Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03181986 - 1.54 THE BDARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on MARCH 18, 1986 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisor Fanden, Schroder, mcpeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Approval of Develoment Plans 2658-RZ and RESOLUTION NO. 8611331 3002-86, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Preliminary Development Plan 2658-RZ and Final Development Plan 3002-86 and variances are approved and granted, and zoning ordinance No. 86- 21 is enacted, subject to the Board's conditions of approval for the above plans and 6rdinance,- set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and based on findings attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference. The Board FURTHER DIRECTS the Director of Community Development to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning the actions and approvals taken and granted herein. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the nintes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: Marc-h, 18, 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy U pill Orig. Dept.: Community Development cc: County Administrator County Counsel Applicant Taylor Ward Associates EXHIBIT A y CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2658-RZ AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3002-86 Revised Conditions): 1. This approval is based upon the following exhibits subject to the following conditions: a). Exhibit 1 - Conceptual Site Plan. b) Exhibit 2 - Landscape Plan c) Exhibit 4 - Grading Plan d) Exhibits 5 & 6 - Parking Access Plan e) Exhibits 7 & 8 - Hotel Floor Plan f) Exhibit 9 - Site Section g) Exhibits 10, 11, 12 & 13 - Elevations 2. Approval is based on the aforesaid exhibits, and following conditions, however all conditions are subject to further review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan shall serve as the basis for review and it may be that additional requirements, conditions and/or modifications may be specified following further review. Also approved is the final development plan for the southerly hotel not to exceed 171,845 gross square feet and preliminary approval for a second hotel on the north portion of the site not to exceed 140,000 gross square feet. 3. This approval is limited to a maximum of 175,000 gross square feet and 165,564 net square feet of office. This includes the transfer of 58,000 square feet from other sites. Documentation of these transfers has been submitted and approved as required by the TDR Amendment to the Specific Plan and adopted TDR procedures. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the north hotel, the applicant shall submit and gain approval of a final development plan. 5. Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses which may conditionally be allowed as listed in the Specific Plan are subject to the applicant submitting detailed information to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval addressing the conditional use criteria in the Specific Plan and any other information as may be required. The hotel uses are approved. 6. The applicant will comply with the Parking Policies of the Pleasant Hill BART` Specific Plan as follows: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicants shall submit a detailed TSM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless othewise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM plan shall be operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Dept. Page 2 B. This; condition may be satisfied by participation in an approved areawide TSM Program which is in effect prior to occupancy. The applicant will participate in an approved areawide TSM Program when one is established. C. Theapplicant shall comply with any applicable ordinance requiring TSM at such time one is adopted. D. The applicant will monitor parking and submit reports annually to the Zoning Administrator for review. This will include 1) the number of parking spaces used relative to the amount of building occupied at differing times of day and year; 2) number of single occupied vehicles; 3) parking fee structure; and 4) a summary of a questionnaire to all building employees as to their commute practices; and 5) any'additional information as may be required by the Zoning Administrator. E. Should the Zoning Administrator, as a result of the annual review, determine that reasons exists to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions of approval relating to the parking program, the matter will be administratively brought back to public hearing. i F. The.applicant will submit any proposed fee structure and program or pass/card program for Zoning Administrator review and approval. Such programs shall be designed so as to not cause a backup of traffic on the public roads. 7. The project will comply with the following landscape requirements: A. A final landscap e and irrigation plan will be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. B. Approved landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of any portion of any building. C. The'landscaping plan shall be consistent with areawide guidelines currently being used, by staff and shall provide substantial "urban" pedestrian oriented plaza areas as well as detailed, attention to the elevation of the parking structure. D. The landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation landscaping requirements as adopted by the Board of Supervisors September 17, 1985. The landscaping plan shall also include specimen sized oak trees along Oak Road (including the use of tree grates) consistent with the theme used throughout the project area. E. The, applicant shall submit a plan for review for tree preservation for the-- existing he—existing landmark native oak. F. Phasing shall be addressed in the landscape plan. 7. The design of all signs will be as specified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Plan, relative to location, scale, colors, materials, illumination, size and copy. Sign design will be consistent throughout the project and will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines being prepared. 1Y Page 3 8. The applicant will comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Contra Costa Water District. 9. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District. 10. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section. 82-2.014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance, Unless exceptions are specifically granted. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County, Ordinance Code. This includes the following: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, convey to the Redevelopment Agency by Grant Deed, additional right of way as required for the public road improvements as shown on the plans developed by the Assessment District 1983-1 Engineer and on file with the Public Works Department. 2) Improvements planned for Assessment District 1983-1 will satisfy all other requirements of Division 1006. C. Install all new utility distribution services underground. This shall include providing for the undergrounding of Cable television cables. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department,-Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public Works Depart- ment. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. G. Record a record of survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer for the final development site prior to issuance of a building permit. Y Page 4 11. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall be required to pay the adjusted Specifc Plan fee for each square foot actually constructed over the amount previously covered by Assessment District 1983-1. 12. The applicant shall agree and make it a condition of lease agreements that future leaseholders and tenants agree to using a Pleasant Hill address. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the ,office or parking structure, the applicant shall submit a letter of intent or contract with the proposed hotel operators. 14. Comply with requirements of the Sheriff's Department Communications Division necessary to mitigate obstruction of County Microwave facilities prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. The applicant shall cooperate in addressing child care concerns. 16. Within twelve months from the effective date of approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan, a building permit must be obtained and construction begun for any hotel use or an amended Final Development Plan filed. The Zoning Administrator may grant extensions to the twelve month time limit upon submittal by the applicant of adequate documentation showing good cause for the granting of such extension. 17. The final approval of the design of any hotel use and the proper allocation of FAR within the scope of the Specific Plan (including the use of transferred FAR) shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 18. The applicant shall further mitigate traffic impacts by participating equitably in a regional transportation mitigation fund by consenting to, and assisting with the creation of, and participation in, a parking fee assessment district,or by the payment of a one time $.50 per gross square foot fee. DEA/ASA:plp9dp 1/23/86 1/28/86 3/13/86 UH.I B I T-�....�, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS RELATIVE TO REZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-10) AND PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' FOR AN OFFICE/HOTEL PROJECT IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION REDEVELOPMENT AREA UPON THE APPLICATION OF TAYLOR/WARD PROPERTIES AND SONSPIRIT PROPERTIES I. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: A. ,FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS: ,1. On June 7, 1983, this Board approved and adopted the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (hereinafter the "Specific Plan") . The Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Government Code of the State of California and was designed to combine planning policies, zoning regulations, capital improvement programs, ' detailed development standards and other regulatory schemes into one document which was tailored to meet the needs of the specific Pleasant Hill BART Station area (hereinafter the "BART Station Area") . The Specific Plan was prepared under the direction of a Steering Committee containing representatives of the County of Contra Costa (hereinafter the "County';) , Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Walnut Creek, City of Pleasant Hill and; the Walden Improvement Association, and the resulting Specific ;Plan reflects the goals and _concerns of those agencies and parties. -1- 3/14/86 s y t As a part of the adoption of the Specific Plan and the adoption of certain amendments to the County of Contra Costa General Plan, an Environmental Impact Report on the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan prepared by Sedway/Gook for the County of Contra Costa (hereinafter the "County") was certified by this Board as complete and adequate to provide the environmental information necessary to allow this Board to make a reasoned 'decision on the adoption of the Specific Plan and the General Plan amendments in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA") . In the course of certifying that Environmental Impact Report as complete, the draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated to the appropriate agencies and made available to the public. A Notice of Completion of, the draft EIR was given by mailing the same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals entitled to such notice. Additional notices were given by publication and posting in accordance with Section 15085 (d) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Public hearings were conducted on the draft ETR and comments both oral and written were received from the general public and the governmental agencies. Following the receipt of such comments, responses to comments were prepared by and at the direction of County staff, and copies thereof made available to the general public and public agencies to the extent required by the CEQA Guidelines. 2 . On July 10, 1984, this Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, passed and adopted Ordinance 84-30(RD) -2- 3/14/86 which adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the BART Station Area pursuant ;to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. As a part of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the County Planning Department conducted an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA and determined that a supplement to the final Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan would be required for the consideration of the Redevelopment Plan. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan was determined by this Board to be to provide a fiscal method for the implementation of the Specific Plan and the provisions of the two (2) plans were found to be consistent. The supplemental and final Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan was prepared and circulated as required by law. Public hearings were held on the draft Environmental Impact Report, which included the supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the final Environmental Impact Report prepared previously for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan adoption. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the t Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (hereinafter the "Program EIR") were circulated as required by law and made available to the public. Notice of Completion was given by, mailing the same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals and additional notice was given by publication and posting in accordance with Section 15085(d) (2) of i the CEQA Guidelines. This Board in Ordinance 84-30(RD) certified as complete and adequate the Program EIR and adopted a statement -3- 3/14/86 of significant environmental impacts, findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations which were contained in Exhibit "B" attached to Ordinance 84-30 (RD) and incorporated therein by reference. 3 . On January 6, 1986, the County's Community Development Department received an application from Taylor/Ward Properties and Sonspirit Properties, as Applicants, seeking the rezoning of approximately 10 acres of land in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, more particularly identified in Exhibit "A" hereto (hereinafter the "Property") , from Single-Family Residential Districts (R-10) and Planned Unit District (P-1) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and for the approval of Preliminary and Final Development Plans for an office/hotel project. The "Project", as the term is hereinafter referred to consists of the following: (a) Retention and incorporation into the Project of the existing three (3) story, 511800 square foot commercial office building on development area 7, as that area is defined in the Specific Plan; (b) A three (3) level parking structure with one (1) level below grade, one (1) on grade and one (1) above grade, to accommodate a total of 1,011 cars; (c) A seven (7) story, 175,000 square foot office building , atop two (2) above grade. levels of parking, which building shall extend 154 feet above original grade; -4- 3/14/86 (d) A twelve (12) story, 137 foot high hotel with 308 rooms , (the "Southerly Hotel") ; (e) A ten (10) story, 110 foot high hotel with 250 rooms (the "Northerly Hotel") ; (f) Together with certain landscaping, open space, surface and below-grade parking, and other improvements, all as more particularly shown on the drawings, plans, and specifications submitted as part of Applicants' application. In approving Applicants' Final Development Plan, this Board expressly finds and determines that said Final Development Plan is for a portion of the Property only and does not include the Northerly .Hotel. A -separate Final Development Plan approval will be required before the Northerly Hotel can be developed. 4. This Board expressly finds and determines that the Project is an individual component of the Redevelopment Plan and that the Program EIR certified as complete at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan constitutes a program EIR pursuant -to the provisions of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines, which also provides that all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment plan by the legislative body. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Board, based on a thorough and complete examination by staff, finds and determines that the Project does not constitute a subsequent activity in the program that would -5- 3/14/86 require additional environmental documentation and further finds and determines that no such additional environmental documentation is required. The Board further finds that pursuant to said section of the CEQA Guidelines and to Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164, no subsequent EIR or environmental determination nor supplement or addendum to the Program EIR is necessary for the Project which constitutes an individual component of the Redevelopment Plan, for the following reasons: (a) From and after the preparation of the Program EIR, no changes have been made in the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project which would require any revisions to the Program EIR; (b) No significant or substantial changes have occurred in any of the circumstances under which the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and the Project are being undertaken which could result in involvement of any new significant environmental impact not covered in the Program EIR; and (c) No new information of any importance to the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project has become available including, without limitation (i) any information which would show that the Redevelopment Plan or its individual components, including the Project, as approved, would have significant effects not discussed in the Program EIR; (ii) information that significant effects previously found to exist will become more severe under -6- 3/14/86 the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project, as approved, than as discussed in the Program EIR; (iii) any information that mitigation measures previously found feasible have become infeasible; or (iv) information that other alternatives or mitigation measures exist which were not considered in the Program EIR. The Program EIR is complete, adequate and in full compliance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations, and all proceedings for the environmental review process in preparation of the Program EIR have been conducted and completed in full compliance with the policy and specific requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations. 5. All of the hearings and proceedings held in conjunction with the certification of the Program EIR were conducted under and in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the County of Contra Costa, statutes of the State of California, CEQA Guidelines including, without limitation, all requirements of published, posted and mailed notices pursuant to all of the foregoing ordinances, statutes and guidelines. The environmental review process has been carried out with full and adequate opportunities for review and comment by members of the public and interested public agencies. No person or agency has been deprived of full and fair opportunity and ample time to -7- 3/14/86 comment on each document comprising the Program EIR or the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components and the Project. 6. The Board hereby readopts and incorporates herein by reference the Statement of Significant Environmental Impacts, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by this Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, as a part of Ordinance 84-30 (RD) upon the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment, Plan and certification of the Program EIR, which Statements and Findings are attached to said Ordinance as Exhibit "B" thereto. The Board hereby readopts, reaffirms and incorporates herein all its said Statements and Findings as though they were set forth in full. B. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT: The Program EIR identifies a number of significant environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan and its individual components and recommends specific mitigation measures for each of such effects. This Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, has previously as a part of Resolution 84-30 (RD) approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan made specific findings with respect to such significant effects pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Board hereby again readopts and reaffirms those specific findings and expressly finds and determines that the mitigation measures adopted as a part of Ordinance 84-30(RD) fully and -8- 3/14/86 adequately mitigated the significant impacts and effects set out in the Program EIR. As such, there is no necessity for further and additional mitigation measures as a part of the approval of the Project which constitutes a component of the Redevelopment Plan. However, the Boardfinds and determines that the significant effects set out in the Program EIR are additionally and further mitigated by the additional mitigation measures set out herein. Said additional mitigation measures are expressly deemed to be in addition to those adopted by this Board previously and not required by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. 1. Air 4uality: The Program EIR states that specific onsite air quality impacts may be significant during cold start periods because of the concentration of parking facilities. This Board finds that this impact is further mitigated to acceptable levels by the conditions of approval which require the Applicants to submit a detailed Transportation Systems Management Plan before receiving building permits and to have such a system operating before occupancy of the buildings and also by requiring that Applicants monitor parking and submit reports annually to the zoning administrator for review. The zoning administrator, after such review, is empowered to determine that reasons exist to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions of approval relating to the parking program and to bring the matter to administrative public hearing. Also, this effect is further mitigated by the condition requiring that the Applicants agree to -9- 3/14/86 comply with any Transportation Systems Management requirements resulting from the adoption of an applicable TSM Ordinance. 2. Noise Impacts: The Program EIR projects increases in traffic on the I-680 corridor and Treat Boulevard corridor and resulting increase in the ambient noise environment portions of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area beyond the recommended level for residential land uses. The Board finds that this impact is further mitigated to satisfactory levels by the requirement by the Community Development Department that a sound wall be constructed between the residential areas south and east of Jones Road along the Urban West Project frontage. In addition, the Board finds that it is the responsibility of Caltrans in planning and constructing the I-680/24 improvements to analyze and adopt measures to deal with the increase in noise level. Also, the Board finds that the impact is further mitigated by the requirement that the Applicants submit a detailed TSM Plan and comply with any TSM requirements adopted by an applicable TSM ordinance since the effect of such conditions will be to reduce the amount of traffic on the I-680 and Treat Boulevard corridors. 3 . Energy Impacts: The Program EIR projects increased energy consumption in the transportation sector which this Board finds to be fully and adequately mitigated by the mitigation measures adopted as a part of Ordinance 84-30(RD) , including, without limitation, those set forth in paragraph 3 of Exhibit "B" thereto. -10- 3/14/86 4. Transportation and Circulation Impacts: The Program EIR forecasts increased traffic congestion due to increased development potential at the Station area and increased traffic congestion due to parking provisions in the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. This Board hereby finds as follows: (a) The analysis of transportation and circulation as contained in the Program EIR is adequate and complete to fully analyze the impacts of this Project as well as all of the other component portions of the Redevelopment Plan. The Board determines that the data used by the authors of the Program EIR is accurate and, as more fully set forth above, expressly finds that there have been no changes in the Redevelopment Plan or the component parts thereof nor in the facts surrounding its implementation which would require any additional traffic analysis; (b) The Board finds that the significant impacts relating to transportation and circulation set out in the Program EIR are fully and adequately mitigated by the mitigation measures adopted by the Board at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and incorporated herein by reference; (c) The Board finds that said significant impacts have been further mitigated by the creation of Assessment District 1983-1, established in January, 1984, pursuant to which the Property was assessed approximately $1,833,085 for development fees, a good portion of which has been and will be -11- 3/14/86 used for the construction of transportation and circulation improvements; including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Treat Boulevard widening; (ii) Oak Road extension and widening; (iii) Jones Road improvement west of Oak Road; (iv) Wayne Court extension; (v) Buskirk Avenue widening; and (vi) Signal modification or installation on Treat Boulevard at Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and Jones Road and on Oak Road at Jones Road and the BART D parking lot access. In addition, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Project, this Board requires that Applicants convey additional rights-of-way required for public road improvements to the County's Redevelopment Agency. This conveyance of very valuable property rights will further mitigate the transportation and circulation effects. (d) The Board further finds and determines that the inclusion of two (2) hotels into the subject property further mitigates the effects of transportation and circulation in that the transportation, circulation peak-hour trip generation and parking demands of a hotel are significantly less than those of office facilities and allow the institution of complementary parking which enables the commercial and office facilities to make use of the hotel parking spaces at times when said spaces are not in use, and vice versa; -12- 3/14/86 (e) The Board further finds that the submittal of a detailed TSM Plan as well as the agreement of the Applicants to take part in any TSM requirements resulting from an applicable ordinance further mitigates the transportation and circulation impact in that the experience of other developers in Contra Costa County has indicated that such TSM Plans can result in a substantial decrease in traffic below that which would otherwise be encountered; and (f) That the impacts are further mitigated by the condition of approval which requires Applicant(s) to participate equitably in a regional traffic mitigation fund by consenting to and assisting with the creation of a parking assessment district or payingg a one-time fee calculated at fifty cents ($.50) per gross square foot. C. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE ' PROJECT: The Program EIR points out that to a certain extent the Redevelopment Plan will be growth inducing within the study area. This Board finds that any growth inducement caused by the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts or the Project is partially mitigated and overridden by the fact that the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and its component parts will eventually maximize the property tax revenue available to the local agencies responsible for meeting the area's increased demand for .public services and facilities and allow a mechanism -13- 3/14/86 for funneling and encouraging the use of public transportation facilities such as BART, bus lines and other public facilities. D. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: The Board hereby reiterates, restates and reaffirms the findings of this Board contained in Ordinance 84-30 (RD) specifically relating to Project alternatives. In addition, this Board finds that the formation of Assessment District 1983-1 and the creation of assessments upon the property within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area for the purpose of providing funds for the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and its component parts is further reason why the alternatives to the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and this Project set out in the Program EIR are infeasible. The Board finds that the owners of the subject property have subjected the property to significant assessments and have paid considerable sums in servicing those assessments in order to provide funds for the construction of public improvements, some of which have been already constructed and others of which will be constructed in the future. E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED: This Board hereby restates and reaffirms the findings made in Ordinance 84-30(RD) that significant environmental impacts are adequately mitigated to satisfactory levels and further finds and determines that as to any such impacts which have not been so mitigated, the benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and this Project outweigh the adverse impacts and -14- 3/14/86 hereby restate, reiterate and incorporate by reference the findings made relative to the Statement of Overriding Considerations in the aforementioned Ordinance. The Board by so restating and reaffirming these findings does so as if they were totally new and independent findings relating to the Project as well as applying to the prior adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. II. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY OF PROJECT WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The Board hereby finds and determines that the Project is fully and totally consistent with the appropriate provisions of the County General Plan, the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan and more specifically discusses each as follows: A. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: This Board finds that the Project, including both the rezoning of the subject property to P-1 and the approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for development of the property as previously described, is fully and totally consistent with the provisions of the County Area General Plan. As set out in the Program EIR at page 1-23, the Area General Plan states that the office designation for lands west and south of the BART Station is established to provide for administrative and professional office development. In addition, hotel use is permitted as a conditional use and is a most effective way of increasing tax revenue, one of the goals of the General Plan. In conformance with the goals and objectives of the County General -15- 3/14/86 Plan, the Project as an implementation of a portion of the Redevelopment Plan will encourage a balanced mix of new development which will increase the supply of housing, provide employment opportunities and generate significant long-term property tax revenues and will also insure that existing needs for community services, facilities, open space and public improvements are adequately addressed. B. CONSISTENCY WITH PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN: The Specific Plan, at pages 11 through 13, sets forth a series of overall plan objectives which this Board deems to be in the main part fully consistent with the Project as more specifically discussed below as follows: 1. Floor Area Ratio Provisions: (a) Base 'FAR: The floor area ratio for area 7 of the Property is 0.75 and for area 8 is 1.0. Area 7 thus allows 277,367 square feet of building area. Area 8, with an FAR of 1.0, allows 142,705 square feet of building area. The total base FAR development potential of the Property is 368,272 square feet (420, 072 less 51,800, representing the existing office building) . (b) Transferred FAR: The Specific Plan in figure 7 sets forth the Space and Site Requirements Matrix which establishes the FAR for the various development areas. The Specific Plan provides that development intensity can be transferred to alternate development areas. The development transfer provision shall be seen primarily as a means of -16- 3/14/86 consolidating development for the purposes of retaining land for future development in the event that it can be shown that a density bonus is warranted or for the efficient assembling of key holdings or to maximize the flexibility of site design, recognizing the opportunities and constraints of certain properties. . The Applicants have submitted to the Community Development Department (i) authorization from Walnut View Properties and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, sellers of the FAR to be transferred and (ii) a traffic report prepared by DKS Associates which shows that the purchase and implementation into the Project of 58,000 square feet of allowable building area will not create adverse impacts resulting from the altered density location; and they have agreed, and it is a condition of approval of the Project, that the Applicants shall participate in an area-wide TSM program when and if one is established. This Board finds and determines that the transferred FAR is less than 100, 000 gross square feet and does not constitute more than 20% of the available base FAR from the parcel or parcels from which it was transferred. The Board finds and determines that the transfer of 58,000 square feet of base FAR from the Bay Area Rapid Transit District property to the Property is allowable under and consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan. The Applicants' traffic study has indicated that no adverse impacts will be generated from the transfer of density to the Property and the Board finds that the transfer furthers and implements the -17- 3/14/86 intent of the Specific Plan, most specifically the goal to maximize the flexibility of site design, recognizing the opportunities and constraints of the relatively odd shaped parcels constituting the Property. The Board finds that with the purchase and transfer of the 58,000 square feet of FAR from the Bay Area Rapid Transit District property the allowable base FAR for the Property becomes 426,272 square feet (exclusive of the 51,800 square feet contained in the existing building) I (c) Equivalency Adjustment to FAR: The Board hereby finds and determines that in applying the FAR formula to determine allowable base building area for a parcel, an equivalency adjustment should be made for the square footage of hotel space. The FAR formula was determined based upon an assumption that the buildings to which it would be applied would be office buildings. Applying the FAR formula, as written, to hotel structures is inequitable and violative of the scope and intent of the Specific Plan which is meant to foster freedom and innovation in design and siting of structures; reflect the demand said structures will make on transportation facilities and public services; provide support uses and other attractive uses which will draw patrons to the community transportation facilities and provide for maximized tax revenue from the properties to encourage and allow the accomplishment of the Development Plan. The Community Development Department has made a thorough and exhaustive analysis of the equivalency of hotel and office uses measured in terms of demand for public services, -18- 3/14/86 traffic generation and parking of hotels and office facilities. The intent of the Community Development Department was to determine and analyze the approximate "equivalency" of 1,000 square feet of hotel space to 1, 000 square feet of office space in order to assess the impact of these different types of development. The methodology and results of the study by the Community Development Department are contained in the staff report on the Project and the conclusion set out therein and hereby adopted by this Board is that hotels require a lower level of public services and support services because the intensity of usage of the space is much lower than with an office building. Additionally, the periods of peak usage of hotels occur at off-peak periods, compared to offices, reducing peak demands in the area and balancing out public service demands. This Board concurs with the findings of the Community Development Department and finds that the proper equivalency factor to use in assessing hotel square footage to determine allowable FAR is 72%. The Board finds and determines that this factor derives from the fact that peak-hour traffic generation by hotels is only 72% of peak-hour. traffic generation by office buildings (with office building traffic generation adjusted downward to allow for the effects of a TSM program) . The Board finds and determines that the other elements of comparison set forth in the staff report are accurate and correct, but determines that the 72% factor is appropriate based upon the Board's concern over traffic generation and circulation. -19- 3/14/86 The total square footage of the two hotels is 309,430 square feet. Seventy-two percent (72%) of this figure. equals 222,790 square feet which, when added to the 175,000 square feet in the proposed office building, results in a total base building area determined by FAR calculations for the Project of 397,790 square feet, which this Board finds and determines to be less than the allowable base and transferred FAR of 426,272 square feet calculated previously and fully consistent with the intent and goals of the Specific Plan. 2. Findings With Regard To Hotel Use: The Specific Plan allows hotel uses as a conditional use on the Property if certain findings can be made. The Board hereby expressly and directly makes the following findings in approving the Preliminary Development Plan for two (2) hotels and the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Southerly Hotel to be constructed on the Property. (a) The construction of the hotels will not result in a major reduction of the office space capacity for the entire Station area. The proposed hotels constitute approximately 6-1/2% of the total potential building area and represents a minor reduction, if any, in the amount of office space which can be constructed in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area and will be supportive of and complementary to the commercial office use; and (b) The Board finds that the facilities will be designed and constructed as an integrated rather than a self-contained and isolated element of the Specific Plan, -20- 3/14/86 Redevelopment Plan and its individual components. The Development Plan calls for support uses including public meeting rooms, eating facilities and retail uses. The hotels are integrated by the use of a common parking structure, vehicular and pedestrian access and extensive plaza area and pedestrian walkways with the office buildings to be constructed on the Property and with the rest of the projects contemplated for the area. 3. Findings Relative To Height: The Specific Plan provides that in addition to the permitted heights as shown in table 14, additional height may be allowed as a result of the development plan review process. The allowance of additional height is required pursuant to page 47 of the Specific Plan to be accompanied by two findings by this Board. (a) Allowance of Excess Height for Southerly and Northerly Hotels: The proposed Southerly Hotel contains twelve (12) actual hotel stories, but measures only 138 feet from grade to top. The Northerly Hotel contains ten (10) stories, but measures only 110 feet from grade to top. The Board finds that because hotel room floors are less in height, floor-to-floor, the Specific Plan actually allows more stories in less height. The Board finds that the twelve (12) story hotel is, in actuality, lower from grade than an office building of ten (10) stories, which would measure considerably higher. The Board finds that it is the intent of the Specific Plan to allow conditional approval of structures up to the average height of a ten (10) story office I i j -21- 3/14/86 I building. In addition, the Board finds that the Specific Plan lists as a goal the maximization of tax revenue from the BART Station Area and that this can most effectively be done through the inclusion of hotel uses which pay not only ad valorem property taxes, but also room and sales taxes and that the Specific Plan expresses a strong desire to foster greater flexibility in design and !site planning and encourages 1 innovations which would not alter plan densities. The Board hereby finds and determines) that the hotels shown on the Preliminary Development Plani shall be allowed and further finds (i) that the statement of extraordinary circumstances, statement of consistency with the intent of the General Plan and environmental documents and visual documentation of the I relationship of the proposed buildings and existing, approved or allowable buildings within the plan area have been submitted by the Applicants to the Department of Community Development; (ii) that the buildings will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, i specifically finding and ;determining that the zoning administrator and staff should carefully review Applicants' I landscape submittals and design to insure that those portions of the southeast and southwest plaza areas receiving sunlight during I the winter months are available for public use and not preempted by landscaping, fountains orlother features which restrict access thereto; (iii) potential views from other sites in the Station area will not be unduly restricted in that view blockage is not I -22- 3/14/86 I i i i • I an issue on this site since it is not located within the major I view alignment of any major public area. The large amount of open space in the Project aInd angular orientation of the buildings toward Oak Road provides adequate freeway views; and I (iv) although the subareas are not in multiple ownership, a i coordinated design has been prepared and agreed upon by the owner of development areas 7 and 8. i The heights of all buildings approved as a part of I this Project are deemed necessary to create a high level of visibility and recognitionoaf the Station area. Development areas 7 and 8 are well removeI d from the residential neighborhoods and will not adversely affect surrounding residential views. i Visual impacts of building he on pedestrians in the Station area will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to the reduced mass at I pedestrian level and the taller buildings are able to afford greater amounts of open space, plazas and landscaping than could I be achievable with buildingslof less height. The Board finds and determines that the intent sof the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully complied with in that the granting I of additional height for th'e hotels on the Property allows flexibility of design and furthers the intent of the Specific Plan including the construction and maintenance of prominent and convenient access points toy public transportation. The Board expressly finds that the two (2) hotels are consistent with the I I I -23- 3/14/86 i i intent of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan and shall be allowed at the heights shown in the application. (b) Proposed 7-Story Office Building: The Board hereby finds and determines that the seven (7) story office building shown on the Preliminary Development Plan shall be allowed and further finds (i) that the statement of extraordinary circumstances, statement of consistency with the intent of the General Plan and environmental documents and visual documentation of the relationship of the proposed building and existing, approved or allowable buildings within the plan area have been submitted by the Applicants to the . Department of Community Development; (ii) that the building will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, specifically finding and determining that the zoning administrator and staff should carefully review Applicants' landscape submittals and design to insure that those portions of the southeast and southwest plaza areas receiving sunlight during the winter months are available for public use and not preempted by landscaping, fountains or other features which restrict access thereto; (iii) potential views from other sites in the Station area will not be unduly restricted in that view blockage is not an issue on this site since it is not located within the major view alignment of any major public area. The large amount of open space and the angular orientation of the buildings toward Oak Road will provide adequate freeway views; and (iv) although -24- 3/14/86 the subareas are not in multiple ownership, a .coordinated design has been prepared by the owner of development areas 7 and S. The heights of all buildings approved as a part of this Project are deemed necessary to create a high level of visibility and recognition of the Station area. Development areas 7 and 8 are well removed from the residential neighborhoods and will not, adversely affect surrounding residential views. Visual impacts of building heights on pedestrians in the Station area will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to the reduced mass at pedestrian level and the taller buildings are able to afford greater amounts of open space, plazas and landscaping than could be achievable with buildings of less height. The Board finds and determines that the intent of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully complied with in that the granting of additional height for all of the appropriate structures in areas 7 and 8 allows flexibility of design and furthers the intent of the Specific Plan including the construction and maintenance of prominent and convenient access points to public transportation. 4. Findings Relative to Parking: The Specific Plan allows for a minimum of 0.5 stalls per 1,000 net rentable square feet of FAR and a maximum of 3.3 stalls per 1, 000 square feet. Parking is also required to be covered in structure on area 8 and surface parking is allowed on area 7. The Board makes the following express findings relative to parking: -25- 3/14/86 (a) The Applicants' proposed 1, 344 parking spaces, while less than the maximum allowable, is sufficient and adequate for the Project and consistent with the provisions of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans. The complementary parking demands of the hotel and office uses clearly justify a reduced parking level for the Project. The Board finds that Applicants have submitted a Parking Report justifying parking facilities less than the maximum as described above and hereby approves said Parking Report and finds that adjacent neighborhoods are fully protected from adverse impacts; and (b) The Board finds that the parking spaces provided on the top level of the parking structure on area 8 are "in structure" and within the meaning and intent of the Specific Plan. The Project contains extensive trellis improvements around said parking areas which screen and protect them from view. Also, the approximately 51 surface parking spaces provided at the Southerly Hotel are allowable and acceptable and in compliance with the Specific Plan in that landscape and design treatment will minimize the visual effects of said parking and the Applicants have not provided surface parking on portions of area 7 where such would be allowed. 5. Findings Relative to Variances and Modifications From Provisions of Specific Plan: The Board finds and determines that the variances and modifications from the specific provisions of the Specific Plan as set out below and as hereinbefore set out in these findings are allowable and desirable from the standpoint -26- 3/14/86 of fostering flexibility of design and location of improvements and that said variances and modifications fully satisfy and comply with the intent and direction of the Specific Plan. The Board further finds and determines that pursuant to the Order of the Board issued April 10, 1984, adopting the amendments to the Specific Plan contained in Resolution No. 15-1984 of the County Planning Commission, the Board is empowered to approve variances from the provisions of the Specific Plan upon a finding, as set out herein, that the intent of the Specific Plan is satisfied. 6. Findings Relative to open Space: The Specific Plan requires 20% usable open space of the site as landscaped pedestrian circulation and plazas. The Project as proposed far exceeds this percentage requirement. 7. Findings Relative to Circulation. Urban Design Provisions. Including-Landscaping and Building Design: The Board finds and determines that the Project as proposed is consistent with the Specific Plan provisions relating to circulation and parking, urban design provisions, including landscaping, signage and building design. (a) Pedestrian Orientation: The Project has been developed to provide high quality pedestrian areas which offer a variety of potential and experience for pedestrians. The Project also down-plays necessary vehicular access, such as the hotel service drives off of Oak Road, in a desirable fashion. The Project frontage, particularly that on the Oak Road/Wayne Drive corner, has been designed as an active pedestrian plaza with an -27- 3/14/86 outdoor eating area. The building entrances incorporate a fountain, seating and other pedestrian amenities. The Board finds that the pedestrian orientation is specifically in conformity with the intent and provisions of the Specific Plan. (b) Landscaping: The Project provides a unified street planning pattern which includes formal planting programs along Oak Road and Wayne Drive and an informal landscaping which provides a canopy to pedestrian activities. Provisions shall be made for seating areas in attractive locations for people to congregate. The design of the Wayne Drive/Oak Road corner plaza shall, to the extent possible, be coordinated with the design of plazas proposed for the facing three corners of the Oak Road and Wayne Drive intersection. The ground level building space within the Project is visually related to the pedestrian. Street trees are utilized in a formal way along the Oak Road frontage. Careful attention will be given in the preparation of the final landscaping plans to the north and south edges of the parking structures. The Specific Plan in Figure 14 indicates the presence of native oak trees on areas 7 and 8. No such trees have ever existed on area 8 and the only such tree on area 7 was uprooted and destroyed in the recent storms. The Board finds and determines that the landscaping provisions of the Project are fully and completely in accordance with the Specific Plan .and enhance and encourage the accomplishment of the goals of the Specific Plan. -28- 3/14/86 (c) Building- Design: The design of buildings within the Project clearly complies with and satisfies the intent and requirements of the specific Plan which dictate that "building architecture shall avoid a monumental look and instead suggest a more casual, relaxed environment. Materials, colors and building forms should convey a progressive, urban character . 0 off, By the use of highly-refined materials, including concrete, glass, steel and harder service brick, which project an urban quality, the Project will comply with and accomplish these goals. The materials selected for the Property give a sense of unity without complete uniformity. All three new structures will be clad with complementary shades of off-white wall panels or glass fiber reinforced concrete with solex tinted, non-reflective .glass. The centerpiece to the Project will be a pyramidal roof on the office building which will be factory finished in a color similar to the solex glazing. The trellis elements will help to unify the pedestrian experience of the Project and will be composed of pre-cast concrete columns which match the buildings with redwood beams. and rafters. The existing building will be stained a shade of gray similar to the color of the redwood. These building materials proposed are consistent with the "progressive urban character". C. FINDINGS. RELATIVE TOSETBACKVARIANCES: The 'Board hereby grants and allows the following variances from setback requirements and makes the following findings: 29- 3/14/86 1. Encroachment of Underground Parking Structure into the Twenty (20) Foot Setback on Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue: The Board finds this technical encroachment is allowed; has no visual or physical impact on the Project and is consistent with the concept of property line setbacks established by the Specific Plan; 2. Encroachment of Southerly Hotel into Setback on Oak Road: The Board finds this encroachment is allowable and consistent with the Specific Plan in that it allows the construction of a fire exit and also permits the inclusion of a drop off courtyard adjacent to the office building. This encroachment is extremely important to maintain design integrity and to help further integrate the Project. The variance is also necessary in order to allow the construction of the room tower and to provide an open public area along Wayne Drive to compliment the open space corridor along Oak Road. A sidewalk cafe at the corner of Oak Road and Wayne Drive is intended to mitigate the variances by creating an attractive pedestrian element at street level. The Board finds that the above-mentioned variances are totally and completely consistent with the ' intent and desire of the Specific Plan to encourage flexibility and innovation in design and siting of improvements. This Board makes the following additional findings with respect to the variances granted: 1. The variances authorized do not constitute the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on -30- 3/14/86 lip other properties in the vicinity and in the P-1 zoning district in which the Property is located. The underground encroachments of the parking structures are purely technical encroachments and are not ascertainable nor apparent on grade. 2 . Special circumstances applicable to the Property because of its size, location and surroundings would cause the strict application of the setback restrictions to deprive the Property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Because of the rather odd shape of the portions of the parcels where the parking structures are located, it is difficult, if not impossible, to site the structures without causing underground encroachment into the setbacks. 3. The setback variances for the parking structures and the buildings substantially meet the intent and purpose of the P-1 zoning district in providing and allowing flexibility in design and placement of structures on a relatively difficult site. III. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: This Board by the adoption of Ordinance 84-30 (RD) determined that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan. This Board has already in these findings made findings and determinations that the Project is consistent with the Specific Plan and the Board hereby reiterates and reaffirms its findings originally made at the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully -31- 3/14/86 consistent. In addition, the Board finds and determines that the Project is consistent with and in full compliance with the Redevelopment Plan. In each and every place in these findings where the Board finds consistency with the Specific Plan, such finding is to be read as and mean consistency with the Redevelopment Plan. IV. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO REZONING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL: The rezoning and approval of preliminary and final development plans for the Project require certain findings pursuant to Sections 26-2 . 1806, 26-2.2008 and 84-66. 1406 of the Contra Costa County Code and the Board hereby makes the following findings: A. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 26-2 . 1806: 1. That the zoning change proposed (R-10 and P-1 to P-1) substantially complies with the County General Plan (see Paragraph IIA hereof) ; 2. That the uses authorized and proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; 3. Community need has been demonstrated for the uses proposed. The office and hotel uses are integral parts of the Specific 'Plan and its plan for development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. -32- 3/14/86 B. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 84-66. 1406: 1. That the Applicants have informed the Board that they expect to commence construction of the Project within two and one-half years of the zone change and approval of plans; 2 . The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan (see Paragraph IIA, hereof) ; 3. This commercial development is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed. The location of office improvements and support facilities, such as hotels, at this location to the BART Station is an important part of the County General Plan and the Specific Plan. Traffic congestion will not likely be created by the Project and any increased traffic will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the Preliminary and Final Development Plans for proper ingress and egress and by internal provisions for traffic and parking. The Project will be attractive and efficient and will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon adjacent or surrounding development; and 4. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan for the Project justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Contra Costa County Code. C. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 26-2 .2008: 1. The Project as approved will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County or of the community within which the Project is located. -33- 3/14/86 2. The Project as approved will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County or in the community within which the Project is located. 3. The Project as approved will not adversely affect the preservation of the property values and the protection of the tax base within the County or the community within which the property is located. 4. The Project as approved will not adversely affect the policies and goals set forth in the General Plan, Specific Plan or Redevelopment Plan. 5. The Project as approved will not create a nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. The Project as approved will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood within which the Project is located. 7. The Project site constitutes a unique area posing extremely difficult design problems which have been fully addressed and resolved through the approved design. 8. The Board's findings with respect to consistency with the purpose of the zoning district, the General Plan, the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the mitigation of significant environmental effect and all of the other portions of these findings are incorporated herein. V. GENERAL: A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings, the Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable portions of -34- 3/14/86 the staff reports, special reports and studies, oral testimony, Program EIR, resolutions, conditions of approval and the Applicants' submittal all relating to the Project. B. It is the intent of the Board that the foregoing findings be considered as an integrated whole and whether or not any subdivision of these findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. All of the foregoing constitute findings by this Board whether or not any particular sentence or clause states that it is a finding. C. The within findings are based upon facts, evidence and testimony contained in the , entire administrative record including, but not limited to, that presented in hearings on the Project before the Planning Commission and the Board. The findings constitute the independent findings of the Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by evidence in the administrative record as a whole. -35- 3/14/86 Findings m8p P» Y oa 04 It If + rt 1 !! '7 f• 2 17 t!i! 4 W /# 7, 9.A. . -15 q 1 p j4"}= tp.j P PLEASANT MILL, STATION Q—lQ Rezone From p-l Tom PLEAS g VE HttL/DAZTD Area �. LESUE K. DAMS , Chairman of the Contra Costa County , ` Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify 1 that this is a true and correct copy of PAGE L-14. 10E 79E COONTYS l R71r ZoN1NG MAP indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning N Commission in the matter of TAYLOP, 'u/QIZD P0Ot'v0-r?= 2658-lZZ # ;airmon of the Contra Costa County 1 ATTEST: Planning Commission, State of Calif. Secrercry of the Contra Costo County Planning Commission, State of Calif. TIE JOARD OF. SUPERVISORS Oak CONTRA•.CO'STA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 18 .°•1:986" '' , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisor Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson .and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. _SUBJECT: Approval of Development ) Plans 2656-RZ, 3063-85 and ) RESOLUTION NO. 86 /134 3003-86 , Pleasant Hill ) BART Station Area ) The Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT :. Preliminary. Development Plan 2656-RZ , Final Development Plans 3063-85 and 3003-86, and variances are approved and granted, and zoning ordinance No. 86- " 22 is enacted, subject to the Board' s conditions of approval for• the above Preliminary and Final Devel- opment Plans and ordinance, set forth in Exhibits "A" , "B" , and "C" , attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference_, and based upon the findings attached. hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference . The Board approves Final Development Plans 3063-85 and 3003-86 as separate and distinct approvals and each and every of the Board' s findings and determinations, as contained in Exhibit "D". hereto, shall apply separately to the approvals of said final development plans and any invalidities or improprieties in the approvals of one of such plans shall not affect or invalidate the other . The Board FURTHER DIRECTS the Director of Community Develop- ment to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination con- cerning the actions and approvals taken and granted herein. I Imrebl►o6Mry OW thb b a inn and oorreat copy of On cation taken and entered oq.tha mtnutm of the Bard of Supinrlaors on thpe date shown. PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board at Supervisors and County Administrator By Orig.- Dept.: Community Development Dept. CC: County Administrator County Counsel Applicants: Hoover Associates Merle Gilliland Taylor Woodrow of Calif. RESOLUTION NO. 86/134 EXHIBIT A -ti CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2656-Rt: 1. This approval is based upon the following exhibits subject to the following conditions: a). Exhibit A - Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan. b) Exhibit B - Pedestrian Circulation c) Exhibit C - Vehicular Circulation d) Exhibit D & E - Parking Layouts e) Exhibits F, G, H, I, J, K, & L - Elevations 2. Approval is based on the aforesaid exhibits, and following conditions, however all conditions are subject to further review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan shall serve as the basis for review and it may be that additional requirements, conditions and/or modifications may be specified following further review. 3. This approval is limited to a maximum of 611,887 gross square feet and net 581,293 square feet of office. Also approved is a maximum 143,000 gross square foot hotel. 4. Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses which may conditionally be allowed as listed in the Specific Plan are subject to the applicant submitting detailed information to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval addressing the conditional use criteria in the Specific Plan and any other, information as may be required. The hotel use is approved. 5. All applicants will comply with the Parking Policies of the Pleasant:Hill BART Specific Plan as follows: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicants shall submit a detailed TSM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless othewise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM plan shall be operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Dept. B. This condition may be satisfied by participation in an approved areawide TSM Program which is in effect prior to occupancy. The applicant will participate in an approved areawide TSM Program when one is established. C. Applicants will monitor parking and submit reports annually to the Zoning_ Administrator for review. This will include 1) the number of parking spaces used relative to the amount of building occupied at differing times of day and year; 2) number of single occupied vehicles; 3) parking fee structure; and-4) a summary of a questionnaire to all building employees as to their commute practices; and 5) any additional information as may be required by the Zoning Administrator. D. Should the Zoning Administrator, as a result of the annual review, determine that reasons exists to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions Page 2 of approval relating to the parking program, the matter will be administratively brought back to public hearing. E. Applicants shall submit any proposed fee structure and program or pass/card program for Zoning Administrator review and approval. Such programs shall be designed so as to not cause a backup of traffic on the public roads. F. Joint access through the entire parking structure shall be guaranteed. G. The applicannt shall agree to comply with any TSM requirements resulting from the adoption of any applicable TSM ordinance. 6. The project will comply with the following landscape requirements: -, A. A detailed preliminary landscape and irrigation plan for the entire project area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a any grading or building permit. Final landscape plans may be submitted for separate Parcels 10A and 10B and reviewed separately. B. The Oak/Treat corner shall be redesigned to provide continuity with the westerly Treat Boulevard frontage and to provide continuity with the other three Treat/Oak corner urban plaza designs. C. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with areawide guidelines currently being used by staff and shall provide substantial "urban" pedestrian oriented plaza areas as well as detailed, attention to the elevation of the parking structure. D. The landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation landscaping requirements as adopted by the Board of Supervisors September 17, 1995. The landscaping plan shall also include specimin sized oak trees along Oak Road (including the use of tree grates) consistent with the theme used throughout the project area. E. The Treat/Oak plaza shall be redesigned to blend in with the westerly Treat Boulevard design. A qulaity urban pedestrian area shall be created which provides an inviting access to the center plaza complementing the other three Treat/Oak corner. F. The applicants shall investigate the possibility of eliminating the six story parking structure providing a direct plaza, pedestrian way from the Oak/Wayne corner to the center plaza. G. The, landscape plan shall address any phasing of construction. 7. The design of all signs will be as specified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Plan, relative to location, scale, colors, materials, illumination, size and copy. Sign design will be consistent throughout the project and will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines being prepared. Page 3 8. The applicant will comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Contra Costa Water District. 9. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District. 10. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section 82-2.014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless exceptions are specifically granted. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County, Ordinance Code. This includes the following: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, convey to the Redevelopment Agency by Grant Deed, additional right of way and utility easements as required for public road improvements as shown on the plans developed by the Assessment District 1983-1 Engineer and on file with the Public Works Department. 2) Improvements planned for Assessment District 1983-1 will satisfy all other requirements of Division 1006. C. Install all new utility distribution services underground. This shall include providing for the undergrounding of Cable television cables. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improverne n ts. F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public Works Depart= ment. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. Page 4 G. Record a record of survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer for the final development site prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall be required to pay the annually adjusted Development Fee per square foot for each square foot actually constructed over the amount previously covered by Assessment District 1983-1. 12. The applicant shall agree and make it a condition of lease agreements that future leaseholders and tenants agree to using a Pleasant Hill address. 13. The northerly Oak Road parking structure access shall be eliminated. This condition may be waived by the Zoning Administrator if it is determined to be necessary to the circulation. 14. Within twelve months from the effective date of approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan, a building permit must be obtained and construction begun for any hotel use or an amended Final Development Plan filed. The Zoning Administrator may grant extensions to the twelve month time limit upon submittal by the applicant of adequate documentation showing good cause for the granting of such extension. 15. The applicant shall address child care issues for the area. 16. The final approval of the design of any hotel use and the proper allocation of FAR within the scope of the Specific Plan (including the use of transferred FAR) shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 17. The applicant shall further mitigate traffic impacts by participating equitably in a regional transportation mitigation fund by consenting to, and assisting with the creation of, and participation in, a parking fee assessment district or by the payment of a one time $.50 per gross square foot fee. DEA/ASA:plp9rz 1/24/86 1/28/86 3/13/86 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT 3063-85: 1. This approval is based upon compliance with all exhibits and conditions of Preliminary Development Plan 2656-RZ and the following exhibits subject to the following conditions: a). Exhibit I - Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan. b) Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5 - Floor Plans 2. ' Approval is based on the aforesaid exhibits, and following conditions, however all conditions are subject to further review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan shall serve as the bEisis for review and it may be that additional requirements, conditions and/or modifications may be specified following further review. 3. This approval is limited to a maximum of 295,379 gross square feet and 280,610 net square feet of office. Also approved is a maximum 143,000 gross square foot hotel. 4. Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses which may conditionally be allowed as listed in the Specific Plan are subject to the applicant submitting detailed information to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval addressing the conditional use criteria in the Specific Plan and any other information as may be required. The hotel use is approved. 5. All applicants will comply with the Parking Policies of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan as follows: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicants shall submit a detailed TSM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless othewise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM plan shall be operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Dept. B. This condition may be satisfied by participation in an approved areawide TSM Program which is in effect prior to occupancy. The applicant will participate in an approved areawide TSM Program when one is established. C. Applicants will monitor parking and submit reports annually to the Zoning Administrator for review. This will include 1) the number of parking spaces used relative to the amount of building occupied at differing times of day and year; 2) number of single occupied vehicles; 3) parking fee structure; and 4) a summary of a questionnaire to all building employees as to their commute' practices; and 5)_ any additional information as may be required by the Zoning Administrator. D. Should the Zoning Administrator, as a result of the annual review, determine that reasons exists to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions of approval relating to the parking program, the matter will be administratively brought back to public hearing. Page 2 G. Applicants shall submit any proposed fee structure and program or pass/card program for Zoning Administrator review and approval. Such programs shall be designed so as to not cause a backup of traffic on the public roads. H. Joint access through the entire parking structure shall be guaranteed. I. The applicant shall agree to comply with any TSM requirements resulting from the adoption of any applicable TSM ordinance. 6. The project will comply with the following landscape requirements: A. A final landscape and irrigation plan for the project area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a any grading or building permit. The final plan shall conform to an approved preliminary landscape plan covering the entire area 10 Block.B. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with areawide guidelines currently being used by staff and shall provide substantial "urban" pedestrian oriented plaza areas as well as detailed, attention to the elevation of the parking structure. B. The landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation landscaping requirements as adopted by the Board of Supervisors September 17, 1985. The landscaping plan shall also include specimin sized oak trees along Oak Road (including the use of tree grates) consistent with the theme used throughout the project area. C. A qulaity urban pedestrian area shall be created which provides an inviting access to the center plaza. D. The landscaping plan shall address any phasing of construction. 7. The design of all signs will be as specified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Plan, relative to location, scale, colors, materials, illumination, size and copy. Sign design will be consistent throughout the project and will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines being prepared. 8. The applicant will comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Contra Costa Water District. 9. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District. 10. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In Accordance with Section 82-2.014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless exceptions are specifically -ranted. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and 'Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. This includes the following: t Page 3 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, convey to the Redevelopment Agency by Grant Deed, additional right of way and utility easements as required for public road improvements as shown on the plans developed by the Assessment District 1983-1 Engineer and on file with the Public Works Department. 2) Improvements planned for Assessment District 1983-1 will satisfy all other requirements of Division 1006. C. Install all new utility distribution services underground. This shall include providing for the undergrounding of Cable television cables. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public Works Depart- ment. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. G. Record a record of survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer for the final development site prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Prior tothe issuance of any building permits the applicant shall be required to pay the annually adjusted Development Fee per square foot for each square foot actually constructed over the amount previously covered by Assessment District 1983-1. 12. The applicant shall agree and make it a condition of lease agreements that future leaseholders and tenants agree to using a Pleasant Hill address. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office or parking structure, the applicant shall submit a letter of intent or contract with the proposed hotel users. 14. Within twelve months from the effective date of approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan, a building permit must be obtained and construction begun for any hotel use or an amended Final Development Plan filed. The Zoning Administrator Page 4 may grant extensions to the twelve month time limit upon submittal by the applicant of adequate documentation showing good cause for the granting of such extension. 15. The applicant shall agree to address child care issues for the area. 16. The final approval of the design of any hotel use and the proper allocation of FAR within the scope of the Specific Plan (including the use of transferred FAR) shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 17. The applicant shall further mitigate traffic impacts by participating equitably in a regional transportation mitigation fund by consenting to, and assisting with the creation of, and participation in, a parking fee assessment district or by the payment of a one time $.50 per gross square foot fee. DEA/ASA:plp9rz 1/24/86 3/13/86 EXHIBIT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3003-86: 1. This approval is based upon compliannce with all exhibits and conditions of Pre- liminary Development Plan 2656-RZ and the following exhibits subject to the following conditions: a). Exhibit 1 - Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan. b) Exhibit 2 -Building Details c) Exhibit 3 - Floor Plans 2. Approval is based on the aforesaid exhibits, and following conditions, however all conditions are subject to further review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan shall serve as the basis for review and it may be that additional requirements, conditions and/or modifications may be specified following further review. 3. This approval is limited to a maximum of 316,508 gross square feet and 300,683 net square feet of office. 4. Uses allowed shall include administrative and professional offices. Uses which may conditionally be allowed as listed in the Specific Plan are subject to the applicant submitting detailed information to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval addressing the conditional use criteria in the Specific Plan and any other information as may be required. 5. All applicants will comply with the Parking Policies of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan as follows: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicants shall submit a detailed TSM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless othewise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM plan shall be operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Dept. B. This condition may be satisfied by participation in an approved areawide TSM Program which is in effect prior to occupancy. The applicant will participate in an approved areawide TSM Program when one is established. C. Applicants will monitor parking and submit reports annually to the Zoning Administrator for review. This will include 1) the number of parking spaces used relative to the amount of building occupied at differing times of day and year; 2)_ number of single occupied vehicles; 3) parking fee structure; and 4) a summary of a questionnaire to all building employees as to their commute practices; and 5) any additional information as may be required by the Zoning Administrator. Page 2 D. Should the Zoning Administrator, as a result of the annual review, determine that reasons exists to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions of approval relating to the parking program, the matter will be administratively brought back to public hearing. G. Applicants shall submit any proposed fee structure and program or pass/card program for Zoning Administrator review and approval. Such programs shall be designed so as to not cause a backup of traffic on the public roads. H. Joint access through the entire parking structure shall be guaranteed. I. The applicant shall agree to comply with any TSM requirements resulting from the adoption of any applicable TSM ordinance. 6. The project will comply with the following landscape requirements: A. A final landscape and irrigation plan for the project area shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a any grading or building permit. Final landscape plans shall conform to an approved preliminary landscape plan covering the entire Area 10 block. B. The Oak/Treat corner shall be redesigned to provide continuity with the westerly Treat Boulevard frontage and to ,provide continuity with the other three Treat/Oak corner urban plaza designs. C. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with areawide guidelines currently being used by staff and shall provide substantial "urban" pedestrian oriented plaza areas as well as detailed, attention to the elevation of the parking structure. D. The landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation landscaping requirements as adopted by the Board of Supervisors September 17, 1985. The landscaping plan shall also include specimin sized oak trees along Oak Road (including the use of tree grates) consistent with the theme used throughout the project area. E. The Treat/Oak plaza shall be redesigned to blend in with the westerly Treat Boulevard design. A qulaity urban pedestrian area shall be created which provides an inviting access to the center plaza complementing the other three Treat/Oak corner. F. The applicants shall investigate the possibility of admending the six story parking structure to provide a direct plaza, pedestrian way from the Oak/Wayne corner to the center plaza. G. Quality landscaping shall be used along all pedestrian frontage. H. The landscaping plan shall address any phasing of construction. 7. The design of all signs will be as specified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Plan, relativeto location, scale, colors, materials, illumination, size and copy. Sign design Page 3 will be consistent throughout the project and will conform with the Urban Design Guidelines being prepared. 8. The applicant will comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Contra Costa Water District. 9. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District. 10. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section 82-2.014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless exceptions are specifically granted. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. This includes the following: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, convey to the Redevelopment Agency by Grant Deed, additional right of way and utility easements as required for public road improvements as shown on the plans developed by the Assessment District 1983-1 Engineer and on file with the Public Works Department. 2) Improvements planned for Assessment District 1983-1 will satisfy all other requirements of Division 1006. C. Install all new utility distribution services underground. This shall include providing for the undergrounding of Cable television cables. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans, shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,` EngineeringServices Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public Works Depart- ment. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. Page 4 G. Record a record of survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer for the final development site prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall be required to pay the annually adjusted Development Fee per square foot for each square foot actually constructed over the amount previously covered by Assessment District 1983-1. 12. The applicant shall agree and make it a condition of lease agreements that future leaseholders and tenants agree to using a Pleasant Hill address. 13. The northerly Oak Road parking structure access shall be eliminated. This condition may be waived by the Zoning Administrator if it is determined to be necessary to the circulation. 14. The applicannt shall agree to address child care issues for the area. 15. The applicant shall further mitigate traffic impacts by participating equitably in a regional transportation mitigation fund by consenting to, and assisting with the creation,of, and participation in, a parking fee assessment district or by the payment of a one time $.50 per gross square foot fee. DEA/ASA:plp9rz 1/24/86 3/13/86 : UNI-B-1 T BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS RELATIVE TO REZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-10 AND R-15) TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN OFFICE/HOTEL PROJECT IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION REDEVELOPMENT AREA UPON THE APPLICATION OF TREAT CORNERS PARTNERSHIP AND TAYLOR_WOODROW OF CALIFORNIA. INC I. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: A. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS: 1. On June 7, 1983, this Board approved and adopted the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific .Plan (hereinafter the "Specific Plan") . The Specific Plan was prepared and adopted in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Government Code of the State of California and was designed to combine planning policies, zoning regulations, capital improvement programs,, detailed development standards and other regulatory schemes into one document which was tailored to meet the needs of the specific Pleasant Hill BART Station area (hereinafter the "BART Station Area") . The Specific Plan was prepared under the direction of a Steering Committee containing representatives of the County of Contra Costa (hereinafter the "County") , Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Walnut Creek, City of Pleasant Hill and the Walden Improvement Association, and the resulting Specific Plan reflects the goals and concerns of those agencies and parties. -1- 3/14/86 As a part of the adoption of the Specific Plan and the adoption of certain amendments to the County of Contra Costa General Plan, an Environmental Impact Report on the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan prepared by Sedway/Cook for the County of Contra Costa (hereinafter the "County") was prepared and certified by this Board .as complete and adequate to provide the environmental information necessary to allow this Board to make a reasoned decision on the adoption of the Specific Plan and the General Plan amendments in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA") . In the course of certifying that Environmental Impact Report as complete, the draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated to the appropriate agencies and made available to the public. A Notice of Completion of the draft EIR was given by mailing the same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals entitled to such notice. Additional notices were given by publication and posting in accordance with Section 15085(d) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Public hearings were conducted on the draft EIR and comments both oral and written were received from the general public and the governmental agencies. Following the receipt of such comments, responses to comments were prepared by and at the direction of County staff, and copies thereof made available to the general public and public agencies to the extent required by the CEQA Guidelines. 2. On July 10, 1984, this Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, passed and adopted Ordinance 84-30(RD) -2- 3/14/86 which adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the BART Station Area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. As apart of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the County Planning Department conducted an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA and determined that a supplement to the final Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan would be required for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan was determined by this Board to be to provide a fiscal method for the implementation of the Specific Plan and the provisions of the two (2) plans were found to be consistent. The supplemental and final Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan was prepared and circulated as required by law. Public hearings were held on the draft Environmental Impact Report, which included the supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the final Environmental Impact Report prepared previously for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan adoption. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (hereinafter the "Program EIR") were circulated as required by law and made available to the public. Notice of Completion was given by mailing the same directly to the appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals and additional notice was given by publication and posting in accordance with Section 15085(d) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. This Board in Ordinance 84-30(RD) certified as complete and adequate the Program EIR and adopted a statement -3- 3/14/86 of significant environmental impacts, findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations which were contained Exhibit "B" attached to Ordinance 84-30 (RD) and incorporated therein by reference. 3. On December 17, 1985, the County's Community Development Department received an application from Hoover Associates and Merle Gilliland, as applicants, and Taylor Woodrow and Treat Corners Partnership, as owners, hereinafter the "Applicants", seeking the rezoning of approximately 10 acres of land in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, more particularly identified in Exhibit "A" hereto (hereinafter the "Property") , from Single-Family Residential Districts (R-10 and R-15) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and for the approval of Preliminary and Final Development Plans for an office/hotel project. The "Project" as the term is hereinafter referred to consists of the above-described rezoning and development of development area 10A of the Property (as defined in the Specific Plan) by the construction of a two (2) story parking structure below grade; a 295,379 square foot, ten (10) story office building and an eleven (11) story, 143, 000 square foot hotel. Area 10B shall be developed with a parking structure, a six (6) story, 118, 690 square foot office building and a ten (10) story, 197, 818 square foot office building, together with certain landscaping, open space and other improvements, all as more particularly shown on the drawing, plans, and specifications submitted as part of Applicants' application. -4- 3/14/86 4. This Board expressly finds and determines that the Project is an individual component of the Redevelopment Plan and that the Program EIR certified as complete at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan constitutes a program EIR pursuant to the provisions of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines, which also provides that all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment plan by the legislative body. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Board, based on a thorough and complete examination by staff, finds and determines that the Project does not constitute a subsequent activity in the program that would require additional environmental documentation and further finds and determines that no such additional environmental documentation is required. The Board further finds that pursuant to said section of the CEQA Guidelines and to Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164, no subsequent EIR or environmental determination nor supplement or addendum to the Program EIR is necessary for the Project which constitutes an individual component of the Redevelopment Plan, for the following reasons: (a) From and after the preparation of the Program EIR, no changes have been made in the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project which would require any revisions to the Program EIR; -5- 3/14/86 C . (b) No significant or substantial changes have occurred in any of the circumstances under which the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and the Project are being undertaken which could result in involvement of any new significant environmental impact not covered in the Program EIR; and (c) No new information of any importance to the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project has become available including, without limitation (i) any information which would show that the Redevelopment Plan or its individual components, including the Project, as approved, would have significant effects not discussed in the Program EIR; (ii) information that significant effects previously found to exist will become more severe under the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components or the Project, as approved, than as discussed in the Program EIR; (iii) any information that mitigation measures previously found feasible have become infeasible; or (iv) information that other alternatives or mitigation measures exist which were not considered in the Program EIR. The Program EIR is complete, adequate and in full compliance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations, and all proceedings for the environmental review process in preparation of the Program EIR have been conducted and completed in full compliance with the policy and specific requirements of -6- 3/14/86 i the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and all applicable Contra Costa County ordinances and regulations. 5. All of the hearings and proceedings held in conjunction with the certification of the Program EIR were conducted under and in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the County of Contra Costa, statutes of the State of California, CEQA Guidelines including, without limitation, all requirements of published, posted and mailed notices pursuant to all of the foregoing ordinances, statutes and guidelines. The environmental review process has been carried out with full and adequate opportunities for review and comment by members of the public and interested public agencies. No person or agency has been deprived of full and fair opportunity and ample time to comment on each document comprising the Program EIR or the Redevelopment Plan, its individual components and the Project. 6. The Board hereby readopts and incorporates herein by reference the Statement of Significant Environmental Impacts, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by this Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, as a part of Ordinance 84-30(RD) upon the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and certification of the Program EIR, which Statements and Findings are attached to said Ordinance as Exhibit "B" thereto. The Board hereby readopts, reaffirms and incorporates herein all its said Statements and Findings as though they were set forth in full. -7- 3/14/86 B. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OFTHEPROJECT: The Program EIR identifies a number of significant environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan and its individual components and recommends specific mitigation measures for each of such effects. This Board, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, has previously as a part of Resolution 84-30 (RD) approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan made specific findings with respect to such significant effects pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Board hereby again readopts and reaffirms those specific findings And expressly finds and determines that the mitigation measures adopted as a part of ordinance 84-30(RD) fully and adequately mitigated the significant impacts and effects set out in the Program EIR. As such, there is no necessity for further and additional mitigation measures as a part of the approval of the Project which constitutes a component of the Redevelopment Plan. However, the Board finds and determines that the significant effects set out in the Program EIR are additionally and further mitigated by the additional mitigation measures set out herein. Said additional mitigation measures are expressly deemed to be in addition to those adopted by this Board previously and not required by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. 1. Air Ouality: The Program EIR states that specific onsite air quality impacts may be significant during cold start -8- 3/14/86 periods because of the concentration of parking facilities. This Board finds that this impact is further mitigated to acceptable levels by the conditions of approval which require the Applicants to submit a detailed Transportation Systems Management Plan before receiving building permits and to have such a system operating before occupancy of the buildings and also by requiring that Applicants monitor parking and submit reports annually to the zoning administrator for review. The zoning administrator, after such review, is empowered to determine that reasons exist to consider the addition, deletion or alteration of conditions of approval relating to the parking program and to bring the matter to administrative public hearing. Also, this effect is further mitigated by the condition requiring that the Applicants agree to comply with Transportation Systems Management requirements which shall be implemented as part of an applicable TSM Ordinance. 2. Noise Impacts: The Program EIR projects increases in traffic on the I-680 corridor and Treat Boulevard corridor and resulting increase in the ambient noise environment portions of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area beyond the recommended level for residential land uses. The Board finds that this impact is further mitigated to satisfactory levels by the requirement by the Community Development Department that a sound wall be constructed between the residential areas south and east of Jones Road along the Urban West Project frontage. In addition, the Board finds that it is the responsibility of Caltrans in planning and constructing the I-680/24 improvements to analyze and adopt -g- 3/14/86 measures to deal with the increase in noise level. Also, the Board finds that the impact is further mitigated by the requirement that the Applicants submit a detailed TSM Plan and comply with any TSM requirements adopted by an applicable TSM ordinance since the effect of such conditions will be to reduce the amount of traffic on the I-680 and Treat Boulevard corridors. 3. Energy Impacts: The Program EIR projects increased energy consumption in the transportation sector which this Board finds to be fully and adequately mitigated by the mitigation. measures adopted as a part of Ordinance 84-30(RD) , including, without limitation, those set forth in paragraph 3 of Exhibit "B" thereto. 4. Transportation and Circulation Impacts: The Program EIR forecasts increased traffic congestion due to increased development potential at the Station area and increased traffic congestion due to parking provisions in the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. This Board hereby finds as follows: (a) The analysis of transportation and circulation as contained in the Program EIR is adequate and complete to fully analyze the impacts of this Project as well as all of the other component portions of the Redevelopment Plan. The Board determines that the data used by the authors of the Program EIR is accurate and, as more fully set forth above, expressly finds that there have been no changes in the Redevelopment Plan or the component parts thereof nor in the facts surrounding its -10- 3/14/86 implementation which would require any additional traffic analysis; (b) That the significant impacts relating to transportation and circulation set out in the Program EIR are fully and adequately mitigated by the mitigation measures adopted by the Board at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and incorporated herein by reference; (c) That said significant impacts have been further mitigated by the creation of Assessment District 1983-1, established in January, 1984, pursuant to which the Property was assessed approximately $2, 140,920. 00 for development fees, a good portion of which has been and will be used for the construction of transportation and circulation improvements including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Treat Boulevard widening; (ii) Oak Road extension and widening; (iii) Jones Road improvement west of Oak Road; (iv) Wayne Court extension; (v) Buskirk Avenue widening; and (vi) Signal modification or installation on Treat Boulevard at Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and Jones Road and on Oak Road at Jones Road and the BART D parking lot access. In addition, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Project, this Board requires that Applicants convey additional rights-of-way required for public road improvements to the County's Redevelopment Agency. This conveyance of very -11- 3/14/86 valuable property rights will further mitigate the transportation and circulation effects. (d) That the inclusion of a hotel into the subject property further mitigates the effects of transportation and circulation in that the transportation, circulation, peak-hour trip generation and parking demands of a hotel are significantly less than those of office facilities and allow the institution of complementary parking which enables the commercial and office facilities to make use of the hotel parking spaces at times when said spaces are not in use, and vice versa; (e) That the submittal of a detailed TSM Plan as well as the agreement of the Applicants to take part in any TSM requirements resulting from an applicable ordinance further mitigates the transportation and circulation impact in that the experience of other developers in Contra Costa County has indicated that such TSM Plans can result in a substantial decrease in traffic below that which would otherwise be encountered; and (f) That the impacts are further mitigated by the condition of approval which requires Applicant(s) to participate equitably in a regional traffic mitigation fund by consenting to and assisting with the creation of a parking assessment district or paying a one-time fee calculated at fifty cents ($.50) per gross square foot. -12- 3/14/86 C. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROJECT: The Program EIR points out that to a certain extent the Redevelopment Plan will be growth inducing within the study area. This Board finds that any growth inducement caused by the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts or the Project is partially mitigated and overridden by the fact that the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and its component parts will eventually maximize the property tax revenue available to the local agencies responsible for meeting the area's increased demand for public services and facilities and allow a mechanism for funneling and encouraging the use of public transportation facilities such as BART, bus lines and other public facilities. D. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: The Board hereby reiterates, restates and reaffirms the findings of this Board contained in Ordinance 84-30(RD) specifically relating to Project alternatives. In addition, this Board finds that the formation of Assessment District 1983-1 and the creation of assessments upon the property within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area for the purpose of providing funds for the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and its component parts is further reason why the alternatives to the Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and this Project set out in the Program EIR are infeasible. The Board finds that the owners of the subject property have subjected the property to significant assessments and have paid considerable sums in servicing those assessments in -13- 3/14/86 order to provide funds for the construction of public improvements, some of which have been already constructed and others of which will be constructed in the future. E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED: This Board hereby restates and reaffirms the findings made in Ordinance 84-30 (RD) that significant environmental impacts are adequately mitigated to satisfactory levels and further finds and determines that as to any such impacts which have not been so mitigated, the benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, its component parts and this Project outweigh the adverse impacts and hereby restate, reiterate and incorporate by reference the findings made relative to the Statement of Overriding Considerations in the aforementioned Ordinance. The Board by so restating and reaffirming these findings does so as if they were totally new and independent findings relating to the Project as well as applying to the prior adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. II. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY OF PROJECT WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The Board hereby finds and determines that the Project is fully and totally consistent with .the appropriate provisions of the County General Plan, the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan and more specifically discusses each as follows: -14- 3/14/86 A. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: This Board finds that the Project, including both the rezoning of the subject property to P-1 and the approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for development of the property as previously described, is fully and totally consistent with the provisions of the County Area General Plan. As set out in the Program EIR at page 1-23, the Area General Plan states that the office designation for lands west and south of the BART Station is established to provide for administrative and professional office development. In addition, hotel use is permitted as a conditional use. In conformance with the goals and objectives of the County General Plan, the Project as an implementation of a portion of the Redevelopment Plan will encourage a balanced mix of new development which will increase the supply of housing, provide employment opportunities and generate significant long-term property tax revenues and will also insure that existing needs for community services, facilities, open space and public improvements are adequately addressed. B. CONSISTENCY WITH PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN: The Specific Plan, at pages 11 through 13, sets forth a series of overall plan objectives which this Board deems to be consistent with the Project as more specifically discussed below as follows: -15- 3/14/86 1. Floor Area Ratio Provisions: The Specific Plan provides a base FAR for area 10A (Treat Corners Partnership Property) of 1 and a base FAR of 1.5 for area 10B (Taylor Woodrow) . Pursuant to the Specific Plan at page 63, subareas 10A and 10B shall be and have been designed as an integrated project. This Board finds that the owners of these adjacent properties have designed and presented such an integrated project and that as permitted by the Specific Plan, they have determined an equitable manner of distribution of FAR for the two properties, proportionally dividing the total square footage by the area each developer purchased. The result is an FAR of 1.37 for each of area 10A and 10B. The Board finds and determines that the averaging of FAR on the two (2) parcels is consistent with the Specific Plan and creates no adverse impacts; that parcel 10A has an allowable base FAR building area of 295,379 square feet; and that Parcel 10B has an allowable base FAR building area of 316,508 square feet. (a) Bonus FAR: This Board finds and determines that pursuant to the provisions of the Specific Plan, a development bonus of 143,000 square feet of hotel space shall be afforded the owner of area 10A. Such an FAR bonus is allowed where, as in this instance, a TSM program will be implemented which is likely to reduce traffic and parking usage by up to 30% and where it has been demonstrated through a number of parking studies submitted to the Community Development Department and this Board (see, for example, Shared Parking Study prepared for _16- 3/14/86 the Urban Land Institute, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. , June, 1983) that hotels on the average generate only 72% of peak-hour traffic as that of office buildings. Also, this Board finds that because the demand for hotel parking is lower than that required for office-commercial development and has peak needs at different hours than that of parking for commercial development, the concept of complimentary parking further reduces any conflict between hotel and commercial use and insures that the addition of the 143, 000 square feet of bonus FAR for the hotel on parcel 10A will not result in any additional loading of transportation or parking needs. 2. Findings With Regard To Hotel Use: The Specific Plan allows hotel uses as a conditional use in area 10A if certain findings can be made. The Board hereby expressly and directly makes 'the following findings in approving the conditional use permit for the 143,000 square foot hotel to be constructed on parcel 10A: (a) The construction of the hotel will not result in a major reduction of the office .space capacity for the entire Station area. The proposed hotel consists of 143,000 square feet, which is approximately 4-1/2% of the total potential building area and represents a minor reduction, if any, in the amount of office space which can be constructed in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area and will be supportive of and complimentary to the commercial office use; and -17- 3/14/86 (b) The Board has required that the facilities be designed and constructed as an integrated rather than a self-contained and isolated element of the Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan and its individual components. The Development Plan calls for support uses including public meeting rooms, eating facilities and retail uses. The hotel is integrated by the use of a common parking structure, vehicular and pedestrian access and extensive plaza area and pedestrian walkways with the office buildings to be constructed on area 10B and with the rest of the projects contemplated for the area. 3 . Findings Relative To Height: The Specific Plan provides that in addition to the permitted heights as shown in table 14, additional height may be allowed as a result of the development plan review process. The allowance of additional height is required pursuant to. page 47 of the Specific Plan to be accompanied by two findings by this Board. (a) Allowance of Excess Height on Area 10A: (1) Proposed 10-Story Office Building: The Board hereby finds and determines that the 10-story office building shown on the Preliminary Development Plan shall be allowed and further finds (i) that the statement of extraordinary circumstances, statement of consistency with the intent of the General Plan and environmental documents and visual documentation of the relationship of the proposed building and existing, approved or allowable buildings within the plan area have been submitted by the Applicants to the Department of Community -18- 3/14/86 Development; (ii) that the building will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, specifically finding and determining that the zoning administrator and staff should carefully review Applicants' landscape submittals and design to insure that those portions of the central plaza area receiving sunlight during the winter months are available for public use and not preempted by landscaping, fountains or other features which restrict access thereto; (iii) potential views from other sites in the Station area will not be unduly restricted in that view blockage is not an issue on this site since it is not located within the major view alignment of any major public area; (iv) the large open area . in the center of the Project and the juxtaposition of buildings provide adequate freeway views; and (v) the subareas are in multiple ownership and a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed upon by the owners of development areas 10A and 10B. The Board further finds that the heights of all buildings approved as a part of this Project are deemed necessary to create a high level of visibility and recognition of the Station area. Development areas 10A and 10B are well removed from the residential neighborhoods and will not adversely affect surrounding residential views. Visual impacts of building heights on pedestrians in the Station area will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to the reduced mass at pedestrian level and the taller buildings are able to afford greater amounts of open -19- 3/14/86 space, plazas and landscaping than could be achievable with buildings of less height. The Board finds and determines that the intent of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully complied with in that the granting of additional height for all of the appropriate structures in areas 10A and 10B allows flexibility of design and furthers the intent of the Specific Plan including the construction and maintenance of prominent and convenient access points to public transportation. (2) Findings Relating to Hotel: The proposed hotel on development area 10A contains 11 actual hotel stories but measures only 124 feet from grade to top. The Board finds that because hotel room floors are less in height, floor-to-floor, this height actually permits more stories in less height and is within the intent of the Specific Plan which allows the granting of additional height by conditional use permit up to ten (10) stories. The Board finds that an eleven (11) story hotel of 124 feet is,, in actuality, lower from grade than an office building of ten (10) stories which would measure considerably higher. In addition, the Board finds that the Specific Plan expresses a strong desire to foster greater flexibility in design and site planning and encourages innovations which would not alter plan densities. As has, been shown previously, the effect of implementing a hotel into the Project will reduce plan densities and, therefore, the Board finds that the allowance of an eleven (11) story hotel is fully and completely consistent with the Specific Plan. The Board -20- 3/14/86 hereby finds and determines that the eleven (11) story hotel shown on the Final Development Plan shall be allowed and further finds (i) that the statement of extraordinary circumstances, statement of consistency with the intent of the General Plan and environmental documents and visual documentation of the relationship of the proposed building and existing, approved or allowable buildings within the plan area have been submitted by the Applicants to the Department of Community Development; (ii) that the building will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, specifically finding and determining that the zoning administrator and staff should carefully review Applicants' landscape submittals and design to insure that those portions of the central plaza area receiving sunlight during the winter months are available for public use and not preempted by landscaping, fountains or other features which restrict access thereto; (iii) potential views from other sites in the Station area will not be unduly restricted in that view blockage is not an issue on this site since it is not located within the major view alignment of any major public area; (iv) the large open area in the center of the Project and the juxtaposition of buildings provide adequate freeway views; and (v) the subareas are in multiple ownership and a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed upon by the owners of development areas 10A and 10B. The heights of all buildings approved as a part of this Project are deemed necessary to create a high level of visibility -21- 3/14/86 and recognition of the Station area. Development areas 10A and 10B are well removed from the residential neighborhoods and will not adversely affect surrounding residential views. visual impacts of building heights on pedestrians in the Station area will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to the reduced mass at pedestrian level and the taller buildings are able to afford greater amounts of open space, plazas and landscaping than could be achievable with buildings of less height. The Board finds and determines that the intent of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully complied with in that the granting of additional height for all of the appropriate structures in areas 10A and 10B allows flexibility of design and furthers the intent of the Specific Plan including the construction and maintenance of prominent and convenient access points to public transportation. (b) Findings Relative to the Six (6) Story and the Ten (10) Story Office Buildings on Development Area 10B: The Board hereby finds and determines that the six (6) story and ten (10) story office buildings shown on the Preliminary Development Plan on development area 10B shall be allowed and further finds (i) that the statement of extraordinary circumstances, statement of consistency with the intent of the General Plan and environmental documents and visual documentation of the relationship of the proposed buildings and existing, approved or allowable buildings within the plan area have been submitted by -22- 3/14/86 the Applicants to the Department of Community Development; (ii) that the buildings will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, specifically finding and determining that the zoning administrator and staff should carefully review Applicants, landscape submittals and design to insure that those portions of the central plaza area receiving sunlight during the winter months are available for public use and not preempted by landscaping, fountains or other features which restrict access thereto; (iii) potential views from other sites in the Station area will not be unduly restricted in that view blockage is not an issue on this site since it is not located within the major view alignment of any major public area; (iv) the large open area in the center of the Project and the juxtaposition of buildings provide adequate freeway views; and (v) the subareas are in multiple ownership and a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed upon by the owners of development areas 10A and 10B. The heights of all buildings approved as a part of this Project are deemed necessary to create a high level of visibility and recognition of the Station area. Development areas 10A and 10B are well removed from the residential neighborhoods and will not adversely affect surrounding residential views. Visual impacts of building heights on pedestrians in the Station area will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to the reduced mass at pedestrian level and the taller buildings are able to afford -23- 3/14/86 greater amounts of open space, plazas and landscaping than could be achievable with buildings of less height. The Board finds and determines that the intent of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully complied with in that the granting of additional height for all of the appropriate structures in areas 10A and 10B allows flexibility of design and furthers the intent of the Specific Plan including the construction and maintenance of prominent and convenient access points to public transportation. 4. Findings Relative to Parking: The Specific Plan allows for a minimum of 0.5 stalls per 1, 000 net rentable square feet of FAR and a maximum of 3 .3 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Parking is also required to be covered in structure. The Board makes the following findings relative to parking: (a) The Applicants' proposed combined parking spaces, while less than the maximum allowable, are sufficient and adequate for the Project and consistent with the provisions of the Specific and Redevelopment Plans. The complementary parking demands of the hotel and office uses on area 10A clearly justify a reduced parking level for the Project. The Board finds that Applicants have submitted a Parking report justifying parking facilities less than the maximum as described above and hereby approves said Parking Report and finds that adjacent neighborhoods are fully protected from adverse impacts. The Board finds that area 10B, if considered separately, does provide the maximum allowable parking; -24- 3/14/86 a ! F (b) The parking spaces provided on the top levels of the parking structures are "in structure" within the meaning and intent of the Specific Plan. The parking structures provide trellis and other screening improvements which mitigate any adverse visual or other impacts of the top level parking; and (c) The limited surface parking shown on area 10A for short-term hotel use and the handicapped surface parking on area 10B is allowable and entirely consistent with and within the intent of the Specific Plan in that such surface parking is minor in amount, facilitates the design and siting of structures and, in the case of the handicapped parking, is required by Code. 5. Findings Relative to Open Space: The Specific Plan requires 20% usable open space of the site as landscaped pedestrian circulation and plazas. The Project as proposed far exceeds this percentage requirement. , 6. Findings Relative to Circulation and Parking. Urban Design Provisions, Including Landscaping, Signage and Building Design: The Board finds and determines that the Project as proposed is consistent with the Specific Plan provisions relating to circulation and parking, urban design provisions, including landscaping, signage and building design, except as indicated below in the paragraph with variances from provisions of the Specific Plan. -25- 3/14/86 t t C. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO VARIANCES AND MODIFICATIONS FROM PROVISIONS OF SPECIFIC PLAN: The Board finds and determines that the variances and modifications from the specific provisions of the Specific Plan as set out below and as hereinbefore set out in these findings are allowable and desirable from the standpoint of fostering flexibility of design and location of improvements and that said variances and modifications fully satisfy and comply with the intent and direction of the Specific Plan. The Board further finds and determines that pursuant to the Order of the Board issued April 10, 1984, adopting the amendments to the Specific Plan contained in Resolution No. 15-1984 of the County Planning Commission, the Board is empowered to approve variances from the provisions of the Specific Plan upon a finding, as set out herein, that the intent 'of the Specific Plan is satisfied. 1. Modification From Prescribed Plaza Placement and Pedestrian Circulation: The Specific Plan shows a second level plaza on area 10B as one of three (3) second level plazas on the three (3) corners of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. The Specific Plan also indicates pedestrian accessway running through the southwesterly portion of area 10B into a pedestrian walkway and open space between areas 7 and 8 (see figure 14, at page 49) . The Project has redesigned the location of the major plaza and made it a ground level plaza in the middle of the westerly portion of area 10B. A series of mini-plazas have been designed around the Project with several fronting on Oak Road. A -26- 3/14/86 e M s e ' strengthened and expanded pedestrian route has been developed in the Project along Oak Road to replace the route originally planned through the Taylor/Ward (areas 7 and 8) properties because studies have demonstrated that there was inadequate pedestrian desire for that route and the Board, by amending the Specific Plan by Resolution 9-1984, deleted the open space designation and areas between areas 7 and 8. 2. Modification Regarding Access: Auto circulation design as shown on page 33 of the Specific Plan shows three (3) access points on Wayne Drive and the Project as constructed will have only one (1) . The plan shows one (1) access point on Oak Road, where actually there shall be three (3) ; however, the lower access point on Oak Road will be limited to service vehicles and handicapped parking, and the northerly access point will be limited to service vehicles and limited parking structure access. The Specific Plan shows no access off Buskirk Avenue but subsequent traffic studies have shown that such access is desirable to improve interior and exterior circulation. The Board finds and determines that these minor modifications from the traffic circulation and parking design set out in the Specific Plan are acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. D. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO SETBACK VARIANCES: The subterranean part of the parking structure on area 10B encroaches into the setback on both Oak Road and Wayne Drive. -27- 3/14/86 This encroachment has no visual or physical impact on the Project and is consistent with the concept of setbacks as established by the Specific Plan. Setbacks of 10 feet are required along Wayne Drive with an additional 20 foot step back for a structure over three stories. The above grade portion of the parking structure fronting on Wayne Drive on area 10B is five levels, with one level below grade. The structure is located fifteen (15) feet from the Wayne Drive right-of-way to allow a more functional central plaza. There is no above grade encroachment into the setback but there is encroachment into the step back which is mitigated by the siting of the structure fifteen (15) feet from the Wayne Drive right-of-way. The parking structure on area 10A encroaches both underground and above ground into the setback area on Buskirk Avenue and Wayne Drive. The Board finds and determines that these encroachments are minor, are required in order to achieve flexibility and create a project design which is most consistent with the Specific Plan and are fully consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. In addition, the architectural features on the south side of the 10-story office building on area 10A encroach into the setback and are deemed in compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan in that they provide articulation and design variability for the structure and enhance the overall appearance of the Specific Plan area. This Board makes the following additional findings with respect to all variances granted and modifications allowed: -28- 3/14/86 1. The variances authorized do not constitute the grant of a special privilege ' inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the P-1 zoning district in which the property is located. The underground encroachments of the parking structures are purely technical encroachments and are not ascertainable nor apparent on grade. 2 . Special circumstances applicable to the Property because of its size, location and surroundings would cause the strict application of the setback restrictions to deprive the Property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Because of the rather odd shape of the portions of the parcels where the parking structures are located, it is difficult, if not impossible, to site the structures without causing underground encroachment into the setbacks. 3. The setback variances for the parking structures and the office building at Buskirk and Treat Boulevard and the other modifications allowed from the Specific Plan substantially meet the, intent and purpose of the P-1 zoning district in providing and allowing flexibility in design and placement of structures on a relatively difficult site. III. FINDINGS RELATIVE TOCONSISTENCYWITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: This Board by the adoption of Ordinance 84-30(RD) determined that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan. This Board has already in these findings made findings and determinations that the Projec.t is consistent with the Specific -29- 3/14/86 f Plan and the Board hereby reiterates and reaffirms its findings originally made at the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan are fully consistent. In addition, the Board finds and determines that the Project is consistent with and in full compliance with the Redevelopment Plan. In each and every place in these findings where the Board finds consistency with the Specific Plan, such finding is to be read as and mean consistency with the Redevelopment Plan. IV. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO REZONING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL: The rezoning and approval of preliminary and final development plans for the Project require certain findings pursuant to Sections 26-2. 1806, 26-2.2008 and 84-66. 1406 of the Contra Costa County Code and the Board hereby makes the following findings: A. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 26-2. 1806: 1. That the zoning change proposed (R-10 and P-1 to P-1) substantially complies with the County General Plan (see Paragraph IIA hereof) ; 2. That the uses authorized and proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; 3 . Community need has been demonstrated for the uses proposed. The office and hotel uses are integral parts of the -30- 3/14/86 J Specific Plan and its plan for development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. B. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 84-66. 1406: 1. That the Applicants have informed the Board that they expect to commence construction of the Project within two and one-half years of the zone change and approval of plans; 2. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan (see Paragraph IIA, hereof) ; 3. This commercial development is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed. The location of office improvements and support facilities, such as hotels, at this location to the BART Station is an important part of the County General Plan and the Specific Plan. Traffic congestion will not likely be created by the Project and any increased traffic will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the Preliminary and Final Development Plans for proper ingress and egress and by internal provisions for traffic and parking. The Project will be attractive and efficient and will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon adjacent or surrounding development; and 4. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan for the Project justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Contra Costa County Code. -31- 3/14/86 f C. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 26-2 . 2008: 1. The Project as approved will not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County or of the community within which the Project is located. 2. The Project as approved will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County or in the community within which the Project is located. 3 . The Project as approved will not adversely affect the preservation of the property values and the protection of the tax base within the County or the community within which the property is located. 4. The Project as approved will not adversely affect the policies and goals set forth in the General Plan. 5. The Project as approved will not create a nuisance or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. The Project as approved will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood within which the Project is located. 7. The Project site constitutes a unique area posing extremely difficult design problems which have been fully addressed and resolved through the approved design. 8. The Board's findings with respect to consistency with the purpose of the zoning district, the General Plan, the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the mitigation of significant environmental effect and all of the other portions of these findings are incorporated herein. -32- 3/14/86 S! M V. GENERAL: A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings, the Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable portions of the staff reports, special reports and studies, oral testimony, Program EIR, resolutions, conditions of approval and the Applicants' submittal all relating to the Project. B. It is the intent of the Board that the foregoing findings be considered as an integrated whole and whether or not any subdivision of these findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. All of the foregoing constitute findings by this Board whether or not any particular sentence or clause states that it is a finding. C. The within findings are based upon facts, evidence and testimony contained in the entire administrative record including, but not limited to, that presented in hearings on the Project before the Planning Commission and the Board. The findings constitute the independent findings of the Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by evidence in the administrative record as a whole. -33- 3/14/86 Fin inq- s Map wrs n , I 01 + 17 It!+ l+ rr ........... •L t t ry " nw. _ ' 11 ,, t! P.1 fill T R + ti r= fl = .15 r! !1 B.A. o PLEASANT MILL STATION rliD=r n R-B 1 r1 ;Q r Area Rezone From R-16 To t�-i /�"�� PLEtlBtaaJT S.}1LC jj3AETD 1, LE3LtE K. Z>avtS , Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of 9A4E 1--14 ©F COUNT `5 1q7$ ZONINa kAP indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of 4OOVEP £ 61LL.ILAWD (0156" -2'Z' Ci,a at rhe C..ontra Costa County Planning Commission, State-of Calif. f ATTEST: I Secretary of the Contra Costa C aunty Planning Commission, State at C01if. ORDINANCE NO. 86-21 Re-Zoning Land in the Pleasant Hill/Bartd Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Page L-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein {see also Community Development Department File No.' 265 8-RZ ) R-10 Single Family Residential FROM: Land Use District P-1 { Planned Unit Development. ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit Development ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. PAn i - LL it I Q R.1 o a 0.1 II It li [r FuL 17 I II ¢ I� 11 w 2 ij jl B,A... O PLEASANT MILL STATIOK- +I SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on March 18, 1986 by the following vote: Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain 1. T. M. Powers ( X) ( } { } ( } 2. N. C. Fanden { X) { } ( ) { ) 3. R. I. Schroder ( X) { ) { ) ( ) 4. S. 11. McPeak ( X) ( ) ( ) ) 5. T. Torlakson ( X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Phil 13atrhrlor, County Ad►ninistrator and Clerk of the l;uard Of S1.1111cnvisors Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 86-21 2658-RZ Taylor/Ward ORDINANCE NO. 86-22 (Re-Zoning Land in the Pleasant Hill/Bartd Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION h Page L-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. 2656-RZ R-10 Single Family Residential FROM: Land Use District R-15 Single Family Residential TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit Development and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. U11- 0-1 II - j1 rr 3E P-1 _17f l it ir W -15 8.k PLEASANT HILL + 1p+r r STATION 0- O I11 r� R-8 SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the t) CONTRA COSTA TIMES a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on March 18, 1986 by the following vote: Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain 1. T. M. Powers M 2. N. C. Fanden W 3. R. I. Schroder M 4. S. W. MePeak M 5. T. Torlakson M ATTEST: Phil Batelielor, Countv Administrator and C of the Baird of SLIpirvisors Chairman of the Board' Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 86-22 2656-RZ Hoover