Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06102003 - D4 TO: BOARDbF UPERVISORS ontra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP2002-02) RELATED TO THE OAK ROAD OVERCROSSIING OF TREAT BOULEVARD, PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA, WALNUT CREEK SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPEN the public hearing',and receive testimony on the proposed'Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and, and CLOSE the public hearing; 2. DETERMINE the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted (November 5, 2002)for the Specific Plan' Amendment (SP2002-02) and Approval of the Planned-Unit' District Rezoning(RZ023116)and Preliminary Development Plan (DP023041)is adequate and has been prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; ' 3. ADOPT'the Mitigated Negative'Declaration for the Specific Plan Amendment; 4. CONSIDER The County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and APPROVE the proposed Amendment related to the elimination of the Treat Blvd. pedestrian ouercrossing;at Oak Road; 5 ADOPT the attached Resolution with Growth Management Findings as it related to the Specific Plan Amendment, 6. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan Amendment, and 7. DIRECT the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_. X YES ; SIGNATURE e-"J--& ' i FIVY�LA RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S ACTION OF BOARD ON June 10, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER *See attached addendm for Burd action** VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS{ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN *Distric—E TT mat VACANTk Contact: Maureen Toms,Com unity'Development-335-1250 ATTESTED 10, 2€03 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS`.AND COUNTY'ADMIN'INI5TRATOR Public Works Department Redevelopment Agency Building Inspection Department BY ` _ ,DEPUTY Bay Area Rapid Transit District June 10,2003 Board of Supervisors Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The cost of this project is primarily the responsibility of the property owners/developers of Area 12 and Area 15. A'Deferred Improvement Agreement exists for Area 15, as does a Cost Allocation Agreement with respect to Area 15. The rezoning action for the BART site(Area 12) is conditioned to include similar agreements. The County Redevelopment Agency may have an obligation to pay a portion of the project costs to cover enhanced design if the facility remains in adopted plans. Funds are available if needed. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATONS The proposed Specific Plan Amendment was considered by the Board of Supervisors in November 2042 (along with the BART site development program). At that time the proposed' Amendment to eliminate the Treat Blvd. pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road was deferred The decision to defer action on the Oak Road bridge was made so that it could be brought back with consideration of the design of the Jones Rd. (Iron Horse'Trail)"overcrossing. At the time the County Planning Commission and Board' of Supervisors :.considered a recommendation on the Specific Plan Amendments in"fall 2502, concerns were expressed about the portion of the Specific Plan Amendment dealing with the pedestrian overcrossing and pedestrian safety at the Treat Blvd./Oak Rd. intersection. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment,subject to the Board of Supervisor's consideration of incorporating pedestrian safety facilities to improve pedestrian safety and ease in crossing Treat Blvd., including consideration of the following measures in the final'design: a. Separate crosswalk surface from Treat Blvd. asphalt such as colored pavers. b. Surface blinking lights at the crosswalk during cross cycles, c. A protected wide center island for pedestrians to a light with a walk button. d. Island between the right through-lane and the right-turn lane on westbound Treat turning into the'BART station, to narrow the width of the crossing. e. Yield to pedestrians at the right turn from northbound Oak onto Treat going east. f. Left turn signal from southbound Oak going east on Treat so it doesn't conflict with the pedestrian movement. g. Inclusion of a countdown pedestrian signal. Public Works and Community Development staff reviewed the pedestrian safety' facilities suggested by the Planning Commission and have the following comments: a The separate crosswalk surface (i.e., pavers)would be a maintenance concern for long- term viability of a paving material other than asphalt for the busy Treat Blvd. Staff concluded that this will not significantly enhance safety since there is already;a traffic signal at the crossing'location. Although the standards dictate that additional painting of the crosswalk(ladder design)to increase visibility be limited to intersections that are not signalized,a ladder design'crosswalk could be considered for the intersection due to the pedestrian nature of the area. 0 Surface blinking lights on the crosswalk are contrary to current practice because the June 90,2003 Burd of Supervisors Pleasant Fink BART Station Area Specific Plan Amendment Page 3 crossing is already signalized. This treatment is still experimental and are limited to non signalized pedestrian crossings. :. 0 The concept of a center island refuge was considered during the previous consultant study and was not recommended to be implemented because there is not adequate width in the current medians. Additional width would be necessary to have the six ft. width needed for a pedestrian island refuge. This would require frontage widening and associated tapers: 0 The suggested island between westbound through-lane and the right-turn lane from westbound Treat Blvd. to northbound Oak Road (the BART Station) already exist. 0 Yielding to pedestrians that have the right-of-way is already the law. The County has standard"Observe the pedestrian right-of-way„signs that could be added to the all legs of the intersection. 0 The traffic engineer confirmed that the existing eight-phase traffic signal cycle currently does not give a.conflicting pedestrian right-of-way/left-turn movement. 0 The countdown signal is a feasible suggested feature that ;can be explored for this intersection and subject to approval of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. Based on the foregoing, the additional signage "Observe the pedestrian right-of-way,,, improved crosswalk (ladder style) to increase visibility, and the inclusion of the court-down signal (subject to approval of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee) are recommended to be incorporated into the design of the Oak Read right-turn lane portion of the project. CONCLUSION The proposal to amend the Specific Plan to remove the Oak Road overcrossing,of Treat Blvd. will reduce the number of pedestrian overcrossings planned forthe block between►Oak Rd.and Jones Rd.)from two to one. The Redevelopment Agency commissioned a traffic study for the proposed removal of the bridge,which determined that the Oak Road overcrossing would be underutilized due to the pedestrian having to go out of their way(climbing stairs to access the bridge)when the at-grade crossing is more easily accessed. Staff recommends the removal of the Oak Road pedestrian bridge from the Pleasant Hill BART'Station Area Specific Plan. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 & D.4 June 10, 2003 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered both the approval of the design of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard and the Oak Road right-turn lane project and the adoption of the amendment to the Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area Specific Plan(SP2002-02) related to the Oak Road overcrossing of Treat Boulevard,Pleasant Hill Bart Station area. Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Kennedy advised the Board that there was a modification to the item#7 of the Bridge Design (D.3)to read "Authorize the Public Works.Director to proceed with the final design of the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing and the Oak Grave right turn project and direct the.Public Works director to return to the Board of,Supervisors for approval ofplans plans and authorization to advertise for bids for the respective projects."Maureen Toms, Community Development Department and John Eddy presented a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project. The Chair then opened the public hearing to receive testimony on both D:3 &D4. The followingpersons addressed the Board: Gerard(last name illegible),2657 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek; Jean Watts,Valley spokesman Bicycle Club, 4087 Carson Street,Concord; Roger Goodwin, 515 Palms Drive,Martinez; Gene Demar, 1313 Gragg Lane, Concord; Peter Duncan, 112 Roble Read, Walnut Creek; Mark Armstrong, John Muir/Mt. Diablo Health System, P.O.Box 218,Danville; Stan Hansen, CCCIH Trail Committee, 1201 Monument Blvd,#33, Concord; David Gold, Centra Costa Centre Association,Morrison&Foerster, 101 Ygnaeio Valley Road, Walnut Creek;, Kathleen Nimr,Sierra Club,2204 Olympic Drive, Walnut Creek; Pat O'Brien,Renaissance Club Sport, 2805 Jones Road,Walnut Creek; Robert R.aburn East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 3763 Woodruff, Oakland; Don Mount, Colony Park Neighbors Association, 1309 Gregg Lane,Concord; Dr. Yehuda Sherman,East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 1158 Glen Road,Lafayette;; Ken Alm,Meyer&Nave Law Firm, on behalf of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 555 12rr'Street,Suite 1500,Oakland; Jamie Perkins,,East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland The Chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor DeSaulnier»then moved to adopt staff's recommendations on D.3 with direction to staff to continue to work with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and John; Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical Systems on developing the final design and regarding item DA, directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with the final proposal by Millennium. The Berard then took the following action: Page 2 Item D3 &D4 June 10, 2003 D.3: CLOSED the public hearing FOUND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-rum lane is adequate and has been prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane; APPROVED the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Design of the Iron Horse Trail; ADOPTED the preferred Arch Design and DIRECTED staff to continue to work.with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and John Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical Systems on developing the final design; ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-tarn lane project; DIRECTED the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk; AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to proceed with the final design of the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing in the Oak Grove right turn project; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to return to the Board of Supervisors for approval of plans and authorization to advertise for bids for respective projects.; D4 CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted(November 5, 2002) for the Specific Plan Amendment(SP2002-02) and Approval of the Planned-Unit District Rezoning (RZ023116) and Preliminary Development Plan'(DP023041) is adequate and has been prepared' consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to return to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and approval of the proposed Amendment related to the elimination of the Treat Blvd.Pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road.` Resolution No. 33—2002 f RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA? REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLEASANT MILL BART NATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE PLEASANT HILL 'BART STATION AREA OF CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WHEREAS, on;'September 3, 2002, the Contra Costa County Community Development Department issued a`Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the 18-acre BART property in the unincorporated Pleasant Hill BART Station Area; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the project was scheduled for hearing before' the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 8, 2002; at which time an opportunity to provide testimony was given, and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on October 8, 2002, the County Planning Commission: 1.) Has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring prior to forwarding a recommendation; 2.) Recommends approval of the Amendment to the Specific Plan including removal of the Oak Road pedestrian bridge from the Specific Plan and the reduction of building setbacks for Subareas 11 and 12, subject to the Board of Supervisor's consideration of incorporating pedestrian safety facilities to improve pedestrian safety and ease in crossing Treat Blvd. including inclusion in the final design consideration of such things as: a. Separate crosswalk surface from Treat Blvd. asphalt such as colored pavers. b. Surface blinking;lights at the crosswalk during cross cycles. c. A protected wide center island for pedestrians to'a light with a walk button. d. Islands after the right turn lane islands and a right turn lane on westbound Treat turning into the BART station to narrow the width of the crossing. e. Yield to pedestrians at the right turn from northbound Oak onto Treat going east. f. Left tarn signal from southbound Oak going east'on Treat so it doesn't conflict with the pedestrian movement. g. Inclusion of a countdown pedestrian signal, The decision of the County Planning, Commission was given on Tuesday, October 8, 2002,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners — H.Wong, L.Battaglia, R. Clark, C.Gaddis, 7.Hanecak, S.Mehlman,M. Terrell NOES: Commissioners'- ABSENT: Commissioners-None ABSTAIN: Commissioners-None L Dennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, herby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on October 8, 2002. ATTEST: P � , &rrz,� Dennis M.Barry-Secretary ofah County Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California. ................................................................ Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION nMSDAY.OCTOBER 8.2002-7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION BAY .AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (Owned and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYr, A-plicant), County File# z#SP 2002-02: The applicant requests approval of an Amendment to the Pleasant Dill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan involves eliminating the Calc Road pedestrian bridge from the` Specific Plan and reducing building setbacks for subareas 11.and 12 The 1:8-acre site is the location of the Pleasant Hill BART Station,which includes the station, 1,337 space parking',garage;and 1,477 surface parking spaces in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area in Central Contra Costa County.(APP 148-221-0314,015,035,038,030.and 148-250-071) II. RECOMMENDATIONS': Staff recommends the County Planning Commission, having considered the environmental documentation prepared for the project, forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows: A. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for the project as adequate, B. Adapt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program,and C. Approve the Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BARTStation Area Specific Plan. III. GENERAL'INFORMATION: A. GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN:The subject site is designated'Mixed-Use in the Contra Costa County General Plan and Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. B. ZONING:The subj ect property is in Single-Family Residential(R-15)district and is proposed to be rezoned to a Planned-Unit (P-1)Zoning District. C. CQA STATUS:A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted'for the project on September 3,2002. The public review period ends on October 4,2002. D, PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS: County File GPA970001, RZ963047 & ZI967504 GPA 970001 involve amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The amendments were adopted.October 26, 1998. RZ963047 was a request to rezone the site to a P-1 to allow the development of an entertainment center. The application'was withdrawn. 1 . ........... .......... ........................... ...................................................- ........... .............. ........................ IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The site occupies an 18-acre site owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) on the northeast intersection of Oak Road and Treat Boulevard in Central Contra Costa County.The current uses on the site include the Pleasant Hill Bart Station and platform;a seven-story, 1,3 37-space BART parking garage;and a 1,477-space surface BART parking lot.The site is bordered by Treat Boulevard, on the south,Oak Road on the west,Las Juntas Way on the north, and Jones Road on the east. The right-of way for the Iron Horse Trail is located to the east of the site,across Jones Road. Except for a grove of oak trees on the southeast comer of the site and other landscaping within the parking lot area, the site is completely paved.The BART rail line bisects the property on a diagonal running from the southwest to the northeast. This site is essentially flat,with a slight rise from west to east. IV. AREA DESCRIPTION The surrounding area consists of a mix of high-density housing, offices, hotel and neighborhood- serving retail uses. The site is located in Subareas 11 and 12 as identified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan.The site has limited potential for street connections into the surrounding neighborhoods. The project proposed as part of the rezoning (RZO23116) and the Preliminary Development Plan (DPO2304 1) calls for residential located across from existing residential to the north and east.Office and commercial is proposed across from existing office to the west and south. Lower buildings ranging from three to five stories are proposed to the north and the east across from existing residential.Office buildings ranging from seven to twelve stories in height areproposedtothe south and west across from existing taller commercial buildings. The property is in a.transitional zone between the higher density multiple-family residential neighborhood immediately to the east and higher density offices to the west. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with building scale and style incompatibilities within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, the Specific Plan states an objective which places high intensity,less sensitive uses west of the BART Station and lower intensity local-serving uses near adjacent neighborhoods. Since the site is on the west side of the BART Station site the impacts associated with the scale of the building are avoided or substantially lessened. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is a unique area that provides many opportunities for achieving regional goals through the development of the site. The BART Station itself, which represents a substantial public investment itself,is an anchor for the development and is a people generator for a major public space and future retail uses. In addition to the regional transit access froth BART,the site has good visibility and automobile access from 1-680 and Treat Boulevard, and pedestrian and bicycle access for the Iron Horse Trail. V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The propose d Amendments to the Specific Plan involve eliminating the Treat Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing at Oak Road from the Specific Plan and reducing building setbacks for subareas 11 and 12. A. THE TREAT -BOULEVARD OVERCROSSING AT,-OAK; ROAD (OAK ROAD PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE): The Specific Plan contains policies regarding two pedestrian bridges across Treat Boulevard. One bridge is proposed to be aligned to cross Treat Boulevard on the east side of Oak Road. The Oak Road Pedestrian Bridge is included in Policy 4(page 3 6)of the Specific Plan. Another pedestrian bridge across Treat Boulevard is proposed one block to the east at Jones Road.The alignment of the Jones Road bridge is on the Iron Horse Trail Corridor. The Jones Road(Iron Horse Trail Bridge)is included in Policy 2 7 of the Specific Plan. Discussions of the two bridges during the:C process resulted in further a study of the need for bridges. The Teat Blvd. Overcrossing at Oak Road Y� is Study(June 7, 200 concluded the bridge at teak Read would be underutilized,would increasetravel time for pedestrians and could create safety issues. The study recommended that the Oak Road pedestrian overcrossing be eliminated from the Specific Plan.. The current condition of the at-grade crossing of Treat Boulevard often leaves pedestrians without sufficient time to cross the street. Staff recommends improvements to the signal at this intersection,, such as the addition of a count-down pedestrian crossing signal, be considered. This type of signal displays the time available to cross the street before the light changes. Page 36,Pedestrian BiUccle and Transit Circulation,Policy 4,states the following: A pedestrian ouercrossing o,f Treat Boulevard shad he incorporated into the plazas within the developments north and south of Dwat. Developmentprojects onArea 12 and area 15 shall share the cost of improvement. The RedevelopmentAgency;may consider proceeding with construction ifbuilding permits have not been issued,far development on both Areas 12 and 15 if it is determined to be appropriate given concerns of safety and funding availability. The amendment would'eliminate Ped-estrian`Bieyele and Transit Circulation Policy 4 from the Specific Plan. In addition,'Figure'7.3 (Page 45)of the Specific Plan will also be amended to remove the Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road from the figure. 3 Figure 7.3 j t wt Q a:G£::.c+.• ' ca•' `.'s;c3 •,•'. "•na,•,.. ..s k' ':i,.. :ai, .,�»xc: r. h .r .. '. ".V....,•... . FUTURE BICYCLE AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION ROUTE """�� PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ROUTE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE PEDESTRIANCIRCULATION ROUTE •"'`•� VERTICAL CIRCULATION BICYCLE AND ¢«....4 BETWEEN PEDESTRIAN LEVELS PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ROUTE go FUTURE VERTICAL CIRCULATION BETWEEN PEDESTRIAN LEVELS INTERIOR CIRCULATION ROUTE d""`"'4 EXISTING BUILDING MASSING ENVELOPE e# FUTURE BUILDING MASSING ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENTAREA 0 COMMERCIAL J OFFICE ZONE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE MIXED USE LONE , UTILITY l OPEN SPACE ZONE P 4 4 til, k t t I ✓.,�� »�ws/ � ..wSiWYiMl4�r.•�•yyM yy iW'www�W�wwtuVµA4 +Y 3 t Y� � � .:�3�Y f?{tip,}i'F�a 2} �'+i•�"+r � i,�% �'j' k tdr •T � � � t a+. 3'}Y•�f il'.:;r to 1 }`. } 11�'tyYv{�_y�� •s rti '6,.'��`< JIM : Ore=siog at { t� • ,� is ,t +�$ > � x sG T 3`Y ei""'_iif.i cW.. �, 3 '}'�L f5'33.' }• Joee!7 (Iron 7:Ireat Boidevardif if' gorse fire' to resin pry}}n �s L� >±. ..4 '': < 3tw, f }/iw yt p �prltg� overcrvssing F 3 V Ri y k W t S io the ffi Pliv Oak Road to be :. ��. rr . eliminated fry i the Specific PlanIt ¢ T s ► #� . iv jj� HF i.43 f itF r 46 '� ................. ...... .......................................................................--........ .......... ............................... ................................. ......... ... .............. ..................................................................................... B. BUILDING SETBACKS: According to Street Setbacks, Policy 1, Street setbacks for structuresvary dependingon the street Vithin the Specific P.lanArea. The current policy is as follows "Minimum building setbacks from streets,both at ground level and at upper floors shall adhere to thefollowing schedule: Street Setbac Stepped Profile Triat Boulevard 20 40 Oak Road 20 40 BART Station Entrance 20 40 BART Station Frontage 20 40 Typical 5-lane 10 20 Typical 2-lane 20 20 Buskirk 20 20 CogginsP-W 10 20 Coggins N-S 10 20 The building setbacks proposed for the development of Subareas 11 and 12 are between 10 and 20 feet,requiring an amendment,of the street setback limits fora typical 24ane street. As part of the Specific Plan Amendment, the street setback, limits will be amended to accommodate the proposed development of Subareas 11 and 12,as follows(bold wording is an addition): Street Setback Stepped t Treat Boulevard,(except sub area 12) .20 40 Treat Boulevard-subarea 12 0 0 Oak Road(except sub areas 11,and 12) 20 40 Oak Road-Subareas 11 and 12 0 0 BAR 40 T Station Entrance 20 BART Station Frontage . 20 40 Typical 5-1ane(except sub areas 11 and 12) 10 20 Typical 55-tante-sub areas 11 and 12) 5 5 Typical 2-lane(except sub areas 11 and 12) 20 20 Typical 2-lane-sub areas Hand 12 0 0 Buskirk 20 20 CogginsE-W 10 20 Coggins N-S 10 20 6 Specific Plan Policy 1 regarding Prop=Line Setbacks state the following. "Policy 1: Building setbacks from side and<rear yards shall conform to the following schedule: Adjacent Use Setback fft.) Stepped Profile(.Ratio) Residential 1512021 Commercial/Office 20 1:1 Mixed Use 20 1:1 The amendment to the Specific Plan would change the setbacks for buildings in Subareas 11 and 12 as follows: "Policy 1: Building setbacks(except sub-areas 11 and 12)from side and rear, yards shall conform to the following schedule: Adjacent Use Setback(ft.) Stepped Pro rle(Ratios Residential 15120 2:1 Commerciall(?f ce 20 1:1 Mixed Use 20 1:1 There are no minimum building side and rear yard setbacks in subareas 11 and 12, Specific Plan Policy 4 regarding Property Line Setbacks states the following: "Policy 4: Buildings adjacent to existing multiple family developments shall have a minimum,setback of 15 feet. Buildings adjacent to existing single-family residences in Subarea 3 shall have an average setback of20feet. Accessary structures such as single story carports are exempt from these setback requirements." The amendment to the Specific Plan would change the setbacks for buildings in Subareas l 1 and 12 as follows: "Policy 4: Buildings adjacent to existing multiple family developments shall have a min imum setback ofI5 feet except for structures within Subareas 11 and 12,where there is no minimum setback. Buildings adjacent to existing single-family residences in Subarea 3 shall have an average setback of 20 feet. Accessory structures such as single story carports are exempt from''these setback requirements. V. CONCLUSION" The proposed amendments are policy changes to Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan that are consistent with the outcome of the Planning Charrette for the BART Property and adjoining areas. 7 Barr CP Community Contra Dennis ty.Dev,, pme Corr�rnuni Devela txrent Director Development Cosh County ,• my Administration Building 651 Pine Street ' m , 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 , Phone: (925)335-1250 1 �3r September 3,2002 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File#Specific Plan Amendment#2002-02,Rezoning#02-3116,and Development Plan#DPO23041 (Iron Horse Associates Office/Residential/Retail Project) Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental (duality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: BAY AREA ID TRAMIT DISTRICT O er and CONTRA CO TA COUP+TY REDEWLOPMSNT AGENCY (&Mhcant), County File#SP 2002-02,RZ023116 and DP02 041: The applicant requests approvalof an amendment to the Specific Plan by eliminating the Oak Road pedestrian bridge from the Specific Plan and reducing building setbacks for subareas 11 and 12;rezoning the site from Single-.Family Residential Zoning District(R­15)to a Planned-Unit District(P-1);and approval of Preliminary Development Plan to construct 290,000*-455,000 sq.R of office,274-446*multiple-family residential units(including 50 for--:sale units),42,000 sq.fi.ofstorefront.7,009 sq.ft. of Civic use, and the expansion of the existing 1,33'7 space parking garage with the relocation of the existing 1,477 surface parking spaces and the 581 parking spaces on the Iron Horse Corridor(*with block"A"residential alternative). The request includes the adoption of The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Codes and'Architectural Standards. The 18-acre property is the site of the Pleasant Hill DART Station,which includes the station,1,337 space parking garage and 1,477 surface parking spaces in the Pleasant Hill DART Station Area in CentralContra Costa County. (APN 148-221-034,015,035,038,030 and 148-250-071). Potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics,air quality,cultural resources,land use and planning,geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, traffic, noise, and public services have been identified in the initial study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated which reduce these impacts to an:. insignificant level. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and,all documents referenced be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department,and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,North Wing, Second Floor,651 Pine Street,Martinez, during normal'business hours and is also posted at www.ecreach.org. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 3:00 P.M.,.Friday, October 4,2002. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Maureen Touts,Principal Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meting of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday,October 8 2002. The meeting is anticipated to be held at 7:00'' pm at the Board Chambers at 651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. It is expected that the Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at the same meeting. Interested parties may contact staff at the above number to confirm the time and date of the hearing. Maureen Toms,AiCP' __r)ffira_Rotim R°nn a.m - Environmental Checidist Dorm 1. Project Title:-< Specific Plan Amendment#2002-01,Rezoning#02-3116, and Development Plan#DP023041(Iron'Horse Associates Office/Residential/Retail Project) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address': Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Maureen Toms (925)335-1250 4. Project Location:: The project area is an 18-acre site owned by BART and located at the northwest intersection of Jones'Road and Treat B oulevard in central Contra Costa County'(Assessor ParcelNumbers 148-221-015,430,-0$4, -.035,X136,d?38 and 148-250-071). The current uses 1on the site are the Pleasant Dill BART Station and Platform, 7-story BART Parking age, and surface BART parking lots. The project site is within the area of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area' Specific Plaut 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street,0 Floor-North.Wing Martinez,CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use(M-3) 7. Zoning: R-15 8. Description of Project: The proposed project involves amending the specific plan to reduce the setback requirements for development and eliminating the bak Road pedestrian bridge,rezoning the site from a'residential (R-15) zoning designation to.a planned district(P-1)zoning designation,'and a preliminary development plan for the development of 290,000* — 456,000 sq. ft. of office space, 274 446* units' of residential space,42,000 sq. ft. ofretail and 7,000 sq.ft.of civic use space on an 18-acre site(Subarea 11 and Subarea 12)in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. *Mil block"A"residential alt rnat'YO Consideration of the Preliminary Development Plan includes adoption.of The ,New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code and Architectural Standards. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. Surrounding land uses'includeoffice buildings, hotels(existing and;proposed),multiple-family residential complexes, and retail businesses. The 1-680 freeway is approximately one block to the west of the site. ........... ....... ...... .......... .... ... . .......................................... ............................................... ........... .......... ................. ... ..................... 2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval,or participation agreement): A Development and Disposition Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency,BART and the developer;Lease and Sub-Lease Agreement between Contra Costa County; the Redevelopment Agency,BART and the developer ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/ Public Services Papulation&Housing oPuW Utilities&Service Circulation Geological Problems Biological Resources Systems — Water Energy , & Mineral Aesthetics — Air Quality Resources., Cultural Resources ✓ Mandatory Findings of Hazards Recreation Significance Noise DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ✓ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case,because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet hayebeen7added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. will be prepared. I find that the proposed.project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IN[PACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by nutigation,measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect inthis case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the pro Dosed project. .................................. ........................................................... ................ 3 Prepa w-,- September 3—2002 Boci cr Holton.,Phb, Date Approved by: September 3, 2002 Mmare Toms,AICD Date CCC Community Development Department CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Environmental Impact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill'BART Station.AREA Specific Plan (certified on October 6, 1998) is a''program EIR'prepared m accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental.Act(CEQA)Guidelines..CEQA enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for y iirdividual development projects proposed for the Specific Plan,area. The program LAIR addressed all of the significant cumulative impacts of the amendments to the,Specific Plan. Subsequent activities (i.e., development plans) in the program (specific plan)must be examined in,the .tight of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental clriciirrientput be prepared, :If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR,is newil, ilial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Declaration or EIR. The EIR included the-evaluation of a project having the',dimensions and density as that which is proposed on Specific Plan'SubareaIs 11 and .U., The EM found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would'redazce#hese impacts to a'less than significant level. ''These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proppsed project arld are identifi with an asterisk in the document(i,e.,Mitigation Measure*).I The proposed proj ect does 4otmdt iu additional significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated by i6.Cc3unty in that DIEL Project specific mitlgation measures,which reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level,are also incorporated into the project.. SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checldist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which ere available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Dapping System.-Quad Sheet Panels Brentwood,CA 2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Flan(July 1996)and EIR on the General Plan(January 1991) 3. General'Plan and Zoning Maps 4, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and EIR(October 1998) 5.' Pleasant Hill DART Station Area Community flan Summary Report(October 200 1) 6. The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code--Architectural Standards(proposed) 7. The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code — Principles and Regulations for Redevelopment of the BART Station Property (proposed) ................................ ............. ..................... ......................................... 4 8. Pleasant Hill BART Preliminary Development Plan(proposed) 9. Draft Pleasant Hill BART Station Comprehensive Plan (July 2002) 10. Treat Blvd. Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study(June 7,2002) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially sipificant Impact, rotmitialy udess I=than significant MiflPtion significant Impact, Incorpm Impact No Impact AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓ vista?(Source 4,5,6,7,8) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, butnotlimited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic,buildings within a' state scenic higbway?(Source.2,4,5,6,7,8) C. §ubstantidly -6 grade the existing vistial ✓ aracter or quality of the site and its'' surroundings? (Source 2,4,5) d. Create a"new source of substantial light ' or glare Which w6u.ld adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source 4) SUMMARY: The portion of the proposed project north of the BART station(Specific Plan Subarea 11) includes one 12-story offie building and 4-story' apartments,!'partments, along expansion of the fbotprint of the existing 7-storyBART parking garage to accommodate 2, 058 additional vehicles(1,477 spaces relocated from surface lots and 581 sp aces relocated from the temporary parldniz area ion the former Southern Pacific right-of-way). The portion of the proposed project south,of the BART station (Specific flan Subarea 12) includes one 7-storyoffice �building and three-story a'it'm,en, ts'orcommercial- :buildings. Retail business would be located on the ground floor along Treat Boulevard, the southern portion of Jones Road,and along a new north-south-retail street,providing apedestrian friendly environment with major ingress and egress from Treat Boulevard. Offices or residences would wrap the perimeter of the upper levels of parking garages. The apartments would shield the view of the parking garages from surrounding land uses and would be compatible with the existing residential uses. The architecture of the proposed buildings is compatible with existing buildings in the vicinity and adheres to the design guidelines articulated in the Specific Plan and related documents. For example,the Specific Plan stipulates that views ofMt.Diablo be maintained from the BART platform. This limits building heights east of the platfomi and within the Mt.Diablo viewshed to 52 feet. The maximum height allowed by the Specific Plan for any building north of the BART tracks is 12 stories and 7 stories to the south. Generally,the project's proposed,location of'residential units is near desirable visual andrecreational amenities (such as the Iron Horse Trail), and close to existing housing. Office uses are clustered>near other office buildings. Retail uses are sited in locations that are highly visible to passing cars on Treat Boulevard and alon 9 routes to and from public transit. Parking structures would be hidden behind other uses(when possible)and ..........---...........- ..................-................. .................... 5 architecturally,enhanced (when not screened by an active use). Buildings with civic uses are proposed in prominent locations around the site,terminating in views from important streets. The property,and associated buildings,would continue to be highly visible from I-680;however,this portion of 1-680 is not designated as a scenic highway in the General Plan. The proposed project,particularly the parking garage, has the potential to add light and glare to the area. Requiring lighting to be directed on the project'property only and the design of the garage to be such that headlights of cars using the parking garage do not shine toward the:residential areas can minimize these impacts. The Specific Plan Policy 4,BART Parking, states that: "Any extension of the existingparking structure shall(1)be designed so as to prevent light and noise intrusion into residential areas and to minimize residential vzew ofparked vehiclesfrom those areas." The project site contains some native oak trees within a small,riparian zone in the southwest'comer of subarea 12. Such oak trees are to be protected within a park adj scent to proposed retail uses on Treat)Boulevard and a smaller retail building or restaurant on the eastern border of the park. The following mitigation,measures adopted, as part of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (Landscaping Policy 1) will be incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially&nificant Effect flak' New construction and future uses could have a significant impact on oak trees: Mitigation Measures*flat: 1. Existing native oaks shall be retained and protected from encroachment by structures and paving damage to their root structure. 2 Hard surface areas shall be restricted'and no change in finish grade shall be'permitted beneath their drip line. 3 Surface drainage shall be maintained to promote healthy root growth.. 4. Development of the Specific Plan are shall comply with the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance. 5. Protected trees, as defined in the County's Tree 'Preservation Ordinance that have a circumference exceeding 20 inches measured 4.5 feet from.the ground,shall be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 Impact(lb): The project proposes to introduce additional exterior lighting to the area,which includes residential uses. Mitigation Measure 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. Light standards shall be low- lying and exterior lights on the building shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's.property and not toward adjacent properties,all subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. ........................................ .......... ............................................................................................................................................ ................ ...... Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or ✓ Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared -pursuant -to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source 4) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ✓ use,or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 4) C. Involve other changes in the existing ✓ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion, of Farmland,to non-agricultural use?(Source 4) SUN MARY: The site is currentlypaved surface parking and a parking garage. Since the site is not associated with any agricultural uses,the proposed usewill not impact agricultural resources. Potentially officant Impact Potentially unless Less than significant Ntigatim Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan(S ource:4) b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 4) ....................... ........... 7 _ C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source 4) d. Expose sensitive ,,receptors to substantial f pollutant concentrations? (Source;4) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Source 4) SLIM SCARY: The EIR prepared for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area adequately addressed air quality impacts resulting from proposed development of Specific Plan Subareas 11 and 12.The proposed development is less intense that the scenarios analyzed in the EUL The following mitigation measures adopted for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan wi 8 Potenddy significant Input Potentaiiy Unless Less than significant Mitigatim Significant Imp€tct Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:` a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either ✓ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source 1,4) b. Have a 'substantial adverse `effect on any riparian :habitat or other sensitive natural community identified 'in local 'or regional plans,policies,regulations orbythe California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish. and Wildlife Service?(Source 1,4) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ✓ protected wetlands as defined,by Section 404 of the Clean "Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?(Source 1,4) CL Interfere substantially 1vith the movement.of any native resident,or migratory fish..or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede 'theuse of native wildlife' nursery sites? (Source 1,4) e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological:resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Source 1,4) f Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Source 1,4) SUMMARY: The County Resource Mapping System,the Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base,and,the Contra Costa Water District Interim Service Area Listed Species Occurrences and Potential' Habitat Map, showed no unique,threatened,or endangered species of plants or animals in the project area. Plant life in the project area consists of non-xative grasses and weeds and an oak tree and some elm trees. Mitigation measures adopted Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan to mitigate for the loss of trees will be incorporated into the proposed project(see l-Aesthetics). 9 Potentially significant ImpBCt, :Potentially Unless Less than significant Ididgation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance da historical resource as defined in§15064.5? (Source 1,4) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Source 1,4) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ' paleontological resource or site or unique geologic future?(Source 1,4) d. Disturb any human remains, including those' interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source 1,4) SIRYMARY: 'Since the late 1800s,the general vicinity of the BART Station,Area has yielded a number of buried prehistoric village locations and humanburials dating back as Was 3000 years. Most of these archaeological'sites, buried under several feet of flood-deposited silt materials from nearby creeks, were discovered accidentally during construction. The E]R for the 1998 Specific Plan Amesldment adopted mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the identified impacts of future'construction on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect.(VaZ Future development could impact significant cultural resources, lVlitiRation Measures* CUA Since the major portions of Subareas 11 and 12 are covered with pavement or other, material obscuring the ground surface, the following measures would be implemented to evaluate the presence or absence of cultural resources. • For parcels presently covered by pavement or landscaping that may obscure the original ground surface,a program of mechanical subsurface testing shall be conducted to determine the presence of buried or obscured cultural material. In the event that any such material is discovered,' additional testing shall'be conducted to deternaine the aerial extent and depth below surface of the deposit area ant to determine the extent of impacts any planned development would have. The above mitigation is intended to demonstrate only the presence or absence of cultural resources in Subareas 11 and 12, and us not meant to demonstrate the scientific importance of any deposits. If a qualified archaeologist determines that cultural resources are likely to be present, the following components of the mitigation measure shall be implemented:' • If cultural resources have been identified in Subareas 11 and 12, and the extent of potential impacts to them have been determined in by the presence or absence survey, a'qualified archaeologist shall determine if the impacts would be sigrdficant enough to require evaluation of the scientific importance of the resources. If it can be demonstrated that prehistoric cultural resources are"unique"or"significant",further mitigation to reduce or eliminate the impact shall be recommended.Mitigations will be implemented prior to granting site and construction permits. .......... ........... ..................................................... ........................ ......................................................... .................................................... 10 • The archaeological testing shall be undertaken when the Final Development Plan is submitted. & When and if subsurface borings are done,the work shall be scheduled during a period that does not disrupt the use of the surface parking lots serving commuters in the Station Area. Boreholes shall be 4-10 inches in diameter, depending on the depth needed to extract a reliable sample, 0 The archaeological investigators shall use hand augers or quiet mechanical equipment to the noise disturbance of boring on nearby residents, commuters,and workers. All boreholes shall be filled (using Quick Patch Asphalt or similar substance) and flattened immediately after the core sample is extracted so as to maintain the safe use of the parking lots. potentialy significaiut Im pact, Pot=tWy Unless Less than sioAcant Wiptim significant Impact Incoiporated. Impact No Impact V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial.adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: Rupture of aknown earthquake.fault, as delineated on the, most 'recent,Alquist- Priolo, Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source 4) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?(Source 4) ✓ 3. Seisinio-related ground failure, including liquefaction?(Source 4) 4. Landslides?(Source 4) b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?(Source 4) C. >> Be located on a:geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Source 4) d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ✓' Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Buildi.ng'Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source 1,2,4) e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source 4) 11 SAIi : The geological and seismic conditions ofthe BART Station Area was described in the 1982 EIR on the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area General Plan Amendment(Specific Plan,as suGnmarized and updated in the 1998 Specific Plan EM The following mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan are incorporated into the proposed project: potentiallyenificant Environmental Effect (yIa). Strong to violentearthquake ground shaking on active fault zones 3n the region could cause significant damage to improvements,and in extreme cases, lass of life. MitigationMeaSures* iVla): Require geotechnical investigatons.to mitigate effects of enginzered fills,settlement and liquefaction, 1. Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately compacted(i.e.; minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by ASTI,I)155,7) toy significantly reduce both seismically induced and natural fill settlement. 2. All roads, structural foundations and.underground utilities shall'be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure. 3. Final design of improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation shall include deep borings and evaluation of liquefaction:potential and the report shall estimate the magnitude of differential settlement. If a high liquefaction potential-exists, the report.shall include measures to control drainage, including measures aimed at controlling damage to building, buried pipelines and surface parking. Potentially Sipificant Enjironmental Effeet3M)J Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements. Mitigation Measures*(V-Ib-): 1. The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed. Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects shall provide criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and County Code requirements on the-basis of subsurface exploration.and laboratory testing. 2. Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations,reinforced'slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-level geotechnical investigation. 12 Potentialy' significant impact, Potentially Unless Liss than si0ficant NdIption .Significant Impact Inemporated impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a'significant hazard to the public or the ✓ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source 4) b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Source 4) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source 4) d. $e'located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials "sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard`to the public or the environment?(Source:'4) e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of,a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people ;residing or working in the project area. (Source 4) f. For a project within the vicinity'of a private airstrip,would the project result in a-safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source 4) g. Impair implementation of or physically ✓ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Source 4) h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences'are intermixed with wildlands?`(Source 4) 13 The project has the potential to release hazardous substances,such as accidental petroleum spills,wring construction. These potential impacts are irn ed to a.less than si f`icant level with standard ffi safety practices (i.e., installing sufficient signs warning about construction and detours, marking of underground lines before trenching, etc.). According to the LAIR prepared for the Specific Plan, increased traffic in the area could result in an increase of response time for emergency vehicles. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a less than significant levels P ally Significant E vironmentat Effect ft�lla!• The proposed project would increase traffic which would have the,effect of increasing response times,for fire tricks'and emergency medical services. Mitigation Measures*(NICs): 1. Require sponsors of new development prof ects to prepare a life safety pian in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. 2. Require new commercial buildirngs to have life safetysystems that include sprinklers, smoke detectors, early warning system.;fixe rated walls and other requirements of the building code. 3. Include in the Pleasant Hilt BART Station Area Specific Flan life safety policies and features that address fire suppression,training,and tt af�c signalha tion to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles,street width and setbacks to Wdfitate fire protection. PotwfiaDy fiesat ftp . Powndaly Unless 'Less than siviBcant M*fion significant; Dopwt bampmiftd bapw No impact VM HYMOLWY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a. Violate�iy water.gpality standards or waste discharge requirements?(Source.4) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with: groundwater recharge such that there would'be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a towering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not supportexisting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been grained)?(Source:4) c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of"the course ofa stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial - erosion or siltation ort-or off-site?(Source.4) 14 d. Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or .tiver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a spanner which would result in flooding on-or off--site? (Source: 4) e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water "drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(Source:4) f. Otherwisesubstantially degrade water quality? ✓ .(Source: 4) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as snapped on a federal Flood Hazard' Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or, other flood hazard delineation reap?,(Source: 4) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood; flows?(Source:4) L Expose people or structures. to a.significant risk'of loss,injury or death involving flooding,`' including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or drip?(Source:4) j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source:4) SL3MIVIARY: The site is not located within a floodplain or located near a body of water where water-related hazards to people or property could.result. As the site is currently paved parking lots and the BART parldng garage,the proposed project would decrease the impervious surface of the site with the incorporation ofparks and landscaped areas.For the developed::areas,the applicant will be required'to collect and convey runoff,as specified in Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. This will result in runoffto the drainage facilities,however the surface water discharge would most likely be less than that of the existing site conditions. The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to a less than'significant level. Potentially Significant impact EEA): The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. Mitigation Measure(Villa : At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit,an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following treasures: All grading,excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15 through October 15)'only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize'erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erasion control work. Any . modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the grading Section.of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. 15' Potentinly significant impact,, Potentialy twos$ Less than kigWf"icarit Miti�tian Significant Impact IneaporatedImpact No impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.'Would the project: a. Physically divide an established:community? (Source:4,5,5,7,8) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but riot limited to the general pian,specific plan, local',cowl program,or zoning ordinance) add' ed for the purpose of avoiding' or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source 4,5,6,7,8) C. Conflict with 'any applicable habitat conservation play or natural community conservation plan?(Source 4,5,6,7,8), SU &AA CYY>> The'BART-owned site currentlyhas a GeneralPlan%Speci#ic Plan designatic�n ofMi�ced Vse, but is zoned R 15 The site would rewire rezoning to P' l(Planned District)to accouurivdate the project. P-1 zoning is intended for large-scale integrated development that provides'an opportunity for diversification in the various uses,buildings,structures,lot sizes and open spaces. The R 15 zone on the BART property allows single-family residences 'GEL lotswith a mi ijnurrr of 15,000 square feet. The rezoix g intention is part of'the Disposition anal Development agreement betvs%een the County,''the Redevelopment:A.gency and BART. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific'Plan identifies the site as Subarea l land of Subarea 12. Specific Plan policies for these subareas are as follows: • Allows a total of 800,000 sq.ft.of com errcial/off.ce uses,requiares 24 percent ofusable open space, and a residi.tial density of minimum 35 to a maximum of 60 dwelling units per net acre of developable area. The maxim,rn story height permitted in Subarea'12 is five stories, seven stories conditionally permitted. Maximum,story lxeight permissible in Subarea 11 is 10 stories,and up to 12 stories conditionally permitted.The Specific Plan states that the,additional building height may be allowed as a result of the Development Plan process,based on individual circumstances.;, • Maintain the visual relationship ofthe Station Area to the larger natural and built setting provided by long distance views,in particular those ofMt.Diablo,byprotecting the views as seen from The BART station platform and from fixture upper office space'throughout the Station Area. Encourage the creation of view corridors from the development on Subarea 12> • Subareas 11'and 12 provide opportunities for phased development to take advantage of developing market demand for commercial and office space,educational and cultural facilities,residential and/or BART parking to link the development of the site with the construction of parking structures'for BART users. ............................................. ............ ........................................ ...................... ................... ............. 16 • Development within Subarea 12 shall retain provisions for pedestrian and bicycle access from the former Southern Pacific right-of-way to the BART station to integrate the regional trail system with BART. • Commercial development in Subarea 12, close to the BART station should include an appropriate amount of convenience retail uses as defined under permitted uses. This convenience retail use should be located along the major pedestrian routes and.station frontage. • The overhead pedestrian bridge across Treat Boulevard shall be directly connected with the continuous pedestrian circulation. Stairs or ramps to connect any,second level circulation route with Treat Boulevard shall be provided as part of the development project. • Development in Subarea 12 shall not encroach on the existing native oaks in theopen space and utility corridor. Ground floor retail uses;howeve incorporate appropriate open space gathering areas or support for retail services(e.g.,outdoor plazas,eating area,benches and walkways)so long as the improvements do not threaten health and viability of,the oaks. • Design guidelines shall be developed and utilized to assist in project design and site planning. The project proposes up to 456,000 sq. ft.of office space,42,000 sq.ft.of retail sparce,,up to 446 residential units, 7,000 Sq. ft. of civic uses, and 2,058 additional parking spaces within an expanded addition to the existing BART parking garage. The 2,058 new parking spaces include the existing 1,477 surface parking lot spaces and the 58 1-tenaporary parking spaces in the former Southern right-of way.,Two new office g e site,one 12-ib ryb proposed building are prop' d f6r th 'itin. area 1 i acid one 7-storyhuilddingin Sub 12, Subarea bath building heights are allowable under theSpeect to urban design guidelines. The Specific Plan c:onditionalivillow.s up to seven stories and 108feet in Subarea 12 and conditionally allows will not create s up to 12 stories in Subarea 11,with the followingfindings:,The increase in height (1) shading g or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby publpublicoutdoor space;(2)will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites from other,sites in the Station Area;,and(3)where asubarea.is in multiple ownership, a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed by all property owners within the subarea. Inaddition,the Specific Plan allows heights of up to ten stories and 150 ft in Subarea individual 11,based on circumstances. In Subarea 12,a commercial building(up to four stories in height)and three-story aparbnents,located above street-level retail, are sited to,allow the retention,of views of Mt. Diablo from-vintage points at the BART station platform, residential units along Jones Road, and associated office buildings. The proposed retail businesses would be located on the ground floor along Treat Boulevard and along 4 new north-south retail street;both streets would be major pedestrian routes. The north-south retailctly street would lead dire to the BART station. The proposed.project provides a series of linked parks, plazas and broad sidewalks to allow and invite pedestrian access to the BART station from all directions in the area, Proposed Amendments to the Specific Plan Specific Plan, Figure 6, Land Use Matrix would require a modification to allow residential uses without a land use permit. • Specific Plan Policy L.Biggle and Pedestrian Or -mlation,refers to a pedestrian overcrossing ofTreat Boulevard: 17 "A pedestrian overpass shall be provided at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. ! The overpass shall be designed to link with an elevated plaza on bath sides of treat Boulevard. Development.projec#s on Area 1.2 and Area 15 shall share the cost of this overpass." As part of the Specific Plan Amendment,the Oak Road Bridge will be removed from the Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed development of Subareas 11 and 12 In addition,the discussion of Subarea Plan Provisions for Subareas 11 and 12(page 63 of the Specifc Plan)would be modified to reflect a north bridge landing at grade, rather than an overhead pedestrian bridge across Treat or second level building entrances. Specific Plan Policy 1,Street Setbacks. refers to minimum buildingssetbacks from streets: "Minimum building setbacks from streets, both at ground level and at upper floors shalt adhere to the following schedule.- Street, chedule:Street Setbacl, Stepped Pro le fft} Treat Boulevard 20 40 Oak Road 20 40 BART Station Entrance 20 40 BART Station Frontage' 20 - Typical 5-lane 10 20 .Typical 2-lane 20 20 Buskirk 20 20 Coggins E-W 10 20 Coggins N-'S 20 20 The building setbacks proposed for the development of Subareas 11'and 12 are between 10 and 20 feet,requiring an amendment of the street setback limits for a typical 2-lane street. As part of the Specific Plan Amendment,the street setback limits will be amended to accommodate the proposed development of Subareas 11 and 12. • Specific flan policies(Policy 1 and Policy 4)regarding Prc►berty Line Setbacks: "Policy 1: Building setbacks from side and rear yards shall conform to thefollowing schedule. Adracent Use Setback(#1 I Steered Prole(Ratio? Residential 15120 2:1 Commerciall f,jicy 20 1:1 Mixed Use 20 1:1 "Policy 4: Buildings adjacent to existing multiple family developments shall have a minimum setback of 15feet. Buildings adjacent to existing single family residences in Subarea 3 shall have ars average setback of 20 feet. accessory structures such as single story carports are exempt from these setback requirements." These policies are also proposed to be modified to accommodate the planned development of Subareas 11 and 12 18 The proposed project identifies a conceptual parking supply totaling 4,788 parking spaces. according to the, Specific Plan,;the maximum parking requirement for the proposed project is 4,162 parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed parking spaces by 626 parking spaces and conflicts with the parking policies set forth in the Specific Plan. Potentially Si rlificant Environmental Effect (D(a): The proposed projectexceeds the maximum allowed parking spaces by 626 parking spaces and conflicts with the parking policies set forth in the Specific.Plan. Mitigation Measures* (1Xa): The Final Development Plan parking plan shall be amended to be consistent with the parking policies in the Specific Plan. Potentially. significant impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigations significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact X. MINERAL'RESOURCES . Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a kmwn mineral resource that would be of value to the -- region and the residents of the state?(Source:'' 4) b. Result in the loss of availability of a'locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general pian, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 4) SUNEVIARY: Due to the nature of the project and the site description,the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources. Potentially.;' significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less.than significant Mitiptim Significant Impact Inccnrporated impact` No Impact M. NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 4) b. Exposure of persons' to or generation of excessive-ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(Source:4) c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the proj ect vicinity above levels -- existing without the project?(Source: 4) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity' 19 above levels existing withoutthe project?' (Source: 4) e. For a project located within an airport land use ✓ plan or, where such aplan has not been adopted,within two miles of a'public ai€port! or public use airport,would the prof ect expose people residing or working in the project area: to excessive noise levels?(Source:4) f. project with the'vitfinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people' residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source:4) SU TARP The primary sources of noise in the project area are trains on the BART system,traffic on local streets,'and vehicular traffic on-480. The noise'assessment prepared'for the'Amendments to the Pleasant Bill BART'Station Area Specific Plan ElR(October 1998)indicates that the future noise levels inSubareas 11'and 12 could range from 66-84 dBA. The lower end of the range would result from additional traffic-generated noise, the upper end'of the range would occur sporadically from construction-generated noise. The noise element of the County General Flan contains the land use compatibilityguidel nes for community noise. For office buildings,anoise level of 68-78 dB is conditionallyacceptable. For residences,an"aiselevel of 55-70 dB is conditionally acceptable. The increase in noise levels associated with increased traffic would be less than 70 dBA and would not pose significant impacts on office and commercial uses.However,the proposed apartments and townhouses at the intersection of Treat'Bouleard and Jones Road,and the residential units adjacent to the BART station could be subjected'to noise levels of 75 dBA. These areas would be therefore snbjected to'comcuunity noise categories between what is normally unacceptable t and clearly unacceptable for residential development. Housing proposed on a portion of Jones Road near the BART station(Block Q would be shielded from tmin- related noise by a three-story commercial building adjacent to the.station.' Incorporation of the following measures would fuer reduce noise impacts in this arca and in other areas of the site to a less than'significcant level:' Potenti lly Siig cant Environmental Effect g�ak- Development in-Subareas 11.and 12 would result in land use,compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of"normally unacceptable" and'clearly, unacceptable'noise levels for development. ##r Mtfion Measureg*�Ial: (1)Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site planning and/or use ofsoundwalls,and(2).interiornoise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows, insulation; full air-conditioning, or building facade treatments. P gnglailySignificanAEn viMentgIgffcaQMeJ The proposed parking structure court result in an increase in.noise levels in the project vicinity. WtIS tion Measures t MO Exterior noise levels,emitted from the parking structure,shall not exceed County established acceptable level of 70 dBA.. This may be accomplished through appropriate site planning and/gar use of design features of the panting structure. The projected'noise level of the parking structure shall be verified by an acoustical'study to be submitted prior;to issuance of the building permits. 20 Short-terra noise levels wouldoccur during construction. However, standard conditions of approval that include restricting construction hours,traffic flow and heavy equipment usage will reduce the noise effects. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level: Potentially Significant Environmental Effect fXlb), Short-term noise level increases;at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Ilan area would,be expected during periods of heavy construction. Miti"ation Measures* M): Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM—5:00 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: * All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; * Use'quiet'gasoline-powered compressors or other electric powered compressors wherever possible.; * Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed,consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Potentially aignifiaant Potentidy Iluka, IA=than si$tuficant Mitigation sipment Impad nctxporated Iaspaot No impact XII. PCPUI ATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, 'by proposing new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(Source 4,5 6,8) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,' necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source 4,5,6,8) C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction;of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source 4,5,6,8) SL-12JARY: The proposed project would be developed on a site currently used for BART parking,adjacent to primarily office'and residential uses. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Speci'"ic Plan contains several objectives that relate to the population and housing in the development area. These include the following policies: Increase the concentration of high intensity'transit-oriented development, including office, retail, housing, and institutional uses in the Station Area so as to better utilize the regional transit accessibility provided by BART. For Subareas 11 and 12:a)undertake a Community Design Program 21 that balances the many competing interests,and b)establish a Design Review Process(LAND USE AND DEVELOP:i NT).,, • Integrate housing into the Station Area wherever environmental constraints or overall land use considerations.,do not preclude it(LAND USE AND DEVELOPNON T). • Provide opportunities for developments with a nix ofland use,including office,hotel,retail,business and personal services,public facilities,and/or housing in order to obtain superior design,to optimise the use of infrastructure,to develop supportive.markets,.and to pe nit the right mix of rises in.all economic environments LAND USE AND DEVELaPMENT). • Provide for two types of housing environmen4:'(1)a more traditional higher,densityresidential area north of Las Juntas where residential uses predominate;and.(2)a more urbanresidential setting where housing may intermixed with office and retail uses(URBAN DESIGN) Two separate housing types would be created—townhouses and flats.The project development plan proposes a flexible 274-446 number of units,'ofwhich 50 could be for-sale units. The proposed residential densities would be within ranges allowed by the Specific Flan. The population increase from the residences is expected to be 834 people(based on 1.87 people per household). There would be some minor increase in both the existing employee population and the resident population in the area. The projections range between a 72%.-83%increase in site population..The.vast proportion of this population increase would from the influx of office workers(Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan EK 1998). This is considered a less than significant impact: There would be some minor increase in both the existing employee population and the resident population in the area. The projections range between a!72%-83%increase in site population. The vast proportion ofthis populat op i creas.. �would.from.the.u�flu tric�tTice workcers(Pleasant'I it1 BA tT Specific Plan EIlZ, 1998). This is considered a less than significant impact. The proposed project intends to be compatible with the Specific P1ari goals providing a balance of jobs and housing through mixed--use development.The project combines the development of employment centers with affordable housing to provide opportunities for workers to live near their j ob sites compared to what would be provided under a single use project. The Pleasant Hill BARS'Specific flan BIR indicates a cumulative potential jobs/housing ratio of4:1 or 5:1. While not balancingobs and.housing on site,the proposed project would contribute positively to improving the jobs/housing balance in North Central,,County. The project would not displace any existing housing units due to the existing BART parking use of the site. 22 Potentialy significant' Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation. Sigtu$cant Impact' Incorporated' Impact No Impact XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project: a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered' governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental' impacts, in order to maintain acceptable' service ratios, response tizzies or= other' performance objectives`;for any of the public services: (1,2,3,4,5,6) 1. Fire Protection?'' 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other Public facilities? SUMMARY The proposed project is within existing Turban boundaries served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,County Sheriffs Department,and the various County Departments'ser ving the area. Four fire stations currently serve the BART station area:(1)Station#1;approximately 3.5 miles south of the station; (2) Station#2, approximately 1.25 miles west of the site; (3) Station#5, approximately 1:75 miles northwest of the site; and Station##103 approximately 2'.O'miles east ofthe site. Potentially Si ri fzcant Environmental Effect(Xll1a): Prej ect'development would result mi increased traffic and potential ly increasing the response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. Incorporation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts to Fire Services to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measures*IXIIIaI: 1. Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. 2. Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprinklers,smoke detectors,early warning system,fire rated walls and other requirements ofthe building code. 3. Mitigations that reduce traffic congestion would mitigate impacts'on response times. 23 The Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department,BART'police, and East Bay l�egicnal Parr District share responsibility for police protection in the BART;station area. The Walnut Creep Police Department could serve the site at the request of other police departments under a mutual aid agreement. The proposed development of Specific plan Subareas 11 and 12 would add to the BART station area a substantial amount of transient uses including restaurants and retail-uses,along with visitors to the parks and civic spaces, and the offices. Littering,loitering,vandalism and theft,and domestic disputes in residential units are all realities ofmixed-use development projects. These occurrences,than domestic related service calls and crime,would be controlled by the prof ect's incorporation of the fallowing Specific Flan"Defensible Space"Omdelines: + Guideline 1. Proposed development shall create subareas- that,iznpart a sense of identity,belonging, fuuctian, and security. Each subarea shall allow for effective surveillance by proprietors,residents, and pedestrians and vehicle;traffic,as appropriate,as well as by mechanical surveillauee equipment if necessary. + Guideline 2. Site and building design shalldemonstrate attention to the need for effective surveillance.Designs shall avoid Greeting obscure corners bipotential hiding places and should put multiple"eyes on the street"for effective hiYm and mechanical surveillance. + Guideline 3.Pedestrian circulation plans shall concentrate pedestrian activity in selected locations, and avoid creating isolated places that might be locations for aberrant behavior, • Guideline 4,.In residential devel,opMen,ts,major- ui da'ng entries and lobbies ahall be located so that they are visible and accessible frim the street,not just from parking areas. + Guideline , I#i reslclential developments,units shall include windows or balconies with views of streets, walkways, and/or parking areas,wherever passible, to create the security of"eyes an the street." • Guideline 6..Outdoor areas shall be sufficiently illuminated to cerate a secure nighttime environment. Luminaries small be shielded as necessary to.avoid light"spillover"into adjacent residential.areas. • Guideline I Landscaping plans shall demonstrate sensitivity to personal safety,and properly security concerns. • Guideline 8.' Police agencies shall participate in the application review process to ensure that "defensible space"principles are employed is proposed new development. PotentialltiSinificant Environmental Effect : All new Idevelopments'will have an impact on provisions of police'protection services. In addition to the Specific Plan Cruidelines to encourage "defeasible" space design, incorporation of the following mitigation measure will further reduce impacts to Police Services to a less than significant level: Mitisration Measures* : 1.. For new developments,work with Sheriffs office to identify design features'ofproj ect which discourage criminal behavior. 24 2. Development on Subarea 12 may be required to provide a BART police station depending on the scale of development. 3. As an increase in traffic is expected to have an increased demand for BART police services, the BART Police,Department should be involved in developing the circulation plan at the station area. 4. Office development will include an on-site security program that includes security guards, electronic surveillance syystems,'and alarms. 5. A clean-up program to manage litter and patrol the perimeter of the BART stationarea will be implemented to control littering,loitering and vandalism adjacent to residential areas.Such a program may be implemented by retail and restaurant development that attracts'transient visitors to the site. The project area is served by three school districts. The BART line is the divider between the Mount Diablo Unified School District to the north and.the Walnut Creek ElementarylApalanes.high School District to the south. The proposal has most of the housing 9A the south side'ofthe school district.boundary. At a student generation rate of 3.8 per 100 dwelling units for elementary, scl�aols, the project's estirna#ed number of residential units(274-446)would'add between 10—17 new elementary students to the local school districts. PotentiallySi iificant Environmental Effect(XIIIa.31 All new residential developments will have an impact on schools as a result of.class size reduction mandates. Incorporation of the following rnifigatiori measure will reduce impacts to schools to a less,than significant level: Mitigation Measures*Q c): Both the residential and commercial development components,of the proposedproj ect would be"required to provide school impact fees. The total',fees collected"would be available to add portable classrooms an support other educational needs to offset the impacts of the proposed project,which is estimated to be approximately 10-17 additional students. The proposal would result,in up to 824 new residents to the area. To meet growth management standard for the proposed development,2.5 acres ofpaik land would be needed The Development Plan features a green leading to a Civic building in the center of the development. The green is approximately 300 ft.long and 45 ft.in width(13,500 sq.ft in area). The civic building on the green would provide for community functions such as a coffee window,public toilets,bike repair and storage or a public market.The comer of Oak Road and Treat Boulevard will be either a series of arcades along the south and west edges of the existing grove of oak trees or a pavilion restaurant with outside seating. In addition, minimum usable open space requirements in commercial and office projects are required as conditions of approval for projects. Although these improvements provide'recreational enhancements to the community, they are not included in the compliance with the park standard. The proposed project provides for connections'between the BART Station and the Iron Morse'frail. The project's development will be coordinated with East Bay Regional Park District for the planning and completion of the alignment of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Like other recreational aspects of the pian,the Iron Horse Regional Trail provide recreational enhancements'to the community,but are not included in the compliance with the park standard. Incorporation of the following mitigation measure will reduce impacts to parks and recreation to a less than significant level: 25 Potentially SY nificant Environmental Effect XIIId,Z The development would result in greater use of existing parrs ,and recreational facilities and an increase the need for additional parklands and recreational opportunities. mitigation Measures* : Park dedication Tees are required per County C)rrdina ce forresidential prof cots. The fee is used to'provide parks/recreational opportunities within the area and would offset any impacts to parks. Potentialy significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Ntiption significant ImpactInemporated Impact No Impact 3ay. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing"neighborhood and regional parks or. ether recreational facilities such: that substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source 4,5,6,7,8) b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which night have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source 4,5,6,7,8) SUMMARY: As discussed above(see MU-Public Servim),th.e proposal would resat in up to 824 new residents to the area,thus 2.5 acres of park land would be needed to meet growth management standard The parks in the vicinity are highly utilized fora wide variety of recreational purposes. Development of Subareas 11 and 12 would result in the potential for greater use of existing parks and recreational facilities. The Preliminary Development Plan features a' green leading to a Civic building in the center of the development. The green is approximately 300 ft.lung and 45 ft.mi width(1.3,500,sq ft in area). The civic building on the green would provide for community functions such as a coffee window,public toilets,bike repair and storage or a public market.The comer of Calc Road andTreat Boulevard will be either a series of arcades along the south and west edges of the existing grove of oak trees or,a pavilion restaurant with outside seating. In addition,minimum usable open space requirements'in commercial and office projects are required as conditions of approval for projects. Although these improvements provide recreational enhancements to the community,they are not included in the compliance with the park standard. The proposed project provides for connections between the.BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail. The project's development will be coordinated with East Bay k4onal Park.'District for the planning and completion of the alimr=t of`the Iron Horse Regional Trail, Although the irtrprov ments to the Iran Horse Regional Trail provide recreational enhancements to the community,these improvements are not included in the compliance with the park standard. Bike parking facilities,and bike repair and rental concessions could be accommodated within the Civic use areas of the project's proposed Station Square.The project has mininlized the impacts on parks by incorporating these features into the development design plans and with the collection 26 of park dedication fees to meet the required park standard identified in the County General Plan. Incorporation of the following mitigation measure,which is the same measure identified in#XIII-Public Services,will reduce impacts to parks and recreation to a less than significant level: PotentialLy$ignificant Environmental Effect QUdl: The development would result in greater use of existing parks and'recreational facilities and an increase the need for additional parklands and recreational opportunities." Mitigation Measures*(XIIId�: Park dedication'fees are required per County'Ordinance forresidental projects. The fee is used to provide parks/recreational opportunities within the area and would offset any impacts to parks. Potmtidy significant Impact, Potentialy Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact bompomted'' Impact No Impact XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: ' a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing;traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?(Source 4,5,8) b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a ✓ level of service standard established',by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(Source 4,5,8)' C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change lin location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source 4,5,8) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a'design, feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous' intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm'' equipment)? (Source 4.5,8,10): e. Result in inadequate emergency access?' (Source 4,8) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?' (Source 4,5,8) g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ✓ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4,5,8,9,10) _. 27 SZ.T1tiS ARY: The EIR for the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment included a comprehensive traffic study prepared in 1997 under the directionof the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and with the participation of the 'adjacent jurisdictions. That study evaluated all regional and non-regional roads requested by these jurisdictions. Seven different land use alternatives for this site were evaluated. Each alternative emphasized a specific land use scheme that ranged from offices to housing to mixed use. Based on this traffic study,the E1R.adopted mitigation measures for roads in the study,area sufficient to reduce the identified impacts to a less than-significant level far any of the'seven land use alternatives. The charrette conducted for this site in 2001 evaluated current traffic condition to determine if the findings from the 1998 MR were stili valid. All but two of the-2001 counts are higher than the counts from the 1997 Traffic Study. The increases in the counts appear reasonable and are considerably less than,the 2010 projections. Both existing and';existing-plus-Charr,ette pxoj ect traffic volumes fit with the 66unts and projections from the 1997'Traffic Study. "'that study forecasted traffic by adding to existing traffic the new trips from unbuilt but approved development,future development ofthe BART property,plus a certain amount of regionalgrowth based on growth forecasts for areas outside the Specific Plan boundaries: The 2001 traffic counts reaffirmed the'data,`assumptions and conclusions of the 1997 Traffic'Study'. The proposed development of Subareas 11 and 12 would expand the permanent parking available to BART patrons(1,337 spaces in.the exi.stingparking gage and 1,4t surface lots spaces)by an additional581 spaces (relocation of temporary parking spaces on the former'Southern Pacific light-of Way). l�teither the 1997 Traffic Study nor,the 2001 charrette evaluated the potential impact of this expansion of the BART parking supply.`' Some additional analysis was performed to verify it t the pe c hour trips generated by the project, ' including the 581 new BART parking spaces,would be within the range ofimpacts and mitigation measures evaluated in the 1997 Traffic Study. The 1997 Traffic Study provides information to estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by expanding the;BART parking supply by 581 spaces,to accommodate the relocation of temporary parking spaces on the former Southern Pacific Might-of-Way. During the morning peak hour of 7:00 to 8:00 ANL the last 500 unoccupied permanent BART parking spaces become fully occupied. But if all available BART parking is considered, 800 spaces become occupied. Therefore, the availability of 581 additional parking spaces attracts'300 additional vehicles during the AM pear hour.During the evening peak hour of 5:00 to 6:00 PM,these same additional vehicles would be leaving the BART station. The expansion of the BART parking garage to include 581 new spaces is assumed to add 300 vehicle trips to the area during each peak hour. .A. comparison of the proposed project's trip generation characteristics with the alternatives evaluated in the 1998 EIR shows that the traffic generated by the project is within.the(lower and upper range of impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 1998 EM Table 1 shows the trip generation data for five of the alternatives evaluated in the 199''8 EIR' These alternatives represent the broadest range of the seven alternatives studied in that Elft The traffic study prepared for the Specific Plait Amendment did not identify any significant cumulative impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. Thus the cumulative impacts due to this project are insignificant.The recommendations identified'in the traffic report will be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. The"urban village"design concept used for the proposed project would add structured parking garages that would be physically lined or screened by occupied buildings. These would provide adequate parking for the anticipated office,retail,residential,and civic uses that will be developed where the surface parking currently exists. The Draft Pleasant Hill BART Station Comprehensive flan(July 2002),calls for accommodating 20 bus lines 28 in the station area. The Preliminary Development Plan provides 15 bus bays for 40 ft. motor coaches. Consistent with the recommendations ofthe Charrette,these bus bays should be sufficient to accommodate 20 lines since all lines do not arrive at the station simultaneously. The plan further states that future bus stop capacity can be accommodated by converting on-street parking to bus stops as needed. The final development plan will require further detail of the number of bus bays and their location. As discussed under M-LAND USE and PLANNING,the proposed project identifies a conceptual parking supply totaling 4,788 parking spaces. According to the Specific Plan,the maximum parking requirement for the proposed project is 4,162 parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed parking spaces by 626 parking spaces and conflicts with the parking policies set forth in the Specific Flan. The following mit gation'measure is the same as proposed under#LX-LAND USE AND PLANNING. Potentially Significant Environmental EffectQ"XVa): The proposed;project exceeds the maxirnurn allowed parking spaces by 626 parking spaces and conflicts with thcparking policies set forth in the Specific Plan. Mitiaation Measures* (XS a): The Final Development Plan parking plan shall be amended to be consistent with the parking policies in the Specific Plana The Preliminary Development Plan identifies a new north-south roadconnecting Treat Blvd to the Station. The road connects with Treat Blvd,between Jones Road and Oak Road. The safety of the,roadway should be evaluated with a traffic study when the Final Development Pian is submitted. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect QM): The new north-south street connecting the station with Treat Blvd.could increase hazards due to design`. Mitigation Measures*03IJ: A traffic study should be submitted with the Final Development Plan analyzing the safety of the proposed intersection. 29 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED IRON HORSE ASSOCIATES PROJECT WITH 1998 EIR ALTERNATIVES FOR THE BART- STATION AREA AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Area Land Use size Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Added Added 1—Office Subareas Office 1,235,000 0.20 1,481 1,318 163 1.10 1,357 : 231 1,127 Ern hasis/Base Case 11/12 sq.ft. Total 1,481 1.318 163 1,357 231 1,127 2---Residential Subareas Apartment 658 units 0.33 218 37 181 0.41 '269 183 86 Emphasis 11/12 Total 218 37 181 269 183 86; 3`-Mixed Use Subarea Office 350,(700 1.20 420 374 46 1.10 385 65 320 11/12 sq.ft.', Subarea Retail 250,000 0.84 209 132 77 3.53 882, 353 529 11112 sq.ft. Subarea Residential 600 units.. 0.84. 199 34 165 0.41 246 167 79 11/12 Total 828 540 288 11513 585 928 4-Active Mixed Use Subarea 1'I Office 375,000 1.20 .420 374 46 1.10 385 65 320 sq.ft.`' Subarea 12 Theater 6,000 seats 0 0 0.08 484 268 216 Retail/Food) 80 sq.ff. 3.48 278 185 93 6.74 539 307 232 7011 of '' 698 559 139 : 1,488 640 768 -- .5-Active Mixed Use Subarea Office 616,OM 1.20 739 658 81 1.10 '678 115 562 Office Density 11/12 sq.ff. Retafl/Food' 250,000 0.66 164 103 61 285 713: 285 428 sq.ft. Total 9113 731 142 1,391 400 990 iron Hone Associates Subarea Office 456,000 1.20 547 487 60 1.10 502 85 417 Office/Residentioll/Re 11/12 sq.ft. tall (Rates and Retall 42,M0 sq.ft. 0.66 277 175 102 2.85 120 48 72 percent-ages reflect Apartment 274 units 0,33 90 15 75 0.41 112 76 36 those used in Civic Uses 7,000 sq.ff. 0 Scenario: S. Active Mixed Use Office Dens1 Sub total 914 677 237 734 209 525 BART 581 spaces 300 300 0 300 0 300 Parkin Total 1,214 977 I 237 1.034 209 825 1,077 2gtnat Estlmnta 3,178 Original Estimate Source:Steven L.Goetz, Transportation PtanningDivisi n Contra Costa County ComrnunityDevelopmentDepartment August 22, 2002 30 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially. Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water 'Quality Control Board? (Source:4) b.;. Require or result in the construction:of new. ✓ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects?-(Source:4) C. Require or result in the construction of new; storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause signficanteenvironmental'effects? (Source 4) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement' and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement needed? (Source 4) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Source 4) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ ✓ permitted: capacity, to. accommodate the project's solidwaste disposal needs?(Source: 4) g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source:4) SUNDAARY: The proposed project is within existing urban boundaries,served by various utilities,including PG&E,Telephone companies, Contra Costa Water District, Central Sanitation District,and Flood Control District. Since the proposed project is within the service boundaries,the project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the utilities. 31 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially unless Less than significant Mitigation significant impact Incorporatedfmpaat No impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the; habitat of 'a fish ;,and wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife',population to drop;'below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) b. Does the >>project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (°`Cumulatively considerable„ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, ,:and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&8) C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial.adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,&:8) SUMMARY: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,significantly impact biological resources(see#IV-Biological Resources)or eliminate major period of California history or prehistory(see#V-Cultural Resources). No impacts that cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed prof ect have been identified. Mitigation measures identified under I-Aesthetics,III-Air Quality,VI-Geology and Soils,V11-Hazards and Hazardous Materials,VIII-Hydrology'and Water Quality,XI-Noise,and XIII Public Services'will ensure that adverse effects'on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. �C y .ilk) kv� lox is { 4�. F 9 t-WO-345-7334 I tl QI � 41 sl 6GAI.QYR 1119 UP AN W611 " RANCHO LAS JUNTAS t� WePACL AMR LAS JUNTAS 'fork- 40, p S Val I MAL D. �1.•i •r � 6TA71ONol .— "'e' 23 .4p AUG 07'1.49i ®�eYt►c / r ± 8iE55C4R"i t,LiP y r ! SICK 14l PA01 ZZ �yi CGSTM COMITr CAUll.. P •�' MIT P Jr Jr a wry Q "J r r QY fl *as.uaoB / 6 D n J , YYaFYrt 4.-a wYYT YaY� - rJ / 6 A. R T EE PMASANT KL.L STATION a: r r J� as w 47 err r f: o m «a• f w . � • fr `r .•.e TAJ�r J r BLVD. RE 230 OR'S)AAP 148 PA02 25 CONTRA am co NTY,CALIF. N � m UpA 0 , Q. 7777 he 0 Rt C3 o p, U �Cts� 0 �. . ' # .14a bo •i +p cd to ' a7 ^C7 as4. sut b as as , 4 tT 1 ES pp a7 y u * � �+ �i3 y N rA f.i M M f3. a eb9 CC4 'ur O + Si -le tz v vs cs a, a+ rs .� � �•�,•" "�Via, r1� O� O � 7 Q +. a rn � :r A ©..>} axe' 40, OA Sill) IS 0-0 o -a oil 00 `mit � ` a.> ,° fi .. c^d 7pp c„y ��"',, tY W p .3:3, + 'r,-'t°k un tz v C� O "r c 0 • u' - c Ul o ams. CJ e� Wl '� �„'.�` r' ;o �, aro o � � �3� �� ,.: �,�p� ��� �� sa �� � .����u, � ;an•�.�a � rw c `� c, o cra,SQ SQA ' n U _ o aan, n�. cc, o 0 a. vi aai : m a. tw O O O O •" 'L7 b R� O +' y '� y .b +' a+ O ¢7_�,'C ty,� V�^a 9 .C'ar Wu ' 5Z amm 00 ID 10, n°xaa � c bn� h a r, x' tin wo;as� c�' .qp G y,� c� E EA'a `8 o ILI as y 0 aa c�' a � a� a o• 5�+- .��e0�.iu a �':.y �•�cr' �' io �' �' � aa� �a `• a ,^ ��• K7 ai y bo rl .5 0 u g6 cutstmA .. vUortz, ay �. � CsL)�° a (in � o � cr� a � � o 'A en 140. 09 Cd 3 b, ,� pc AA vAA vcaA o o bp b o ¢C o o � _ C � w w4, Ja° cd o ° cc F � `. o w o � o w -- 0 to 8 61 14-14 •• w r �j Ery,V 'L* C) �•`y� � �„y (� •til fQ W 0 ba R 1z 78 . '' O .�.9 F+ asst K y "Et •` ? `�'O ,, ., csrt bo bn �• b � �. o� � �. � �. !+� � � �:� � � a � : aim l �'�a � 78 V cc 21 1 b o m A UpA� UAAi� U q q . . 6 44 CId 0 0 � ye, w a a ° a, v oo v +d OF t3 ao ,�� '� •�c n" K: � 'd ®;.� "yo � �' " }U�+�� C! G U y y RS Hbp TtY ftl ,_. +" p�__:9 o � � a qCF A.rte, , ,a C O U C r+ rOq TJ to Fr o U. _ bU co Wd ns o �ba � �y n p D a r „+ s! W .a AV r �" ! .�' ix y� y � « y'p t ` „+ t-M V °' � "' - ^ .. fir' v0 I 1 4.% ';s 00�a 0 0 -2, fA- e% Q... Y Y Y 0 000 tl? � 6 "d AD C� '."�� OCLGOA +o � G p o c a d Cd coQa u oAP� 0 a o 01 O N b�13 w O ✓ny V W '� a, a a� ipUn, a: � •� Aa �� �A �, Q 0 O. O O O ea ; de =U Uol U Ud ° a s c o Amm :. yX.l aiu� anima n�a oYi ,� bo— CLo, 3 4 ,a At Ole 'g �,' c tit w :.w � �°' ? a co c d am'. v_ w •v� � �, i � �, � ark � 3 a v b c:> C. o = lid .Y. •^.,gOj G i+:� COpy, �. � y��j',� tiD C '�C, O �i..j �F: ty�j bA C.' T� �. Treat Boulevard C vercrossing .at teak Read Traffic Study Prepared for: Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Prepared by: Dowling Associates, Inc. June 7, 2002 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates,Inc. Contents Introduction.,........................................................ ......... 1 Existing Conditions................... . .. .. 1 Future Conditions.... ... ..... .. . ........ ......... . ........ 3 .... ... .. Traffic Volume Forecasts......... .............................. ................ .................... .......:. .......... ........3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Volume Forecasts, ......... ......... . ........ ...................................................... .........3 OvercrossngAlternatives.................................................................................... TrafficOperations............................. ..., .... ................ ................................. ............. ........6 Safety. .......................................... . ................... ......... ......... ................................................................8 OtherConsiderations....................................................... ...................................................... ................. 10 Recommendations......................... .................... . ........ ......... .................... ......... ......... .......... 10 Figures , Appendix I Treat Boulevard overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates,Inc. INTRODUCTION This traffic study was performed to assess the need for a second overcrossing of'Treat Boulevard at Oak Road.The Oak Road overcrossing is located in the southern portion of the Pleasant Hili BART Station Redevelopment Area. The overcrossing would connect the northeastand southeast corners of the intersection at Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. The Pleasant Hilt BART Station Area Specific.Plan (Adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors as amended on October 6.1998)required' construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge across Treat Boulevard at the.Tones Road. Subsequently,the 2000 update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(July 2000)listed the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard at Jones Road on its Comprehensive Transportation Project List for Central County and identified$2.3 million for construction. ist�rc riscisosouas The purpose of the traffic study is to: • Define the features of an overcrossing at Oak Road, • Assess existing and future traffic operating conditions on Treat Boulevard with and without a pedestrian overcrossing,and • Provide advice on the need for the overcrossing relative to other means of improving traffic operations on Treat Boulevard. EXISTING'CONDITIONS Treat Boulevard is a heavily traveled commute corridor.The peak hour traffic volumes in Figure 1 show the predominant flow of traffic is westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening.commute hours,with relatively balanced traffic during the nudday off-peak.' he traffic volumes shown in the figure were collected by the City of Walnut Creek.in 2001. On April 24,'2002,additional traffic data were collected along Treat Boulevard.Pedestrians and bicyclists were counted at the Oak Road and Jones Road intersections,and auto travel times were collected from N. Main Street to Cherry Lane during the following periods: • 7:00'—5:00 a.m. + 9:001-10:0€I am. (off-peak) 5:00—5:00 p.m. 1 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. Figure 1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lanes Co ,- W Co 96 96 48 598 191 197 -- 1855 1310 791 { LL F-- 2488 1680 1038 450 177 157 C /r" 225 ' 98 81 Treat 13 ! .j Treat Blvd 207 179 97 I� 82 44 39 1 (�" 1573 2S3d8 9#3S 1613 2054 X91? �.� LC 338 188 131 . 1S 10': 8 " r 'r `c t t LEGEND 207 ,179 17,= 1 p.m.,artc1 off-peak hourly traf€tc volumes Pedestrian and#iicycle voumis during the peak co�runute periods are shown in Figure 2.The greatest nuzmbi*r cif pedestrs i were observe'C'I", the inarning peak hour at the eastern crosswalk of the Treat I Oak(toad intersection.The' 'Atest i mbex i f bicyclists were observed at the east crosswalk of the Tones Road intersection during theftenoon phoiu. Figure 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic Volumes at Treat Boulevard Oak Road Mid-block Jones Road 11 7 18 is 1 1 1 0 20 31 fit 38 2 6 30 '21 43 41 2 2 4 a 0 s 7 a 110 10 4 21 1'S 0 1 5 5 LEGEND 2D 31 = a.m.:and p.m.pedestrians 2 2 a.m,and p.m.bicyclists Additional information on existing conditions is provided in subsequent sections relating to specific topics for evaluation of an overcrossing at the Oak Road intersection. 2 Treat boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates,Inc. FUTURE CONDITIONS An assessment of the traffic operations implications of an overcrossing at Oak Road required consideration of future conditions—after implementation of the Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan. Traffic Voluape Forecasts The OCTA Travel model for the Treat Boulevard study area was used to develop 2020 intersection turn volumes in compliance with.OCTA technical procedures.The most up to date version of this model(tire 1999 CCTP Model)was used to provide turning movement estimates for 2000 and 2020.The CCTA technical procedures call for the use of base year and future year model turning movement forecasts in combinationwith existing turning movement counts to predict future year turning volumes.For this study,the year 2000 model was used as.the base model.Since the 2040 model was not previously validated,a brief and localized model validation of the networks was performed to ensure model volumes more closely matched the existing counts at the five study intersections in the corridor,It was necessary to adjust some network attributes on select roadways in the study area to bring base model volumes closer to the traffic counts.The following adjustments were performed: • The capacity on Oak Road, south of Treat Boulevard was increased. • A zone connector«was added from Bart Staticin(TAZ 82)to Jones Road. • BART park-and ride trips that were incorrectly distributed''to TAZ 8 (west of Oak Road)were re-distributed back to the BART pang lot in TAS'82. • Adjusted sone connectors for TAZ 187(zone east of Jones road)to better match loadings onto Treat Boulevard,Las Juntas Road and Cherry Lane. • Additional length'was provided for the I-680 northbound off-ramp at Treat Boulevard." These adjustments'considerably improved the match between the base model-ondiexisting counts in the study area. The adjustments were necessary prior to implementing the models and performing a"farness" adjustment of turns.Plots`showing the changes to the network are included in the appendix. Following the model validation,the same adjustments were carried forward to the year 2020,model. The. model forecasts were produced and resultant turning volumes were imported into the CCrALO software. These turning volumes were then"furness" adjusted according to the methodology described in the OCTA Technical Procedures. The furnessed volumes were then,reviewed and manual adjustments were performed to ensure future turning movements did not drop below existing levels(see appendix). Pedestriat icvd,e Y�olume Forecasts Pedestrian and bicycle volumes were forecasted for 2,020 based on several factors: • Increases in BART ridership • Changes it land use near the study area • The potential for'diversion to the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing,and • The adequacy of planned pedestrian connections to compliment the pedestrian overcrossing. 3 Treat.Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study dune 7, 2002 .Dowling Associates,/Inc. A review of BART forecasts of transit passengers entering and exiting the Pleasant Hill BART station, transit patronage at the station is expected to increase by about 35 percent by 2020. Land use changes were evaluated from data obtained from the DEIR for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan(Contra Costa County,August 1997)for existing conditions and from the Pleasant.Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan(October 6, 1998) for future conditions.Table shows the growth in;commercial/office uses at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Table 1: Square Feet of Commercial/Office Development at the Pleasant HillBART Station Specific Plan'Area Existing Allowed Potential Increase' North-of Treat Boulevard 1B 49,794 49,794 0 3 131650 13,650 0 7A/7B/8' 51,800 567,314 515,514 101,842 0 3 101,$42 10A 375,4)00 375,000 10B 369,637 779,333 409,696 11/12 800,000* 800,4f00 Subtotal 586,723 2,686,933 2,100,210 Percent Increase 358% South``of Treat Boulevard 14B 253,584 253,584 0 15 125,000 483,658 364,658 Subtotal 378,584« 743,242 354,658 Percent Increase 360/0 Total 965,307 3,430,175 2,464,868 * The outcome of the Chamtte process'includedup to 498,000 square feet of commercial development for Areas 11/12. The,.table:shows an increase in commercial/office development of three and one half times the existing development north of Treat Boulevard and a doubling of commercial/office development south of Treat Boulevard.The Leisure Sports health club/hotel project,currently under construction south of Treat Boulevard in Specific Plan Area 15,will provide 59,000 square feet'of athletic club space, a 175 room hotel, and 450 parking spaces—slightly less intensive than the development that would have been allowed. 4 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Rand Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Community Pian shows 274 to 446 new residential units north of Treat Boulevard compared to 1,101 units currently within the redevelopment area. "Based on the land use change described'!above,it is estimated that pedestrian traffic volumes across Treat Boulevard at Oak Road will approximately double by 2020.The provision of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing may straw bicyclists to that corridor and the uumber of'bicyclists at Oak Road is not expected to change significantly.The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing will not likely draw a significant number of pedestrians because the,ground level landing areas will be at a distance from Treat Boulevard. The existing pedestrian connections on the south side of Treat Boulevard are not expected to be particularly complimentary to construction of a pedestrian overcrossing.The Area Specific Plan(p.63) called for second level public space and building entrances on both sides of Treat'Boulevard.Current development does not feature second level facilities on the south side of Treat Boulevard,and the Community Flan does not shove such features on the north side of Treat Boulevard.if such features were included,pedestrian activity would likely be greater than projected in this study. The practical implications'of the assumptions for future pedestrian and bicycle activity I described above would be that essentially all signal cycles at the Oak Road intersection would have pedestrian activity during pear periods, and bicycle activity(those inclined to cross the intersection.as a pedestrian)would not substantially change from existing conditions. OVERCROSSIING A.LT RNATME Four alternatives were developer)based on the principles:laid out in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan documents,the Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Cornnutnity Design Program Feasibility Study Report{ARUP,December 2000}„and discussions with representatives of Contra Costa County staff and their consultants.All alternatives)rave been developed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Actand Title 24 of the California Code,which require design to accommodate people with disabilities. The alternatives are shown graphically at the end of this report.The buildings shown on the overcrossing concept illustrations reflect the concept for redevelopment shown in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Deport(October 2€01).The first three alternatives reflect the design concept developed by County staff'for overcrossing on the south side of Treat Boulevard.'The last alternative reflects a modified alternative originally developed by ARUP consultants.The alternatives are briefly described below. Caption Western C)vercrossWg with Ethis alternative uses the existing access ramps and elevated breezeway loeaxed on the south side of Treat Boulevard with a ramp connecting from the breezeway to a semi-ciroular set of stairs located near the southeast corner of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection.The overcrossing would terminate north of Treat Boulevard at elevators that would provide service from the elevated overcrossing to the street-level close to the northeast corner of the intersection. Capt%on 2° Eastern Ctvercro singyithont Elevator—like Caption 1,this alternative would tape advantage of the existing features south of Treat Boulevard.Jhe overcrossing would crass Treat Boulevard in an easterly direction to a paint adjacent to the seven-story office/retail building proposed at the south of Community Plan Block A.A semi-circular set of stairs located between the office building and the trees S Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June,7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. to the west would provide a similar design theme as featured on the south side of Treat Boulevard. Ramps for bicyclists and people with disabilities'would be located north of the stairs. Option 3; Eastern Gvercrossina with Elevator--this alternative would incorporate the same features south of Treat Boulevard and the same alignment as Option 2 with an elevator incorporated in the seven- story office/retail building proposed at the south of Community Plan Block A. Option 4 Western Overcrossina with Two Elevators—this alternative is a modification of an ARUP concept and provides elevators both north and south of Treat Boulevard.This alternative provides termini closest to the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection: The alternatives with elevators are shown with two side-by-side elevators to provide a high level of re assumed to provide service for bicyclists,but it is service for pedestrians.All of the alternatives a assumed that bicyclists would be required to walk their,bikes-an overcrossing that could accommodate bicycle riders may be cost prohibitive. All alternatives are assumed to result in the removal of the crosswalks painted on the east and west sides of the Treat Boulevard/.Oak Road intersection.'Barricades with signs would be installed to direct pedestrians and bicyclist to the overcrossing.The pedestrian signals at these crosswalks would be removed and the traffic signal minimum phase times could be'reduced from 39 seconds to as low as 8 seconds.The„practical effects of this modification on Treat Boulevard traffic operations would not be as great during the peak periods of congestion because longer Oak Road signal times would be required to accommodate motor vehicles than during periods when traffic demand is lighter. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The July.2000 Update to the Central County Action Plan lists the Traffic Service Objectives.(ISOs)for Treat Boulevard—a route of regional significance—as follows: • Delay index of 20,with a minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. • Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle. The first TSO is applicable to the consideration of an overcrossing at Oak Road. Vehicle occupancy would not be affected. The Delay Index is a measure of congestion that expresses the amount of time required to travel between two points during the peak hour as compared to not c�ff�peak hours.The delay index on Treat Boulevard was measured between the I.680 Northbound Off-RamplBuskirk Avenue intersection and Jones Road using SYNCHRO models provided by the City of Walnut Creek Transportation Department staff.The SYNCHRO models were calibrated to provide a reasonable match to the travel time data collected for this study,and the calibrated SYNCHRO models were used to estimate the delay index and travel speeds for existing and future conditions with and without a pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road. The SYNCHRO model tended to over-estimate delay;and under-estimate speed for this section of Treat Boulevard even after calibration.For the purpose of the analysis of traffic operational effects of the overcrossing,the comparative results with and without the overcrossing were considered more important 6 Treat Boulevard 4vercressing at tactic Road Traffic Study June 7,2002 Dowling Associates,Inc, than the specific values providedby the model.The SYNCHRO model was considered adequate for this task. The analyses of delay indices and travel speeds were performed for existing conditions by adjusting the traffic signal phase times (splits)and offsets for conditions with the overcrossing and comparing the results to the existing signal tinning plan currently in effect on Treat Boulevard(the existing plann has been optimized by the City of Walnut Creek).No changes were made to the cycle lengths for existing conditions (with and without the overcrossing)and no changes were made to the splits or offsets of the existing signal timing plan(without the overcrossing),to preserve the calibrated results of the SYNCH O model.For 2020 conditions, no calibration of the SYI CHRO model was passible,so the cycle lengths, splits, and offsets were optimized for both conditions(with and without the overcrossing). The delay index for existing and future conditions are shown in Table 2.The travel times used to calculate the delay index were produced by optimizing traffic signal timing over the section of Treat Boulevard between N.Main Street and Cherry'Lane. Table 2: Delay Index on Tfeat%uke and Existing Conditions 2020 Conditions Time &Direction No With No With Overcrossing0vercrossing Overcrossing Overcrossin AM Peak Hour Eastbound 1.13 1:13 1.06 1.07 "Westbound 1.24 1.28 1.5 1.41 M Peak Hour Eastbound 1.40 L18 1.19' 1.30 Westbound 1.02 1.06' 1.42 1.32 Some of the results shown in the:table appear to be Counter-intuitive, at first.The pedestrian overcrossing does not make a significant improvement in the delay index and,in some cases,causes the delay index to get worse.Further investigation showed that travel times along the corridor are unproved by the overcrossing for not only the peak periods but also for the off-peak periods.In some cases,the off-peak improvementsexceed the period improvements 1ause the Qak Road traffic volumes during the peak periods are higher than off-;peak and require a relatively greater proportion of the signal cycle time. The effect of this€occurrence is an increasean the delay index, which measures the relationship of peak to off-peak travel times. The travel speeds on Treat Boulevard(Table 3)show improvement for the peak direction of traffic flow (sometimes'at the expense of the off-peak direction).The reduction in off-peak travel speeds is due to the algorithms in SYN that favoi the peak direction of travel to provide the optimal travel speed for the greatest number of vehicles. 7 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc, Table 3: Travel Speeds on Treat Boulevard(mph) Existing Conditions 2020 Conditions Time&Direction No With No With Overcrossing Overcrossing Overcrossirig Overcrossin AM Peak Hour Eastbound 13.42 . 13.38;, 12.28 12.17 Westbound 1.2.55 12.65 9.07 9.86 PM Peak Hour Eastbound '10.81 '' 12.7010.91 10.02 Westbound. 15.30 15.30 10.19 10.55 The benefits of providing:a pedestrian overcrossing are not striking when dewed in terms of traffic operational changes (associated with an overcrossing)'that can be made at the Oak Road intersection, in isolation. SAFETY During the ten-year period from 1990 to 2000,there were 5 pedestrian accidents on Treat Boulevard at each of the Oak Road and Jones Road intersections.This is a relatively high number of accidents but not as high as some intersections on Monument Boulevard:9 at Virginia and 8 at Meadows and Detroit. Providing a pedestrian overerossing would improve pedestrian safety if the design is developed in a manner that provides good service for pedestrians compared to the alternative.An overerossing that takes longer to use than alternatives may not get significant'use even if prohibitions on crossing at street level are evident Pedestrians were observed violating the pedestrian signals—crossing the street part of the way to the median against the signal when Oak Road traffic was turning left.Other pedestrians crossed at midblock with no protection against oncoming traffic,sometimes running from the office south of Treat Boulevard to the BART station. To assess the expected use of an overerossing at Oak Road if it were constructed,pedestrian travel tunes were estimated for conditions with the crosswalk alternatives in place and compared to crossing times without the overerossing.'The results are shown in Table 4.The table shows a range of crossing times for pedestrians without the overpass,based on an assessment of existing signal timing and observations. The crossing times for no overpass depends on the length of the signal cycle in effect at the different times of day and the time pedestrians arrive during the signal cycle.A pedestrian that arrives at the "walk'°phase of the pedestrian signal would have the Ieast amount of delay,and a pedestrian that arrives at the"flashing don't walk"phase would have the greatest amount of delay(unless,of course,they run to catch up with other pedestrians that entered on the walk phase). 8 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. Table 4: Times for Pedestrians to Cross Treat Boulevard at Oak Road Condition/ No Overcrossing With Overcrossing Alternative Minimum Time Maximum Time Average Time,. Average Time AM Peak Hour 25'sec. 2 nun. 24 sec. I min. 25 sec. PM Peak hour 25'sec. 2 min. 14 sec. I min.' 20 sec. Off-Peak 25 sec, 1 min. 54 sec. I min. 10 sec. Travel between NE'and SE Comers of the Treat!Oak Intersection Typical Pedestrian Option 1:Western Overcrossing with Elevator 2 min. 4 sec. Option 2:Eastern Overcrossing without Elevator 2 min. 43 sec, Option 3: Eastern Overcrossing with Elevator` 2 min. 41 sec. Obtion 4:Western Qvercro§gkg with Two Elevators I min. 38 sec, Pedestrian with Disability Option 1:Western Overcrossing with Elevator 3 rain. 13 sec. Option 2: Eastern Overcrossing without Elevator 5 min. 0 sec, Option 3: Eastern Overcrossing with Elevator 4 min. 3 sec. Option 4: Western Overcrossin&with Two Etevators I min. 38 sec. Travel Across Treat Boulevard ,gal Pedestrian Option:I.,Western Overcrossing.with Elevator 1 min. 51 see. Option 2:Eastern Overcrossing without Elevator 2 min. 18 sec. Option 3:Eastern Overcrossing with Elevator 2 min. 41 sec. Option 4: Western Overcrossing with Two Elevators 1 rain. 38 sec. Pedestrian with Disabilit Option 1:Western Overcrossing with Elevator 3 nein. 0 sec. Option 2: Eastern Overcrossing without EIevator 3 rnin. 50 sec. Option 3: Eastern Overcrossing with Elevator 3 min. 50 sec. O tion'4:Western Overcrossin with Two Elevators 1 min. 38 sec. Assumpt;mcs- 4 feet per second pedestrian travel speed for typical conditions.' 1 foot per second pedestrian travel speed on stairs. 30 seconds for elevator service(including waiting and transport time)'. The analysis summarized in Table 4 does not illustrate the effects of removing the Treat Boulevard crosswalks and installing an overcrossing on all;possible pedestrian movements.Pedestrians who currently cross Treat Boulevard on the west side of Oak Road would''experience greater delays using an overcrossing in comparison to using the existing crosswalk than shown in the table for pedestrians crossing the east side.No quantitative analysis of the west side crossing was performed because pedestrian travel patterns may change and the analysis'of the east side showed higher average pedestrian travel times for the overcrossing than for existing conditions. With the overcrossing in place,the crossing time would depend on the various features of the design. Option 4 would provide the quickest service for pedestrians regardless of whether the pedestrians have disabilities or not.The crossing time for Option 4 would be slightly greater than the average crossing time for pedestrians during peak commute periods.Option 1 would also provide`relatively quick travel times' 9 ........... ........... .......... ................. ......................... .......... .......... ............ ........... ................... ........................... Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. for typical pedestrians —pedestrians with disabilities would require significantly longer to cross because of the need to use the ramps located on the south side of Treat Boulevard. Options 2 and 3 would rate lower in terms of pedestrian crossing times,with typical pedestrians taking slightly longer than the worst case crossing time without the crossing.Pedestrians with disabilities would be expected to favor Option 3 over Option 2,although both would be less favored than one of the other options with elevators. Regardless of the alternative chosen for construction,the overcrossing will not prevent jaywalking violations and could result in increased jaywalking.The potential f6rjaywalking is.directly: t dt rel�6 o the difference between the time required to cross the street in compliance with traffic control devices and the time required to jaywalk.Longer crossing times using an overcrossing is.expected to increase:jUWAW1W,-_ In addition,alternatives that require greater travel off the intended travel path would likely result in higher levels of jaywalking. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The City of Walnut Creek Transportation Division staff has indicated an interest in having one of the crosswalks removed across Treat B, oulevard.at Jones Road when the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is constructed.Although study of the effects of this suggestion is beyond the scope of this study,removing the east crosswalk could substantially improve traffic operations on Treat Boulevard.The effects'of providing an overcrossing at Oak Road may provide greater benefits in combination with the removal of a crosswalk at Jones Road than if provided in isolation. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the evaluation of a possible Treat Boulevard overcrossing at Oak Road,it is recommended that the existing at-grade pedestrian crosswalks be retained and that an overcrossing no lonizer be considered as necessary or even desirable.A pedestrian bridge to extend the Iron Horse Trail across Treat Boulevard at Jones Road will be constructed one block east of a potential Oak Road overcrossing.. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan called for second level public space and building entrances on both sides of Treat Boulevard near Oak Road,,both of which are no longer being contemplated.The recommendation of the Charette for the Cominunity Plan focuses commercial activities at the street level.An overcrossing that would require pedestrians and bicyclist to ascend to a second level to cross the Treat Boulevard and then descend again tothe street level would not be consistent with the change in the planned focus of activity in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. The analysis of pedestrian travel times showed that all overcrossing alternatives would require more travel time than the existing crosswalks even for pedestrians taking the most direct route served by the overcrossing.For routes of travelless directly served by the overcrossing,the pedestrian travel times would be substantially greater than using the existing crosswalks.Jaywalking across Treat Boulevard would likely increase if the crosswalks were removed and an overcrossing constructed. Finally,construction of an overcrossing would not make significant improvements to either the delay index or travel speeds along Treat Boulevard:and would not help achieve the Traffic Service Objectives 10 Trent Boulevard Overcross ng at Oak Road Traffic Study ,Tune 7,2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. established in the for the corridor in the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The section of Treat Boulevard evaluated in this study would comply with the delay index TSO with or without the overcrossing;however, average travel speeds would fail to satisfy the 15 mph objective in 2010 with or without the overcrossing.Average travel speeds would be improved by 9 percent by the overcrossing in the a.m.peak commute direction (westbound)and would be reduced by 1'percent in the off-peak(eastbound)direction.In the p.m.peak commute direction(eastbound)average travel speeds would be reduced by 8 percent and would be improved by 3.5;percent in the off-peak direction (westbound): It is recognized that the effects of'providing an overcrossing at Oak Road may be somewhat greater in combination with the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing and the City of Walnut Creek's proposal to removed one of the crosswalks at Jones Road.However,the potential synergy with other potential improvements is not expected to be substantial in comparison to the*potential reduction in safety that would likely result from the expected lack of compliance with efforts to get pedestrians to use an overcrossing. 11 Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study Tune 7, 2002 Dowling Associates, Inc. FIGLT" Treat Boulevard Overcross ng at Oak Road Traffic Study Tune 7, 2002 Dowling Associates,Inc. a APPENDIX Treat Boulevard Overcrossing at Oak Road Traffic Study June 7, 2002 Dowling Associates,Inc. Traffic Level of Service Definitions LOS Description Signalized Unsignalized Intersections Intersections (Volume/ (Average, Capacity) Delay) A Operations with very low delay. This level of service 0.00-0.60 Up to 10 sec. occurs at signalized intersections when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all: B At signalized intersections,this level generally occurs 0.61 -0.70 >10 to with good progression,short cycle lengths,or both. More 15 sec. vehicles stop than with LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay. C At signalized intersections,higher delays may result from 0.71 -0.80 >15 to fair progression,longer cycle lengths, or both.Individual 25 sec. cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping:is considerable at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D At level D,the influence of congestion becomes more 0.81 -0.90 >25 to noticeable.Longer delays may result from.some 35 sec. combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths,or high volume to capacity ratios.Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E This-.level is considered by many agencies to be the limit 0.91- 1.00 >35'to of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally 50 sec. indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high v/c ratios.Individual cycle failures are frequent. F This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, Greater than >50 sec. often occurs with over-saturation;that is,when arrival 1.00 now rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Sources: Transportation Research Board 1980. Transportation Research Board 1994. mw � m c-t rr e t y J cq r4co 17% R3 { rn to ct a .� + . ao NDQ �j O ifi J CD .. I h to ...-� M v to �♦}� `fir.. W m � COD rit to v � m m o �C t m f eu ru U1 n � a t., CO M (n J Q co 0% '�i iT eX Cf 33 7+ Cls Ut � F'1 Ln N C ) L+"" ffi Ln +y r� by i1LF��} sin. Ott 0 r"7 � GGS: Ln a® U, cz .� u" m m� 0 U) w O U �t cu O M H E-4 °' mCIA PR PC 04 E- IV N cry V4 1343 tzm o�. t3fD'� t �• �, INIII t m A G� o :�3 m M r. rn m, TA cc mN + ri to ;,---I--) {Sv USS H✓F1 ✓�t+l 0g s 00 N _o 05�u 0/"c' �.t112E � a r� Nom. O� ty Ct o T Baa fl,/p6 CD S lZ/p'6 1R.A N' ad E-i 14 �y ta'& 9.GItp9 y Q ld/a'� 4Qty �^. Q 7d�0'� 8lyd H � �a�a'a e• .� tea. � W "d.D%t"1 p 9;Q129 to c W "` stra•s s a�, '--... caro�l a � � � Cs tsp'2 a fa 't"� fa. �t/a•� �a � Oa C � tltt 8t/ 'Z Etl/a• �� co 00! o° 00 C4 N CIS it U7 � 8.rp •. PA 0 71) CD JI ' H 0 oa � a' r62ta'6 �j'Uri ' s rd N v Ci w LA H N , It mp rq %D m 41 n �N7 rz � aa• o� 1 T CD w� _ cl. Pi0 ,: i d—""_-- tA w I e y to• { L GD H 1-4 a ;5• �- W G ''a o G� CV + aw c 22 93 22 CD E-4 ie IA Lh ! Lt a� £t' G � �j jyj O Q T� � fes+ � ^`•�� u'�C � , a RY IL Gv - , . C N to e� E �a W 0 _ N re w � m r \ J C7 U± C\1 'A r; J W �. . CA S Atw vA �z m A lt5 t4 (Sttd iii' a a G r lid N� 4i , s u'OW N U \ tn v G � �s r vi i ma C4 cn" coCDa cq .... ::; :. m } C2 14 cq vi rakx to " t uo pb 1� >i& p98 t JS lal its n& �p W ra 0 o G� f N N t 1 858 gB5 7�" ON tn + �S VaoW Nt hd 4 vti r, Ou v 4 M t m m m } f` cam' cam, sir m r + 4,04 U) rs r n c Ln «, ua u ISO, t>t+1 L"1 c C,4 � W H 32 al a y.� is or .. ' 40- 0 0a , fit' a tSJ 0 Q H p1$ 44 1 \ CA— ' f ... t s 1 10 04 See I IV c :n m Sdt cr. astt kyr .� �� Ln00 Ch •• E71 tfi Iti N (A crt N :�.' i k 4 �: Q Q "✓r 435 435 h °i' r rd fl W p � j O, Lr4 (5, Lo � rn o Wim ' 1 m � r a CNJ .w c'Eg Gig 1.4 p ss ;14 o Pi G �m 4 �37 tlt9 oas E-4 iy E 99t k W 9t i cc 4.6 W c'dI CL m 10 .9c'du gl& W to �r d -5 N h ry'1 ycc cl 0 _ 134 Q. v: rJ wctc m ' 10 C4C0 two 1 -------------- PU LO Y s � 0 GTE ti _ n' Oat , TWA -^.-. tri En - on &9-1 W Ult i 4 t s 0 om h S 't o cc Q�m LD ao 41 4. .1 rtS vti' a rt Q Q C� b O epi m + It F H04C) 0En a ut �Tb ,yam "o t t to � •dy.. a,.d3 x 15y H�* ED a CL t7" t 4L "j c., --- _ _ F -�Q_. -__ --�---w� ' U 0 Cfr o G �.1 CS it< cc o s D c r', s, �w o i � tExrstin_,p Counts andModel volumes ssn4sfltted from EMM--E-f-2&dG7AI,t�S usrnValume Rspaft 6f11t2� i�Cl2(l22 Runt -__., Treat 3ou4evstd Cross study OCTA 190 CCTP Modol lnt ,...__.e4ttrn count t64 .` i l 121Gf11. t0 u 1LF1 # 3t t24 kil, Qf 43 '56 169s 3Ci x444) tv.A9a4n 6t i7p 19 7043 .895 . 391 6 2'1��._� 1�� Jonest~d 7T 37 196 _ X38 225' ._ 1213 36 8 t 1613 83 _ 54� 68Qh16 Flarta " ,F '17 fl . d96 0 iaakRtl 305 386 1t3E1 1855 480 24 166 338 1673 2€�7 4� warn#x'14 t730 1853 ^349 13N4 t364 X11 � 10 569 X71 w Bd6 27058 3 23 44 t 1J 198 3(J21 1 57$t' 77 BQt3 613 488 558 X17' 1d4' �� 7b 536 _. 16513 �� _.427 19 � 5 t13 3L4� __ 44 5032 1l Si 532 2?6 ?� - tsj L S 4.543 �...._.._._s �_.,w.�...�a.�. �7� .17�i : • ::131 .. � 116) �1, , '-"�� �, 2t#AB , 179 :�tt h4oc€a01E141N1 673 . = 783 2 2181 163 :2B7 1 6424 : 11129 . 9 4 11 692 3 3844 .; .v,._...,� D 167 ! 51D 334 231 Cl 757s 461 385# i 9, 312' 'C56,1 q 14 45 � 92 '39 Mtc�delt8l4 84d9 15#5 $31 3 -2 _ 45 �' 545 19196 �_.. lI 1 -fit' 1!175 18 b 0 37 1 52{16 3910 � �142 SIM _ r _ 17 ' d 9 6 664 5541 l IlstrF� A M , ' 4fllf 9 Awl 127 79 393 37 26 [1 " fl 1 1185 Cl. 490!1 Nlrtdar( 1 fi11 417 - :.. 8 7__.' 11181 184 26 ;6 ;63318 . 24735 231 : . 1524^ s24 t<J1 ClB" 7 . `.• a r3 93 .. 64€1 11'. 68 9 4d Ms 92 9 91E� 1d75> 9 :. 4 t2d0 33252 tMllaYariaa�a,., N-kialt�Bt � ,.5t M5 345 �, 1911 329 _ " � 11 _-#' "`33 3asrfarltt?d 27 94 X151 11+8 i 6 Q 4 23 172 all paK 14d .« 215! � ,,;'1Q 0 186 '441 •- i 16 90 123 ; 335 4 � �2 16+M6 tiiuo-1sM 23 s71 346 195 1728 245 81 176 9 X85 95 5545 Ch Lamy ", 12 4611 13 1135 $ 62 31Ts; tina 1d r� X14 7a 375 11#1 364937 4 1 4 f 6811 NB I t3 11 p4 tl, ,a i : t " 77" [1 29 24n689 1 781 145 ' 238 :333 E � 1. 9148 .. 5� 4 53 1537 334 64 t . . 121 24 ?4t S$841 1 Pew tnaui a sten € rroxrernants Chart 3x11 baldrr the cnugls 1st 31;a sr4tratl cdu►Yt. Ch dame ��� baa 37x{3 tt f 1 f 9; 73_ b"'7r , =671 " 1D113 ;2211_,;. 76 53 93 6dt#1,, i9__ �trn s fl 124 568 9�_ 38 1. 3j hB8131�18 R 11 tl 752 3J :340 . Edd 13 4463" t 6306j Oak Ril FurrtArl 15 24111 14113 257 ...M 2r 1:1d .w y 921 Tl B w S51 33450 i irerr�Latre.w. W 23 4i� 58 ..� 1 � + I.w.' �1j 3d18 4 127 6796! N. sir $i 59 717 1_320 _ &35 23� 795} Jnnss^Rd E;6 15 502L _ 261 202611 751 - 39119 111 �35d, d6; 5937 _. _ L �168i�146 Ramp 4LL #lt 0 v,01 9ft 1769 0 932_ 2R7L � 'L L_ �1_._1381, 8211 6442 96, 5519 3561`__ 261 629 696, 251 204B 179: 17 5 728 1171 1458, 3723 834fi 1097~�.3073 4591_ r" _ "'8' 1475. 459 9dB3� 13051 33B98s �if'�IN dl{�'� � ���� r✓4 �`"I"'� �, J .. � i`� �a ,{ „{ �,1 ,�� �� � �Jr {.n ,H u { h rr Yr 5 b ,+ z „ Al 4 4, ` A l I dl A � 35j � 4p - t d^ 4 V k 4{ k t. a c* E I 1 "Xi"W, _ � F' { S^' 4 { 1 f• - u h P dY: J qi ji k` P,�f 0.= g 4•- d , r � T 1 _,; A _#_; s w, Is,. _ {. b k i L. t 5 P ti, r �y4" � P 1 :We - � 3 i B 41 ^ TI ' I I t a _ s ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 & D June 10, 2003 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered both the approval of the design of the Iran Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard and the Oak Road right-turn lane project and the adaption of the amendment to the Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area Specific Plan(SP2002-02) related to the Oak Road overcrossing of Treat Boulevard,Pleasant Hill Bart Station area. Jim Kennedy,Redevelopment Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Kennedy advised the Board that there was a modification to the item#7 of the Bridge Design (D.3)to read "Authorize the Public Works Director to proceed with the final design of the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing and the Oak Grove right turn project and direct the Public Warks director to return to the.Board of Supervisors for approval of plans and authorization to advertise for bids for the respective projects."Maureen Toms, Community Development Department and John Eddy presented a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project. The Chair then openedthe public hearing to receive testimony on both D.3 &DA. The following persons addressed the Board: Gerard(last name illegible),2657 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek; Jean Watts,Valley spokesman Bicycle Club,4087 Carson Street,Concord; Roger Goodwin, 515 Palms Drive,Martinez; Gene Demar, 1313 Gragg Lane, Concord; Peter Duncan, 112 Roble Road, Walnut Creek; Mark Armstrong,John Muir/Mt. Diablo Health System,P.O.Box 218, Danville; Stan Hansen,CCCIH Trail Committee, 1201 Monument Blvd,#33, Concord; David Gold,Contra Costa Centre Association,Morrison&Foerster, 101'Ygnacio Valley Road,Walnut Creek; Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club, 2204 Olympic Drive, Walnut Creek; Pat O'Brien, Renaissance Club Sport, 2805 Jones Road, Walnut Creek; Robert Raburn,East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 3763 Woodruff, Oakland; Don Mount, Colony Park Neighbors Association, 1309 Gregg Lane,Concord Dr. Yehuda Sherman, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 1158 Glen Road, Lafayette; Ken Alm,Meyer&Nave Law Firm,on behalf of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 555 12th Street, Suite 1500, Oakland; Jamie Perkins,East Bay Regional Park District,2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland The Chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor DeSaulnier then moved to adopt staff's recommendations on D.3 with direction to staff to continue to work with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and John Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical Systems on developing the final design and regarding item DA, directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with the final proposal by Millennium. The Board then took the following action: Page 2 Item D3 &D4 June 10, 2003 D.3. CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane is adequate and has been prepared consistentwith State and County CEQA guidelines, ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-tum lane; APPROVED the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Design of the Iron Horse Trail; ADOPTED the preferred Arch Design and DIRECTED staff to continue to work with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and John Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical'Systems on developing the final design; ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Read right-turn lane project; DIRECTED the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk; AUTHORIZED the Public'Works Director to proceed with the final design of the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing in the Oak Grove right turn project; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to return to the Board of Supervisors for approval of plans and authorization to advertise for bids for respective projects. DA CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted(November 5, 2002)for the Specific:Plan Amendment(SP2002-02)and Approval of the Planned-Unit District Rezoning (RZ023116) and Preliminary Development Plan(DP023041)is adequate and has been prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to return to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and approval of the proposed Amendment related to the elimination of the Treat Blvd.Pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road.