,,..,. r...'v.xr................ rr}:<•...,..4x{:..... ., .•.>::• ,:...t,..n..,...r .,.. a .,::.-.•;:;.:,x-:2x�:v:t�:'t•:�}.:v:;ko:;�a,...'•;:f::fr:•':ft;.. ...:.... :i•.. .,:...,,. .{•.v:•...::.:n•,.•:.:..,s•..•}:}v.. ..s:r.•x•:-:}:.,rv:-.:vr: ry i•vWF tWFF :{;},^;;:::t{;::•}:•i+..,. }:•if yr }r.}?v y. .... ,r.r:-r}..}.v:.v•.-r:,-:}}r:::s.r.:::..rr,.,°;;..:•::Fv:.w•... r. ::. ...:...rn.. .. .n:s..:n•.::::•. .......: ..,.r .. ..,. .r},,.,..r.,Y.......,..,..,rr- .. , ."'J,N.YM+.:am'a :.................,..,...r,...........r...,..:........,. ,,r.,a.h..r ....:,a.°..:•}}:?:`�nnv:v.... .. .:.r. .... }:•};•r...:.�{!tk•:{{{•F.:•::iif.:....:Y 1C !A 3 4N yy� S� PLAM LAS ANTAS WAY CL ss o w TF42AT BLVD a r 4B � 15 JONES RD is 9 filly Y v.Y f G f t �ya �jo 1 (C�Oj3 jy % ' CL Lj m ' _ s �15 I { BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MA'T'TER OF EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD II L.L.0 fApl2licant and Owner) The applicant requests approval of an amendment to a development agreement, involving the 'development of two parcels within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. A Preliminary Development Plan (DP013019) has been approved on one of the sites (the Central Parcel and a final development plan(DP003050) has been approved on the other site (the Northern Parcel). The subject properties are located at 3035 and 3055 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area Walnut Creek area of Central Contra Costa County. (APN 148-480-007/008/009)(M-3)(P-1)(L-14)(CT3382) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited mail with Contra Costa County Central Services for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California. A copy of the hearing notice with First Class postage was mailed to the following: See attached list I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: October 8, 2004 , Martinez, CA. Kathy Sinclair, Deputy Clerk 148 202 057 148 202 062 148 202 063 Walnut View Properties Park Regency Partners Park Regency Partners 3100 Oak Rd#140 9990 Santa Monica Blvd 9990 Santa.Monica Blvd Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 148 202 071 148 202 072 148 221 033 Gfroerer Park Regency Partners Kenneth&Martha Hofmann 1651 Stone Pine Ln 9990 Santa Monica Blvd Hofmann Menlo Park, CA 94025 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 1380 Galaxy Way Concord,CA 94520 148 440 001 148 440 002 148 440 003 Carl&Carol Johnson Paula Heckler Pavel Karas PO Box 1896 1376 Las Juntas Way#G 1376 Las Juntas Way#F Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 004 148 440 005 148 440 006 Robert Thorstp Jr. Thomas Leibowitz Ronin Fryday 1376 Las Juntas Wav#E 1376 Las Juntas Wav#D 2551 Lavender Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 148 440 007 148 440 008 148 440 009 Daniel Yee Peter&Jean Giorvas Monica Tull 2191 .Bent Creek Dr 15560 China Rapids Dr 1358 Las Juntas Way#H San Ramon, CA 94.583 Red Bluff. CA 96080 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 010 148 440 011 148 440 012 Michael Rainey Shondra Weill Jerry Smith 1358 Las Juntas Way#G 1358 Las Juntas War #F 2121 N California Blvd#240 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 9.1596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 013 148 440 014 148 440 015 .ferry Smith Leo Drapaniotis Melissa Pyper 2175 N California'.Blvd#330 1358 Las Juntas Wad #C 1358 Las Juntas Way#B Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 148 440 016 148 440 017 148 440 018 James Stetter Sr. &Jovice Stonaker Monica Samblanet Richard Harris&Mar},Basas 1358 Las Juntas Way#A 1346 Las Juntas WaN #D 3126 Oak Rd#202 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 440 019 148 440 020 148 440 021 Raymond Pierce Christian& Ann Wright Joseph&Patricia Kelly 1346 Las Juntas Way#13 1346 Las Juntas Way #A 1340 Las Juntas Way#A Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut:Creek, CA 94596 148 440 022 148 440 023 148 440 024 Gordon Miller Susan Ray Robert John Zerrilla &David Padilla 1340 Las Juntas Way#B 1340 Las Juntas Way#C 5598 Gonzalez Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Concord, CA 94521 148 440 025 148 440 026 148 440 027 Jim&Peggy Mejannet Donna Pieper Mamdouh& Catherine Gaballa 1340 Las Juntas Way#E 1340 Las Juntas Way#F 241 Ginocchio Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 148 440 028 148 440 029 148 440 030 Donna Willer Jared&Carolyn Dillian Katbdeen Bredahl&John Bredahl 1340 Las Juntas Way#H 1340 Las Juntas Way#1 26366 Eshelman Ave Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Lomita, CA 90717 148 440 031 148 440 032 148 440 033 Louise Kioski Lynn&Jolynn Homertgen Douglas William Clarke 1340 Las Juntas Way#K 7415 E Pinto Way 1352 Las Juntas Way#A Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Orange. CA 92869 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 440 034 148 440 03.5 148 440 036 Donald Mccall Calvin Tom Gulshan Aliuja 2861 Winthrop Ave 1352 Las Juntas Way#C 1352 Las Juntas Way#D San Ramon, CA 94583 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 037 148 440 038 148 440 039 George&Joanne Booras Brattdort & Dixie Williams Mark Mcfetridge PO Bos 1556 1352 Las Juntas Way#F 1.364 Las Juntas Way#A Danville, CA 94526 Waluut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 040 148 440 041 148 440 042 John&Bonnie Pogue Ben&Julianne Ciattfichi Robert Borba &Janet Brayton 1364 Las Juntas Waw-#B 1743 Oro Valley- Cir 13564 Las Juntas Way#D Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek., CA 94596 148 440 043 148 440 044 148 440 045 Tina Billeci Erik Fosker Mike& Anne Nicolson 1364 Las Juntas Way#E 1364 Las Juntas Way#F 1320 Magnolia St Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Norman. OK 73072 148 440 046 148 440 047 148 440 048 Ernest&Janet Perry Bruce&Lynda.Balha Paul John Gustafson 34 Valley View Dr 3310 Place SE 4160T 1015 Wickham Dr Orinda, CA 94563 Mill Creek. WA 98012 Moraga, CA 94556 148 440 049 148 440 050 148 440 051 Thomas&Kajs-Mari Barnes Craig& Vivian Fendel Stuart&Francis Clean 340 Hartford Rd 551 Grizzly Peak Blvd 1370 Las Juntas Way#A Danville, CA 94526 Berkeley, CA 94708 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 440 052 148 440 053 148 440 054 Byron Warner Richard&Claire Clancy Leyla Zabilt &Sepehr Zabih 1370 Las Juntas Way#B 1555 Riviera Ave#E 1.588 Del Monte Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Moraga, CA 94556 148 440 055 148 440 056 148 440 057 Richard Caderttartori Barbara Tyler Patric Seats Walsh 1370 Las Juntas Way#E 1370 Las Juntas Way#F 114 S Plum Crest Cir Walnut Creek; CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 The Woodlands, TX 77382 148 440 058 148 440 059 148 480 007 Robert&Annbritt Erickson Frederick Jay&Caroline Lutz Spieker Properties Peter Erickson 1370 Las Juntas Way#1 1255 Treat Blvd#150 1106 Calder Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 - /`Y 148 480 009 148 480 010 Spieker Properties Spieker Properties Lp Main Street Holdings Llc 1255 Treat Blvd 4150 1255 Treat Blvd 3100 Oak Rd #140 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 480 011 Main Street Holdings Llc 3100 Oak Rd#140 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 tc . NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,October 19, 2004 at 9:45 am, in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: (EOP-OAK ROAD I, L.L.C. and EOP-OAK ROAD II, L.L.C, (Applicant and Owner),) The applicant requests approval of an amendment to a development agreement, involving the development of two parcels within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. A Preliminary Development Plan (DP013019) has been approved on one of the sites (the Central Parcel and a final development plan (DP003050) has been approved on the other site (the Northern Parcel). The subject properties are located at 3035 and 3055 Oak Road in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area Walnut Creek area of Central Contra Costa County. (APN 148-480- 007/008/009)(M-3)(P-1)(L-14)(CT3382) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is 3035 and 3055 Oak Road, in the Pleasant Hill Area. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,October 19, 2004 at 9:15 am, in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to sheet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Maureen Toms, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1250 by 3:00 pm on Monday, October 18, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: October 7, 2004 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By . Kathy Sinclair,Deputy Clerk