Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05242005 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/ Contra REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' � Costa FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -�.- ` DENNIS BARRY, AICP, ,tea•... ` County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR T'4 CGlir P'� DATE: May 24, 2005 SUBJECT: Joint Public Hearing Regarding the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: As the Board of Supervisors consider adoption of an Ordinance approving the Fourth Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Redevelopment Plan adoption has identified the potential effects of revenue diversion to the County General Fund and to County controlled funds. Staff has recommended that the Board of Supervisors elect to receive the statutory pass-through allowed by California Redevelopment Law. The Fourth Amendment also permits the Agency/ County to complete the business transaction related to the BART property which will providethe Cou ty General Fund with an ongoing revenue for the next 100 years in an am unt estim $500 million. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑ YES SIGNATURE: / �� 216'EECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO EN TION 014 ARD COMMI E E4*-APPROVE F1 OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO ON ��2��tY APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND LY UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED��L������� / 1 Contact: James Kennedy JOHN SWEETEJi:,�C'LERK OF THE BOARD OF (925)335-1255 SUPERVISORS/AGENCY SECRETARY orig: Redevelopment Agency cc: CAO By: Deputy County Counsel Community Development Redevelopment Agency G:\CDBG-REDEV\YedEv\LNob1E\PEr90nd1\BOaYd OidEle and Greenies\board.rda.5.2a.O5.jointpublichearing.doc BACKGROUND: The proposed Pleasant Hill BAR Station Area Redevelopment Project ("Project Area") is located in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, State of California. Neighboring cities include Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") is comprised of office, higher density residential and mixed use. The area is one of the more significant examples of transit—oriented development in the United States. Requirements for adopting, amending, and implementation redevelopment projects are established in the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL"). Report to Board of Supervisors Section 33352 of the CRL provides that when the Agency submits a Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Amendment")to the Board of Supervisors for the joint public hearing required by the CRL, the Agency must also submit a report on the Plan Amendment, entitled the Report to Board of Supervisors ("Report"). The purpose of this.Report is to provide in one report all information, documentation and evidence regarding the Plan Amendment to assist the Board of Supervisors in consideration of the proposed Plan Amendment and in making various findings and determinations that are required to adopt the Plan Amendment. This Report has been prepared in accordance with all the requirements of Section 33352 of the CRL and includes the reasons for the adoption of the Plan Amendment; a description of proposed projects and programs and how these projects and programs will improve or alleviate blighting conditions existing in the Project Area; an implementation plan describing specific projects and programs that will alleviate or improve blighting conditions; an explanation of why the elimination of blight cannot be accomplished through private enterprise acting alone or through other financing alternative other than tax increment financing; the method of financing and economic feasibility of the Plan Amendment; the statement of conformation to the County's General Plan; the Environmental Determination; and a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies. Redevelopment Plan The Plan Amendment has been prepared pursuant to Section 33000, et. seq. of the CRL, the California Constitution, and all applicable laws and ordinances. It does not present a specific plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation and revitalization of the Project Area. Instead, it establishes a process and framework for implementation and the alleviation/elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Area. In general, the Plan Amendment is proposing the following amendments: (1) Increase the limit on the amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from the Project Area that may be outstanding at one time from $40 million to $160 million; (2) Increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the term of the Redevelopment Plan from $125 million to $423 million; (3) Eliminate the time limit on incurring debt under the Plan as permitted by SB 211; and (4) Extend by one (1) year each the time limits on the effectiveness of the Plan and the receipt of tax increment pursuant to SB 1045. The proposed amendments will facilitate completion of the Pleasant Hill BART transit oriented development program consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")was prepared and certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1998, at which time the Board adopted amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the activities envisioned by the Plan Amendment are within the scope of the EIRD G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Board Orders and Greenies\board.rda.5.24.05.jointpublichearing.doc Joint Public Hearing The joint public hearing is intended to provide a forum for the receipt of public comment on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. If written objections are not received prior to or during the joint public hearing, the public hearing may be closed, the Board of Supervisors may adopt the ordinance approving the Fourth Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan. If any written objections to the Redevelopment Plan are received, the public testimony portion of the joint public hearing may be closed. Section 33364 of the CRL requires that the Redevelopment Plan may only be adopted by the Board of Supervisors after consideration of written objections, and the adoption of written findings in response to written objections. Written objections may be delivered at any time prior to the May 24, 2005 joint public hearing of the Board of Supervisors and the Agency. The Agency staff must then prepare written responses to written objections as required by the CRL, which will be presented at a subsequent Board of Supervisors meeting, entered into the record and adopted by Board of Supervisors Resolution. Ordinance The attached ordinance is a mechanism by which the Board of Supervisors would adopt the Redevelopment Plan. It makes certain findings regarding the conditions and needs for the Fourth Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan Amendment. G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Board Orders and Greenies\board.rda-5.24-05-jointpublichearing.doc ADDENDUM D.3 May 24.)2005 The Board held a hearing as.the Board of Supervisors..and rhe.DirectQrs of the Redevelopment Agency to consider adopting the Fourth Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project area. James Kennedy, Director-Redevelopment Department,, presented the staff report. Mr. Kennedy noted that the ordinance as presented in the material for consideration required an additional finding to be added as item'17 under Section III,. as follows: "The findings set forth in Exhibit A relating to the-California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") are hereby adopted." (Exhibit A is located in the report prepared by Fraser&Associates,Appendix A,pages A-1 through A-41) The Chair invited the public to comment on the matter. There were no requests to speak. Having held the public hearing and provided opportunity for comment from any interested party,the Board took the following actions: 1. CLOSED the public hearing; 2. ADOPTED Ordinance 2005-16 as amended today, approving the Fourth Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Plan. FA ERASER & ASSOCIATES Redevelopment and Financial Consulting 225 Holrnfirth Court Phone: (916)791-8958 Roseville CA 95661 FAX: (916)791-9234 Report to Board of Supervisors Proposed Fourth Amendment to Redevelopment Plan Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Area Prepared for. Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency May 2005 Final Report to Board 05.doc I:FA:] ERASER & ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION This Report to the Board of Supervisors deals with the proposed Fourth amendment (Fourth Amendment) to the Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan) for the Pleasant Hili BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (Project Area). The Report has been prepared for the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (Agency) pursuant to Section 33352, 33457.1 and other applicable provisions in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq. The Agency is proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan to: 1) increase the tax increment limit from $125 million to $423 million; 2) increase the principal amount of bonds that can be outstanding from $40 million to $160 million; 3) extend Plan Effectiveness and Debt Repayment by one year; and 4) delete the debt establishment date for the Project Area. The Fourth Amendment will trigger certain Statutory pass through payments. Project Area History and Prior Amendments The Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area was originally adopted by the Contra Costa County (County) Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1984 pursuant to Ordinance No.84-30 (the territory included in the 1984 Plan is referred to as the Original Area). An Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan was adopted on July 19,1988 pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-58. The Amended and Restated Plan added territory to the Project Area (Amendment Area). In 1994, the Redevelopment Plan was amended per Ordinance No. 94-62 to bring various financial time limits into conformance with those required by State law pursuant to AB 1290. A further amendment was processed in 1999 (per Ordinance 99-04) to extend the time to receive tax increment by an additional ten years pursuant to AB 1342. The proposed amendment represents the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. After July 2005, the Agency also intends to amend the Redevelopment Plan to extend the date for Plan Effectiveness and Debt Repayment by an additional two years per SB 1096. The following time limits assume the inclusion of the SB 1096 amendment: Limit PH/BART PH/BART Original Area Amendment Area Plan Effectiveness 7/10/2027 7/10/2027 Debt Repayment 7/10/2037 7/10/2037 Bond Debt Limit $40 million combined Cumulative Tax Inc. $125 million combined The Project Area contains 130 acres of land. The predominant land use is commercial office development, which surrounds the BART transit station. There Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 1 Report to Board of Supervisors F� ERASER &ASSOCIATES are also residential uses in the Project Area. The Project Area was designed to be a site where transit oriented development would occur. The map at the end of this Introduction shows the boundaries of the Project Area. Report to Board of Supervisors The purpose of this Report is to provide the information, documentation, and evidence required by Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law to accompany the proposed Fourth Amendment when it is submitted by the Agency to the Board. Such information, documentation and evidence is provided to assist the Board in its consideration of the proposed Fourth Amendment and in making the various determinations it must make in connection with its adoption. CRL Section 33457.1 provides that "To the extent warranted by a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan... the reports and information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available." Because of the scope of the Fourth Amendment, some of the reports and analysis required by Section 33352 have not been included in this Report. The reports and analysis required by Section 33352 (g), (i)9 (1), and (a portion of n) were deemed irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment and have been excluded from this Report. The topics that these sections address, and the reasons they have been excluded, are discussed below: 1. Section g: This section deals with an analysis of the Preliminary Plan. Among other things, a Preliminary Plan establishes the boundaries of a redevelopment project area. The Fourth Amendment does not propose any changes to the Redevelopment Plan that would cause the Redevelopment Plan to depart from its Preliminary Plan basis. Therefore, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan is not required. 2. Section i: This section requires that a summary of the meetings of a project area committee be included in this Report to Board. Part VIII of this Report provides an explanation for why a project area committee was not required as part of the Fourth Amendment. 3. Sections I and n: The CRL requires that when a new project area is adopted or an existing plan is amended to add territory, and tax increment is to be used, that the county prepare a specific report. The report contains information on the allocation of property taxes in the project area. The Agency is also required to provide an analysis of the county report. Since the Fourth Amendment does not add territory, the county report and analysis is not required. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 2 Report to Board of Supervisors FA FRASER & ASSOCIATES Pleasant s R meit-- Proj Ma,P I Project Boundary Amended Are a /01 off a rj�,• S AS Ame Y h r �s •.rr � t� x M �s d C v B.AXT PLEASANT K I u N STA�'ION T EAT aWe � P 1175 on Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 3 Report to Board of Supervisors FA ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART I — REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Reasons for Selection of the Project Area In 1984, the Project Area primarily consisted of low-density single family housing. Because of the location of the BART system and the proximity of the BART Station to major arterial streets and the 680 Freeway, the County decided that the area should be developed with high-density office/commercial and residential uses. To that end, the County, in cooperation with the surrounding cities, and local property owners and homeowners, undertook a joint planning process that resulted in the preparation of a Specific Plan. The Specific Plan detailed the allowable land uses and densities in the area. The Specific Plan also outlined the nature and extent of some of the public improvements that needed to be constructed in order to allow development of the area to take place in the manner contemplated in the Specific Plan. The County then adopted the Project Area to facilitate the implementation of the Specific Plan. The Project Area was explicitly designed to reduce regional traffic by locating new office and housing development next to a regional transportation hub. The master planned community is intended to provide a balance of jobs and housing. At completion, the Project Area will consist of approximately 2.5 million square feet of office and commercial development and over 1,200 residential units (an additional 900 residential units are outside the redevelopment project boundaries, but are contiguous to the Project Area). The Project Area is an emerging model for the development of suburban employment/housing centers next to transportation facilities. It is part of the County's overall -approach to reduce sprawl and follow a pattern of"smart growth". The Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan have received numerous awards and accolades for good planning. Some of these are shown below. "PLEASANT HILL BART: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PRODUCES RESULTS. With the highest concentration of multi- family housing within a quarter mile of any suburban transit hub in Northern California, the Pleasant Hill BART Station shows how transit-oriented development can work. Sixty percent of those living in nearby units said BART was a major factor in moving there. Studies have consistently found that 40% of the area residents use BART to commute to their work place." From "Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area", by Urban Ecology, Inc. "BART's Pleasant Hill Station has advanced the cause of transit village development more than any other station on the system... Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 4 Report to Board of Supervisors F�ERASER &ASSOCIATES The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency emerged as a key player in bringing (it) about." From "Transit Villages in the 21St Century", by Michael Bernich and Robert Cevero "Pleasant Hill BART is an important precedent, because it demonstrates that transit-oriented development can be successful both in real estate terms and in transit ridership." From Morris Newman in "California Planning and Development Reporter." Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan The major reason for the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is to increase the current$125 million tax increment limit. Unless the limit is increased, the Agency will be unable to complete the redevelopment of the Project Area as envisioned in the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency has essentially used or committed all of its tax increment authority under the $125 million limit. The Agency has received cumulative tax increment of approximately $46.9 million through fiscal year 2003-04, leaving $78.1 million in funds that can be received under the current tax increment limit. All of the remaining amount is committed to existing obligations. The Agency has $38 million in principal outstanding on bonds. Thus, the Agency has almost reached the $40 million total bond limit. Given the current tax increment limit, the Agency will need to repay the outstanding bonds before they fully mature in 2032-33, since the current tax increment limit is projected to be reached sometime in 2014. As part of the bonds that were issued in 2003, the Agency also placed $13.2 million into a bond escrow account in order to avoid exceeding its bond and tax increment limits. Those funds can only be released if the Redevelopment Plan is amended to increase the tax increment and bond limit. The escrow funds are needed, along with the future growth in tax increment, to complete Project Area activities. The major project to be completed is redevelopment of the BART Station site. In order for redevelopment to move forward on this site, a parking structure must be built that replaces the current surface parking on a one for one basis. In addition, certain core infrastructure, place making enhancements, and public facilities are needed. As described more fully later in this Report, the BART parking structure was included as a project at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Due to the impact of inflation and construction cost increases, the cost to build the parking structure is significantly higher than was anticipated in 1984, when the Redevelopment Plan was prepared. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 5 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES from 1984 identified the cost of the parking structure at $13 million. The current estimated cost is $30 million. Additional infrastructure and facility costs for redevelopment of the BART Station site are estimated at $34.8 million. The escalation of costs is partly due to the fact that the redevelopment of the BART Station site did not take place in the time frame assumed in the 1984 Report. The Report assumed that redevelopment of the BART Station site would be completed by 1989. This proved a very unrealistic time frame, in part because the Agency did not have the tax increment resources in the late 1980's to fund the parking structure and other improvements to allow development to move forward. In the early 1990's, a severe real estate recession hit California. It was not until the latter part of the 1990's that development activity restarted in the Project Area. In 1995, a retail entertainment development was proposed for the BART Station site. That concept was not supported by neighborhood interests and the surrounding communities. A Community Plan was then created - through an extensive public planning process. The current concept for redevelopment of the BART Station, which is described in detail in Part III of this Report, is a mix of residential and commercial development based on the concepts of new urbanism. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 6 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART II-SIGNIFICANT REMAINING BLIGHT IN THE PROJECT AREA Blighting Conditions at the Time of Project Adoption /Amendment When the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area was adopted in 1984, and when the Amendment Area was added in 1988, the definitions of blight were contained in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030, 33031 and 33032. California Statutes, Chapter 942 of 1993 (AB 1290) and other legislation revised these sections and changed the definition of blight from that which was in use when the Project Area was adopted. For purposes of this Report, the discussion of blighting conditions is based on the definitions in effect when the Project Area was adopted in 1984 and amended in 1988, since this was the basis upon which the Redevelopment Plan was approved. According to the Report on the Redevelopment Plan that was sent to the County Board Supervisors in June 1984, certain conditions of blight were found to exist in the Original Area. The extent of these blighting conditions represented a physical and economic burden on the County that could not be reversed or alleviated by the County and/or the private sector acting alone or in concert. As previously stated, the Project Area primarily consisted of low-density single family housing at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because of the location of the BART system and the proximity of the BART Station to major arterial streets and the 680 Freeway, the County decided that the area should be developed with high-density office/commercial and residential uses. A Specific Plan was developed to guide the redevelopment of the area. Creation of the Project Area and the use of redevelopment powers were seen as logical steps towards implementation of the Specific Plan. Despite the fact that the Project Area was well located, it had not developed and was not likely to develop in the manner contemplated in the Specific Plan without the kinds of development assistance that can be provided through a redevelopment project. The existing pattern of development in the Project Area in 1984 was such that it made redevelopment of the Project Area difficult, if not impossible. There were approximately 100 lots in the Project Area, most of which were too small to be individually developed for higher density development because of set back, height, parking, and minimum lot size requirements and construction cost considerations. The private development community had made a significant effort to assemble larger parcels in the Project Area that could be economically developed. Despite these efforts, there remained a number of lots in the Project Area that were unassembled and could not be developed in conformance with Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 7 Report to Board of Supervisors 1FA:]ERASER &ASSOCIATES the Specific Plan. The private sector, acting alone, was unable to assemble the remaining lots. Adding to the difficulty of assemblage was the dilapidation of many of the existing improvements in the Project Area. Some of the properly and the housing in the Project Area had not been well maintained. The dilapidated nature of these properties made redevelopment difficult because the existence of such dilapidated properties acted as deterrent to redevelopment of surrounding properties. The other significant impediment to redevelopment of the Project Area was the lack of the public infrastructure and improvements necessary to permit redevelopment of the area in the appropriate manner. Because the Project Area had been developed as a relatively low density single family subdivision, it lacked the kinds of pedestrian and vehicular circulation improvements, parking, drainage improvements and sewer and water facilities necessary to serve a higher density urban development. At the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the lack of parking was exacerbated by the high demand for parking in the Project Area onthepart of BART patrons. This continues to be a major blighting condition, as described later in this Report. The costs of constructing the infrastructure that was necessary to allow redevelopment of the Project Area to move forward were found to be substantially higher than the amount the private sector could bear. The costs for infrastructure would have made development in the Project Area economically infeasible given property available in other areas. In addition, the necessary infrastructure improvements,(especially street improvements and parking)would provide substantial benefits to residents, BART patrons, and property owners outside the Project Area. The Amendment Area that was added in 1988 was slated to be the site for high density residential development. This area was added as a means to meet one of the major goals of the Specific Plan, which was the achievement of a jobs/housing balance in the Project Area. The use of redevelopment in the Amendment Area also implemented one of the major goals of the CRL, which is to provide for affordable housing. Without the use of redevelopment in the Amendment Area, high density residential with a significant affordable housing component could not have been achieved. Agency Accomplishments Since the adoption and amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has made substantial progress in eliminating the two major blighting conditions found at the time the Project Area was adopted. The early years of implementation Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 8 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER & ASSOCIATES (between 1984 and 1990)were utilized to assemble land to set the stage for redevelopment of the Project Area. Agency records show that approximately $6.2 million in tax increment funds was used to assemble land during this period. In addition, the Agency used its land assembly powers to assist with seven of the eleven distinct development sites that are contained in the Specific Plan. Map 2 shows the development sites by number. Listed below is information on each of the completed development sites: • Area 1 B,: The Station Plaza project was completed in 1987 on this site. The Agency conveyed certain Agency owned property to the developer. The project includes a three story, 49,794 square foot office building. • Area 3: This is the location of the Amendment Area. The Park Regency apartment was completed on this site in 1991-92. The project included 892 residential units in 11 buildings. A total of 15 percent of the units are reserved for very low income housing. The Agency acquired and conveyed various privately owned properties to the developer for this project. The site also includes an 11,000 square foot neighborhood serving retail center and a 2,650 square foot day care center (Step Ahead Learning Center). • Area 4 (North): The Wayside Plaza, Wayside Commons, and Madison were completed in 1988 on this site. The project includes 150 condominiums on 3.6 acres. • Area 4 (South): This is the site for the Coggins Square and Iron Horse lofts projects. Coggins Square was completed in 2001 and includes 87 apartment units. The Iron Horse lofts development was completed in 2002 and includes a total of 54 for sale units. • Area 5: Fox Creek was completed on this site. The project includes 59 condominiums in a three story structure. • Area 8 (and part of 713): PMI Plaza, which includes 195,000 square feet of office development, was completed on this site in 2002. The Agency assisted in assembly of land for this site early on in the.Project Area. • Area 9: A major office building at 3000 Oak Road was completed in 1988 on this site. The DDA provided for the acquisition of a privately owned property by the Agency and subsequent conveyance of a portion of the parcel to the developer to complete assembly of the site. The project includes a six story, 101,842 square foot office building with a four level parking structure. • Area 10A: Treat Corners was completed in 2000 on this site. The DDA provided for the Agency to acquire and convey certain privately owned properties to the developer. The project includes two 10 story office buildings totaling 375,000 square feet. • Area 1013: The Air Touch Plaza and Embassy Suites Hotel were completed in 1990 on this site. The DDA provided for the Agency to acquire and convey property for the Embassy Suites Hotel. The projects includes Air Touch Plaza, a 10 story, 205,680 square foot office building. The Embassy Suites is a 10 story, 248 room hotel with 125 parking spaces below grade. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 9 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES • Area 1413: Pacific Plaza was completed in 1987 on this site. The development includes a 6 story, 253,584 square foot office building. • Area 15: A 125,000 square foot office building was completed in 1988. The Renaissance Club Sport project was completed in 2003. The project includes a hotel with 175 rooms, and a 69,000 square foot athletic club. The Agency has also been involved in the installation of public improvements that were needed to allow the above developments to move forward. The Agency has invested over$20 million in public infrastructure, with the private sector providing funding for another$20 million through assessment districts. The major infrastructure projects, which were included in the Redevelopment Plan as originally adopted, are shown below. • Treat Blvd. Widening & Island Modifications • Oak Road Extension (north of Treat Blvd.) • Oak Road Widening & Island Modifications • Del Hombre Modifications • Jones Road Extension (Oak to Treat) • Jones Road improvements (west of Oak) • Wayne Drive Extension • Coggins Lane Widening north of Las Juntas • Buskirk Widening (Treat to Wayne) • Freeway Ramp Modifications • Signals at various intersections • Southern Pacific right of way acquisition • Drainage Area 44B Storm Drain Lines • Installation of Landscaping in public right of ways • Utilities • Storm Drainage (Treat Blvd. between SP RM to Walnut Creek Channel) • Iron Horse Trail improvements (in process as part of the 2003-04 Budget) • Greenspace/Respite (in process as part of the 2003-04 Budget) The early years of the Project Area were spent assembling land and installing infrastructure to allow for the construction of the numerous private developments to take place. This first era ended in about 1990. The second era saw the Agency become involved in private public partnerships that focused on the development of affordable housing. The first major housing project completed was the Park Regency Apartments, which occurred in the Amendment Area (Area 3). The project resulted in the development of 892 units of apartments, of which 15 percent are affordable to very low income tenants. In addition to the assembly of land, the Agency Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 10 Report to Board of Supervisors F�ERASER & ASSOCIATES provided a tax increment revenue pledge to assist in getting the development completed. In 2001, the Coggins Square development was completed. This project involved the development of a total of 87 apartment units, all of which are affordable. Of this total, 35 percent were reserved for very low income people and 50 percent were reserved for low income persons. The project was financed with nine different funding sources, including tax increment financing. The final era for the Project Area is the Vesting Partnership Era. This is the period when the BART Station site will be redeveloped as envisioned when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Portion of Project Area No Longer Blighted The Agency has completed much of the work of eliminating blight in the Project Area. The need to assemble land into developable sites has been completed and has resulted in the creation of almost 1.5 million square feet of office space, two major hotels, and 1,300 residential units. Essentially, the Project Area is complete except for two development sites shown on Map 2. These are Areas 11 and 12 (the BART Station site) and Area 7A and part of 7B. Significant Remaining Blight One of the major blighting conditions that was found at the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan was the lack of infrastructure needed to allow high density commercial and residential development to occur in the Project Area. The lack of infrastructure has largely been alleviated due to Agency actions, with the exception of redevelopment of the BART Station area and Area 7A and part of 7B. In regards to the BART Station site, the lack of a parking structure continues to be an impediment to redevelopment of the site. The finding that was made in the Report on the Redevelopment Plan in 1984 continues to be accurate today: Making most efficient use of the Land surrounding the BART station requires development of land in the Project Area that currently is used for surface parking for BART patrons. The loss of current surface parking combined with the high demand for parking will require construction of parking in a parking structure to insure that there is sufficient parking for BART patrons and to insure that there is sufficient parking to permit redevelopment of the Project Area with higher density development. In addition to the need to construct the parking structure, there are a number of other infrastructure projects that are needed in order to complete the Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 11 Report to Board of Supervisors IFAIERASER &ASSOCIATES development of the BART Station site. The proposal for redevelopment of the BART Station site is described more fully in Part 111. Area 7A and part of 7B also have not yet been developed as envisioned in the Specific Plan. The Agency anticipates that it will need to provide some form of redevelopment assistance in order to allow this site to develop. Without an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to increase the tax increment and bond limits, the Agency and private sector will not be able to eliminate the remaining blighting conditions on their own or in combination with the County in the absence of continued redevelopment activities. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 12 Report to Board of Supervisors FA FRASER & ASSOCIATES Station nHill ars se Map 2 ---------- s :. , � ! J, r' y. } SA N+► 7 t" t { L f ~S rX. S _ r r4i J } ..QAYS J f' 1 : W'.�..•tiff}tA.v fr: .v• 1 lrJr.u..rir r�J'�:'f'�'�R},A�/'Gn IG' SF•'fes r'f{rr•'' ,%jJ •r 1;....,. 1'ti• ••'� {. •�:• '•rrC'••rijry;.lf{'rw�.}{:••i:•f,': .���;:•:a,'��1;• YI'::J:•A�..,A,.,}yam -.� • Y:SIJ, , ',Y.• ♦��{� J.Y.•. •.:_ •,t•'•w X yP.Yf�.,�}V}f}",;�"�7-L:yo TIJ%'Af f r t•.f '♦Y�4ft{�• �� �' S Vt J :Sr• fjj f t •J: ••::{.•JAM•.•}A�,•}A;:�'•. ;•'!�•:' r� ,r• 31 f � Y J i f vr.S:.vY 3 rM• J • MM1w� vJ'rr'•••.{�{f r J .� Mhw�� k 3 •�� :}i:' J Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 13 Report to Board of Supervisors JEA:]ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART III — EFFECT OF AMENDMENT ON PROJECT AREA PROJECTS AND HOW THE PROJECTS WILL ALLEVIATE SIGNIFICANT REMAINING BLIGHT The Agency has historically focused its redevelopment efforts on the assembly of land and the installation of public improvements in the Project Area as a means to spur commercial and residential development. In addition, the Agency has and will continue to meet its obligations under the CRL for the creation, improvement and preservation of affordable housing. The Agency intends to continue the implementation of apro-active housing program. There are two development sites that remain in the Project Area that will require redevelopment assistance. The major one is the BART Station site, which is identified on Map 2 as Areas 11 and 12. The current facilities on the site include the BART Station, the seven story BART parking garage and surrounding surface parking. The other is.Area 7A and part of 7B as shown on Map 2. Summary of Specific Agency Projects and Alleviation of Significant Remaining Blight BART Station Site In 1995, a retail entertainment development was proposed for the BART Station site. That concept was not supported by neighborhood interests and the surrounding communities. The County then turned to a new urbanist design concept to assist in bringing forth a vision for the BART Station site. The community reacted favorably to the New Urbanist concepts of lively, attractive public streets and plazas. Using this public interest as a foundation, a strategy was developed for a collaborative public planning process, or Charrette. A Community Plan for the 18 acre BART Station site was created in the spring of 2001 through the Charrette process. This Community Plan has been approved as the use for the site when the Board of Supervisors approved a preliminary development plan in November 2002. Under the Community Plan, the BART Station will continue to function as a major transit hub, but the area around the station will be transformed into a village that attracts people of all ages. As stated-in the newsletter prepared as part of the Community Plan: "The new community would be a place where people will live, shop, work, or simply enjoy the scenery. One day, nearby neighbors may choose to stroll or bike down the Iron Horse Trail, experience the active street scene created by attractive shop fronts and elegant townhomes, or relax in the network of parks and squares that create a peaceful respite from the bustle of the city." Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the BART station site today, versus an artist's rendition of how the site will look upon completion of redevelopment. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 14 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER & ASSOCIATES The following are the proposed uses under the Community Plan. Please note that the actual uses may vary somewhat based on the development plan brought forward by the developer. • Transit facilities • Storefront retail development of approximately 42,000 square feet • A total of 525 residential units, including 100 for sale townhomes • Public parks and squares • A variety of public buildings, including daycare, cultural and educational facilities, community theatre, senior center, post office, meeting hall/ conference center, library, Iron Horse trail head and/or bicycle servicing facilities • Replacement of the existing BART surface parking lot The residential component of the Community Plan is one of the key elements - that came out of the Charrette process. The current BART Station is currently not a part of the overall fabric of the community. It is disconnected from the surrounding neighborhoods and is a hostile environment for pedestrians, with its acres of parking lots and traffic. It also lacks neighborhood amenities and visual appeal. The Community Plan includes expanded parking screened by four story apartments that wrap around part of the parking garage. For sale townhomes will also be available as part of the development. The character of the neighborhood will be improved by placing new residences near existing ones, creating a far more neighborly atmosphere. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the current and proposed view of the residential area. The retail and public space components of the Community Plan are also essential to the transformation of the entire BART Station area. Existing conditions along Treat Boulevard are bleak and unfriendly to pedestrians. Adding street trees, planters, broad sidewalks, and street level retail will create a more pedestrian friendly environment. The retail component will draw in customers who want to browse, shop and enjoy a meal. The Agency will play a significant role in funding the many "place making" amenities that will be needed in the area. Figure 3 provides a view of the current conditions in the area, with a proposed view of the retail area. Public gathering places and open spaces are also an important part of the overall Community Plan. Participants in the Charrette felt that a central public space at the heart of the project was very important. The BART Station will have a grand civic space that will be the center of activity for the entire transit village. The Station area's civic space will serve as a gateway to the regional Iron Horse Trail. A visual representation of this is shown on Figure 4. A conference center, a childcare center and other civic uses are all a part of the overall Community Plan. Agency financial participation will be essential in creating public gathering places. Pleasant Hit/BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 15 Report to Board of Supervisors F� ERASER &ASSOCIATES In order for the BART Station Community Plan to move forward, Agency participation is essential. First, the Agency is responsible for the construction of a parking structure that will replace the existing surface parking for BART patrons. Redevelopment of the BART Station site cannot move forward without the replacement of existing surface parking. The Agency will also need to play a role in funding core infrastructure, including streets, drainage, utilities, water and sewer facilities. The Agency will provide funding for many of the "place making" improvements, such as street trees, benches, broad sidewalks and improvements of this nature. Finally, the Agency will need to assist with the many civic and public buildings that may be built in the Project Area. Areas 7A and 7B The other major development site that needs to be completed is Areas 7A and 76. The Agency has entered into a DDA for this area that envisions the development of a two story office building on one parcel and a seven story office building on the other parcel. Agency assistance may be in the form of the installation of needed public improvements or the purchase of additional floor area so that the development will fit better within the allowable uses under the Specific Plan. Impact of Amendment on Projects and Existing Conditions Adoption of the proposed Fourth Amendment will provide the Agency with the financial resources to implement the projects described above. Without the amendment, the Agency will be unable to undertake any additional activities. The projects discussed in Part III represent the Agency's remaining activities needed to complete redevelopment of the Project Area. The Agency needs to install the needed infrastructure discussed in this section in order to complete the process of removing the significant blight that remains in the Project Area. In addition, the Agency will be involved in the continued creation of affordable housing from redevelopment of the BART Station site. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 16 Report to Board of Supervisors A FRASER & ASSOCIATES Figure 1 ............... ...... .... ........... . ........... .. ........ ...................... .. .............:. . ..... ...... ............ .:....... .... '..:. ..... :•:::: .:..mow. •:s�l9P!':f f .ti:�•:.�J•• ..•'1�x~ .. •.. .. ... tiff::�'J. .. A..'.�:::•'.• :may'VF.II!.���:J:.. • J n: r X1.:1 /IA •yv.:y. t:' ti ti J Y• The picture above shows the BART Station site and Project Area today. The lower picture shows how the site may look after completion of redevelopment. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 17 Report to Board of Supervisors FA FRASER &ASSOCIATES Figure 2 .YN'h'.tY:r•.•1{ JAY •.•r....•a...•.J......•JA h.:.:.:::::....• .J...•.....•..r.rFV•••+!ryi•. yy ":::::::::' .. ♦♦ r}rJ J•IJ.•J J x .t. .w ! 'x'.'v,.JJCfi J. ♦♦Y,r...•+♦v Y.•r. .�•:!•: .... ....... .. .r ...J , ..J...... .rJJ..r v..!}..J.r , • .......... .......... .......... ........... ............... IN ....... ... . ••.•.•...,.•....L••.•.•.•.••.•.•.•...•...•.•....••..••.•}...•5f l•• .•.• h. l L .....j.........Jr:•..::.:.........:•fin�::.'.�!. .4 � ..yyyyyy.},..•}I.h N �y h r A {g Y Jr. t. ..:.....1!I.J.. ...•.ht. •.h r. J4 , k.. r• Ci�f • J.,.a J.H.J.......r.J..!.-....•....•...•............•....... ......h.h.t. .[ JI f ...\}h...✓..r... ♦...N.Y...r(.� n. if�ry .... A.✓.:.h.h.......... ......... ....••.,....::.'::•;.;:;...x..r..........,.......,......... ... ........ v n ....... ..t.. t............... ........................• .............n,...:....•Y..r:....I.r.S�..•.• r.. • ••r. A.L : ...... ............ .... ....... �•,. }:{{ ..t .v� ...:.:...... :.Y:::,.;.,... .:..... .. ..:.:..:: .-..•:::.••::.:�.'�::':.:....:. -..... ....:. ;::.. ,,4,{x:4.14:'. r :.: )fi"• yn ti r• r � 1 ��'U •9 t '�Y , L h• • r ..: .... ... .. ... .......... ....... ••n•�JN :VN.l4�ll .'�.V.J,•••J::::r '{{i j{+ •:. ... • '.}'.:}...Y} 11.0"J'•,:a{��{.�C�L. i'{•,�•r }::f fY. .{:ti•• ':Y..{ti:<•}:{j??YhiYY,',Yfr}}t:: ^' ♦•'t•t.rp:irJ''ti'i} � '•::::•:'{} Y:'.r♦ •,y:� '•.}Y�':%•:�.•:•V:'r•• •.i}{aY:.�iC`r.4�}'n �}'!•: :Lei •,;, .-. .,{r,�}::::�'•ti�:�ikv:.}•}Y.•:^}iti:'iy1..r;'fi};..}::��'•���� ;{�:'�"}• Eu .: •v a J ••� uM1 � K ,r r Y r Yk�: %t�i L�••'J�•.}%'r-•y!� •• L�}:�r L �r; �7xfi}Lir �i �h W'}fir}?.}¢`OGZX•J:;tii2i{ Z7r r } +n r14 ,... ♦ ,r yr}.;v.. .�;: 1.M1 M1 L L J r r + t J! 5 -1 I'• L Y The topicture.shows the existin view alon Las Juntas Way looking at the P g g BARTgarage. The lowerpicture shows a view ofproposed housing in front of the BARTgarage. This buildingimproves the local neighborhood character by placingnew residences across from existing ones. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 18 Report to Board of Supervisors FA FRASER & ASSOCIATES Figure 3 ..r v:r-•x•x:.:•rr:::•r:....n....,Yr:rr vw,. Jr!x.•......?i+I+Nxrr+L"N•Yw�+fJJN/yM�M'!M':N•!•!rU'!67Y,{N, ':`}%;W.,.{+!•rh.,Y•.;?:,?: •:".{{ r• wyJ.�f?.•rNr�r w .xyN.• Nxr. v:: NN v.YhvNrn,w :xr N r rnvx.wN w:x vx .. ........ - ... ...................... .... .... L�J�.J•,-.'•.fi::g v i v.:...:{yry r:r : .}yrh• xr t ............:.:.. ...:.:.�::.�:.0}:{..:v"vi:•'i::r:•i.ti{{:�::{':{;ti:}Y.ti}}r:•:{}:}}:}:.•:•'i�%�irl.�{:•}$tinv: $r:^'"r itiiil.•.f {}}t• . :L:•}:1'{;{:?:vf{J vv„ N 3r/.,%:•JG •v :•:,i•<,:}••irf •}:<Y:•}.ti•}JfJ.L�.f..::.•:{Yh..rN`:V:•}.{h..:•N ff.J •• JN.rvr l: •Y:•J YN.Yh. •� ••r.�•n.n1CY v Nr' ..... :... ...........:::::v.... .....::::::::.......: :{'%}"•}7::•:::: ••�:' •�.,v1:v'{�'y.i•%}JC'}.•,°,:•;•f'�J:}.VLLY.}Y..v�:4 , '•S ff5 ................. ......+:..... � YJ}{.•:r:.!L::{;5;:1:�.:y.1•{:.;r}.,Y:YVn: N�yfr•J:}f ...:.'.�:..::::...:...:.:.....:: :.. .:...........•+... ....::ti•::•:::':•:::.V. :�+�•j,}}h Yh♦YJ, ::n•�J�t/{rr .... ............... . ......... .......... JJ �./L 1 G �S„ F I •f f KY s Y: ....:.:,...:....�:... :.�......::�::::.>:>::::.:::•:;:;'::•: .......... ............... ... ,� !�' mss. ....................... s-:••:::::.::::.!.:::•:r.:::'ri.:•i?}}'::.... ... ......,r...:......h......................x...::: .......... .•r-a.9L� 'Y:{ti is:N J4r�f:h h •l;•n�, 'Q +�.v .. S. r ........ .... ... .............................................................................. .......t.J..J.:AVS.:r •• ::• •}}I{.' .........................:.:. . .-....... ..............•..!..............:............:..::::Y:.Y:•-•1..:.YS!JfI.YJ.JN.1•xrf.•fh. f• I Y}} ...................................................�::._.:�•::.:;..!.:....:�:....:........h.•..:.. ............:..t{:::i'r,:i{•::•Yr:J:.?:{!?:,;.;11\Jr1:}.•}iS•}- ��/ •�f .,}{•:v. .....: .........::.•:::::.::............... r....•..::.:�.::::..::.:.:••.v::.:.._.•..:..................;.................. .,?.. ftv�:•:J"'l•4'•'Jf' L•L4}• %: �}.' rte. Y S• r .. .......... .............J•r................:...................................:!.._.. ':};{:;.y?.;;... :0-RK, .-:;�.{Lfi•.•ry{:.,.•.4•'}.''i,; ::j{• •J, v .:.:.:.:...:.:.:..::::::......................r........_...............1....1.......:.....x..:......:..;..:.: .N •.K•Eli.{� '. .. ..':..:..................................,.........::•.:.-..................•:!r•.!.:•...:...'•..::::f•.�•}.�..:::.�::�•: :.:•...1.....h hhY}J•}lI.:V�Y:::{•F J!4Y:::;if'.f .J!}4 '� r• ':r. r•4v f.Yi1•SSi/x 1 r rs. } ::nr} •J : S .......... 3. J N. h r ' ...... ......:.......... -. ................. .rl.....•:�:• •:•:}i'4:}}}:v};{•}}i:•}?}:•?5i:�:+ ry� r•X•}:{•r i'•?r{•v�riC:•r.•_ .}. . '.... ........... '....-...........:....'.:................................. .. .............••. .! ::JX:.':Y4.J}JJ!?f:•fINh1Y.'.YK'/.•J:•h•' J.•'•J r:.// ..... .. ..........................................................f.............I..:...... .:J.{.::{':titi � n j• :f.+•'••f:h NAY}I•: .... .. ............................ ........... ......... ....L. +�Y.{ .$ •.NrrJ`f'ri rxirf w: ...-... ..................... .......... ................................................................h........:.�.:::r::.�.:::::: y$:?:{?d':{:}$}j:,i•: rr.•hh1'{•:.. �r?^:' � .h:...n.... �JJ''.•I. .. .. :...............................................................................................,•.••••••...••.•......•.....1.•.•:..'.•.�.�.i.::Y:J::.Y•::.....•:•4.h•........... h•::f!"AVV:! .:}.•...•.?.. L•1{' h r f. .,'I/J•{. f. ..:....... .................................. .................-........ ..h f:r.Y.••{{.v.Jr.Yff.••.,+f .]� +'�i$h G 9.!Y::•:':f:'}:•:•:: ........ ... ...............:.............................�............... ..•..1......::::::.:::.._..:� ..4':::r:..Y::Jf.•::i..::/L.�rr•fr::.. .'4 }• '.{Y:Y.':::{:'.::.�::.:•.�:.:•. .......:................. ... .... ... .................................. ............... .x••.Y::v: r.f.:hY..{{r•-'l.{?y.• .:h:l.;...Y: .{{t.,�.i.. .. .....................................�.........................r...............:.:.:r: ':.v .Lw::.v;••• .:.::ii$:ti•:•}:w.w,n•,v�r}}:• L v:rvrr•v : ..:- .. .......... .... ........... ....... ..........:...h....:,;.::::..:.:•:. J!�Y+✓.•:,r..vhv:.:..h. .:.Y hr{ ..a/i. rl IA iL'::}fr •.{:::: J•:+y?{:: x�:{•.Y•i r•:•;n;`•;}'.rh.�75,r�.•r: .v vr��::J ....... ... ...............................:...:.....:................._....::.�.�::::.::�:.�.�.::•.:v.:•.w.�:}.�.�.•..�::.....::.r.:.{}•y;.{:•::}:::.y.:<:{�:{:::w:.v: •v:rr:xv I•xNf. .L .. ..... .....................................•. .. :.''.:{}' .:,J::4•n•rs� .r:J•iJfJJ•lf.'1•:;.,..L,.Jf.•Li .{r. N .♦ .::.:.....:.:...: �-.:.:..:...................................................x.v.........::.�:•.x:Y::::•:.�•....K•.:'.}•..4:•:.• :.1,•.. v�r::r:?v::!}}:ti f{�rr•.h.:•h.l.fr.•�r.•rrv.•,t•• 9Y �/r.•r,.; . ::••:.':::::::.':::. ...':... . .....:::... ..... .....:............:: :.:�:.�.L..::.:..;:....:...:•:r:::.;...;�{:.::v.:;:.:?.}:1+:•;:•}, 4J.•�:••hY.J L.r::{M1•.1;:LYn•{J.•?J.!•:.{•'?+ ..VJ J ..............:.Y r r .:r::�:;:;.,.};{;:i:irj;{;:y<.. ..;. �r�.,1:. `•h• �tJ. ............. .. ........::.•...... .:•::•�::.: Y:.. .....v.::�.::.:.�.:.:...::.... ............. . ............ ... ...,...'v:... ....:.:::::...::::.:::::.:�::.:r .. ..... .rr.....r.............................::::....: ::... ....•............. •.:!,.... ..J................•.• ...............-............•.............. .... .. } }:{:••! 7:.51. .,{.: ....�....•.. :,� .......... ....... .................. ...................................................... •:;tier:?�"':}�: :}:4....L.i;>;:•� '{:-'j:r r}:.. h 721 ..........:.........:.:::.:...:.....::;....::;..:.:......... �. ..4.!vf.{v;r':. ..........:.:.:. {L '......:..... .SIJ!{;{:•tr.:J r -77 .r r• {{'} Y f The top picture shows current conditions on Treat Boulevard looking west. The lowerpicture shows a view of Treat Boulevard looking west showing a vital retail street. Off-peak parkingand a row of trees and planters buffer pedestrian, the sidewalk from traffic. Storefront, awnings and other architectural details provide an attractive, human scale. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 19 Report to Board of Supervisors FA FRASER &ASSOCIATES Figure 4 ........................ \ ------------------- �^ +' likiM: r{9�•a' �•}} J�^ty'.fq"'•fc h.w fi: iL�_`•.ti_ � a4,xw L}pf�'•''tYOMt!•In" - ••P���yVwl�GayM:n,MaM'� r.++wwwLn•?qe�• 'A\}�. r'iw"•', 7jt,, a OA wfw w ..Jw }17MN�VYM•W/�I!♦VL 4 r{r,r,.;d..:.�R.�.':..;.';�2.•�..r.r....A�l.j.:...•.'..M t:'..a+,:':l•�:ti;::.:•.1:i.�.r.%::'K.`::a:L.}?.{rS:.;..:te'L:...:W':.}!..y:�..}:y{.•n}r.:•'{:r}...r;}�•L.:'M1:x:.iYfi]..•..l�A.r r:}''}...:'i11....M(.}:V.''�1:•.y'P'.::l.!...}••1:.1,:,J1ar{..rryvti}f'h}•�i.':�:;:::h•1:.•.}}.ti�,' Nv•.:'}v♦{ti:.v{•Ja•1: i,WJrr.•.-.r:M'.> ::_'iryyv::6rt}:{:.{:r.:•,fIi;.;i::I•2.{.r�A.,�.�:{::,:.J:.kL„�•\K...•:?:f�J.}t�::.:r-;.�f�}:..:t:I•W-:.{,LvY••ti..,}1�:v.\.}.{fL:1•f. •1r::;::':.,:'.•:?�':...I,}..,tIti�.�I,i.r.XiI.-y:Ir..:?f.I;•Ir�Y..{}w.r.:I•I:Y..;:::V.r' 1{��'.r::l.I.:Ly.i:.}.•;.:. ../r:tiA��.:,'r.{},•..'.,..?{•:ry-:.:.}•A;•::�:y,...!:.4:•.:.A.••.�::.1.::.}.ti•�:i:.{.S�;•:”i:n:.Ly�X�.r;:..},1S<.,�.:{.}•7":•.r�Y�'(.Y,.•YC..:::};.y;:�"':.:i•.:{•a•1�}:i::�.r::�:<.f:{'}{+Y�•%�:?;},aJ}J,•%.'♦�{{:}rj;<,Y�{'�:'rr:•,}.fi'7W.J.ti�}J•.L,'r:}}�..r',•a5!:.}:}ICY•.r�ry%::•.•�{•.}.}r•Y••...:.•��f'f-rJ.{.�,�}.{�•:;}{.;,rL',r::.::�'L.l..hw$7��•':•}�7{�rryti...•r.ti:�X'4,wa!ti':..r;�}i'w{•:kf:,ti.•t..}}:r,,'.br.ir�ti.\:v�1,'.''j�{�:{}i �+::•;iY•:i{�.r�'�}t Y,ii::f'}'N:,'�..rr:{•�J:Jh^AJ{l/�•''T•{.;..'''\�,::7:t•',�'•...f Ew}l�r1;::?J 1'.,!..i}�ii�•;rf4.Ovy:.,•.::4!.n}r4r;•ram.:'.''?{'r.{}P..;1r!+�•.:�? �-,�}y{${:•^;h.{•;I•.:i.ry^ •,}I..!?�Jth?':�:...•}.J ..,'f;7f,v:4y.M.'•...:tiCtr:r':.,..J. 4!•.,}'\}yt.yjY:7p...;•�.:{:�:,:>.i: Hi1y:r.tir.r.Ari }C..v1r�.r�X7ti4.j:.':r.'r::r{:}41,..Ytiti•r 4.;'.{Jr{�:'•:.�:..}�v;.'rfhu'lr�?.K:t'illoirr,{rj\•:if}:rJ b}S�•'4Y;�f;::\:•,:h�frx,f v.r:\•r.w}J:\\'••:Kv{ti'1:''.:r}:';.���::n::'Y�}r{':rJ A�"'..'J{,,•.kr,•:�L�'•1nr•• .r.pp.`rvtir:��::•w•;}c�'�::�YL`::.w:h•`:::;n•�:}te:"{.{�sem}r�iV.:.A.F�L.w:'Pi',,',•• .{.\'}w:.;'?•.7':.`ri'':Y,•:r.rt.C:::rtrJ•'y:••;r':.'�rrrr.vL:t`Jiv{:..{.,.:rf.••,y:•o r;.:rrry::•, vhf!%wr'}r:.rfS•;'.}•T:•r.ryx }L't'rrv•�.•,r..r{r:::�'••Y.-��•,.r.:L\f.LGr•:.vY'r•r::r.v:L.:;;.v.{v:Zr...,.:.a\''a;.tr.:r,..{•,•r:k1.�0-:,{.f::.;.::}t• {}:yr}:•Y.;:r�Mt•.r.rYf:U: •J,Ulr':.�fi3:•.4:•••v{,A:r}�yvr••y}:p'rr::•.'r{.�•lr:'•.:':.� :Y��rJam1:�,k�:l•:.',:.i;.' f.h{•r (:."r:.A•\ twv.\:^•} $:v,V.t.••rry".- GY.�.�:�•ry'•r .:•• :�`':{}...v�,�.♦ h{ir;r}}.•NA4:`..r.: •',• iC..r.r 3'{v{•r;...fSA}•r•�v/;rytJ:Jr•r•'!..h�.v2�`'}:r;.-•:? '}AA•}{� ..•}{}nn'•i}{}Y.$i:'L}ti}t}:'+.}:.•'}�.:fv::;':;•:.i:':::':•:'}.J:::•i�:.i':.:••Y}sY.:{•..••4: ti:rrJi}•.w'J.�r r r' r.::..•�'}r.w :•,r• •.'rx'�:•�; •::.iv:ryt7:J::L•I:�J'� .:,.•.:f}•r'- ..?'i.4?:{.w!.�•{::G•,..v\i;...,iJig.r::. Y.i..•s,�w•.::;N'.: .,:CM':•:}•:N',• ;..•v{4_Y.i J... .'•Cr. }•.,:�,. Y!f�•e yy"•fi e '1I~JJ. IJ:,I• ,,.... 77 zi .'.... � }iFxrr; ;. ,Ogg-s'Nv• .:...... The top picture refects the overall concept for the BART Station : �r,•,.�r•.:... /}}r:•a :.. rr,r:�yy••'re y , a. The lower picture shows a concept drawing of Station Square. X. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 20 Report to Board of Supervisors lr JEAJ ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART IV-- EFFECT OF AMENDMENT ON METHOD OF FINANCING AND CONTINUED FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT Section 33352 (e) of the CRL requires that a Report to the Board include information on the proposed method of financing the redevelopment plan, including .information on the economic feasibility of the Redevelopment Project Area and the reasons for including tax increment financing. This Part IV includes information on the estimated costs of the redevelopment program the Agency intends to fund; describes the various financing sources that may be used; and demonstrates the continued economic feasibility of the Project Area. It also describes the reasons for continuing to include tax increment financing in the Redevelopment Plan and the relationship between the increase in the tax increment limit, the programs to be funded, and the elimination of blight. Aw Program Costs The costs to implement the redevelopment program are summarized on Table 1 in current (2005) dollars. The programs include the Development Assistance Program, the Public Improvement Program and the Low and Moderate Income Housing Program. In addition to the program costs shown on Table 1, the Agency will need to incur expenses for administration of the Project Area. Such costs will include staff time, legal and technical assistance, and the preparation of planning studies and reports. The total cost for the program of redevelopment is estimated at$142.1 million. Table 1 also shows the amount of funds that the Agency either has on hand or for which tax increment is available under the current tax increment limit. This amount is estimated at $47.6 million. The additional costs for the Agency's program are estimated at $94.5 million in 2005 dollars. The costs shown on Table 1 do not include the impacts of inflation or the interest costs associated with the borrowing of funds to continue to implement the redevelopment program. They also do not include negotiated or mandatory payments to the taxing entities. The mandatory payments will be required by the CRL due to the removal of the debt limit and the increase in the tax increment limit that will occur due to amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. Finally, Table 1 does not include costs related to outstanding obligations, including repayment of bonds. Each of these items has been included on Table 5, which reflects the overall analysis of the Project Area's economic feasibility. B. Financing Methods and Alternatives Available to Fund Redevelopment The proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan does not affect the Agency's authority to fund activities from a variety of sources, including: financial assistance from the County, the State and the federal government; tax increment Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 21 Report to Board of Supervisors F�ERASER &ASSOCIATES funds; Agencybonds; donations; special assessment districts; interest incomes loans from private financial institutions; the lease or sale of Agency owned property; and any other legally available public or private sources of funding. The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds and create indebtedness in various forms. This includes the issuance of bonds. The indebtedness and bonds can be repaid from tax increment revenues or other funds available to the Agency. The County may also provide assistance to the Agency to fund Project Area 'improvements and projects as it is able to. Sources other than Tax Increment Financial assistance from the County, state and federal government may be used by the Agency to fund redevelopment program expenses. The County general fund is currently constrained and is not a source for the potential funding of redevelopment. The Agency also actively solicits financial assistance in the form of grants and loans from the State and federal government. However, the Agency does not anticipate that these funding sources will be available to complete the program of redevelopment. Historically, the Agency has acquired property in the Project Area as a means to spur redevelopment. The proceeds from the sale of such property to the private sector helped to fund redevelopment activities on specific development sites. The Agency's remaining program of redevelopment does not envision any additional purchase or resale of land. The Agency has also used assessment and community facilities districts (CFD) to fund redevelopment activities in the past. A CFD is expected to be used to provide up front funding for the core "Infrastructure costs needed to allow redevelopment of the BART Station site to move forward. The Agency will use future tax increment generated from redevelopment of the BART Station site to repay bonds that will be issued through the CFD. The County also collects fees under the Specific Plan from private development. The Agency intends to use approximately $6 million in fees to pay for the cost of certain infrastructure items. These items have not been shown on Table 1. Tax Increment Revenues Table 2 provides an estimate of the tax increment revenues that could be generated over the remaining period to receive tax increment through 2036-37. The tax increment revenue projection is based on the following assumptions: Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 22 Report to Board of Supervisors F� ERASER &ASSOCIATES • The Proposition 13 allowable inflationary adjustment of up to 2 percent annually. • A .5 percent increase to reflect changes of ownership, primarily in the residential portions of the Project Area. • New development activity shown on Table 3. New development includes the estimated value from the private development that is assumed to be built on the BART Station site and also development in Areas 7A and 7B. Total gross tax increment shown on Table 2 is estimated at$417.8 million. The cash flow analysis discussed in Section C below shows all of the obligations and costs for the program of redevelopment. The new limit on the principal amount of bonds that can be outstanding at one time has been calculated on Table 4. The limitation is based on the additional program costs (above the current limit) shown on Table 1 of$94.5 million. To this amount, we have added a 5 percent factor for contingencies. The Agency will also incur various costs when issuing bonds. Therefore, a 12 percent factor has been applied for finance costs. The Agency also has approximately$52 million in principal outstanding on tax allocation bonds previously issued. Based on these factors, the new bonded indebtedness limit for the Project Area has been established at $160 million. The additional program costs, inclusive of contingencies and finance costs, have been assumed to be financed as a single borrowing (a total of$111.1 million of the $157 million bond limit). For purposes of estimating interest costs, we have used an interest rate of 5.5 percent and a term of 25 years, which results in total interest of$92.6 million for the new bonds. We have also included interest on outstanding bonds, which totals $55.6 million. The Agency has also received approximately $46.9 million in tax increment through 2003-04. Approximately $63.1 million in tax-increment revenues is estimated to be used for pass through payments to the taxing entities, and property tax administrative costs are estimated to add $4.5 million. The total of these items, when rounded, equals $423 million, which is the new tax increment limitation included in the Amended Redevelopment Plan. C. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility The proposed method of financing redevelopment and the economic feasibility of the Project Area have been demonstrated on Table 5, the Cash Flow Analysis. The table compares the future projected tax increment revenues of the Project Area, plus other resources, to the existing obligations and program expenditures on a cash flow basis': It should be noted that the analysis shown on Table 5 is based on one set of assumptions for continued implementation of Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 23 Report to Boarc!of Supervisors F�ERASER &ASSOCIATES redevelopment. It should not be considered the only means to continue to finance redevelopment of the Project Area. The analysis does indicate that the Project Area will continue to be financially feasible given the set of assumptions that underlie the projections. The primary assumptions in this regard are that the costs for redevelopment activities are as projected; that growth will occur in the Project Area as the Agency continues to remove impediments to development; and that the tax increment and bond limits will be increased. The Cash Flow Analysis on Table 5 begins with Agency resources on hand of approximately $34.9 million, as provided by Agency staff. Most of this balance reflects unspent bond proceeds from the Agency's prior bond issues, which have been held for the BART Station site redevelopment efforts. The total tax increment shown on Table 5 has been derived from the amounts shown on Table 2. As previously discussed, a CFD will be formed that will sell bonds to pay for the core infrastructure needed for the BART Station site. We have assumed that two years of capitalized interest would be included in a CFD bond issue to cover debt service until growth in tax increment is sufficient for this purpose. The tax allocation bond proceeds amount shown on Table 5 for 2005-06 reflects the release of certain monies held in an escrow account from the 2003 bond issue. New bond issues are also proposed to be sold in 2009-10, 2012-13, and 2015-16 from the additional growth in tax increment that occurs from private development on the BART Station site after repayment of the CFD bonds. The CFD and tax allocation bond sales will be the primary means of funding public improvements. The cash flow on Table 5 shows the following expenditures: • Section 33676 Allocations-These are pass through payments to the taxing entities based on the allowable inflation increase of 2 percent per year. • Property Tax Administrative Fees-These fees are paid to the County for the collection of tax increment. • AB 1290 Pass Through Payments-These payments will be owed to those taxing entities that have not entered into negotiated pass through arrangements. • Negotiated Pass Through Payments-The Agency has entered into several pass through arrangements in the Amendment Area. • Debt Service- Includes debt service on currently outstanding bonds, the CFD bonds and new bonds. • ERAF obligations- The ERAF obligation has been assumed to continue through 2005-06. • Program Costs-The program costs (Development Assistance; Public Improvements; Housing) have been included on Table 5 and have been increased by a 3 percent inflation factor. • Administrative Costs-The costs for administration of the Project Area are based on the current Agency budget increased at 3 percent per year. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 24 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES Table 5 shows that the Agency will have completed all of its public improvement projects by 2015-16. After this period, the Agency will repay debt that will have been incurred and continue to deposit money to the housing fund for the provision of affordable housing. The cash flow shows that the Project Area may generate a surplus of$77.3 million by the end of the term when tax increment can be received in 2036-37. This balance is the Project Area's hedge against higher than expected costs or revenues that fall short of projections. If these funds are not needed, they will flow back to the taxing entities. Given this, the Project Area will continue to be economically feasible after the amendment. D. Reasons for Continuing to Include Tax Increment Financing The Agency intends to complete its program of redevelopment in order to alleviate blight and create and improve affordable housing in the Project Area. The cost of that program, as described in this part of.the Report, will total over $142 million in 2005 dollars. When all costs are included and the impact of inflation has been added in, as shown on Table 5, the costs for redevelopment will reach $426 million. Given the remaining needs of the Project Area, and the lack of other ongoing funding sources, the Agency.will need to look to tax increment financing as a major source of funding. Neither the County nor the private sector has historically been able to finance a redevelopment effort of this type. As required by the CRL, the Agency will continue to look to other funding sources to assist in the redevelopment effort. However, tax increment is needed to fill funding gaps between the costs identified and these other funding sources. In addition, most of the elements of the program of redevelopment have little or no alternative funding sources. Other funding sources also have serious limitations. Grants from other levels of government are sporadic and difficult to obtain. Assessment districts have been used to fund certain activities, but they can only be set at a level where private development can economically absorb them. Development impact fees are also being used by the Agency. Even with each of these other sources of revenue, the funding gaps still remain. Tax increment revenues will also be generated by the activities proposed by the Agency. Tax increment provides a stable source of revenue that will continue to grow as the Agency's redevelopment efforts spur private investment. In addition, such revenues can be leveraged in the form of tax allocation bonds and provide a large source of capital financing. For each of these reasons, tax increment financing continues to be included in the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 25 Report to Boar/of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES E. Relationship between Significant Remaining Blight, the Need to Amend the Financial Limits and the Cost of the Continuing Program of Redevelopment The provisions of the CRL require that when an agency proposes to increase the financial limitations of an existing redevelopment plan, it must- identify the remaining blight within the project area, identify the portion, if any, that is no longer blighted, and identify the projects that are needed to eradicate the remaining blight. In addition, the relationship between the costs of those projects, the amount of increase in the limitation on the number of dollars proposed to be allocated to the agency and the agency's ability to eliminate remaining blight must be identified. Both the Agency and the Board of Supervisors must also make a finding that (1) significant blight remains within the project area and (2) the blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and the increase in the limitations on the number of dollars to be allocated to the agency. The Agency's proposed amendment includes an increase in the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency (tax increment limit). This amendment is needed in order to complete redevelopment program activities and eliminate remaining blight. Without the amendment, the Agency will have no financial capacity to fund additional redevelopment activities. As provided for in the existing Redevelopment Plan, the total amount of tax increment the' Agency is eligible to receive is $125 million. The Agency has received cumulative tax increment of approximately $46.9 million through fiscal year 2003-04, leaving $78.1 million in funds that can be received under the current tax increment limit. All of this amount is committed to existing obligations. The Agency also has $38 million in principal outstanding on bonds. Thus, the Agency has almost reached the $40 million total bond limit. Given the current tax increment limit, the Agency will need to repay the outstanding bonds before they fully mature in 2032-33, since the current tax increment limit is projected to be reached in 2014. As part of the bonds that were issued in 2003, the Agency also placed $13.2 million into a bond escrow account in order to avoid exceeding its bond and tax increment limits. Those funds can only be released if the Redevelopment Plan is amended to increase the tax increment and bond limit. The escrow funds are needed, along with the future growth in tax increment, to complete Project Area activities. The total estimated cost of the Agency's program of redevelopment, including all obligations and interest costs, is $426.6 million, as shown on Table 5. Without an amendment to the financial limits, the Agency will be unable to complete its program of redevelopment and alleviate blight. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 26 Report to Board of Supervisors FRASER & ASSOCIATES As extensively documented in this Report, the major project to be undertaken is completion of redevelopment of the BART Station site. In light of the extensive role the Agency needs to take in implementing redevelopment of this site, an increase in the tax increment and bond limits of the existing Redevelopment Plan is essential. In summary, the current financial limits restrict the Agency's ability to issue new debt to finance remaining redevelopment activities. By increasing the tax increment and bond debt limits, the Agency will have the financial resources to complete an effective redevelopment program aimed at eliminating remaining blight and constraints to development in the Project Area. The Agency will not have the ability to assist in the elimination of remaining blight unless the existing financial limits are increased by adoption of the proposed amendments. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 27 Report to Board of Supervisors mop— mmpm�— Table 1 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill/BART Project Area ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS (000's Omitted) Total Funds Additional Estimated Cost Available(1) Program Costs(2) Development Assistance Program 51000 0 51000 Public Improvement Program BART Replacement Parking Structure 309000 15,410 13,590 BART Property Core Infrastructure 15,000 0,000 99000 BART Public Benefit Projects 10,000 8,000 21000 Business Conference Center 6,000 0 61000 Child Care Center 21000 0 21000 Bicycle Station 750 0 750 Civic Uses 21000 0 2,000 Greenspace 900 900 0 Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing/Greenspace 69000 29000 41000 Fire Suppression Equipment 500 0 500 Subtotal 739150 33,310 397840 Low-Mod Housing Program (3) 527502 129289 409213 Administration And Operations(4) 119445 2,000 91445 GRAND TOTAL-ADDITIONAL PROGRAM COSTS $142,098 $47,599 $94,499 (1) Reflects funds the Agency has on hand or that is still available under the current tax increment limit. (2) These are costs for which the additional tax increment limit is needed. (3) The total estimated cost reflects the net present value of the housing set-aside at 5 percent discount rate. The funds available represent the net present value of the remaining housing set-aside under the current tax increment limit. (4) Reflects the net present value of administrative costs from Table 5,the cash flow. Amount reduced by estimate of net present value of remaining tax increment under current limit. Fraser Associates 5/16/2005 programs Bart TI 2005 PA.As Table 2 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill/BART Project Area PROJECTION OF INCREMENTAL TAX REVENUE (000's Omitted) Value Total Real(1) New(2) Other(3) Total Over Base Of Tax(4) U n ita ry(5) Tax Fiscal Year Property Development Property Value $28,648 Increment Tax Revenue Increment 2004 - 2005 $584,479 NA $21,469 $6059948 $577,300 $5,849 $30 $5,879 2005 - 2006 599,091 0 22,005 621,097 5921449 5,980 30 6,01 0 2006 - 2007 614,069 0 22,555 636,624 607,976 6,121 30 6,151 2007 - 2008 629,420 44,876 23,119 697,415 668,767 6,719 30 6,749 2008 - 2009 691,153 134,627 23,697 849,477 820,829 8,229 30 8,259 2009 - 2010 846,425 0 24,290 870,714 842,066 8,433 30 8,463 2010 - 2011 867,585 0 24?897 892,482 863,834 8,643 30 81674 2011 - 2012 889,275 31,050 25,519 945,844 917,196 9,177 30 9,207 2012 - 2013 943,333 31,050 26,157 11000,540 971,892 9,723 30 9,753 2013 - 2014 998,742 0 26,811 110259554 996,906 9,973 30 109003 2014 - 2015 1,023,711 0 27,482 12051,193 1,022,545 10,225 30 10,255 2015 - 2016 1,049,304 21,750 28,169 1,099,222 11070,574 10,706 30 10,736 2016 - 2017 11097,830 65,250 28,873 1,191,953 11163,305 11,633 30 11,663 2017 - 2018 1,192,157 0 29,595 19221,752 11193,104 11,931 30 11,961 2018 - 2019 11221,961 0 30,334 11252,296 17223,648 12,236 30 12,267 2019 - 2020 19252,510 0 31,093 17283,603 1,254,955 12,550 30 12,580 2020 - 2021 11283,823 0 319870 113157693 17287,045 12,870 30 127900 2021 - 2022 113159918 0 32,667 113487585 11319,937 13,199 30 13,229 2022 - 2023 11348,816 0 33,484 1,3829300 11353,652 13,537 30 13,567 2023 - 2024 11382,537 0 34,321 11416,857 11388,209 13,882 30 13,912 2024 - 2025 11417,100 0 35,179 11452,279 1,423,631 14,236 30 14,266 2025 - 2026 11452,528 0 36v058 1,488,586 1,459,938 14,599 30 14,629 2026 - 2027 11488,841 0 36,960 11525,800 11497,152 14,972 30 15,002 2027 - 2028 11526,062 0 37,884 11563,946 115357298 15,353 30 15,383 2028 - 2029 11564,213 0 387831 11603,044 11574,396 159744 30 15,774 2029 - 2030 1,603,319 0 39,801 1,643,120 11614,472 16,145 .30 16,175 2030 - 2031 11643,402 0 40,796 1,684,198 1,655,550 16,556 30 16,586 2031 - 2032 11684,487 0 41,816 19726,303 19697,655 16,977 30 17,007 2032 - 2033 11726,599 0 42,862 11769,461 11740,813 17,408 30 17,438 2033 - 2034 11769,764 0 43,933 11813,697 117857049 179850 30 17,881 2034 - 2035 11814,008 0 457032 118599040 11830,392 187304 30 18,334 2035 - 2036 11859,358 0 46,157 17905,516 11876,868 18,769 30 18,799 2036 - 2037 11905,842 0 47,311 11953,154 11924,506 19,245 30 197275 Cumulative Total 417,775 991 418,766 (1) Prior Year Real Property increased by 2.5 percent per year. (2) See Table 3,Schedule of New Development. (3) Includes the value of secured and unsecured personal property,and state-assessed railroad and non-unitary property. (4) Based on the application of Project Area tax rates to incremental taxable value. (5) As reported by the County Auditor-Controller. Fraser Associates Bart TI 2005 PA.)ds tiproj 5/16/2005 0 0 0 LO so CM N x � � � a N CM 000 0 0 Q Ul) C14 0000 0 0 LO N 0000 Q C) 0 C*4 0000 C) 0 C*4 0000 C) 0 Ln in C C*4 T- M CO) 0 C4 0000 0 0 N 0000 C) 0 CS4 Lf)C*W)4 0 0 0 I,*- 0 C4 0) v Co Ln to 0 csi Ni r%: 0 0) CW) C4FO) C*4 U')T-0 0 0 to C%4 LO 0 P+ GD OD U)U) co 0 rQ C*4 0000 0 P-- 0 0 CM 0 0 Q 0 0 Q co 0 C) C*4 10 0 C14Q0 00 0 C) C4 0 C) M N 0 0 V- to rj < C6 C6(5 P.OD co: ci 04 Lf) C4 a 0 4) 1- CV) 5 < cc Z > LU E M CL 0O0 O 0 w 0 'c3 u co UJ OOW%%� �'p> E 0. - im ..a. <ca 4) uj 0 0(1) .Y- — z 0 0 cn 0 0< U. -c:e I- ti I-- cl 0 co 0 v E r ca Q 0— LWU 0 0 0. — 0 X j ca ca co 0 C-)4- n E > 4-0 c < a 0 0 C/5 4) ca w ou v < U) 0) 19 of ca o (D Qww� I--L)CL m Table 4 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill/BART Project Area ESTIMATED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND TAX INCREMENT LIMITS (000's Omitted) Additional Program Costs $941499 Plus:Contingencies @ 5% 4,725 Total Estimated Project Costs $99,224 Plus: Finance Costs(1) 11,907 Principal Outstanding on Tax Allocation Bonds(2) 51,950 Bonded Indebtedness Limit(Rounded) $160,000 Plus: Debt Service on New Bond Issue (interest Only) (3) 92,580 Debt Service on Existing Bonds(interest Only) 55,577 Estimated Tax Increment Received thru 2003-04 46,908 Estimated Tax Sharing Payments 63,103 Estimated Property Tax Administrative Fees 4,504 Amended Project Area Costs 422,673 Tax Increment Limit(Rounded) $421000 (1) Financing costs are the costs of issuance included as 12%of Additional Program Costs assuming deposits to reserve fund, underwriters discount and miscellaneous costs associated with the issuance of bonds. (2) Includes$13.3 million in escrow bond proceeds that can not be released until the plan amendment is completed. (3) Based on financing programs through bonds. Includes interest on outstanding bonds For new bonds, assumes a 5.75% interest rate and a 25 year term. Assumes that debt service in the 25th year will be paid from reserve fund. Fraser Associates 5/16/2005 limit Bart TI 2005 PA.xIs � CO i` O N O N r CO I- 1` 0 It �P N tf) O 00 r 0 f` O N � CD N 0 r 0 ti ti 0 N `CLCD N0 O V co 0 x Cp _ CD O M N 0 OD r r N 0 r OD N M Q r r' N O V 1� r r r r N CL O N 64).r r CO N CO N 6f} E+9 O O N H T- Lf) O O tf) O N Cr) O O) CO O I' V N N O to N V Lf) r LO tf) N O r q1t O) Cao 1� CA N V Lf) M r OD M 00 O ' Ln I�- N N N r r OD M N C) 00 r r N O O I� O r r rto O w m O0 6F3 r � r r r �N � N T- i11� N N 649, 6A CO M 0 0 0 O O) to OD N Cr) Lf) O V N Cao O Cw) O CO r N r T- O V CO ti O O 0 OD I� O) N M V CO CO L r ' M O N Lf) r r O M N C) 00 r r N O) fl-. OD ti r r Lf) O tf) N N r 69F fA M tM V O Go p Cn P*- LO CO V V O tM N to O O O ti O) N co CO CO O to O) 00 N e- N M to r M to r N M O ti r r p r v,- t*-- M N O) M r• r Cao O) 1� 11%,- M r r r CA CO ti v-� r N r r alA N N 69 V N O O tf) O CO O CA r r tf) M N tM N r 0 � O) � O) OD � r N M M O r OD M r. N _ CO tr) N O) M r r N OD N OD O r T- r 0 O r r r r rw O N 69 r 60� � N 6F} N M 00 Cao I� M M N Cao O O OD V CO N !t O N Ln O) V OD Cao I� r N N 00 O O) Cn M O r V CO N Cr) r Lf) M N 0) Cr) r r M I` CO I` U) r r M O cs r r N r O r N N r i11r Erg CO M O O r 0 CA et r CA O) OD V O N Lf) O O to V CO O 0 OD CO V CO efi V O) O OD OD ti N N r CO 1'*- O ' p V Cn r r Lf) M N 0) r r M CO CO M O0 r OD Cr) M r v r r Nr O iA N 6f} r N 603+ 69 � O) O O O r NO) O V O W) O N N O O CO v CO Lf) co co LC) tf) O OD Cr) OD 1*- O) Cao P N N N N LO O) oD ' O) ti N r 0 r r V Cr) N O) r r r CO CO O) r• 06 TZ 0 6 0 9 0 r O r r r r r O O r 6F? 69. Mlr N N r N O t0 I` O) O O O M O OD CO V O N CA O O tri V 1� tf) ti a_ N V 00 OD Cr) 1� N 00 OD � N r O) N M r co aD e- O O r r Cr) N O) r r O M CO M 1*- OO C CO r r r r r r Op 40). N N 69 CO r O O N 0 O M CO M CO N N O O CO O O N CO O) M ti N to O CO C� N CO aan O) OO ti r M O r O' � CO r O M r r M N0) r r N CO 0) N O 0 CO r lie r r ti � N r N N 403f r 4 M 4 N O Lf) O N O tf) COLO CO NCO M O O M 000 O 0) r 00 co M r r N 00 r CO N O) OD t` r tf) O H O O ti LO' CC) O) O M N IV r M N O) r V CO r CO O co OO M CO T- Lf)M r r N r N N N N 69 Erg 411). r Q) O O N O N O) M O M V O O O O OD O O V M to P%. 000 � N OOj � O M N � � O tf) O tf) !h V to _ _ �' O) r Lf) O m OD M M O r r `� C6 qli N N 64 U� C CU Q C CD V1 E Co C E Ca N 00 0 m >. O Ci > Q V Ca O = NO V v) Ch v O v1 to LCL a� 0 4) CU 0) N O s 0 0 t0 OC CO 0 V � m C a J V "W U- O am m W p C v) ..r L X m m to w C C CO N M L �' }' N to O Z U O � O •�(0 w 0 E 2 � 0 0 0 � ~ •� CI3 to X N O co U Q Q ^ CD N Q 'v �- r N N Z U 0 E E W to to 'v v O to Q Q 0 ca ` c — N •—p CD 0 aW v0, >am > CO O 0- -ac N a. •aO V o nnZa U)LO U. p m E m m aaaa O 0) co co co co co QaD < c c co C:) ca aO Cc UQc ui 0 v ° > o co Uaa cha O co a_ QDDOa0ZWaa_ 2Q U- ca U-) CN CN 0 0 Cf) 0 CD N N V V N N N O N O N r CO 0 0 0 in OGo cr) 0 CO CD CN VM coLL< co 0 CN qT 0 COC) M 0) C4 co N (b (6 L6 N cscscsC4 a; LO CN CN cr) T- 9" C:) C:) 0 40,31F 4& 0 C14 cv Rf tO 0 C) 0 co 0 fm ol GO 0 ol N- M N N P-- 0 a 0 0 M I,.- cm CN CO N co Ul fl- Go of N v N w v 0 U) r*- to co 0 Irl, v CN T- N 0 CO 0 M w CN Im Go LO CO Cq Cq N CN tib CN CN (N %M oVi cv V co 0 0 m o m cn V cn CN -t- 0 CV N N 0 00 0 0 CO 1*-- 0 oco oo LO t*-. LO LO W v N v CN w T- 0 v m e- ft? N m M 'r- V- V P-. N m co to - ft cq'"r Cq C4 .qr.: NCN IV QN T- V- N T- o 6c). 40 CN N CN 0 0 M 0 CC3 0 M 00 r 0 N N W 0 W 0 0 0 m IV If- V� w Ln M Go v N v CN rll- 0 m m 0 0 LO 0 co CN V- 0 0 0 CD M t-- N r to mCT C6 qi N NN NN C4 CN Iw- C4 C41 Ln N. 0 0 m 0 tn IV 0 CO cn T-- M N N M 0 M 0 (n IV m 0 co w in V T-. 00 V N V N 1,� tl.- CO m I,%- 0 Ln m CN V- M 0 CO 0 M m 0 N co ita CV m C6 C6 C4 V.CN N 0 N N N MM 0 40). 4rk C4 Ln M 0 0 m 0 1%- V CN N T- V CN N N M 0 P.- Ln N w P, N co co V 0 CD co N- v N co co m N LO 0 w (N CN N W M N M M m U) N 0 to C N C6 C6 T NC6 00N C41 r tor i6 0 0 0 m 0 IDin M 0 CO -r- 0 N N W 0 M 0 M 0 anIf- N 0 co CVI m m 0 w r%- v N CO v M V- 01 -r- N 0 r m CV v- 0 M N M M r r m w CN v co CN N W) Cq 06 r r r r r Cq r w 00 40'* Irl, 1 44 CN N 61% 40 N 0 cm ca m 0 0 0 cn 0 LO CO Ln V PN- N N o co co in CN 01 w 0 co Pte- N co N P%. N N 60 lf� N V- to M N 0 M m 10, N N N CN vi NC4 00 44 V- r r 40 CN N 40 69 co r-. 0 0 el 0 0 t- N Ul tn M r%. CN CN P.- 0 -r-- 0 0 CO cn co co co Go N- cn r%- M r�- t,-- V CN U) l- V- 0 N m ob N CN N 'r- IV cn N 0 M -r- T- m v N 0 w 'It.: W. C4 Cq ci T-: 61%-r- I T- 44 CN N eo CO v- 0 0 M 0 0 00 0) M 0) CO CO N N 0) 0 CO 0 v- C) v to v CO co 0) 0 N P- 0) rl_ r-. V N U) 0) U) 0 CN co co 0) 0) r 0 CN T- M V) N 0) V) N V) N OD N 6a V.:- ft C6 Cq CN T 0 TIrl, 4a CN (a 6g N M 0 0 OD 0 m 0 co N CO r M N N 0) 0 N 0 0) CN P.- to CO co OD qr- 0 N t- 0) co P... v N v co 0) V) co qe C6V) (D CN N N V) N 0) V) N N co CN a) Cy T.: N C) T- V- CN 69 t CA CL C: w 0 in 0 E. cm < 0 > .6-0 9 , MCL ca mi a 0 > 0 m o o o 2 cr- U- CM M UJ Co M 2 C2 CD x c m (7) C*4 m W. .. 0 M IX r 0 0 Cb 0 0 U- CA co E cr) o 0 0 x 0 Z 0 co C E < CV N E E w one < co 0 0 0 0 CO < 0 1 M m m " 0 %� M =; > 0) 0 0 0 CL W a x 0 0- > m 2 2 0 M :F 0 0 0- -- -- 0 0 - 0- -a r- CL n- L) j E %e > co it 2: 2: it i. CA A -0 C 0 co r CD 0 0 0 0 m E cD x < LO m c 0 E U) ED co co V) 0 w co C o m 0 0 C*4 LL — cc Ca Ln 0 cc CL 0 < 0 X, o = .0.0 z cm > m 0 CD 0 0 0 < L.L > 0 2 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o 0 c C) C) CL 0 Cf) a- < 0 a z w 0 CL m < LU CO CO 0 U) 0) v v 0 N 0 m m 0 0 IV-, m 0 N v Cm G) CO V 0 04 v- 0 V- w V.- 0 w V- m vl- v w qw w CO w U) CO t-,.. 00 0 0) V Co U) 0 0 m m r%- V LO 0 r.-- W) Ul) Cm 0 x a. 0 QP'.:f..:6 COt..:V-:Lf)- 06 6 C4 06 CO T-:V7 C6 .07 ICO 0 M r C*4 0 to Ce) qw N C*4 tv) OD 00 v- N U) v 4& CC) 64 6R T- Ul) C:) CD to 0 Q 0 0 Clf) OD N Q 0 0 0 0 C) CO C) C) 0 M N CV) fN- V- 00 U) Cr) Co OD CN Ir- IW 04 00 N ti V) OD N Cl) Cr) CO C6 C6 OD tz CD C:) 0 (D V- OD 6ct 1�- C,4 041 643�- 69). 44 1-.. 0) 0 0 0 0 CO CO CN 0) 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T- 0 OD CO OD 0) OD 0) 0 OD qwr CD qll* IV M L6 CO U) P.- Cr) Cf) N CO 04 CO m LO Co Cf) CO) C6 06 W) C6 C6 Go Ci C) LO v- t*-- 61)� 40 04 N 613 69 401V C:) 'W C) C) 0 N Co Cf) P.- T- 0 0 0 0 N qw C) 0 C) 0 T- 0 N- N m fl-- oo 0 m CN m 0 m w w 4 tn m m M 'r- LO v-- N Ln M m 0 M0C6 06 W) vi V-7 vi d Ce 0 V V- (D 61% to CN N 6f3 40 4a 0 LO Cb r m Co 0 0 0 N CN Co 0 N 0 N If-- 0 0 CO Go v IV CN 1%- 0) 1%- qw N N Ul 0 CN 0 N w Co 0 M V- CO M rCN CO U) m V- 0 rl-z N: c'7 Co CN N 44 r 6� 69 iR qw w O O 0 CN to 0 w Co 0 w v N N m 0 T- 0 0 " CN m 0 Co V to N 0 w N N. I,.- v CN N N I- IV" 0 Co m qw Co to M T- N (D C* M V) C1 M C4r%- C6 cr� C6 C4 V: C6 M M Vems-- N0 V> 40 w Mw 0) N N P- 0 ON Cr) Co IV Go Co 1%- 0 V N T- 0 m a CO os to 0 LO M r- 0 Co CO (n r CN LO m m C4 N: MN Cm C4 Cnqqr O 0 to 40 41% CN CN CN Co 0 0 0 a Co r... 0 CD 0 U) N N N N 0 M 0 0IV qw P-- Co IT CD m I,%- m N N V N V- Co W) 0) Co N LO m Cn V- 0) 0 Co M N W) N Co 0 (60- C6 Ci NC6 C6 CD CN r-- v T- N 60 64 to 41W N CN Ca 0 Lo a O 0 0 r Co v 0 0 Co m N N N 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 N Co N qT oo Cv N 0 N N *Cr N 0 m N OD T- Pk. M CO %— OD CO CD M N to Co P% CA O14" CD CN C4 V: C6 cwi Co CN N T- T- C4 oo to.:k 6% 4* CN Cv CO qw 0000 0 0 V 0 0 Co C4 N T- 0 o 0 N f-- IV 0 o) N IV V- N Co N N qT N 0 T- m N qq* to Co N M T- CO o 0) CO N W) 0 N m IM CN ab V:W), Ci C4 C6 C6 N N M N 4e CNo 0 69� d3 6R iA Co V CO vm LO T- m CN CN 0 0 U) 0 0 0) 0 Co CO Co o Co m Go v N v CN 0 w T- (D Go CD N Mmv- 00 COO) M IT 0 N 0 Co C6,to- C4 NC6 C6 -r: CN T- m T- C4 O 69, 6 60 41W CV Cm E 'gyp CL 0 0 0 E Lto - >% > 0 © a. CD 6- 0 > CA 0 0 Cn Cr_ Cl) Ch 0 0 0 .0 0 r- 0 0 w 0 0 >- 0 Ix 0 &, U- CL 20 cm Im cD Lu 2 Ca 0 C: x C = CD 04 (n &a .6" r- Ca wl . in X-- 0 < (1) o 2 m o o v u IcL of 0 4.) 0 0 z E CO 0) C) C) Co CO) x < *E < C*4 C*4 z L) ch E E CD 0 < < 0 w CU a > X 0 0 Ch Co a 2 w 15 Co a �rtVTO 0 00.0 0 0 0 1: 0- 'D C > 0 m 0- 0 0 40 j E x i." 2: 'i a or C (D 0 E a 0- w 0 la_ cm x cl) Ca (a 0 E Cn < x 0 M Cl) Cn (b Ch Co U) LL 0 w W 1. U) 0 .0 4) CN C L- wo-O f-% T- -W 0 oom ".„'Cn .0C�CQ m'tNtiJtu,,,. Co CO) La. < 55 C .6-f > 5 E 0 < U- 0 2 > m 00 0 4) 0 0 0 0 L) CL %*now Im F- L) 0 u) a. < a z w a 6- m < W LL FA ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART V— IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Agency adopted an Implementation Plan in 2000, and conducted a mid term review of the Plan in June 2003. The Plan describes specific goals and objectives of the Agency, specific projects proposed by the Agency, how these projects will alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Area, and an implementation strategy for the five year period from 2000 through 2004. The Agency will be preparing a new Implementation Plan for the period 2005 through 2009, which will include the various projects that.are intended to be implemented and that were discussed in Section III and IV of this Report. Due to the financial constraints of the tax increment limit, none of the new projects can be undertaken until the Fourth Amendment is completed. The adopted Implementation Plan, as revised for the mid term review, is incorporated by reference as the Implementation Plan for the Project Area, with the amendments outlined in this section. Section 5.2 (8) Housing Requirements and Strategies Section 5.2 (B)of the Implementation Plan includes information on the projected units to be built in the Project Area over the ten year period between 2000 to 2009 and also over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The Implementation Plan indicated that a total of between 274 and 446 units could be built over both the ten year period and the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The latest development proposal for the Bart Station site indicates that up to 550 housing units could be built. It is anticipated that up to 20 percent of these units will be restricted as affordable housing. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 28 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART VI -- EFFECT OF AMENDMENT ON METHOD OR PLAN FOR RELOCATION Section 33352(f) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires this Report to contain a "method or plan"for"the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the project area, which ... shall include the provision required by Section 33411.1 11 As part of both the original adoption and the First Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency adopted a relocation plan. Those relocation plans are hereby incorporated by reference. It should be noted that the Agency has no future projects or plans for the displacement of persons or families. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 29 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART VII— REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF GOVERNMENT CODE Section 33352(h) of the CRL requires the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the proposed Fourth Amendment to be included in this Report to Council. Section 65402 of the Government Code states that no real property should be acquired by dedication or otherwise for public purposes, no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized until such activities have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as to conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted general plan. On February 21, 2005, the Agency forwarded the Fourth Amendment to the Planning Commission. On March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted its report and recommendations regarding the proposed amendment. The report required by Government Code Section 65402 is included as a part of the Planning Commissions report and recommendations. The report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are included as Appendix A to this report. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 30 Report to Board of Supervisors F� ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART VIII —SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH PROJECT AREA OWNERS, RESIDENTS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS Section 33385.3 of the CRL provides that a Project Area Committee (PAC) shall be formed if a proposed plan amendment would do either of the following: 1. Grant the Agency authority to acquire by eminent domain occupied residential property in a project area in which a substantial number of persons of low and moderate income reside; or 2. Add to the project area territory in which substantial numbers of low and moderate income persons reside and grant to the Agency eminent domain authority over such territory. The proposed Fourth Amendment does not grant eminent domain authority over any property that is occupied as a residence or add territory to the Project Area. For this reason, the Fourth Amendment does not require the formation of a PAC. However, pursuant to CRL Section 33385 (f) the Agency will consult with and obtain the advice of Project Area residents, businesses, and community organizations concerning the Fourth Amendment. The Agency did hold a community information meeting on April 19, 2005 in conjunction with the meeting of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Municipal Advisory Council. A summary of the issues covered at the community meeting are described below. The proposed Fourth Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan was explained by Jim Kennedy. The County is preparing an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. A requirement of California Redevelopment Law is to conduct a community meeting to discuss the proposed plan amendment. The MAC meting is an appropriate forum for this discussion. The anticipated technical amendments are 1) an increase in the amount of tax increment revenues the Redevelopment Agency can receive over its life; 2)An increase in the limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness the Redevelopment Agency can have outstanding; 3) eliminate the date on which debt can be incurred; and 4) extend the time of plan effectiveness and the date to receive tax increment by one year. Public Comment: None MAC Comment: Jeffrey Peckhams questions, submitted by email, were answered by Mr. Kennedy. Regarding the concern for financial forecasts - projections are conservative and do not plan for the unknown. Regarding the concern for bond activity-when bonds are sold the rating agencies require proof of revenue to support the debt. Debt service coverage ratios are required. Furthermore the debt of the agency is restricted and cannot go on indefinitely. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 31 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES Gerry DeRuyte: Does the plan include parcels A & B? Jim: It does include all the parcels identified in the Redevelopment Plan, including parcels A & 6 on the BART property. Bob Roth: Does the amendment change any of the land entitlements previously defined? Jim: No, land use entitlements are not impacted in any way by the proposed Fourth Amendment. Jim Hunt: Can the Redevelopment Agency expend its funds outside of the Project Area, and if so, how far? Jim: The general requirement is that Redevelopment funds are to be spent within the area from which they are generated. Redevelopment funds may be used outside of the Project Area if there is a factual basis, provided for in the record, that such an expenditure would be of benefit to the project area. The county cannot send the funds to another city. Repayment of debt is the responsibility of the Agency, not the host locality, therefore should the area be annexed the Agency obligations would not be passed on to the City as a legal liability. They would remain an obligation of the Agency. Motion and second to recommend the County Board adopt the Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was passed unanimously. The Board and the Agency will hold a joint public hearing on the proposed Fourth Amendment, on May 24, 2005. The Agency has transmitted.notice of the hearing to all property owners, residents, and businesses in the Project Area. In addition, notice of the hearing has been published in the Contra Costs Times newspaper for four successive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice dates were April 25, May 5, May 9 and May 16. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 32 Report to Board of Supervisors F� ERASER 8 ASSOCIATES PART IX— REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors and the Agency to rely on the Environmental Impact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1998 (the "Program EIR"). The activities envisioned by the Plan Amendment are within the scope of the Program EIR, and the Program EIR adequately described the Plan Amendment activities for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Program EIR is incorporated by reference into this Report. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 33 Report to Board of Supervisors FA ERASER &ASSOCIATES PART X—CONSOLATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the publication of a notice of the joint public hearing on the Fourth Amendment, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect to the Fourth Amendment's impact on the allocation of tax increment revenues. On February 16, 2005 the Agency sent the Preliminary Report, the Fourth Amendment and a letter (see Appendix B for sample letter and mailing list) to all affected taxing entities. The letter invites comments or questions on the Preliminary Report and the Fourth Amendment. As of May 16, 2005, the County had received no comments on the plan amendment. A summary of any additional consultations will be provided prior to the joint public hearing as a supplement to this report. Each affected taxing agency has also been sent a copy of the notice of the joint _ public hearing to be held by the Board and the Agency. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 34' Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER & ASSOCIATES PART XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT Section 33352(m) of the CRL requires the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if a redevelopment project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report is to describe the impact of the proposed Fourth Amendment upon the residents of the Project Area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report is also to include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate-income housing market as part of the Redevelopment Project Area; (b) the number of persons and families [households] of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the project; (c) the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL; (d) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low- and moderate-income planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement housing; (e) the projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low- and moderate-income planned for construction or rehabilitation; and (f) a projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation and replacement housing objectives. A Neighborhood Impact Report was included with the Report to the Board at the time the original Redevelopment Plan was adopted, and a second report was prepared as part of the First Amendment. The proposed Fourth Amendment consists of technical changes to the Redevelopment Plan to provide the Agency with additional resources to complete all activities that have been contemplated under the existing Redevelopment Plan. Because the Project Area contains persons and families with low or moderate incomes, a neighborhood impact report is included herein. The focus of this Neighborhood Impact Report is on the impact from the remaining projects to be undertaken by the Agency, and specifically the development of the BART-Station site. IMPACT ON RESIDENTS IN PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING AREAS Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental Quality, and Availability of Community Facilities and Services (Other than Education) The County prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, which was certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1998 (the "Program EIR"). The Program EIR presents information and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the amendments to the Specific Plan. Eight issues were identified for analysis: land Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 35 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER &ASSOCIATES use plans and policies; population, jobs & housing; geology; air quality; transportation; noise; public services; and cultural resources. While there were certain issues that could be considered to be potentially significant, the Program EIR included mitigation measures for each of these, which would make the impact less than significant. Relocation The proposed Fourth Amendment will provide the resources to continue redevelopment activities as permitted by the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency has no plans for relocation of any existing residences or businesses as part of the completion of redevelopment activities. Traffic Circulation The Agency and the private sector have invested in major improvements to the traffic circulation system in support of the significant development that has already taken place in the Project Area. These improvement projects are discussed in Part II of this Report. The Program EIR that was prepared in 1997 analyzed a variety of land use alternatives for completion of the Project Area that could be undertaken under the amendments to the Specific Plan and the impacts on traffic from each. The Community Plan process that occurred in 2001 defined future development in a more specific manner, and reflects the current plan for the BART Station site. The traffic impacts from the Community Plan were projected to be less than the other land use alternatives evaluated in the Program EIR. The Fourth Amendment is not expected to generate any unanticipated impacts and is expected to have a beneficial impact on Project Area parking, circulation, alternative transportation modes, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. Environmental Quality Based on the information set forth in the Program EIR, all significant impacts to land use and planning; population, jobs & housing; geology; air quality; transportation; noise; public services; and cultural resources can be mitigated to an insignificant level. Availability of Community Facilities and Services (Other than Education) The Program EIR noted that police, fire and recreation services could be impacted by the various land use changes to the Specific Plan, and included mitigation measures for each of these areas. The Agency has also included a number of public improvement projects in the Fourth Amendment that are designed to improve community facilities and services. These include a child Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 36 Report to Board of Supervisors J:FAERASER &ASSOCIATES care center; a bicycle station, green space; and the purchase of fire suppression equipment. School Population and Quality of Education The current plan for the BART Station site would include the construction of up to 525 residential units. The Program EIR indicated that three school districts serve the Project Area, including the Mt. Diablo School District, the Walnut Creek School District, and the Acalanes Union High School District. The Program EIR also indicated that the student generation rate is 3.8 students per 100 dwelling units. Completion of the BART Station development could therefore add up to 20 students. The major mitigation impact measure called for in the Program EIR is the payment of school impact fees. The Legislature has provided for statutory pass-through payments to school districts and other taxing agencies, as added to the Community Redevelopment Law by Assembly Bill 1290. This statutory pass-through is-intended to alleviate any adverse impacts school districts may encounter as a result of redevelopment activities. Pursuant to the CRL, mandatory tax sharing payments will commence in 2005-06. Property Assessment and Taxes In general, the taxable valuations of property within the Project Area and adjoining area should increase as development to be facilitated in the Project Area occurs. New development within the Project Area will be assessed at market value, as determined by the County assessor. Within and outside the Project Area, the Assessor may increase property valuations for existing properties at the maximum rate of two percent per year, as allowed under Proposition 13, regardless of amended Project-related actions. And, in cases where properly changes hands, the Assessor will likely assess the property at the newly recorded market value. Additionally, the Assessor will reassess the added value to property and improvements due to any new development or rehabilitation that occurs. The only other matter potentially affecting taxes in the Project Area and surrounding area would be the possibility of additional levies resulting from formation of special assessment districts. The Agency has used assessment districts in the past, and intends to form one around the BART Station site to finance certain infrastructure in the Project Area. The specific type of district and the amount of assessments is not currently known. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 37 Report to Board of Supervisors 164 ERASER &ASSOCIATES RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT AND LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed from the Market The Agency has no plans to destroy or remove low and moderate income housing units from the Project Area. Projected Low- and Moderate-income Persons and Families Displacement The Agency has no plans to displace low and moderate income persons from the Project Area. Replacement Housing Plan Since the Agency has no plans to remove low and moderate income housing based on the Fourth Amendment, there is no need for a replacement housing plan. Replacement Housing to be Rehabilitated, Developed, or Constructed Pursuant to CRL Section 33413 There will be no replacement housing units that will need to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed pursuant to CRL Section 33413. Number and Location of Low- and Moderate-income Housing Units Other than Replacement Housing All of the approximately 525 new housing.units to be constructed with Agency assistance within the Project Area over the remaining duration of the redevelopment plan will be located in the BART Station site. The Agency anticipates that 20 percent of these units will be affordable to low and moderate income persons or families. The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of affordable dwelling units developed will remain available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low-income, moderate-income and very-low- income households, respectively, for the period of time required under the CRL. Financing Methods for Low-and Moderate-income Housing The Agency will meet replacement housing requirements and other obligations under the Redevelopment Plan and Community Redevelopment Law. Not less than 20 percent of all taxes which may be allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL shall be used by the Agency for purposes of Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 38 Report to Boardof Supervisors F�ERASER &ASSOCIATES increasing and improving the supply of low and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income and very low income households. This source of funding is expected to be utilized for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing. Timetable for Provision of Relocation, Rehabilitation and Replacement Housing Objectives The Agency has no plans for relocation or destruction of housing in the Project Area. OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT The proposed Fourth Amendment will have a beneficial impact upon residents, property owners, and businesses within the area. Continued implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will continue to bring about coordinated growth and . development and improvements in the public infrastructure system, which in turn will stimulate reinvestment. More importantly, continued implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will eliminate remaining blighting influences, which deter and negatively impact the Project Area. Through the Agency's involvement in facilitating new construction of low and moderate income housing, the redevelopment process will improve the quality of housing in the Project Area and increase the quantity and quality of housing in the County for low and moderate income households. Pleasant Hill BART Station Redevelopment Project Page 39 Report to Board of Supervisors ERASER 8 ASSOCIATES APPENDIX A REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION �� { t � �, ''"y �� THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 8,2005,the following votes: AYES: Commissioners Clark,Snyder,Battaglia,Wong,Mehlman and Terrell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gaddis Resolution No.:9-2005 SUBJECT: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa,State of California,recommending to the Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa adoption of California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")Findings and adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project,and making various findings in connection with such recommendations. The Contra Costa County Planning Commission RESOLVES THAT: The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the"Agency")has submitted to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission(the"Planning Commission")the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Proj ect(the"Plan Amendment");and The Planning Commission has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for the Amendment to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan,certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1998(the"EIR"),which explicitly listed the Plan Amendment as one of the actions studied in the EIR and is the environmental review document being relied on for the Plan Amendment pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law(Health and Safety Code Section 33333.3)and CEQA;and The effects on the environment caused by implementation of the Plan Amendment are covered by the EIR;and Section 33453 of the Community Redevelopment Law(Health and Safety Code,Section 33000 et seq.)provides that the Planning Commission is to review the proposed Plan Amendment and make its report and recommendation thereon to the Agency and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors(the"Board"),including a determination whether the Plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the County of Contra Costa(the"General Plan"); and Section 65402 of the Government Code provides in part: "(a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted,no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street,square,park or other public purposes,and no real property shall be disposed of,no street shall be vacated or abandoned,and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized,if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto,until the location,purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition,such street vacation or abandonment,or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof...." 1 320\081219124.1 " c A local agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph(a)nor dispose of any real property,nor construct or authorize a public building or structure,in any county or city,if such county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto,until the location,purpose and extent of such acquisition,disposition,or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction,as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof....";and The above required report and recommendation,including matters referred to in Section 65402 of the Government Code,are to be made to the Agency and the Board for their consideration in acting on the adoption of the Plan Amendment;and The Planning Commission has reviewed the General Plan,the proposed Plan Amendment,the EIR and the staff report accompanying this Resolution;and Part V.of the Redevelopment Plan incorporates the County's General Plan land uses and land use standards into the Redevelopment Plan,and the Plan Amendment would facilitate redevelopment of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project in a manner consistent with the General Plan. NOW THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA DOES RESOLVE;DECLARE,DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings, The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: (a) All required public notices have been given in connection with the actions set forth in this Resolution. (b) Based on the staff report accompanying this resolution,(1)pursuant to CEQ A Section 21166,no substantial changes are proposed to the project which will required major revisions of the EIR,no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances of the project which would require major revisions in the EIR and no new substantial information has become available which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified;and(2)pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168,the Plan Amendment will not have effects which were not examined in the EIR and no new mitigation measures would be required and therefore the Plan Amendment is within the scope of the EIR and no new environmental documentation is required. (c) Pursuant to Section 33346 of the Community Redevelopment Law,the proposed Plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan. (d) Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code,with respect to public activities which may be undertaken pursuant to the Plan Amendment,and that are referred to in Section 65402,such activities and undertakings conform to the General Plan. Section 2. Report and Recommendation. The Planning Commission hereby reports to the Agency and the Board the findings referred to in Section 1 above,recommends the g Y approval and adoption of the Plan Amendment as submitted by the Agency and recommends adoption of the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A,which are substantially the findings made by the Board of Supervisors upon certification of the EIR. In the event that prior to its adoption of the Plan Amendment,the Board desires to make any minor,technical,or clarifying p changes to the Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor,technical,or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for further report and recommendation,and hereby waives its report and recommendation under Section 33347 of the Community Redevelopment Law concerning any such change. 2 320\08\219124.1 Section 3. Transmittal. The Planning Commission's Secretary shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Agency and the Board for consideration as part of the Agency's Report to the Board pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law,and this Resolution shall be deemed the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the proposed Plan Amendment and contemplated public projects and activities thereunder,as required by applicable provisions of law. The instruction by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday,March 8,2005. Marvin Terrell, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa,State of California ATTEST: Dennis M.Barry,Secretary County of Contra Costa State of California 3 320108\219124.1 EXHIBIT A COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE- PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, MONITORING PLAN,AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. General Information and Description of the Project The project under consideration by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa("Board") and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Redevelopment Agency") is the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project, (the "Redevelopment Plan Amendment"). An Environmental Impact Report("EIR")for the Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and Contra Costa County General Plan(the "Specific Plan Amendment")was prepared by the County in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines and applicable local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. The process began on June 10, 1996,with the preparation of the Initial Study and the mailing of a Notice of Preparation to all interested and affected agencies. Two scoping meetings were held, one on July 1, 1996 and another on October 30, 1996 as well as extensive consultation with community groups, steering committees,technical advisory committees and the public before and during preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 1997 (the "DEIR"),which document is incorporated herein by this reference. The DEIR(SCH#9606204 1)was distributed for comment on August 20, 1997. The comment period was 120 days. On August 20, 1997,,the Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in the Contra Costa Times. Twenty five written comments were received and four people spoke at the public hearing held by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on the DEIR. The comments received on the DEIR and the County's responses to such comments are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated March, 1998 (the "FEIR"),which document is incorporated herein by this reference. At its meeting on April 6, 1998,the Zoning Administrator recommended that the Board certify the FEIR, and at its meeting on July 28, 1998,,the Planning Commission recommended the Board adopt the Specific Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment and the EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment came before the Board on October 6, 1998. On October 69 1998,the Board certified the EIR and 320\08\220018.1 A-1 adopted Findings, Monitoring Plan, and Statement of Overriding Considerations,which are substantially similar to the findings set forth in this document. The Board and Redevelopment Agency are currently considering adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment which has been processed as required under the California Community Redevelopment Law. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment is one mechanism for implementing the Specific Plan Amendment adopted in 1998. The EIR explicitly covered the Redevelopment Plan Amendment as one of the activities covered by the EIR. Based on information presented in the staff report,no substantial changes are proposed to the project which will require major revisions of the EIR,no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances of the project which would require major revisions in the EIR and no new substantial information has become available which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. In addition,the Redevelopment Plan Amendment will not have effects which were not examined in the EIR and no new mitigation measures would be required. Therefore,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2),the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is within the scope of the EIR and no new environmental documentation is required. II. The Record The record of the Board relating to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and its potential environmental effects includes: A. The Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. B. The Environmental Impact Report("EIR")prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment, consisting of the DEIR and the FEIR. C. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on April 6, 1998,the County Planning Commission on July 28, 1998 and on March 89 2005, and the Board during public hearings on the Specific Plan Amendment, the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the EIR, and the Board's response to evidence received before and at the public hearings. D. Matters of common knowledge to the Board which they consider, such as the Contra Costa County General Plan(the "General Plan"), and the County zoning ordinance. E. Records of meetings with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee,whose members include elected officials from communities around the BART station, members of public interest and neighborhood groups and BART representatives. F. Recommendations to the Steering Committee from the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),whose members include professional staff from communities around the BART station,members of public interest and neighborhood groups and BART representatives. 320\08\220018.1 A-2 G. Records of meetings with multiple government agencies including Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, BART,Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek,,Concord, East Bay Regional Park District, LAFCO, TRANSPAC and others. H. Records of the scoping sessions on the DEIR held on July 1, 1996 and October 30, 1996. I. Records of meetings with community groups, including the Walden Improvement Association, Fox Creek Residential Association,, Fair Oaks Community Stand Up Coalition and Walnut Creek Homeowner's Council. J. The Preliminary Report on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, dated February, 2005. K. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment. L. The final Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, dated 520050 III. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects The EIR identified fifty-three(53)potentially significant environmental effects attributed in part to the Specific Plan Amendment. These potentially.significant environmental effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapters II-X of the DEIR, and the comments and responses to comments on the EIR in Sections A through E of the FEIR. Each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the EIR,the proposed mitigation measures and corresponding monitoring program for that effect, and the Board's findings with regard to that effect are discussed in Section IV below. IV. Findings and Monitoring Proaram Notwithstanding the identification of the significant environmental effects,the Board and Redevelopment Agency are considering adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092,, and 15093. As required by the aforementioned references,the following findings are made for which there is substantial evidence in the record. Further,, as required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for each mitigation measure adopted by the Board. A. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impacts I. Land Use,-Plans and Policies Impact 1B a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Under Alternative 2 (Residential) studied in the DEIR, changing the land use designation from `Office' to residential 320\08\?20018.1 A-3 use for subarea I OA would introduce an inconsistency with General Plan and Specific Plan policies and subject future residents to high noise levels from the freeway. b. Mitigation Measure Retain the 'OF' designation for subarea l 0A. C. Fin . As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 2 (Residential) is not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment approved by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure for such impact will not be necessary. Furthermore,the subject development area is currently undergoing development as an office project;therefore, neither the change in land use designation nor the impact set forth in A.l.a above will result. 2. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 1 C a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Changing the designation to Mixed Use on subarea 14A would permit housing near the freeway,resulting in an inconsistency with General Plan and Specific Plan policies for noise. b. Mitigation Measur . The County adopted the following policy in the Land Use and Development section of the Specific Plan. "Developers proposing projects with high noise levels must show how the land use suitability standard can be met both inside and outside residential buildings and hotels and through architectural design and site planning that is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines." c. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Zoning Administration or County Planning Commission will act as approving agency after studies completed. County Department of Community Development to condition projects during entitlement process (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: As part of project review and approval process,require noise studies from project applicants and comply with the recommendations. (iii) Completion Date: Policy adopted as part of Specific Plan Amendment adoption. Follow-up studies to be completed during project review process. d. Findi . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIF, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A-2-a- above, 320\0K.2.20018.1 A-4 3. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 1F a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Housing and hotels uses allowed on subareas 7B/8 could be significantly impacted by freeway noise. b. Mitigation Measure . Developers proposing projects with high noise levels must show how land use suitability standard can be met both inside and outside residential buildings and hotels and through architectural design and site planning that is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development to condition projects during entitlement process. Zoning Administration or County Planning Commission will act as approving agency after studies completed. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: As part of project review and approval process,require noise studies from project applicants and comply with recommendations to meet standard set forth in mitigation measure. (iii) Completion Date: During entitlement process for individual projects. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Section II of the DEIR,the above impact may not be reduced to a less than significant level and is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will-be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 2F a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The Utility/Open Space designation would permit potentially conflicting vehicle,pedestrian and bicycle uses in subareas 6, 13 and 16. b. Mitigation MeasureThe County adopted the following policy: Nonessential motorized vehicles are to be kept out of the utility/open space corridors for either parking or circulation(e.g.,no public road use). Essential vehicles are those needed for service, maintenance, limited deliveries, emergency response or transit. (ii) The County adopted the following policy: Any Utility Open Space Corridor uses of subareas 6 and 13 that are of or above grade shall be limited to the Iron Horse Trail (and pathways connecting to the trail),permanently landscaped open space, and 320\08\220018.1 A-5 a fixed guideway. Any part of subareas 6 and 13 reserved for a fixed guideway shall be temporarily landscaped until construction of the fixed guideway begins. (iii) The County adopted the following policy: When a fixed guideway line is proposed for the Southern Pacific right-of-way, it shall be sited and designed in a manner that minimizes conflict with trail uses, does not create safety hazards, is aesthetically compatible with open space use and does not reduce the trail width available for-pedestrians and bicyclists. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policy, County Public Works Department installs signs and barriers for mitigation measure (i), and Board adopted policies, design review before the Zoning Administrator and County Department of Public Works implements for mitigation measures(ii) and(iii). (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure (i), signs and barriers shall be installed by County Public Works Department to preclude vehicle access within two years of adoption of Specific Plan Amendment. For mitigation measure (ii) and(iii),within one year of adopting the Specific Plan Amendment,the County shall initiate preparation of a management program to show how the fixed guideway transit and trail use can be safely accommodated in an aesthetically pleasing manner and County shall prepare a site plan for areas 6, 13 and 16 to show how the pedestrian and bicycle paths can be accommodated with the fixed guideway. The fixed guideway shall be subject to design review to assure compliance with mitigation and the area reserved for the fixed guideway shall be temporarily landscaped. (iii) Completion Date: For policy mitigation measure(s), completed when Specific Plan Amendment was adopted; for installation of signs and barriers, within two years of adoption of Specific Plan Amendment; for site plan preparation, after fixed guideway line is proposed; and for all other mitigation measures, within one year of adopting Specific Plan Amendment. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.4.a. above. 5. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 2G a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. In the Pleasant Hill BART station area, incompatibilities of building scale and style could occur. b. Mitigation Measures(s). 320\08\220018.1 A-6 (i) Adopted the following policy: The Specific Plan seeks to balance regional and local uses of the station area through appropriate site planning which places high intensity, less sensitive uses west of the BART station and lower-intensity local-serving uses near adjacent neighborhoods. Revise the Urban Design Map consistent with the above statement. (ii) Adopted the following policy: Require developers of mixed use projects to plan and demonstrate how their designs will control or eliminate land use incompatibilities between different proposed uses, including but not limited to noise,traffic, parking and security. Among the techniques that could be used are separate office and residential elevators with floor keys to enter residential areas, sound insulation and provision of buffer zones and landscaping. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policies, County Department of Community Development conditions projects during entitlement process,Board or County Planning Commission(depending on the type of application) shall approve final design as part of project approval. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition development plans to comply with the mitigation. (iii) Completion Date: Adopted policies when Specific Plan Amendment adopted and implement on an ongoing basis as development proposals are submitted. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.5.a above. 6. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 3A a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. A wide range of newly permitted uses could cause significant impacts related to visual quality,traffic, noise, site population, demand for public services, intensification of site use, and diurnal use of the station area, compared to existing conditions. b. Mitigation Measure See A.5.b above. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: See A.5.c. (i) above. 320\08\'220018.1 A-7 (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: See A.5.c.(ii) above. (iii) Completion Date: See A.5.c.(iii)above. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. It should be noted that the Specific Plan Amendment reduced the development potential on subareas 11/12 to 800,000 square feet which should substantially reduce the noted impact, although it is unclear whether to insignificant levels. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the above impact may not be reduced to a less than significant level in and is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 7. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 6 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Several new policies and statements in the Specific Plan Amendment would enable views of Mt. Diablo as seen from the BART platform to be impacted. b. Mitigation Measures(s). (i) Retained the language of the Specific Plan regarding views of Mt. Diablo and added language to encourage new development to create new viewing opportunities. (11) The height of buildings on subarea 12 could be reduced to five to seven stories and building mass sited such that existing views are preserved from some sections of BART platform. Building.height on subarea 12 could be shifted to subarea I I in a manner that does not obstruct Mt. Diablo views. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Board adopted policy and County Department of Community Development monitors compliance during project entitlement process. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Revised Specific Plan as follows: Revise Figure 7.1, Form and Massing Urban Design Policy Diagram, and Figure 7, Space and Site Requirements Matrix,to reflect five to seven story height on subarea 12 and 10- 15 story height on subarea 11. (iii) Completion Date: Policies adopted when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and implementation to occur as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. 320\08\220018.1 A-8 d., Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter Il of the DEIR9 the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.7.a. above. 8. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 7 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. New construction and future uses could have a significant impact on trees. b. Mitigation Measures(s). (i) Replace trees on a 2:1 basis. Use drought-resistant species. Require developers to inventory all trees on property and submit to Community Development Department. (ii) Integrate tree planting with open space, landscaping and pedestrian circulation plans to unify station area and circulation among the subareas. (iii) Enforce the County Tree Ordinance regarding preservation of trees. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policies,Zoning Administrator or County Planning Commission approves final project and County Department of Community Development conditions development projects and monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Implement the adopted mitigation policies and follow standard procedures for implementing the County Tree Ordinance. (iii) Completion Date: Policies adopted when Specific Plan Amendment was adopted. Implementation of mitigation and monitoring when granting approval to individual projects. d. Finding., The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.8.a. above. 9. Land Use,-Plans and Policies Impact 8 a. Potentially S ignificant Environmental Effect. Depending on the amount and location of signs installed,there could be a significant impact. 320\08\220018.1 A-9 b. Mitigation Measur The DEIR suggests the following: "Limit signage to one on each new building and no additional signs on existing buildings if they would exceed one. Signs should have a degree of uniformity in appearance to foster a sense of identity within the station area ." The Specific Plan Amendment contains 16 policies on signs which both limit signage and encourages a unified appearance. Based on County staff s experience with building owners operating in a competitive business environment, County staff believes limiting businesses to one sign is not a commercially reasonable or feasible mitigation. Thus,the policies set forth in the Specific Plan Amendment are proposed as aself-mitigation measure. C, Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policy, County Department of Community Development conditions development projects during project approval process and monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: County Development Department will condition development proposals as called for in Specific Plan Amendment and monitors compliance. (iii) Completion Date: Policy adopted when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and mitigation implemented and monitored when granting approval to individual projects. d. Finding. The mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR is rejected due to the commercial and economic infeasibility of limiting buildings to one sign. However the Specific Plan Amendment policies on signage have been adopted as mitigation measures and the above monitoring program is hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in this Section A.9 of these findings and Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made the adoption of these mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid of substantially lesser the significant environmental effect described in A.9.a above. 10. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 9 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Elimination of the Southern Pacific right-of-way for use as an arterial street is a major change in land use and circulation that shifts traffic to other, already heavily used streets that serve station area traffic. b. Mitigation Measur . Reduce the amount of development permitted in the station area such that traffic shifted to surrounding streets does not contribute to loss of livability. C. Monitoring Program. 320\08\220018.1 A-10 (i) Responsibility: Board adopted the policy and County Department of Community Development monitors development projects and their traffic impacts. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Maximum development in subareas I I and 12 is reduced as indicated in revised Figure 7, Space and Site Requirements Matrix, in proposed Specific Plan Amendment (iii) Completion Date: Policy adopted at Specific Plan Amendment adoption and monitored as each development project is proposed and reviewed. d. Fin . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 11. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 10 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Widening of Treat Blvd. would result in land use and visual impacts. b. Mitigation Measure The DEIR includes potential mitigation measures as follows: (i) deterz ine which widening option would have the least impact on existing residential buildings, and chose that alternative; and (ii)provide sufficient landscaping to recreate the quality of vegetation that would be removed to widen the roadway. C. Fin Although the County will review and support the City of Walnut Creek's efforts to implement such measures,the County does not have jurisdiction to implement these measure(s) and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s) are available to the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section A.l 1 of these findings, the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations) below. It should be noted that the City of Walnut Creek City Council has written to the County to indicate that it will not pursue the full widening of Treat Boulevard project and is considering alternatives to the project. It is anticipated that the impacts,associated with this project will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 12. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact I I A 320\08\220018.1 A-11 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Blvd. would result in visual impacts from proposed retaining walls. b. Mitigation Measur The DEIR includes potential mitigation measures as follows: (i)use textured concrete and other decorative elements on the retaining walls to improve their appearance; (ii)provide landscaping along the western retaining wall to soften its appearance; (iii)provide attractive lighting at the base of the wall; and(iv)move the Black.Angus Restaurant to southernmost portion of its site. C. Findi The County supports such mitigation measures, however, the County does not have jurisdiction over the proposed project and potential mitigation measure(s), and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s) are available to the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section A.12 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that City of Pleasant Hill staff have indicated at several public meetings,that the City does not wish to pursue this project, although though no official action has been taken by the City Council regarding this project. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proqJct will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 13. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 11B a. Potentially,Significant Environmental Effect. The North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Blvd. would result in access impacts to existing businesses. b. Mitigation Measur The DEIR includes potential mitigation measure(s)as follows: (i)provide alternative access to businesses affected by the North Main Street realignment and(ii)move the Black Angus restaurant to the southernmost portion of its site to improve access. C. Findi The County supports such mitigation measures, however, the County does not have jurisdiction over the proposed project and potential mitigation measure(s), and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s) are available to the County. Based upon the information and analysis in this Section A.13 of these findings and Chapter Il of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that City of Pleasant Hill staff have indicated at several public meetings,that the City does not wish to pursue this project, although though no official action has been taken by the City Council regarding this project. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proejct will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 320\08\220018.1 A-12 14. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 12 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The fixed guideway transit line could have significant construction and operational impacts. b. Mitigation Measures . The DEIR includes potential mitigation measure(s) as follow: (i) if and when a fixed guideway project is proposed, it will be subject to its own environmental review process, and (ii) County shall prepare a management program that demonstrates how temporary uses of the right-of-way will be established in a manner that does not obstruct or adversely impact the construction and operation of the fixed guideway transit. BART shall be consulted regarding the management program. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Guideway-proposing agency shall conduct environmental review process with County Department of Community Development reviewing and participating as a responsible agency under CEQA. County Department of Community Development to process and prepare the management plan with Zoning Administration to approve. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Undertake creation of a management program that can be implemented to attain the objectives of preserving the right-of- way for a fixed guideway. (iii) Completion Date: Environmental review process shall take place when project is proposed and funded and management plan shall be prepared before granting approval for temporary uses. d. Finding. The County supports mitigation measure (i), however, the County does not have primary jurisdiction over the approval of the fixed guideway transit, and therefore adopts mitigation measure (i) and its related monitoring program as a responsible agency. Mitigation measure (ii) and related monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program may only partially avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.14.a. above. Therefore,this impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect and will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section IV (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 15. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 13C a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Parking demand for the movie theaters is higher than for any other land use and could result in overflow parking on neighborhood streets. 320\08\220018.1 A-13 b. Mitigation Measures Retain the movie theater policies of the existing Specific Plan. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policy; County Department of Community Development monitors compliance with project application. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Adopt the proposed Specific Plan Amendment without any changes in the amount of movie seats that would be permitted. Permit only smaller theaters incidental to other uses. (iii) Completion Date: When the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR5 the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.15.a. above. 16. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 15A a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The array of uses permitted for subarea 12 has been increased to allow educational and cultural facilities which may result in off-commute and weekend use of the site,attraction of a regional population, dramatically increased site utilization and high parking demand. b., Mitigation Measur The County will require environmental review of any major development project for subarea 12 to the extent that its impacts were not covered in the EIR. C, Monitoring Pro ram. (i) Responsibility: Contra Costa County Department of Community Development with project approval by County Planning Commission or Board. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Determine whether an EIR is needed for subarea 12 proposals using the Initial Study checklist to identify potentially significant impacts; determine whether the impacts were adequately assessed in the Specific Plan Amendment EIR; undertake additional environmental review as appropriate. (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing as development plans for subarea 12 are proposed. 320\08\.220018.1 A-14 d. Findi The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEM the above impact may be a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 17. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 15C a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The proposed `Kiss— and-Ride"commuter drop-off facility proposed for subarea 12 would cause increases in localized traffic and circulation impacts. b. Mitigation MeasureWhen asite-specific circulation plan is proposed,mitigation measures will be recommended, if needed. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: Contra Costa.County Department of Community Development to condition project applications and conduct review; Board approves final project. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Review circulation plan in relation to initial study and development plan review. (iii) Completion Date: When development plans for subarea 12 are proposed. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the above impact may be a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 18. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 17, a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. There are a number of ways in which policies governing the station area are inconsistent and/or ambiguous. b. Mitigation MeasureThe Specific Plan Amendment shall be revised to be internally consistent and clear. C. Monitoring Program. 320\08\220018.1 A-15 (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development reviews and revises; Board approves. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Undertake a detailed review of the Specific Plan Amendment proposed for adoption and eliminate any inconsistent, ambiguous or contradictory statements so that the intent of the plan is clear to the public and all users over time. (iii) Completion Date: Already completed at Steering Committee level, and adopted by Board when final Specific Plan Amendment adopted. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program has avoided or substantially lessened the significant environment effect described in A.18.a above. 19. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 18 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative lA would generate the highest intensity of use of any of the alternatives. It would place a high proportion of future office development closer to residential areas b. Mitigation Measur . Reduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses. C. Monitoring Program. Although Alternative I A is not the proposed Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the Board, a portion of the Alternative lA, which would allow up to 800,000 square feet of office space on subareas 11/12 and would allow up to 250,800 square feet of office on subarea 8 are proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment. However,,the amount of square footage allowed in these subareas is substantially less than that studied under Alternative 1 A so the proposed mitigation measure has been adopted directly into the Specific Plan Amendment. d. Finding. As noted in c above,the proposed mitigation measure to reduce overall building square footage has been incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,therefore such mitigation measure is deemed adopted and monitored with adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment as it relates to subareas 8, 11 and 12. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, except as noted above,Alternative 1 A was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendments adopted by the Board and this additional mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will not be necessary. 20. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 19 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 1 B would add the second highest amount of residences of all of the alternatives. 320\08\w'1.20018.1 A-16 b. Mitigation Measure Reduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 1 B was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board,and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and corresponding monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 21. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 20 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 2 would be least compatible of all alternatives with the existing office uses in the station area and would not take advantage of joint development opportunities afforded by the site. b. Mitigation MeasureImpacts of this alternative could be improved by diversifying the land uses. Locate non-residential uses between the BART tracks and the freeway and residential uses east of the BART tracks. Lower the maximum building height from 15 stories to 12 stories C. Fin As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 2 (Residential)was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and corresponding monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 22. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 21 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 3 would have significant impacts on land use compatibility with respect to noise,building height and regional-serving uses. b. Mitigation Measure Site residential buildings along the northern and eastern perimeter. Place office buildings in the center of the station area. Lower the 15-story building height limit on subareas I I-and 12. Site residential use on subarea 7B/8 in a manner that uses office buildings to shield the residential buildings from freeway noise. Site regional-serving uses between the BART tracks and the freeway. Provide adequate neighborhood-serving uses and site them in a manner that shields residences from regional uses. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 3 was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 23. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 22 320\08\220018.1 A-17 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 4A would have significant land use compatibility impacts. b. Mitigation Measur . Reduce scale of development such that parking demand can be satisfied in the station area and PM peak hour traffic is reduced. Require shared parking arrangements with existing buildings and future projects. Change land use designations to increase compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. Eliminate residential exposure to unacceptable noise levels along I-680. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 4A was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact was not necessary. 24. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 23 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 4B would have significant land use compatibility impacts. b. Mitigation Measur . Reduce scale of development such that parking demand can be satisfied in the station area and PM peak hour traffic is reduced. Require shared parking arrangements with existing buildings and future projects. Change land use designations to increase compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. Eliminate hotel room exposure to noise levels along I-680. C. Monitoring Program. Although Alternative 4B was not in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, a substantial portion of the Alternative 4B is incorporated as part of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed mitigation measure(s) for Alternative 4B have been adopted directly into the Specific Plan Amendment. d. Finding. As noted in c above,the proposed mitigation measures have been incorporated into the adopted Specific Plan Amendment,therefore such mitigation measures are deemed adopted and monitored with adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment. Alternative 4B was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the Board and thus additional mitigation measures(s) and monitoring program will not be necessary. 25. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 24 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Environmental impacts for Alternative 5 would be a combination of those described for the Active Project, Mixed Use and Base Case alternatives. 320\08\2.2001s.1 A-18 b. Mitigation Measure Reduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses. C. Fin As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 5 was not the alternative adopted in the Specific Plan Amendment, and thus the.above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. B. Housing, Population and Jobs Impacts 1. Housing, Population, and Jobs Impact 3 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Under Alternative 5, reduce by 34%the amount of housing that would be built compared to the Base Case. b. Mitigation Measure Provide more housing under the density bonus alternative. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 5 was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. C. Transportation Impacts 1. Transportation IMpact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Buskirk Avenue and Geraldine Drive will operate at LOS F. b. Mitigation Measure (i)It is recommended that the Buskirk Ave./Geraldine Dr. intersection be signalized and the westbound approach to the intersection should be realigned opposite the existing shopping center driveway to create a 90 degree approach; or(ii)two lanes should be provided on the realigned westbound approach and the design should accommodate future widening of Buskirk by the City of Pleasant Hill. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: City of Pleasant Hill to be responsible for mitigation measures. County Department of Public Works to establish County share of improvement costs, if any. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Establish County share of improvement costs. 320\08\220018.1 A-19 (iii) Completion Date: In conjunction with improvements to Buskirk Avenue being planned by the City of Pleasant Hill. d. Fin The intersection in question is outside the jurisdiction of the County and thus the improvement mitigations are recommended to the City of Pleasant Hill and are deemed legally infeasible by the County. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program related to cost-sharing are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.La. above. 2. Transportation Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The following study intersections will exceed the established level of service standard in at least one peak hour for year 2010 conditions: • Buskirk Avenue at Oak Road/1-680 northbound off-ramp (PM) • Buskirk Avenue at Wayne Drive (PM) • Buskirk Avenue at Geraldine Drive (AM, PM) b. Mitigation Measure Buskirk Avenue at Oak Road/I-680 northbound off-ramp: The Buskirk approach should be widened to provide 21eft-turn lanes and 1 shared through and right-turn lane. Buskirk Avenue at Wayne Drive: The westbound approach should be modified to provide a dual right-turn lane. Buskirk Avenue at Geraldine Drive. The intersection should be improved as described under C.l.b. above. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Intersection Levels of Service shall be monitored with each development proposal so mitigation measure(s)are implemented prior to exceeding established Level of Service standard. (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing with development proposals. d. Findi . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.2.a. above. 3. Transportation Impact 3 320\08\220018.1 A-20 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Future developments outside the Specific Plan area may result in traffic delays. b. Mitigation Measure(s). The County shall require the review of traffic impacts of individual future developments outside the Specific Plan area. Part of this traffic review shall be to identify the incremental impact of each project on the Routes of Regional Significance and assignment of an appropriate share of the unfunded costs, if any, for the improvements needed to off-set cumulative traffic impacts. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works to figure and approve appropriate cost-sharing and County Department of Community Development to condition proeJcts. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Require traffic impact study. (iii) Completion Date: During entitlement process for individual projects. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Transportation Impact 4A a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. (i)Intensified competition for scarce BART parking will continue and may result in patrons arriving earlier to seek available parking. BART and the County will require that adequate parking be provided for whatever project is proposed. (ii) Shared parking, if required and necessary,will only be allowed by BART during non-peak hours. Parking managements strategies,as called for in the DEIR and in BART's 1996 Access Strategy Plan,will require approval of the Federal Highway Administration', if they involve the use of the existing garage. b. Mitigation Measure . Implement aggressive parking management strategies for any development on the BART property to insure unauthorized use of the BART patron parking does not occur and to assure compliance with goals of BART's ongoing access planning. C. Monitofing Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development will impose conditions on any development proposal on the BART property and "120\08\1.20018.1 A-21 require annual reports from BART. County Planning Commission or Board to have final project approval. (ii) Monitorina ction to be Taken: Development plan review. (iii) Completion Date: When individual development applications are considered. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.4.a. above. 5. Transportation Impact 4C a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The estimated 100- 125 patrons added in the peak direction by Specific Plan Amendment development will lengthen the queues of patrons exiting the station in the PM peak period. b. Mitigation Measur . Implement BART's access plan. Identify and require new development to help fund implementation of measures to optimize BART operations. Horizontal and vertical (i.e., elevator and escalator)pedestrian flows-shall be increased in order to maintain safe access and egress from the station. C. Monitoring Prggam. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community' Development monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Development plan review. (iii) Completion Date: On-going, as projects are proposed. d. Findi . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.5.a. above. 6. Transportation Impact 5 a. Potentially Si6mificant Environmental Effect. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not include a number of alternative modes of transportation measures identified in the Specific Plan Traffic Report. 320\08\22001 s.1 A-22 b. Mitigation MeasuresAmend the Specific Plan to include an additional policy under Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Circulation as follows: "Policy 9. Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan fees may be used to finance the construction of infrastructure improvements which support alternative modes of transportation." C. Monitoring Proam. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policy, County Department of Community Development to assess fees. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Use fees to finance alternative modes. (111) Completion Date: Policy adopted when Specific Plan Amendment was adopted. Fee collection on an ongoing basis as projects are proposed. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.6.a. above. 7. Transportation Impact 6 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Intensification of uses within the Specific Plan Area and increased ridership on BART will increase the potential for through traffic in surrounding neighborhoods. b. Mitigation Measure Developments within the Specific Plan Area should provide bonds in an amount established by the County Board to be used for traffic calming devices in neighborhoods impacted by traffic generated within the Specific Plan Area. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development conditions developments during entitlement process with County Planning Commission or Board having final proejct approval authority. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Include within conditions of approval for new development. (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing basis as development applications are submitted. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the 320\08\220018.1 A-23 DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.7.a. above. 8. Transportation Impact 7 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Oak Road at Wayne Drive (both AM and PM peak hours)and Oak Road at Jones Road(PM peak hour only)would be impacted in 2010 under Alternatives 1 A and 1 B* b. Mitigation Measur The westbound approach of Oak Road at Wayne Drive should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, 1 through-lane and 1 right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Oak Road at James Road should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, 1 shared through- and right-turn lane and 1 exclusive right-turn lane. C. Findinu. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,neither Alternative 1 A nor 1 B are the alternatives in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and the monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 9. Transportation Impact 8 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Jones Road would be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in 2010 under Alternative 2. b. Mitigation MeasurThe westbound approach should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, 1 through-lane and 1 right-turn lane. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 2 was not the alternative in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 10. Transportation Impact 9 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Wayne Drive would be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in 2010 under Alternative 3. b. Mitigation MeasuresThe westbound approach should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, 1 through-lane and 1 right-turn lane. 320\08\220018.1 A-24 C. Findin . As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 3 was not the alternative in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board,, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 11. Transportation Impact 11 a. Potentially SiMificant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Wayne Drive would be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in 2010 under Alternative 5. b. Mitigation Measures(s). The westbound approach should be modified to provide I left-turn lane, 1 through-lane and I right-turn lane. C. Findin . As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 5 was not the alternative in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 12. Transportation Impact 13 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The Treat Blvd. widening project would result in construction-related impacts on traffic flow in the project area. b. Mitigation Measures(s). Construction activities on Treat Blvd. shall be limited to non-peak commute times (9 AM to 4 PM and 7 PM to 5 AM) and the contractor shall maintain at least two eastbound and three westbound through lanes open during peak commute times. C. Findin . The County supports this mitigation measure, however, the County does not have jurisdiction and thus this mitigation is deemed infeasible and the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that the City of Walnut Creek City Council has indicated in writing that it will not pursue the full widening of Treat Blvd. Project and is considering alternatives to the project. It is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proejct will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 13. Transportation Impact 14 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Widening of North Main Street will have several impacts on local access and may affect the Black Angus site. 320\08\2200 1 8.1 A-25 b. Mitigation Measures(.$). Some right-of-way acquisition will be required, which will impact the Black Angus restaurant. A complete traffic control plan shall be developed as part of the final design of the North Main Redevelopment Project. C. Monitoring Proms (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Assure adequate access remains for restaurant and monitor implementation of traffic control plan. (iii) Completion Date: When project is proposed and funded. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives)and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. D. Air Quality Impacts 1. Air Quality Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulates. b. Mitigation Measur . During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: (i) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. (ii) Water or cover stock piles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. (iii) Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all construction hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. (iv) Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. (v) Sweep street daily,preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. For all constructions sites greater than 4 acres: 320\08\.'7.20018.1 A-26 (vi) Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. (vii) Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). (viii) Limit traffic speeds in unpaved areas to 15 mph. (ix) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures when earth is exposed in order to prevent silt runoff to public roadways prior to construction. (x) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Building Inspection conditions projects as part of project approval and monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of development approval. (iii) Completion Date: During project approval process for individual developments. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter V of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in D.l.a. above. 2. Air Qualily Lmp 3 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Area. All alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants (ROG,NO, PM10). b. Mitigation Measure . Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel modes discussed in the Section C above. To mitigate regional air quality impacts: (i) Provide secure and convenient residential and non- residential bicycle parking (ii) Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking garages. 320\08\220018.1 A-27 Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART. (iv) Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR. (v) Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally possible. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure(s) (i)-(iii),the County Department of Community Development will impose mitigation measure(s) as conditions of project approval and County Planning Commission or Board will have final project approval. For mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v),the Board have adopted these measures when it adopted the Specific Plan Amendment. (ii) Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure(s) (i)-(iii), require as condition of approval. For mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v), adopt goals and enforcement procedures. (111) Completion Date: Ongoing as projects are submitted for approval for mitigation measure(s) (i)-(iii). At the time of Specific Plan Amendment adoption for mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v). d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter V of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) Section and VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. E. Noise Impacts I. Noise Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Development in subareas 7B/8, I OA and 14A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of`normally unacceptable' and `clearly unacceptable' noise levels for development. b. Mitigation Measur (i)Exterior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site planning and/or use of soundwalls; and(ii) interior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows, insulation,full air-conditioning, or building facade treatments. 320\08\22001 8.1 A-28 C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure(i), Community Development Department will condition as part of development entitlement process and County Planning Commission or Board shall have final project approval. For mitigation measure (ii), Community Development Department and County Department of Building Inspection Department will condition proejcts, with Department of Building Inspection having final approval authority. (11) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Require as part of entitlement process. (iii) Completion Date: For mitigation measure(i),prior to completion of initial study. For mitigation measure(ii), at project review, approval and when issuing a building permit. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and-monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in E.l.a. above. 2. Noise Impact 3 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Plan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. b., Mitigation Measure Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM—5 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; • Use "quiet" gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. • Retain a disturbance coordinator .to monitor construction activities and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed, consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. C. Monitoring Program. 320\08\220018.1 A-29 (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development and County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition project approval and grading and building permits with these mitigations. Review construction contracts to insure they include applicable measures. (iii) Completion Date: During entitlement process. d. Findi . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in E.2.a. above. 3. Noise Impact 4 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Traffic generated by cumulative development outside the Specific Plan area would cause a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along certain road segments within the Specific Plan Area. Development within the Specific Plan Area would add to cumulative noise levels. b. Mitigation Measur . No mitigation is feasible nor a monitoring plan necessary since traffic generated outside the Specific Area is not within the jurisdiction of the County. County already participates in joint planning for regional traffic impacts. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. C. Findi Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section E.3 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Noise Impact Sa a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Proposed roadway improvements for the Treat Boulevard widening and the North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection would result in construction-related noise impact. b. Mitigation Measur & If the Treat Blvd. and N. Main St. road improvements are undertaken,recommend to agencies with jurisdiction to implement the County construction noise policy and the construction noise mitigations set forth in E-2-b- above. C. Findi . County mitigation is not feasible,nor a County monitoring plan necessary, since these improvement projects are outside the jurisdiction of the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and this Section 320\08\'220018.1 A-30 E.4 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that both applicable jurisdictions have indicated, formally in the case of Walnut Creek and informally in the case of Pleasant Hill, that they do not intend to carry out the projects as studied in the EIR. Thus it anticipated the impacts of these projects will be less than those indicated in the EIR. 5. Noise Impact Sb a. Potentially Significant Environmental_Effect. Increase in noise due to Treat Boulevard widening and North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection improvements would impact homes along widened roadway corridors. b. Mitigation Measures Recommend to agencies with jurisdiction to undertake project-specific noise studies and follow recommendations to decrease interior and exterior noise to acceptable levels. C. Fin County mitigation is not feasible,nor a County monitoring plan necessary, since these improvement projects are outside the jurisdiction of the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and in this Section E.5 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts), Section VI (Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that both applicable jurisdictions have indicated,formally in the case of Walnut Creek and informally in the case of Pleasant Hill,that they do not intend to carry out the projects as studied in the EIR. Thus it is anticipated that the impacts of these projects will be less than those indicated in the EIR. F. Geology and Soils Impacts I. Geology and Soils Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Strong to violent earthquake grounds a.1r-m;nrfmY on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements, and in extreme cases, loss of life. b. Mitigation Measure Require geotechnical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement, and liquefaction. (i)Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately compacted(i.e. minimum 90%relative compaction as defined by AS TI D 15 5 7)to significantly reduce both seismically-induced and natural fill settlement. (ii)All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure. (iii) 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 320\08\.'.1.2001 8.1 A-31 liquefaction potential exists,the report shall include measures to control drainage,including measures aimed at controlling damage to buildings,buried pipelines and surface parking. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: During project review. d. Findi The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in F.l.a. above. 2. Geology and Soils Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements. b. Mitigation Measur (i) The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed. Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects shall provide criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code(UBC) and County Code requirements on the basis of subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. (ii)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. C, Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Building Inspection Department. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: During project review. d. Findi . The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in F.2.a. above. 320\08\220018.1 A-32 G. Schools Impact 1. Schools Impact I a. Potentially Siaificant Environmental Effect. Development would attract school-aged children. b, Mitigation Measures(s). Collect$1.65/square foot of residential development and $.25/square foot of commercial development. The school district has already adopted the school impact fees. C. Monitoring Proms (i) Responsibility: County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Collect impact fees. (iii) Completion Date: Prior to issuing building permits. d. Fin . The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter V111 of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in G.l.a. above. H. Fire Protection Services Impact 1 Fire Protection Services Impact I a., Potentially Significant Environmental Effect.. All alternatives is would increase traffic which would have the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. b. Mitigation Measures(s). (i) Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. (ii)Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprinklers, smoke detectors, early warning systems,fire rated walls and other requirements of the building code. (iii) Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies and features that address fire suppression,training,traffic signalization to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, street widths and setbacks to facilitate fire protection. co Monitoring Proms. A 320\08\1.2001 8.1 -33 (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measures (i) and(ii), (iii),County Fire District. For miti%zation measure County Board adontedpolicy when Specific %Wfadopted Plan Amendment adopted and County Building Inspection Department reviews compliance, (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure(s) (i) and(ii),review plans for adequacy of life safety systems. For mitigation measure (iii), draft policies for the Specific Plan Amendment. (iii) Completion Date: For mitigation measures (i) and (ii), ongoing onduring go* projectandesign d prior to issuing a construction permitfor developments; and prior to adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment for mitigation measure(iii). d, Finding. The above mitigation measures) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in H.l.a. above, I. Police Protection Services Impact 1. Police Protection Service Impact I a.. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. b. Mitigation Measures(sl. (i)For new developments, work with Sheriff's office to identify design features of project which discourage criminal behavior. (ii) Development in the station area may be required to provide a BART police station depending on the scale of development. (iii) If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9. 7A5 7B and 8, discussions should take place among the BART, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek Police Departments and the County Sheriff s Department to determine if and when BART police should be part of the enforcement effort for these areas. (iv) 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. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development shall condition projects. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Applications shall be forwarded to Sheriff s Office, BART Police Department, Pleasant Hill Police Department, and Walnut Creek Police Department as appropriate for proposed development. Completion Date: As needed during project design andreviewS 320\08\220018.1 A-34 d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in 1.La. above. J. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Impacts 1. Parks,Recreation and Open Space Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect.New residential development would result in greater use of existing recreational facilities which are already highly utilized. b. Mitigation Measure The County already requires new residential development to dedicate land or to pay park dedication fees. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development. Monitoring Action to be Taken: Determine the parkland dedication requirement for each new residential development. (iii) Completion Date: Prior to issuing a building permit. d. Findi The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR9 the finding is made.that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in J.l.a. above. 2. Parks,Recreation and Open Space Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All of the alternatives have the potential to significantly impact the Iron Horse Regional Trail. b. Mitigation Measure . (i) Submit development plans for review and comment to the EBRPD to coordinate station area development with the completion of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Measures that would improve the trail are bike parking facilities, a bike rental concession and seating along the trail. (ii) Remove the temporary parking in the Southern.Pacific right-of-way when the lease expires to facilitate completion of the Iron Horse Trail in the station area. 320\08\..'.7.20018.1 A-3 5 C, Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure (i), County Department of Community Development will impose mitigation measures on all new development. For mitigation measure (ii), County Department of Public Works with cooperation from BART and Caltrans. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure (i), condition development with East Bay Regional Park District review and comment for any construction projects that impact the Iron Horse trail. For mitigation measure (ii), validate removal of temporary parking and cordon off the area so packers cannot enter. (iii) Completion Date: For mitigation measure (i), as needed during project planning and review, and prior to approval. For mitigation(ii), when lease expires. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in J.2.a. above. K. Water Supply and Facilities Impact 1. Water SuIpply and Facilities Impact 3 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Road improvement projects could impact utilities by interrupting service. b. Mitigation Measur Require construction contracts and plans to demonstrate how the road builders will coordinate with utility companies and service providers to assure that service will not be intentionally or accidentally interrupted during construction. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: Contra Costa.County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Convene meetings to coordinate work of road builders and utilities companies. (iii) Completion Date: As needed during project planning and construction. 320\08\1.20018.1 A-36 d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in K.l.a. above. L. Cultural Resources Impact I. Cultural Resources Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The station area is archaeologically sensitive and future development could impact significant cultural resources. b. Mitigation Measures . Require archaeological studies be made to demonstrate the presence or absence of cultural resources and the significance of resources if present. Follow the procedure for site evaluation as detailed in the DEIR,page IX-3. C* Monitoring Proam. (i) Responsibility: Contra Costa County Department of Community Development with final project approval by County Planning Commission or Board. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Require as a condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: As needed at time of project application and prior to granting site or construction permits. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IX of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in L.l.a. above. V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The following significant impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are considered unavoidable: A. Housing and hotel uses allowed on subareas7B/8 could be significantly impacted by freeway noise. B. A wide range of newly permitted uses could cause significant impacts related to visual quality,traffic, noise, site population, demand for public services, intensification of site use, and diurnal use of the station areas, compared to existing conditions. 320\08220018.1 A-37 C. Elimination of the Southern Pacific right-of-way for use as-an arterial street is a major change in land use and circulation that shifts traffic to other, already heavily used streets that serve station area traffic. D. Widening of Treat Boulevard would result in land use and visual impacts. E. The North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Boulevard would result in visual impacts from proposed retaining walls. F. The fixed guideway transit line could have significant construction and operational impacts. G. The array of uses permitted for subarea 12 has increased to allow educational and cultural facilities which may result in off-commute and weekend use of the site, attraction of a regional population, dramatically increased site utilization and high parking demand. H. The proposed "Kiss-and-Ride" commuter drop-off facility proposed for subarea 12 would cause increases in localized traffic and circulation impacts. I. Alternatives 4A and 4B could have significant land use compatibility impacts. J. The Treat Boulevard widening project would result in construction-related impacts on traffic flow in the Specific Plan area. K. Widening of North Main Street will have several impacts on local access and may affect the Black Angus site. L. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Area. All alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants(ROG,No, PM 10). M. Traffic generated by cumulative development outside the Specific Plan area would cause a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along certain road segments within the Specific Plan area. Development within the Specific Plan area would add to cumulative noise levels. N. Proposed roadway improvements for the Treat Boulevard widening and the North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection would result in construction-related noise impacts. O. Increase in noise due to Treat Boulevard widening and North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection improvements would impact homes along the widened roadway corridors. 320\08\220018.1 A-38 P. Future developments outside the Specific Plan Area may result in traffic delays. These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the adoption by the Board of all feasible mitigation measures related to these impacts as identified in the DEIR. Only the following mitigation measures have been rejected by the Board as being infeasible for the reasons specified in Section IV above and summarized below: • Limit signage to one on each new building and no additional signs on existing buildings if they would exceed one. Signs should have a degree of unifornuty in appearance to foster a sense of identity within the station area. This mitigation measure is rejected as commercial unreasonable and economically infeasible. • Mitigation measures related to the Treat Boulevard widening project are rejected as legally infeasible because the project is outside the jurisdiction of the County. • Mitigation measures related to the North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Boulevard are rejected as legally infeasible because the project is outside the jurisdiction of the County. VI. Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment The EIR discusses eight alternatives to the Specific Plan Amendment,the adoption of which would,in some cases, avoid some of the significant environmental effects listed in Section V above. No studied alternative was found to be environmentally superior in the EIR. The EIR indicates that the environmentally superior alternative would be one in which mitigation measures are incorporated. The adopted Specific Plan Amendment adopted most to the mitigation measures as discussed above. The Board has already considered the alternatives to the Specific Plan when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and no further action is required at this time. The findings adopted by the Board on October 6, 1998 with regard to the,Specific Plan Amendment alternatives are incorporated herein by this reference. VII. Statement of Overriding Considerations Through the Redevelopment Plan Amendment,the Board and the Redevelopment Agency have secured substantial social, economic and other benefits (described in detail below), which allow the Board and the Redevelopment Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations,,which Statement deems infeasible certain alternatives and which finds acceptable any remaining significant environmental impacts. Through the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program adopted in these findings,the Board and the Redevelopment Agency have attempted to avoid or mitigate to a less-than- 320\08\220018.1 A-39 significant level all Redevelopment Plan Amendment impacts, and to otherwise consider, address, and resolve all of the environmental concerns raised during the public process. To the extent that a significant impact remains unavoided or not mitigated to aless-than-significant level, it is dete ined,that such avoidance or mitigation is infeasible because of the specific social, economic, and other reasons set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 et. seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations!,the Board and Redevelopment Agency make the following statement of overriding considerations: The Redevelopment Plan will have certain significant impacts which will not be fully mitigated by the identified mitigation measures, as identified in Part V of these Findings. The Board and Redevelopment Agency have carefully considered the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the associated unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and hereby identify the environmental, economic, legal, social,technological, and other benefits of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment: A. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, in combination with the mitigation measures,will provide the County and the Redevelopment Agency with financial and legal resources that would otherwise not be available to the community to complete the planned projects in-the Project Area and to eliminate blighting influences in the Project Area related to vacant and underutilized lots characterized by various physical and economic deficiencies, substandard public improvements, impaired property values, and private sector disinvestment, among other adverse physical and economic conditions. B, The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will provide legal and financial resources to achieve goals and objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan in the Project Area that have not otherwise been achieved and are not foreseeably achievable by the private sector without redevelopment assistance,related to the provision and improvement of affordable housing,the provision of enhanced public improvements, and the enhancement of local business development. C. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment cannot fully resolve the impacts of growth in the Project Area already otherwise authorized in the General Plan and the Specific Plan. However,the Redevelopment Plan can provide legal and financial means that would otherwise not be available to the community, for mitigating a material portion of those impacts by requiring and/or financially supporting certain mitigation measures and public improvements in connection with new development in the Project Area which will reduce adverse impacts. D. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment,, in combination with the mitigation measures,will contribute to the physical and economic revitalization of the local business commercial segments of the Project Area economy, which currently suffer from underutilization and decline or stagnation of business activity. The revitalization of the local business and commercial segments of the Project Area economy will, in turn,,benefit the County and the local community by providing employment opportunities, needed public infrastructure,retail and service facilities, and expanded sales tax revenues. 320\08220018.1 A-40 E. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, in combination with the mitigation measures, will contribute to rehabilitation, expansion, and preservation of decent, safe, and sanitary affordable and market-rate housing in the Project Area. The programs of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment include the use of tax increment revenue to fund: (1)housing rehabilitation loans and grants; (2) assistance for the construction of new affordable rental and ownership housing units; (3)first-time homebuyer assistance; and (4) financial assistance for segments of the community with special housing needs. F. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment will provide for the collection of tax increment revenue for concentrated utilization within the Project Area to achieve the goals, objectives and results outlined above, as authorized by the Community Redevelopment Law. The above outlined benefits are a brief summary and overview of the specific benefits of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment identified and documented throughout the record, with particular reference.to the Report to Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Plan itself. The Board and Redevelopment Agency have weighed the above benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment against the unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR. The Board and Redevelopment Agency hereby find that the unavoidable impacts have been reduced to the extent practicable by the inclusions of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and determine that the benefits described above outweigh the risks and adverse effects and,therefore, determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are "acceptable." 20\08\2.200 1 8.1 A-41 ...t F�}+�+f� V F* ..�. 't�'� �e .F�,,. t., �..r' i ERASER &ASSOCIATES APPENDIX B TAXING AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 'Ile . w Redevelopment Agency Contra Commissioners County Administration Building costa JohnG�tst District fi51 Pine StrE�et 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-1296 Gaye B.uilkeena John Sweeten County 2W District Executive Director Mary N.Piepho ••�Y�:��-`':,�.^ 3rd District Denis M.Barry,QICP .,•;`.�' Assistant Executive Director �r.•M� Metk DeSaulnier 4th District .tames Kennedy s:z% Recfevefapmerrt Director :� '�' Federal D.Glover (925)335-1275 coo' � nth District COURTESY STATEMENT OF PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANTFOR THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION- AREA. REDEVELOPMEN"T PROJECT You are hereby notified that the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa (the"Agency")is ire the process of preparing an amendment�o the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project(the"Redevelopment Plan"). The prose of the proposed.amendment(the"Plan Amendment")is to(1) increase the limit on the amount a#'bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from the Project Area that may be outstanding at one time;(2)increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the team of the Redevelopment Plan; (3)el*minate the time lint on incurrincy debt under the Plan as permitted by SB 211; and(4) extend by one(1)year each the time limits on the effectiveness of the Plan and the receipt of tax inerement pursuant to SB 10451b The Agency and the County of Contra costa(the"County")will comply with all requirements for adoption of an amendment to a redeve'�opment plan under the California Community Redevelopment Law, as set forth in Heath and Safety Cade Sections 33450,33458. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors and the Agency to rely on the EnviroAmiental Impact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Fill BART Station Area.Specific Plan, certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6. 1998 (the"Pxogram EIR"). The activities envisioned by the Plan Amendmmt are within the scope of the Program EIS,and the Prow= EIR adequately described the Flan Amendment activities for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Date: February 16, 2005 Redevelopment.Agency of the County of Contra Costa cc: Board of Supervisors t County Planning Commission By: P, Goldfarb&.Lipman � J s Kennedy File C1,5 R evelopment Director t G:ICDBG-REDEV`aedevtLNoble%.Persmal'Plcasan:Hill$ARTamcndmentpnbart.2.05.doc "'s Redevelopment Agency Contra Commissioners County AdministrdEion BgiECEing �n..... ��� John Gioia 651 Pine Street 4th Flaar,North Wing rtst Disr'ct Martinez,California 94553-1296County Gaye B.uilk�a Join Sweeten 2nd Disiricc Executive Director ,;�; Mary N.Piepho 3rd D'i5trict Dennis M.Barry,AICP Assistant executive Director �•� � r� _�*.�i, -� Mark De$sulnier I��� ,., 4th distrix James Kennecf Redevelopment Director �� °••a_ Federal D.Glover (925)335-1275 ''�':s--•=:'.. ,i �ut. 5th District February 16,2005 CERTIFIED MIA10L RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED To: State Board of Equalization,Contra Costa County Auditor,Assessor,Tax Collector, and Administrator and All Affected Taxing Entities Re: Pleasant Hill BAST Station Area Plan Amendment �..adies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is a Courtesy Statement of Preparation of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project. This letter pro-vides background information concerning the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment. The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the"Agency") is in the process of prepanng the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Pian(the "Plan Amendment")for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project(the"Troject") for consideration by the City Council to(1) increase the Iimit on the amount of bonds secured by a pledcre of tax increment from the Project Area that maybe outstanding at one time; (2)increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the term of the Redevelopment plan;(:3)eliminate the time lin-.dt on incurrinor debt under the Plan as permitted. by SB 211;and(4)extend by one(1)year each the time limits an the effectiveness of the Pian and the receipt of tax increment pursuant to SB 1045. The Agency has prepared the enclosed preliminary Report describing the purpose,scope,and potential fiscal impacts of the proposed Plan Amendment. Pursuant to health and Safety Code Section 3334 .5,the Preli"=' ary Reportis enclosed for your review. Also enclosed for your inforn ation is a copy of the proposed Plan Amendment for the Project. These documents are transmitted to your office pursuant to Health&Safety Code Section 33333.3 in your capacity as an affected taxing ennty. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors and the Agency to rely on the Environmental hnpact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hi11 BART Station Area Specific Plaza,certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1998 (the"r'rogam EIR"). The activities envisioned by the Pian Amendment are within the scope of the ProESR, and the Progxam EIR adequately deson'bed the Plan Amendment activities for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. G:ICDBG-REDEVIredevlLNoblelPersanall?leasant Hill BAF:Ttamendmentphbartltr.2.05.doc SBE,County Officials,&Taxing Entities February 16, 2005 Pale 2 Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed documents,please contact me at(925) 335-I255. Respectfully submitted, J"s Kennedy Tt velopment IDDii ectar n losures cc: Board of Supervisors County Planning Commission Goldfarb &Lipman Fide C1.5 320W80,21631187.I DECLARATION. aF MAILING I declare that: I am a citizen of the United States,employed by the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa, State of California,over the ale of eighteen years. My business address is 651 Pine Street, 4`h FloorNorth Wing,Martinez, California I served the following documents by certified mail,return receipt requested. I Courtesy Statement of Preparation of an Amendment to the Redevelopment Platz for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project(the"Plan Amendment"); 2. Preliminary Report(the"Preliminary Report")for the Plan Amendment; 3. Draft Plan Amendment; and 4. Letter transmitting the Courtesy Statement,Preliminary Report,draft Plan Amendment to a State Board of Equalization,the County Auditor,Assessor, Collector, and Administrator and all affected taxing entities. f� 2005 to the entities listed in Exhibit A by mailing tme copies thereof on :AP attached hereto. I declare under penalty of pe�rj that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on A 2005 at Iv�artinez, California. I [Print frame] [Attach Exhibit A] G:XCDBG-REDE\Aredev\LNobie\personalkPieasant Hill BART\amendmentphbart.itr.2.05.doc Contra Costa County Administrator Contra Costa.County 651 Pine Street,, 11'h Floor Mt Diablo Unified School District Mosquito and Vector Control Martinez,CA 94553 1936 Carlotta Drive 155 Mason Circle Concord.,CA 94619 Concord,CA 94620 Attn:Ray Waletzko Contra Costa County Assessor 8-34 Court Street Contra Costa Community Fast Bay Regional Park District Martinez,CA 94.1553 College District 2950 Peralto Ct. Attn:Gus Kramer 500 Court Street Oakland, CA 94605 Martinez,CA 94553 Pleasant Hill Recreation and Contra Costa County Lihxary Park District 17.450 Oak Park Blvd. Contra Costa 'Vater County Agency 147 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill,CA 94:52.3 651 Pine Street,4h Floor,North Wing Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Attn: Susan Caldwell., Martinez,C A 94553 Administrative Officer State Board of Equalization Contra Costa County Resource Consolidated Fire District Tal:Area Service Section Conservation District 2410 Geary Road 4,50"V. ' Street,MIC: 59 5552 Clayton Road Pleasant Hill,CA 941523 Sacramento,,CA 95 814 Concord,CA 94521 Attn:William M.Harris Bay Area Air Quality Mt.Diablo Hospital District Contra Costa County Water District Management District 2540 East Street P.O.Box H2O 939 Ellis Street Concord,CA.94521 Concord, CA 94524 San Francisca,CA 94109 Bay Area Rapid Transit District Central Sanitary District Contra Costa County Flood Control 804Madisan Street 5019 Imhoff Place 255 Glacier Drive Oakland,CA 94607 Martinez,CA 94553 Martinez,CA 94553 Attn.-Roberta Collier, Attn:Maurice Shin Deputy Treasurer/Controller EBML'D Alamo-Laf4 ette Cemetery District P.O.Box 24055 P.O.Box 1955 Walnut Creek Service Area R8 Oakland, CA 94623 Lafayette, CA 94549-1955 c/o City of Walnut Creek Attn:Z7ennis Diemer Attn:Patricia A.Howard 1666 No.Main Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Acalanes Union High School District Canyon Elementary School Di Lafayette Elementary School District 1212 Pleasant Hill Road 187 Pinehurst Road 950 Moraga Road Lafayette,CA 94549 Canyon,CA 94516 Lafayette,CA 94549 Moraga Elementary School District Qrinda Union Elementary School Walnut Creek Elementary School 1540 School Street Di ct District Mara,CA 94556 8 Altarinda Road 960 Ygnacio Valley Road Orinda,CA 94563 Walnut Greet, CA 94579 Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Contra Costa County 77 Santa Barbam Road Auditor's Office Pleasant Hill,CA 945 20 625 Court St.,Room 103 Martinez,C.A 94553 1950'73 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF: TIS CONTRA COSTACOUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Goldfarb &Lipman LLP 1300 Clay Street, 9th Floor City Center Plaza Oakland, CA 94612 Attention: Phuong Y. Lam NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383 ORDINANCE NO. 2005-16 AN ORDINANCE OF TES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TFC COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING TIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TBE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF TES STATE OF CALIFORNIA TES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This Ordinance amends the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Bill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project to (1)increase the.limit on the amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from the Project Area that may be outstanding at one-time; (2)increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the term of the Redevelopment Plan; (3) eliminate the time limit on incurring debt under the Plan as p ermitted by SB 211; and (4) extend by one(1)year each the time limits on the effectiveness of the Plan and the receipt of tax increme�pursuant to SB 1045; and SECTION II. BACKGROUND. By Board of Supervisors Ordinance No.,84-03, adopted on July 10, 1984,the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa(the "Board") adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant I BART Station Area Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") and by Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 88-58,, adopted on July 19, 1988, Ordinance No. 94-62, adopted on December 6, 1994,.and Ordinance No. 99-04, adopted on February 23, 1999,the Board adopted amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project(as amended, the"Redevelopment Plan"); and ORDINANCE NO. 2005-16 1 320\081232866A 195073 Pursuant.to the Community Redevelopment"Law of the State of California(the "Redevelopment Law"),the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Agency")has recommended an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan that would(1)increase the limit on the amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from the Project Area.that may be outstanding at one time; (2)increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the term of the Redevelopment Plan; (3) eliminate the firne'limit on incurring debt under the Plan as P01-!tted by SB 211; and (4) extend by one(1)year each the time limits on the effectiveness of the Plan and the receipt of tax increment pursuant to SB 1045; and The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board for review and adoption a proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Pian for thhe Pleasant IEU BART Station Area. Redevelopment Project(the "Plan.Amendment"), a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board of theCounty of Contra Costa; and The Agency has made studies of the impact of the proposed Plan Amendment and has determined that the proposed amendment will promote the proper redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the goals; objectives, and policies of the County of Contra Costa's General Plan,the Redevelopment Plan, and the Redevelopment Law;and The Agency has prepared.and submitted,and the Board has reviewed and considered, a written report on the proposed amendment(the"Report to Board of Supervisors")pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33457.1, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board; and The Planning Commission,which is the duly designated and acting official planning .body of the County of Contra Costa,has submitted to the Board its report and recommendation dated March 8,2005,recommending approval and adoption of the Plan Amendment and recommending that.the Board of Supervisors find that the Plan Amendment is within the scope of the Program EIR, as no new environmental effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Plan'Amendment pursuant to 14 CCR 15168;and On May 24, 2005,the Board and the Agency conducted a joint public hearing which was duly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Redevelopment Law. SECTION 10[I. FINDINGS. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 333 67 and 33457.1, and based upon the evidence contained in the Report to Board of Supervisors and on the evidence presented at the joint public hearing,the Board finds and determines with respect to the Pian Amendment that:. a) - The time limitations and the Limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area that are contained in the Plan Amendment ars reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area(see particularly the Parts I,11, ORDINANCE NO. -2005-16 2 32(j108\232866.4 :19s073 III and IV of the Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this finding}. b) Pursuant to Section 3 3 3 54.6 of the Redevelopment Law, significant blight remains within the Project Area.and the remaining blight in the Project Area' cannot be . eliminated without the increase in the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated from the Pro ect Area to the Agency(see particularly the Parts I,II,III and IV of the Report to Board of the Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this finding). c) The continued elimination of blight and continued redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private erprise acting alone without aid or assistance of the Agency(see particularly..Parts I,II,III and IV of the Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this finding). d) The Plan Amendment would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Redevelopment-Law and would be in the interest of the public peace, health, safety, and- welfare; and the implementation of the Plan Amendment would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the County of Contra Costa, and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment Law.(see particularly the Introduction and Parts I,II, and Mofthe Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this finding). _ e) The adoption and implementation of the Plan Amendment are economically sound and feasible(see particularly Part IV of the Report to the Board of _ Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this finding). f) The Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the County, including but not limited to the Housing Element of the General Plan.(see particularly Part VII of the Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding-evidence with respect to this finding). g) The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons which may be displaced from the Project Area if the Plan Amendment may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area(see particularly Parts VI and XI of the Report to the Board of Supervisors and Part VIY of the Redevelopment Pian regarding evidence with respect to this finding). h) There are, or shall be provided.- in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of, and available to, such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 3 3411 and 3 3 411.1 of the Redevelopment Law. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.'5. 33413,and 33413.5 of the Redevelopment Law(see particularly Parts VI and XI of the Report to the Board of ORDINANCE NO. 2005-16 3 3201081232866.4 . JL9.,so73 Supervisors and Part VLF of the Redevelopment Plan regarding evidence with respect to this finding). i) The Board is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three-years from the time occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced and that, pending the development of such facilities,there will be available to such displaced occupants housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement (see particularly Parts VI and XI of the Report to the Board of Supervisors and Part VLF of the Redevelopment Plan regarding evidence with respect to this finding). j} The matters sept forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33367(d)(9), (d)(10) and d(12)are not applicable to or affected by the Plan Amendment, and consequently no further findings with respect to such matters are required(see particularly the Introduction and Parts I and II of the Report to Board of Supervisors regarding evidence with respect to this . finding). In addition,the matter set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33679(d)(6)is not applicable to the Plan Amendment, as the time Limit on the Agency's eminent domain authority under the Redevelopment Plan has expired and is not altered by the Plan Amendment. Finally, the matters set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33367{d}(7)and(8) are not applicable to the Plan Amendment and consequently no further findings with respect to such matters are required (see particularly Parts VI and M of the Report to Board of Supervisors and Part VLF of the Redevelopment Plan regarding evidence with respect to this finding). k) The findings set forth in Exhibit A relating to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") are hereby adopted. SACT ON N. - COMINIMG PURPOSE AND)-=-- _ NT. It is the continuing purpose and intent of the Board that the Redevelopment Plan Amendment be implemented in order to corninue to: a) Eliminate the conditions of blight; b) . Ensure, as far as possible;that the causes of the blighting conditions will be either eliminated or protected against; c) Encourage and ensure the redevelopment of the Project Area;. d) Encourage and foster the economic revitalization of the Project Area, as necessary; and e) Provide and improve affordable housing. SECTION V. OVERRULING OF OBJECTIONS. All written and oral objections to the amendment incorporated in the Plan bY this Ordinance are hereby overruled. ORDINANCE NO. 2005-I6 4 320\081232866.4 x.950'73 --_. SECTION VI. ADOPTION 4F PLAN AMENDMENT. Itis hereby found and detto.,,rrm'ned that the Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable. The Redevelopment Plan, all amendments and restatements of the Redevelopment Plan, and all ordinances adopting or previously amending the Redevelopment Plan are hereby amended in accordance with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment is hereby adopted and approved and the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendment, is designated as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. The Plan Amendment, consisting of two gages and two exhibits, is incorporated in this Ordinance by reference and made a part of the Ordinance as if set out in full in the Ordinance. The Clerk of the Board of the County is hereby directed to file a copy of the Plan Amendment with the minutes of flus meeting. The Agency is vested with the continuing - responsibility to implement the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendment. SECTION VII. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this-Ordinance or the Plan Amendment isfiorawy reason held to be ' invalid-or unconstit�1-ional,such-decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or portions of the Ordinance or the Plan Amendment. SECTION VIIL_ RECORDATION. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby directed to record the Plan Amendm ent in compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 334.56 and Government Code Section 27295. SECTION IX. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance becomes effective 30 d ays after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once in the Contra,Cggn&,,Times) a newspaper of general circulation printed and published and circulated in the County of Contra Costa. PASSED on May 24, 2005,by the following vote: AYES: _ Gioia,Pie'pho,DeSaulnier, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: _ None ABSTAIN: None AT ST: /00 � oe Clerk of the Boarat;6d County Administrator -000 Oily, t By: - Deputy /LAoard C .ORDINANCE NO. 2005-16 5 . 3201081232866.4 X950'73 EXHIBIT A COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,FINDINGS OF FACT, MONITORING PLAN,AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. General Information and Description of the Project The project under consideration by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa("Board") and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Redevelopment Agency")is the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Redevelopment Project, (the"Redevelopment Pian Amendment"). An Environmental Impact Report("EIR")for the Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and Contra' Costa County General Plan(the."Specific Plan Amendment")was prepared by the County in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), the State CEQA guidelines and applicable local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. The process began on June 10, 1996, with the preparation of the Initial Study and the mailing of a Notice of Preparation to all interested and affected agencies. Two.scoping meetings - were held,one on July 1, 1996 and another on October 30, 1996 as well as extensive consultation with community groups,steering committees,technical advisory committees and the public before and during preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report,dated August 1997 (the "DEIR"),which document is incorporated herein by this reference. The DEIR(SCH#9606204 1)was distributed for comment on august 20, 1997: The comment period was 120 days. On August 20, 1997,the Notice' of Completion of the DEIR was published in.the Contra Costa Times. Twenty five written comments were received and four people spoke at the public hearing held by the Contra Costa County Zong Admininistrator on the DEIR. The comments received on the DEIR and the County's responses to such comments are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, dafied March, 1998.(the "FEIR"),which document is incorporated herein by this . reference. At its meeting on April 6. 1998.,the Zoning Administrator recommended that the Board certify the FEIF, and at its meeting on July 28, 1998,the Planning Commission recommended the Board adopt the Specific Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment and the EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment came before the Board on October 6, 1998. On October 6, 1998,the Board certified the EIR and ""20\08\220018.1 A-1 195073 adopted Findings, Overridinge .M Monitoring and Statement of Considerations,which ar Substantially similar to theA;aAJLrn ers set forth in this document. The Board and RedevelopmentAgency are currently considering adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment winaft has been processed as required under the California CommunityRedevelopment Law. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment is one.mechanism for implementing the Specific Plan Amendment.adopted in 1998. The EIR explicitly covered the Redevelopment Plan Amendment as one of the activities covered by the EIR Based.on information presented in the staffreport,no -substantial changes are proposed to the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, no-substantial changes have occurred with respect to the * circumstances of the project which would require major revisions in the EIR and nonew substantial information has become available which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. In addition,the Redevelopment Plan.Amendment will not have effects which were not ex in,the EIR and no new mitigation measures.would be required. Therefore,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2),the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is within the scope of the EIR and no new environmental documentation is required. II. The Record The record of the Board relating to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and its potential environmental effects includes: A. The Amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Flan.. B. The Environmental Impact Report("EIR")prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment, consisting of the DEIR and the FEIR. C. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Contra Costa County Zoning Planning Administrator on-Aprl6, 1998. the CoComnssion on 28, nd on - March 8, 2005, and the Board during public hearings on the Specific Plan Amendment,the Redevelopment Plan Amendment,and the EIR,,and the Board's response to evidence received before and at the public hearings. Do Matters of common knowledge to the Board which they consider, such as the Contra Costa County General Plan(the "General Plan"), and the County zoning ordinance. ED Records of meetings with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area.Steering Committee, whose members include elected officials i from communities around the BART station, members of public interest and neighborhood groups and BART representatives, F. Recommendations to the Steering Committee-from the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Technical Advisory Committee* (TAC),whose members 'include professional staff 0 from.co es aroundthe BART station,membeis of public interest and neighborhood groups and.BART representatives. 320\08\22001 8.1 A-2 Z95()73 G. Records of meetings with multiple government agencies including Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority,BART,Pleasant Hill,Wahiut Creek,Concord, East Bay RegioPark District,LAFCO,TRANSPAC and others. H. Records of the scoping sessions on the DEIR held on July 1, 1996 and October 30,11996. - I. Records of meetings with community groups,including the-Walden Improvement . Association, Fox Creek Residential Association,Fair Oaks Community Stand Up Coalition-and Walnut Creek Homeowner's Council. J. The Preliminary Report on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, dated February, 2005. K. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment. L. The final Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment,, dated May 2005. Ill. Potentially*Significant Environmental Effects The EIR identified fi Abree(53)potentially significant environmental effects attributed in part to the Specific Plan Amendment. These potentially significant environmental effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapters][[-X of the DEIR-, and the comments and responses to comments on the EIR in Sections A through E of the FEIR. - Each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the EIR,the-proposed mitigation measures and corresponding monitoring program for that effect, and the Board's findings with regard to that effect are discussed in Section IV below. TV. Findings and MonitgjkgePrqUam Notwithstanding the identification of the significant environmental effects,the Board and . Redevelopment Agency are considering adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092,and 15093. As required by the aforementioned references,the following findings are for which there is substantial evidence in-the record. Further, as required _ pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for each mitigation measure adopted by the Board. . A. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impacts 1. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 1B a. Potentially Sigm6ficant Environmental Effect. Under Alternative 2 (Residential) studied in the DEIR,changing the land use designation from `Office' to residential 320\08\220018.1 A-3 use for subarea I OA would introduce an inconsistency with General Plan and Specific Plan policies and subject future residents to high noise levels from the freeway. b. Mitigation Measurestsl. Retain the'OF' designation for subarea l 0A. . C. Fig.-As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 2'(Residential)is not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment approved by the Board., and thus the above impact will not result and the tigation measure for such impact will not be necessary. Furthermore,the subject development area is currently undergoing development as an office project;therefore,neither the change in land use designation nor the impact set forth.in A..I*'a above will result. 2. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 1 C a Potentially Sicant Environmental Effect. Changing the designation to Mixed'Use on subarea 14A would permit housing near the freeway,resulting in an inconsistency with General Plan and Specific Plan policies for noise. b. Mitigation Measur The County adopted the following policy in the Land Use and Development section of the Specific Plan. . "Developers proposing projects with high noise levels must show how the land use suitability standard can be met both inside and outside residential buildings and hotels and through architectural design and site pI that is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines."' C. Monitoring RLo Zam. (i) Responsibility:Zoning Administration or County Planning _ Commission will.act as approving agency after studies completed. County Department of Community Development to condition projects during entitlement process (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: As part of project review and approval process,require noise studies from project applicants and comply with the recommenda#ions. (in") Completion Date: Policy adopted as part of Specific Plan Amendment adoption. Follow-up studies to be completed during project review process. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the infoination and analysis in Chapter II of the DEM.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially-lessen the significant environment effect described In A.2-a. above. 320\08\220018.1 A-4 1=95073 3, Land Use,Plans.and Policies Impact 1F a, Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Housing and hotels uses allowed on subareas 7B/8 could be significantly impacted by freeway noise. ba Miti n tion Measur Developers proposing projects with high noise levels must show how land use suitability standard can be met both inside and outside residential buildings and hotels and through architectural design and site planning that is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. C. Monitoring Proream. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Co 111111x111111[unIty Development to condition projects duringentitlement process, Administration or County Planning Commission will act as approving agency after studies completed, (ii) MonitoringAction to be Taken: As part of project review and approval process,require noise studies from project applicants and comply with recommendations to meetA,L,.101"d set forth in mitigation measure. (iii) ComQletion Date: During entitlement process for individual projects. d. Findinng. The above mitigation measures)and monitoring program.are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information analysis in Section II of the DEIR,the above impact may not be reduced to a less than significant level and is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VR(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below.- 4. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 2F a. Potentially Sienificant Environmental Effect. The Utility/Open Space designation would permit potentially conflicting vehicle,pedestrian and bicycle uses in subareas 6,, 13 and 16, b. on Measure(sl: The County adopted the following policy: Nonessential motorized vehicles are to be kept out of the utility/open space corridors for either parking or circulation(e.g.,no public road use). Essential vehicles are those-needed for service,maintenance,limited deliveries, emergency response or transit. (ii) The County adopted the following policy: Any Utility Open Space Corridor uses of subareas 6 and 13 that are of or above grade shall be limited to the Iron Horse Trail (and pathways connecting to the trail),permanently landscaped open space,and 320\U8\220018.1 A'5 1095073 3. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 1F . a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Housing and hotels uses allowed on subareas 7B/8 could be significantly impacted by freeway noise. b. Mitigation Me Developers proposing projects with high noise levels-must show how land use suitability standard can be met both*inside and outside residential buildings and hotels and through architectural design and site planning that is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. C, MonitodM.Proam. (i) Re onsib County Department of Community Development to condition projects during entitlement process. Zoning Administration or County Planning Comrmssion will act as approving agency after studies completed. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: As part of project review and approval process,require noise studies from project applicants and comply with recommendations to meet standard set forth in mitigation measure. (ui) Co letion Date: During entitlement process for individual projects. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Section II of the DEIR,the above impact may not be reduced to a less than significant level and is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 2F a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The Utility/Open Space designation would permit potentially conflicting vehicle,pedestrian and bicycle uses in subareas 6,, 13 and 16. b. Mitigation Measure(s): The County adopted the following policy: Nonessential motorized vehicles are to be kept out of the utility/open space corridors for either parking or circulation(e.g.,no public road use). Essential vehicles are those needed for service,maintenance,limited deliveries, emergency response or transit. (ii) The County adopted the following policy: Any Utility Open Space Corridor uses of subareas 6 and 13-that are of or above grade shall be limited to the Iron Horse Trail (and pathways connecting to the trail),permanently landscaped open space,and 320\08\220018.1 A-5 195073 a fixed guideway. Any part of subareas 6 and 13 reserved for a fixed guideway shall be temporarily landscaped until construction of the fixed guideway begins. (iii) The County adopted the following policy: When a fixed guideway line is proposed for the Southern Pacific right-of-way,it shall be sited and designed in a manner that zes conflict with trail uses, does not create safety hazards,is aesthetically compatible with open space use and does not reduce the trail width available for pedestrians and bicyclists. _ c. Monitorina Pro A.&&a". (i) ResDonsib Board adopted policy, County Public Works Department installs signs and barriers for mitigation measure (i), and Board adopted policies,design review before the Zoning Administrator and County Department of Public Works implements for mitigation measures(ii)and(iii). (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure (i), signs and barriers s be installed by County Public Works Department to preclude vehicle , access within two years of adoption of Specific Plan Amendment. For mitigation measure(ii) and(iii),within one year of adopting the Specific Plan Amendment,the County shall initiate preparation of a management program to show how the fixed guideway transit and trail use can be safely accommodated in-an aesthetically pleasing manner and County shall prepare a site plan for areas 6, 13 and 16 to show how the pedestrian and bicycle paths can be accommodated with the fixed guideway. The fixed guideway shall be subject to design review to assure compliance with mitigation and the area reserved for the fixedguideway shall be temporarily landscaped. (in") Completion Date: For policy mitigation measure(s), completed when Specific Plan Amendment was adopted; for installation of signs and barriers, within two years of adoption of Specific Plan Amendment; for site plan preparation,after fixed- guideway line is proposed; and for all other mitigation' measures,within one year of adopting Specific Plan Amendment. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,-the finding is r-1 that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will'avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.4.a. above. 5. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 2G .a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. In the Pleasant Hill BART station area, incompatibilities of building scale and style could occur. b. Mitigation Measures(s). 320108\220018.1 A-6 (i) Adopted the following policy: The Specific Plan seeks to' balance regional and local uses of the staxion area through appropriate site planning which places high intensity,less sensitive uses west of the BART station and Lower-intensity local.-serving uses near adjacent neighborhoods. Revise the Urban Design Map consistent with the above statement (ii) Adopted the following policy: Require developers of mixed use projects to plan and demonstrate how their designs will control or eliminate Land use incompatibilities between different proposed uses,including but not limited to noise,traffic, _ - parking and security. Among the techniques that could be used are separate office and residential elevators with floor keys to enter residential areas,sound insulation and provision of buffer zones and landscaping. C. Monitoring Program. _ (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policies,County Department of Community Development conditions projects during entitlement process,Board or County Planning Commission(depending on the type of application) shall approve final design as part of project approval. (u) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition development plans to comply with the mitigation. (iii) Completion Date: Adopted policies when Specific Plan Amendment adopted and implement on an ongoing basis as development proposals are submitted. d. Fi`n� The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring .program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.5.a above. 6. Land Use.Plans and Policies I mpact 3A a. Potentially S1gmficant Environmental Effect. A wide range of newly permitted uses could cause significant impacts related to visual quality,traffic,noise, site population, demand for public services,intensification of site use,and diurnal use of the station area,compared to existing conditions. b. Matisation Measur 0 See A.5.b above. C, Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: See A.5.c. (i)above. 320\08U.70018.1 A-7 IL95073 . (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Ste A.5.c.(ii) above. (iii) Completion Date: See A.5.c.(nffi) above. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. It should be noted that the Specific Plan Amendment reduced the development potential on subareas 11/12 to 8,00,000 square feet which should substantially reduce the noted impact, although it is unclear whether to insignificant levels. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and based upon.the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIP,the above impact may not be reduced to a less than significant level in and is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Sununary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives)and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 7. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 6 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect, Several new policies and statements in the Specific Plan Amendment would enable views of Mt.Diablo as seen from the BART platform to be impacted. . b. Mitigation Measures(s�. - (i) detained the language of the Specific Plan regarding views of Mt.Diablo and added language to encourage new development to create new viewing opportunities. The height of buildings on subarea 12 could be reduced to five to seven stories and building mass sited such that existing views are preserved from some sections of BART platform. Building height on subarea 12 could be shifted to subarea I I in a manner that does not obstruct Mt.Diablo views. C, Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Board adopted policy and County Department of Commumt y- Development monitors compliance during project entitlement process. (ii) _Monitoring Action to be Taken: Revised Specific Plan as follows: Revise Figure 7.1,Foam and Massing Urban Design Policy Diagram,and Figure 7, Space and Site Requirements Matrix,to reflect five to seven story height on subarea 12 and 10- 15 story height an subarea 11. (iii) Completion Date: Policies adopted when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and implementation to occur as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. 320\081220018.1 A-$ IL95073 d. Fes. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEM.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially Lessen the significant environment effect described in A,7,a. above. 8. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 7 - a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. New construction and future uses could have a significant impact.on trees. b. Mitigation Measures(s�. (i) Replace trees on a 2:1 basis. Use drough- t-resistant species. Require developers to inventory all trees on properly and submit to Community Development Department. (ii) Integrate tree planting with open space,landscaping and pedestrian circulation plans to unify station area and circulation among the subareas. (iii) Enforce the County Tree Ordinance regarding preservation of trees. c. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: Board adopted policies,Zoning Administrator or County Planning Commission approves final project and County Department of Community Development conditions development projects and monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Implement the adopted mitigation policies and follow standard procedures for implementing the County Tree Ordinance. (iii) Completion Date: Policies adopted when Specific Plan Amendment was adopted. Implementation of mitigation and monitoring when granting approval to individual projects. _ d. Finding The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter ILI of the DEIR,thefinding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the sificant environment effect described in A.8.a. above. 9. Land Use., Plans and Policies Impact 8 a. Potentially Si cant Environmental Effect,*' Depending on the amount and location of signs installed,there could be a significant impact. 320\08\220018.1 A-9 . 194-5073 be Mitigation Measure The DEIR suggests the following: "Limit signage to one on each new building and no additional sips on existing buildings if they would exceed one. Signs should have a degree of uniformity in appearance to foster a sense of identity olt 0 wittlIn.the station area." The Specific Plan Amendment contains 16 policies on signs which both limit signage and encourages a unified appearance. Based on County staff s experience ;""fV 0 *IV% believes with building owners oper"a+ in a competitive business environment,County staff limiting businesses to one sign is not a commercially reasonable or feasible mitigation. Thus,the policies set forth in the Specific Plan Amendment are proposed as a self-mitigation measure. c. Monitoring Pro uam. (i) Re onsibBoard adopted policy,County Department of Community Development conditions development projects during project approval process and monitors compliance, ("1i) Monitoring.Action to be Taken: County Development Department will condition development proposals as called for in Specific Plan Amendment and monitors compliance. (in) Completion Date: Policy adopted when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and mitigation"implemented and monitored when granting approval to individual projects. do Finding. The mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR is rejected due to the commercial and economic infeasibility oflimiting buildings to one sip. However the Specific Plan Amendment policies on signage have been adopted as mitigation measures and the is above monitoring program hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in this Section A.9 of these findings and Chapter 11 of the DEIR...the finding is made the adoption of these mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid of substantially lesser the significant environmental effect described in A.9.a above. low Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 9 a. Potentially Significant Enviironmental Effect. E on of the Southem Pacific right-of-way for use as an arterialstreet is a major change in land use and -J---- -1---circulation that shiftsU-4111c to other,already heavily used streets that serve station area U'Veulic. be Mitigation Measures(s). Reduce the amount of development permitted in the station area such that traffic shifted to surrounding streets does not contribute to loss of livability, C. Monitoring,Proffam. 324108\22Q018.1 A-10 IL95073 (i) Responsibility: Board adopted the policy and County Department of Community Development monitors development projects and their traffic impacts. _ (ii) Monitoring Action to-be Taken: Maximum development in subareas 11 and 12 is reduced as indicated in revised Figure 7, Space and Site Requirements Matrix, in proposed Specific Plan Amendment (iii) Completion Date: Policy adopted at Specific Pian Amendment adoption and monitored as each development project is proposed and reviewed. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives)and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 11. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 10 a. PotentigUySficant Environmental Effect. Widening of Treat- Blvd. would result in land use and visual impacts. b. Mitigation MeasurThe DEIR includes potential mitigation measures as follows: -(i)determine which widening option would have the least impact on existing residential buildings,and chose that alternative;and(ii)provide sufficient landscaping to recreate the quality of vegetation that would be removed to widen the-roadway. C. Finding, Although the County will review and.support the City of Walnut Creek's efforts to implement such measures,the County does not have jurisdiction to lement these measure(s)and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s)are available to the County.' Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section A.11 of these findings, the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section.VI(Alternatives)and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations) below. It should be noted that the City of Walnut Creek City Council has written to the County to indicate that it will not pursue the full widening of Treat Boulevard project and is considering alternatives to the project. It is anticipated that the impacts associated with this project will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 12. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 1 1 A 320\08\220018.1 A-I 1 1095073 a. Potentially SOgnificant Environmental Effect. The.North Main Street realignment-at Oak Park Blvd. would.result in visual impacts from proposed retaining walls. b. Mitigation Measures 0 The DEIR includes potential mitigation measures as follows: (i)use textured concrete and other decorative elements on the retaining walls to improve their appearance; (ii)provide landscaping along the western retaining.wall to soften its appearance; (iii)provide attractive lighting at the base of the wall; and(iv)move the Black Angus Restaurant to southernmost portion of its site. C. Fin The County supports such mitigation measures,however, the County does not have jurisdiction over the proposed project and potential mitigation measure(s), and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s)are available to the County. Based-upon the information and analysis in Chapter El of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section A.12 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives)and Section V11(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that City of Pleasant Hill staff have indicated at several public meetings,that the City does _ not wish to pursue this project, although though no official action has been taken by the City Council regarding this project. Accordingly,it is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proejct will be substantially Less than those studied in the EIR. I3. Land Use,Plans and Policies'ImDact 1 1B a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The North Main Street.realignment at Oak Park Blvd.would result in access impacts to existing businesses. b. Mitigation Measures(.$). The DEIR includes potential mitigation measure(s) as follows: (i)provide alternative access to businesses affected by the North Maar Street realignment-and(ii)move the Black Angus restaurant to the southernmost portion of its site to improve access. C. Finding. The County supports such mitigation measures,however, the County does not have jurisdiction over the proposed project and potential mitigation measure(s), and therefore the potential mitigation measure(s) are deemed infeasible and no mitigation measure(s) are available to the County. Based upon the inforniation and analysis in this Section A.13 of these findings and Chapter II of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this.significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VIE[(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that City'of Pleasant Hill staff have indicated at several public meetings,that the City does not wish to pursue this project, although though no official action has been taken by the City Council regarding this project. Accordingly,it is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proejet will be substantially less tlzau those studied in the EIR. 320\08\22-0018.1 A-12 dL95073 14. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 12 a. Potentiall�5i�nificant Environmental Effect The fixed guideway transit Line could have significant construction and operational impacts, b. Mitigation M The DEIR includes potential mitigation measure(s) as follow: (z)if and when a fixed guideway project is proposed,it will be subject to its own environmental review process, and(ii) County shall prepare a management program that _ demonstrates how temporary uses of the right-of-way will be established in a manner that does not obstruct or adversely impact the construction and operation of the fixed guideway transit. BART shall be consulted regarding the management program. C. Monitoring Pro gram. (i) Responsibility: Guideway-proposing agency shall conduct environmental review process with County Department of Community Development reviewing and participating as a responsible agency-under CEQA. County Department of Community Development to process and prepare the management plan with Zoning Administration to approve. (ii)- Monitoring,-Action to be Taken: Undertake creation of a management program that can be implemented to attain the objectives of preserving the right-of- way for a fixed guideway. (iii) Completion Date: Environmental review process shall take place when project is proposed and funded and management plan shall be prepared before granting approval for temporary uses. d. Finding. The County supports mitigation measure(i),however, the County does not have primary jurisdiction over the approval of the fixed guideway transit, and therefore adopts mitigation measure(i)and its.related monitoring program as a responsible agency. Mitigation measure (ii) and related monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the infobmation and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program may only partially avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A.14.a. above. Therefore,this impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect and will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects),Section IV(Alternatives)and Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 15. Land Use, Plans and Policies Impact 13C a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Parking demand for the movie theaters is higher than for any other land use and could result in overflow parking on neighborhood streets. 320\08\220018.1 A-13 195073 b. Mitigation Me Retain the movie theater policies of the existing Specific Plan. c. Monitoring ELoMam. (i) - Responsibility: Board adopted policy; County Department of Community. Development monitors compliance with project application. (ii) Monitoring Acfiion to be Taken: Adopt the proposed Specific Plan Amendment without any changes in the amount of movie seats that would be pemutted. Permit only smaller theaters incidental to other uses. (iii) Completion Date: When the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter II of the DEIR.,.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in A,15 above. 16. Land-Use,Plans and Policies hnDact 15A a Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The array of uses permitted for subarea 12-has been increased to allow educational and cultural facilities which may result in off-commute and weekend use of the site,attraction of a regional population, dramatically increased site utilization andhigh parking demand. b. Mitigation Me The County will require environmental review of any rriaj or development project for subarea 12 to the extent that,its impacts were not covered in the EIR. c. Monitoring,Program. (i) Res onsibility: Contra Costa County Department of Community Development with project approval by County Planning Commission or Board. (1--1) Monitodgg Action to be Taken: Determine whether an EIR is needed for subarea 12 proposals using the Initial Study checklist to identify potentially significant impacts;determine whether the impacts were adequately assessed in the Specific Plan Amendment EIR;undertake additional environmental review as appropriate. _ (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing as development plans for subarea 12 are proposed. 320\08\220018.1 - A-14 IL950'73 (i) -Responsibility: County Department of Community Development reviews and revises;Board approves, (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Undertake a detailed review of the Specific Plan Amendment proposed for adoption and eliminate any inconsistent., ambiguous or contradictory statements so that the intent.of the plan is clear to the public and all users over time. (ui) Completion Date: Already completed at Steering Committee level,and adopted by Board when final Specific Plan Amendment adopted. d. Fes. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IG of the DEIR,the nnamR is CIA that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring WAWprohas avoided or substantially lessened the significant environmenteffect described in' A.I 8.a above. 190 Lamed Use.,Plans and Policies Imuact 18 a, Potentially Si_ cant Environmental Effect. Alternative lA would generate the highest intensity of use of any of the alternatives.It would place a high proportion of future office development closer to residential areas b. Mitigation Measures s . Reduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses, �ProAlternativeis proposed- ca MonitoringG Although 1 A not Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the Board, a portion of the Alternative 1 A, which would allow up to 800,000 square feet of office space on subareas 11/12 and would allow up to 250,800.square feet of office on-subarea 8 are proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment. However,,the amount of square footage allowed in these subareas is substantially less than that studied under Alternative lA so the proposed mitigation measure has been adopted directly into the Specific Plan Amendment. -d. Finding. As noted in c above,the proposed mitigation measure to reduce overall building square footage has been incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,therefore such mitigation measure is deemed adopted and monitored with adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment as it relates to subareas 8, 11 and 12. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, except as noted above, Alternative lA was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendments adopted by the Board and this additional . mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will not be necessary. 20. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 19 a. 'Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 1B would add the second highest amount of residences of all of the alternatives. 320\08\2.2001 8.1 A-16 2950'73 b. ation Measur Reduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses. C, Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these _ findings,Alternative I B was-not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment _ adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and corresponding monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 21. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 20 a. Potentially Si cant Environmental Effect. Alternative 2 would be Least compatible of all alternatives with the existing office uses in the station area and would not take advantage of j oint development opportunities afforded by the site. b. Mitig@Lbon Measur Impacts of this alternative could be improved by diversifying the land uses. Locate non-residential uses between the BART tracks and the freeway and residential uses east of the BART tracks. Lower the maximum building height from 15 stories to 12 stories _ c. F* AA As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 2(Residential)'was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s)and corresponding monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 22. Land-Use,Plans and Policies Impact 21 a. Potentially,Significant Environmental Effect. Altemative 3 would have significant impacts on land use compatibility with respect to noise,building height and regional=serving uses. b. on Measur a Site residential buildings along the northern and eastern perimeter. Place office buildings in the center of the station area. Lower the 15-story building height limit on subareas 11 and I2. Site residential use on subarea 7B/8 in. a manner that uses office buildings to shield the residential buildings from freeway noise. Site regional-serving uses between the BART tracks and the freeway. Provide adequate neighborhood-serving uses and site them in a manner that shields residences from regional uses. C. Fi . As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 3 was not the alternative proposed in.the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board,and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. - 23. Land Use. Plans and Policies Impact 22 320\08\22001 8.1 A-17 195073 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 4A would have significant land use compatibility impacts. b. Mitiization Measur Reduce scale of development such that p J%_"Ag demand can be satisfied in the station area and PM peak hour traffic is reduced. Require shared parking arrangements with existing buildings and future projects. Change land use- designations sedesignations to increase compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. eliminate residential exposure to unacceptable noise levels along I-680. c. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 4A was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan AMendment adopted by the Board., and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact was not necessary. 24. Land Use,Plans and Policies IMpact 23 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Alternative 4B would have significant land use compatibility impacts. b. Mitigation Measure Reduce scale of development such that parking demand can be satisfied in the station area and PM peak hour traffic is reduced. Require - shared parking arrangements with existing buildings and future projects. Change land use designations to increase compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. Eliminate hotel room exposure to noise levels along I-680. c. Monitoring Pro Although Alternative 4B was nof in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board,a substantial portion of the Alternative 4B is incorporated as part of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed mitigation measure(s)for Altemative 4B have been adopted directly into the Specific Plan Amendment. d. Finding. As noted in c above,the proposed mitigation measures have been incorporated into the adopted Specific Plan Amendment,therefore such mitigation measures are deemed adopted and monitored with adoption of the Specific Flan Amendment. Alternative 4B was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the Board and thus additional mitigation measures(s) and monitoring program. will not be necessary. 25. Land Use,Plans and Policies Impact 24 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Environmental impacts for Alternative 5 would be a combination of those described for the Active Project, Mixed Use and Base Case alternatives. 320\08\220018.1 A-18 195Q'73 _ b. Nfitigation MeasurReduce the overall amount of building square footage that could be approved. Provide for a greater mix of uses. C. Finding, As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings',..Alternative 5 was not the alternative adopted in the Specific Plan Amendment, and thus the above impact will.not result and the mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program for such, nnpact will not be necessary. B. Housing Population and Sobs Impacts 1. Housing,Population, and Jobs Impact 3 a. Potentially Siccant Environmental Effect. Under Alternative S, reduce by 34%the amount of housing that would be built compared to the Base Case. b. Mitigation MeasurProvide more housing under the density bonus alternative. C. Finding. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 5 was not the alternative proposed in the Specific Plan*Amendment adopted by the Board,and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for.such impact will not be necessary. C. Transportation Impacts 1. Transportation Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The unsignaiized intersection of Buskirk Avenue and Geraldine Drive will operate at LOS F. . b. Mitigation Measures!sl. (i)It is recommended that the Buskirk Ave./Geraldine Dr. intersection be signalized and the westbound approach to the intersection' should be realigned opposite the existing shopping center driveway to create a 90 degree approach; or(u)two Lanes should be provided on the realigned westbound approach and the design should accommodate future widening of Buskirk by the City of Pleasant Hill. C, Monitoring ProuAm,. (i} Responsibility: City of Pleasant Hill to be responsible for mitigation measures. County Department of Public Works to establish County share of unprovement costs, if any. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Establish County.share of improvement costs. z�rnnst���nmQ i A-1 Q, 1950'73 (iii) Completion Date: In conjunction with improvements to Buskirk Avenue being planned by the City of Pleasant Hill. d. . Finding. The intersection in question is outside the jurisdiction of the County and thus the improvement figations are recommended to the City of Pleasant Hill and are deemed legally infeasible by the County. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program related to cost-sharing are hereby-adopted. Based upon the info L&&Laon and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.La. above. 2. Transportation Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The following study intersections will exceed the established level of service standard in at least one peak hour for year 201.0 conditions: • Buskirk Avenue at Oak Road/I-680 northbound off-tamp (PM) • Buskirk Avenue at Wayne Drive(PM) • Buskirk Avenue at Geraldine Drive(AM,PM) b. Mitigation Measures(s). Buskirk Avenue at Oak Road/I-'680 northbound off-ramp: The Buskirk approach should be widened to provide 21eft-turn la-nes and 1 shared through and right-tum lane. Buskirk Avenue at Wayne Drive: The westbound approach should be modified to provide a dual right-turn lane. Buskirk Avenue' at Geraldine Drive. The intersection should be improved as described under C.I.b. above.. C. Monitoring Progjam, (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Intersection Levels of Service shall be monitored with each development proposal so mitigation measure(s) are implemented prior to exceeding established Level of Service standard. (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing with development-proposals. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEK the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.2.a,. above. . 3. Transportation Impact 3 320108220018.1 A-20 �„95t3'73 a. Potentially Signif cant Environmental Effect. Future developments outside the Specific Plan area may result in traffic delays. b. Mitigation Measure(s). The County shall require the review of traffic.impacts of individual future developments outside the-Specific Plan area. Part of this traffic review shall be to identify the incremental impact of each project on the Routes of Regional Significance and assignment of an appropriate share of the unfunded costs,if any,for the improvements needed to off-set cumulative traffic impacts. C. monitorinzPmgram. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works to figure and approve appropriate cost-sharing and County Department of Community Development to condition pToeJ cts. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Require traffic impact study. ('01i) Com_.vletion Date: During entitlement process for individual projects. d. Fin The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in chapter IV of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects),Section Vi(Alternatives)and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Transportation Impact 4A a Potentially Siggificant Environmental_Effect. (i)Intensified competition for scarce BART parking will continue and may result in patrons arriving earlier to seek available parking. BART and the County will require that adequate parking be provided for whatever project is.-proposed. (ii) Shared parking,if required and necessary,will only be allowed by BART during non-peak hours. Parking managements strategies, as called for in the DEIR and in BART's 1996 Access Strategy Plan,will require approval of the Federal Highway Administration, if they involve the use of the existing garage. b. Mitigation Me Implement aggressive parking management strategies for any development on the BART property to insure unauthorized use of the BART patron parking does not occur and to assure compliance with goals of BART's ongoing access planning. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development will impose conditions on any development proposal on the BART property and 320\08\22001 8.1 A-21 195073 . require annual reports from BART. County Planning Commission or Board to have final project approval. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Development plan review. (iii) Completion Date: When individual development applications are considered. d. F The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV.of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in CA.a. above. 510' Transportation hnpact 4C a.. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The estimated 100- 12.5 patrons added in the peak direction by Specific Plan-Amendment development will lengthen' the queues of patrons exiting the station in the PM peak pen*od. b. .. . Mitigation Measur IM lement BART's access plan. Identify and require new development to helpflmd implementation of measures to optimize BART operations. Horizontal and vertical(i.e.,elevator and escalatory pedestrian flows shall be increased in order 10.M am safe access and egress from the station. . _ c. Monitoring Program. . . .(i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development monitors compliance. (ii) Monitoring-Action to be Taken: Development plan review. (iii) Completion Date: On-going, as projects are proposed. d. F The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring. program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially Lessen the significant environment effect described in C.S.a. above. 6. Taortarantion Impact 5 a. Potentially Simficant, Environmental Effect, The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not include a number of alternative modes of transportation measures identified in the Specific Plan Traffic Report. 320\08V2020001 8.1 A-22 DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the.above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in C.7.a above. 8. Transportation Impact 7 a. PotentiallYSignificant Environmental Effect, Oak Road.at Wayne Drive(both AM and PM peak hours) and Oak Road at Jones Road(PM peak hour only)would 0 be impacted in 2010 under Alternatives I A and 1 B. b. Mitigation Measures(s). The westbound approach of Oak Road at Wayne Drive should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, 1 through-lane and I right-turn,lane. The westbound approach of Oak Road at James Road should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, I shared through- and right-turn lane and I exclusive fight-turn lane. C, Fes. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,neither Alternative lA nor 1B are the alternatives m* the Specific Plan Amendment impact IM*912adopted by the Board,and thus the above will not-result and the mitigation measure(s) and the monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 9. Transportation Impact 8 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Sones Road would be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in 2010 under Alternative 2 bo Mitigation Measures(s). The westbound approach.-should be modified to provide 1 left-turn lane, I through-lane and 1 right-turn.lane. C. Fin As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 2 was not the alternative inthe Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the .Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 100 Transportation Impact 9 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Wayne Drive would_be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in2010 under Alternative I b. Mitigation Measures(sl. The westbound approach should be modified to provide I left-turn lane, I through-lane and I right-turn lane.. I Q 1 A_7d I c. . F . As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings,Alternative 3 was.not the alternative in the Specific Plan Amendment-adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 11. Transportation Impact 11 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The intersection of Oak Road at Wayne Drive would be significantly impacted during the PM peak hour in 2010 under Alternative 5. b. Mitigation Me:asur The westbound approach should be modified to provide 1 left-tum lane, 1 through-lane and 1 right-turn lane. CIO F 9. As explained in more detail in Section VI of these findings, Alternative 5 was not the alternative in the Specific Plan Amendment adopted by the Board, and thus the above impact will not result and the mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program for such impact will not be necessary. 12. Transportation Impact 13 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. The Treat Blvd. widening project would result in construction-related impacts on firaffic flow in the project area. b. Mitigation Measures(s). Construction activities on Treat Blvd. shall be limited to non-peak commute times(9 AM to 4 PM and 7 PM to 5 AM)and the contractor shallmaintain at least two eastbound and three westbound through lanes open during peak commute times. C. Finding. The County supports this mitigation measure,however, the County does not have jurisdiction and thus this mitigation is-deemed infeasible and the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed ia Section V (Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that the City of Walnut Creek City Council has indicated in writing that it will not pursue the full widening of Treat Blvd.Project and is considering alternatives to the project. It is anticipated that the impacts associated with this proejct will be substantially less than those studied in the EIR. 13. Transportation Impact 14 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Widening of North Main Street will have several impacts on local access and may affect the Black Angus site. 1195073 b. Mitigation Measures(sl. Some right-of-way acquisition will be required,, which will impact the Black Angus restaurant. A completel "1c control plan shall be developed as part of the final design-of the North Main Redevelopment Project, C. Monitoxzn Program (i) Responsibility: County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Assure adequate access remains for restaurant and monitor implementation of traffic control plan, (iii) Completion Date: When project is proposed and funded. I Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter IV of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives)and Section VI[(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. Do Air Oualiiv Impacts 1. Air Ouality Impact 1 a. Potentially-Significant Environmental Effect. Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulates. b. Mitigation Measur G During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: (i) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily* (ii) Water or cover stock piles of debris,soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. (M"*) Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all construction hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. (iv) Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. (v) Sweep_street daily,preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. For all constructions sites greater than 4 acres:. inn%AQX'I0IAA 1 0 Ct 2950'73 1 (vi) Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. (vii) Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). (viii) Limit traffic speeds in unpaved areas to 15 mph. (ix) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures when earth is exposed in order to prevent silt runoff to public roadways prior to construction. (x)- Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. C. Monitoring Program.. (i} Responsibility: County Department of Building Inspection conditions projects as part of project approval and monitors compliance. (Il) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of development approval. {ui) Completion Date: During project approval process for individual developments. _ d. Find The above mitigation measures) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter V of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in Doll a. above. 2. Air QualiV__IMpact 3 a. PotentigLILSi_ ificant Environmental Effect. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Area. All alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regional pollutants (ROG,NO,PM10)• b. Mitigation Measur Implement measures to promote non-auto travel such as the alternative travel modes discussed in the Section.C above. To mitigate regional air-quality impacts: (i) Provide secure and convenient residential and non- residential bicycle parking (ii) Provide preferential parking for low emission vehicles and carpools within parking garages. _ D_77 e 195073 (iii) Promote programs and advertising to induce site users to use BART. (iv) Adopt trip reduction goals identified in the transportation section of the EIR. (v) Adopt enforcement procedures for trips reduction measures to the extent legally possible. - C. Monitorina Proms. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure(s) (i)-(iii),the County Department of Community Development will impose mitigation measure(s)as conditions of project approval and County Planning Commission or Board will have final project approval. For mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v),the Board have adopted these measures when it adopted the-Specific Pian Amendment, (ii) Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure(s) (i)-(iU*"), require as condition of approval. For mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v), adopt goals* and enforcement procedures. (iii) Completion Date: Ongoing as projects are submitted for approval for mitigation measure(s)(i)-(iii). At the time of Specific Plan Amendment adoption for mitigation measure(s) (iv)-(v). d. Findi The above mitigation measures)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Despite the adoption of such mitigation measure(s) and based upon the information and analysis in Chapter V of the DEIR,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant.effect will be-discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI (Alternatives) Section and VIII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. E. Noise Impacts 1. Noise Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Development in subareas-7B/8, I OA and 14A would result in land use compatibility impacts, creating circumstances of`normally unacceptable' and `clearly unacceptable' noise levels for development. b. Mitigation Me-asures(s). (i)Exterior noise_levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate site planning and/or use of soundwalls; and (11) interior noise levels should be reduced to acceptable levels through inclusion of sound rated windows, insulation,full air-conditioning, or building facade treatments. 320\OR\22001 8.1 A-28 195Q'73 C. 'Monitoring Pro rte. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure(i), Community Development Department will condition as part of development entitlement process and County Planning Commission or Board shall have final project approval. For mitigation measure(ii), Community Development Department and County Department of Building Inspection Department will condition pxoejcts,with Department of Building Inspection having final approval authority* (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Require as part of entitlement process, (iii) Completion Date: For mitigation measure(i),prior to completion of initial study. For mitigation measure(ii), at project review, approval and when issuing a building pen-nit, d. Fin.diiug. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in E.l.a. above. 2. Noise Imuact 3 a. Potentially SHicant Environmental Effect. Short-term noise level increases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Plan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. b, Mitigation Measures(sl. Implement County construction noise Jug.construction to the hours of 7:30AM—5 PM Monday-Friday. Require policy limi construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • mufflers All internal engine-driven.equipment shall be equipped with that are in good condition; • Use "quiet" gasoline-powered com-r-ssors,or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. • Retain a disturbance coordinator.to monitor construction activities and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed, consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. C. Monitoring Program. 195073 (i) Responsibility: County Department of Co M I t-Y Development and County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Mom*to&�Action to be Taken: Condition project approval and grading and building permits with these mitigations. Review construction contracts to insure they include applicable measures. (iii) CmPletion Date: During entitlement process,, d. F. LLA . The above mitigation measure(s)*and monitoring procram are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen- gnificantthe sienvironment effect described in E-2.a. above. 3. Noise Impact 4 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Traffic generated by cumulative development outside the Specific Plan area would cause a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along certain road segments within the Specific Plan Area. Development within the Specific Plan Area would add to cumulative noise levels. b. Mitigation Me . No mitigation is feasible nor a monitoring plan necessary since traffic generated outside the Specific Area is not within the jurisdiction of the County. County already participates in joint planning for regional traffic impacts. This 49 impact remains significant and unavoidable. C. Finding. Based upon the information and-analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and the analysis in this Section E.3 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VIII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. 4. Noise Impact 5a a. PotentialILSi ficant Environmental Effect. Proposed roadway improvements for the Treat Boulevard widening and the North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection would result in construction-related noise impact. b. Mitigation Measures(.$). If the Treat Blvd. and N.Main St.road improvements are undertaken,recommend to agencies with jurisdiction to implement the County construction noise policy and the construction noise mitigations_set forth in,E.2.b. above. C. Fin County mitigation is not feasible,nor a County monitoring plan necessary, since these improvement projects are outside the jurisdiction of the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and this Section A 01 A 135Q'73 E.4 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in lection V(Summary of Unavoidably Significant Adverse Impacts), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that both applicable jurisdictions have indicated,formally in the case of Walnut Creek and informally in the case of Pleasant Hill,that they do not intend to carry out the projects as studied in the EIR. Thus it anticipated the impacts of these projects will be less than those indicated in the EIR. 5. Noise lonpact Sb a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Increase in noise due to Treat Boulevard widening and North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection -improvements would impact homes along widened roadway corridors. b. Mitigation Me Recommend to agencies with jurisdiction to undertake project-specific noise studies and follow recommendations to decrease interior and exterior noise to-acceptable levels. C, Finding. County mitigation is not feasible,nor a County monitoring plan necessary, since these improvement projects are outside the jurisdiction of the County. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VI of the DEIR and in this Section E.5 of these findings,the above impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse effect. Therefore,this significant effect will be discussed in Section V(Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts), Section VI(Alternatives) and Section VII(Statement of Overriding Considerations)below. It should be noted that both applicable jurisdictions have indicated,formally in the case of Walnut Creek and informally in the case of Pleasant Hill,that they do not intend to carry out the projects as studied in the EIR. Thus it is anticipated that the impacts of these projects will be Less than those indicated in the EIR. F. Geology and Soils Impacts 1. Geology-and Soils Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. Strong to violent earthquake gro k;ng on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements,and in extreme cases,loss of Life. b. Mitigation Measures(s). Require geotechnical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement, and liquefaction. (i)Engineered fills in the P1 anning area shall be properly designed and adequately compacted(i.e.minimum 90%relative compaction as defined by ASTI D1557)to significantly reduce both seismically-induced and natural fall settlement (ii)All roads,structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure. (iii) Final design of improvements shall-be rnade 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 320\08\22001 8.1 A-31 195073 liquefaction potential exists,the report shall include measures to control drainage,including measures aimed at controlling damage-to buildings,bu�cied pipelines and surface parking. C. Monitoring Pro ream. (i) ReSDonsibilitv: County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: During project review. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in F.La. above. 2. Geoloav and Soils Impact 2 a. Potentially Sig!�ficmt Environmental Effect. Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations,slabs and pavements. b. Mitigation Meas&e (i) The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed.Design-level geotechnical investigation for individual projects sha11 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. (ii)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. C. Monitoring Program. r (i) Responsibility: County Building Inspection Department. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: During project review. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are here-by adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in F.2.a. above. 320\08\22001 891 A-3 2 G. Schools Impact 1. Schools Impact 1 a Potentially Si�nMeant Environmental Effect. Development would attract school-aged children. b. Mitigation Me Collect$1.65/square foot of residential development and$.25/square foot of commercial development. The school district has already adopted the school impact fees. C, Moniton"na Program. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Building Inspection. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Collect impact fees. (iii) Completion Date: Prior to issuing building permits. d. Fin_dingy. The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIP,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program.will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in G.La. above. H. Fire Protection Services Impact 1. Fire Protection Services Impact 1 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All alternatives would increase traffic which would have the effect of increasing response times for fire trucks and emergency medical services. b. Mitigation Measur (i) Require sponsors of new development projects to prepare a life safety plan in consultation with the Contra Costa County Fire District. (ii)Require new commercial buildings to have life safety systems that include sprinklers, smoke detectors,,early warning systems,fire rated.walls and other requirements of the building code. (iii)Include in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan life safety policies and features that address fire suppression,training,traffic signalization to accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles,street widths and setbacks to facilitate fire protection. C. Monitoring Proms. 320108\220018.1 A-313 . 19S073 (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measures(i)and (ii), County Fire District. For mitigation measure(iii), County Board adopted policy when Specific Plan Amendment adopted and County Building Inspection Department reviews compliance. (u) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure(s) (i)and(ii),review plans for adequacy of Life safety systems. For mitigation measure(iii),draft . policies for the Specific Plan Amendment. (iii) Completion Date: For mitigation measures(i) and(ii), ongoing during project design and prior to issuing a construction pen-nit for developments; and . prior to adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment for mitigation measure(iii). d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring proL L"LL are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,-the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in He 1.a. -above. I. Police Protection Services Impact 1. Police Protection Service Impact 1 a.. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All new developments will have an impact on provisions of police protection services. b. Mitigation M (i)For new developments,work with Sheriff s office to identify design features of projert which discourage criminal behavior. (u) Development in the station area may be required to provide a BART police station depending on the scale of development. (iii)If BART parking is to be accommodated on subareas 9, 7A.5 7B and 8, discussions should take place among the BART, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek Police Departments and the County Sheriff s Department to determine if and when BART police should be part of the enforcement effort for these areas. (iv) 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. C. Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development shall condition projects. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Applications shall be forwarded to Sheriffs Office, BART Police Department, Pleasant Hill.Police Department, and Walnut Creek Police Department as appropriate for proposed development. (in) Completion Date: As needed during project design and review. 320\081220018.1 A-34 195073 d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEM.,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in I.l.a. above. J. Parks,Recreation and Open Space Impacts 1. Parks,Recreation and Open Space Impact 1 a Potentially Significant Environmental Effect.New residential development would result in greater use of existing recreational facilities which are already highly utilized. b. Mitigation MeasuresThe County already requires new residential development to dedicate land or to pay park dedication fees. . C, Monitoring Proms. (i) Responsibility: County Department of Community Development. Monitoring Action to be Taken: Determine the parkland(n) dedication requirement for each new residential development. iii) Completion Date: Prior to issuing a building permit. d. Fin ' . The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and-monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described-in J.1.a. above. 20' Parks,Recreation and Open Space Impact 2 a. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect. All of the alternatives have the potential to significantly impact the Iron Horse Regional Trail. b. Mitigation Measure (i) Submit development plans for review and comment to the EBRPD to coordinate station area development with the completion of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Measures that would improve the trail are bike parking facilities, a bike rental concession and seating along the-trail. (ii) Remove the temporary pnrkinCr in the Southern Pacific right-of-way when the lease expires to facilitate completion of the Iron Horse Trail in the station area. 320\08\noo1 s.1 A-35 19,SO743 C, Monitoripg.ProggM. (i) Responsibility: For mitigation measure(i),County Department of Community Development will impose mitigation measures on all new development. For mitigation measure(ii), County Department of Public Works with cooperation from BART and Caltrans. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: For mitigation measure (i), condition development with Fast Bay Regional Park Di ct review and comment for any construction projects that impact the Iron Horse trail. For mitigation measure(ii),validate removal of temporary parking and cordon off the area so packers cannot enter. (1' i) Completion Date: For mitigation measure(i),as needed during project planning and review,and prior to approval. For mitigation(ii),when lease expires. d. Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in J.2.a. above. K. Water Supply and Facilities vact _ 1. Water S=ly-and Facilities Impact 3 a Potentially Sianificant Environmental Effect. Road improvement projects could impact utilities by interrupting service. h. Mitigation Measur. Require construction contracts and plans to demonstrate how the road builders will coordinate with utility companies and service providers to assure that service will not be intentionally or accidentally interrupted during construction. C, Monitorine Pro (i) Responsibility: Contra Costa County Department of Public Works. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken: Convene meetings to coordinate work of road builders and utilities companies. (iii) Completion Date: As needed during project pI 9 and construction. 320\08220018.1 A-36 19507a d. Findin . The above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring program.are hereby adopted. Based upon the infornia#ion and analysis in Chapter VIII of the DEIR,the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in K.l a. above. L. Cultural Resources Impact 1 Cultural Resources Impact 1 a.. Potentially Significant Environmental Effect., The station area is archaeologically sensitive and future development could impact significant cultural resources, b. Mitigation Measur Require archaeological studies be made to demonstrate the presence or absence of cultural resources and the.significance of resources if present. Follow the procedure for site evaluation as detailed in the DEIR,page IX-3. C. Monitoring Program. (i) Responsibiliiv: Contra Costa.County Department of Community Development with final project approval by County Planning Commission or Board. (ii) Monitoring Action to be Taken. Require as a condition of project approval. (iii) Completion Date: As needed at time of project application and prior to granting site or construction permits., d, Finding. The above mitigation measure(s) and monitoring inprogram are hereby adopted. Based upon the infa ion and analysis Chapter IX of the DEIR,thefinding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measure(s)and monitoring 61211 programwill avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment effect described in L.l.a. above. V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts W I" The following significant impacts of the proposed.Specific Plan Amendment are considered unavoidable: A. Housing and hotel uses allowed on subareas7B/8 could be significantly impacted by freeway noise, B A wide range of newly permitted uses could cause significant impacts related to visual qualify,traffic,noise, site population, demand for public services, intensification-of site use., and diurnal use of the station areas, compared to existing conditions. 7320\08220018.1 A-� 19,Sp73 C. Elimination of the Southern Pacific right-of-way for use as*an arterial street is a major change in land use and circulation that shifts traffic to other, already heavily used streets that serve station area traffic. D. Widening of Treat Boulevard would result in land use and visual impacts. E. The North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Boulevard would result in visual impacts from proposed retaining walls. F. The fixed guideway transit line could have significant construction and operational impacts. - _ G. The array of uses permitted for subarea 12 has increased to allow educational and cultural facilities which may result in off-commute and weekend use of the site,, attraction of a regional.population, dramatically increased site utilization and high parking demand, H. The proposed"Kiss-and-Ride" commuter drop-off facility proposed for subarea 12 would cause *increases in localized traffic and circulation impacts. L Alternatives 4A and 4B could have significant land use compatibility impacts. J. The Treat Boulevard widening project would result in construction-related impacts on traffic flow in the Specific Plan area. K. Widening of North Main Street will have several impacts on local access and may affect the Black Angus site. Lo Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay Area. All alternatives would generate more than 80 pounds of regiona- pollutants (ROG,No.PM1o)• M. Traffic generated by cumulative development outside the Specific Plan area would cause a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along certain road segments within the Specific Plan area. Development within the Specific Plan area would-add to cumulative noise levels. N. Proposed roadway improvements for the Treat Boulevard widening and the North a Main in Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection would result construction-related noise impacts, O. .Increase in noise due to Treat Boulevard widening and North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection improvements would impact homes along the widened roadway corridors. 320\08\'.7.2001 8.1 A-3 8 :195073 P. Future developments outside the Specific Plan Area.may result in traffic delays. These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the adoption by the Board of all feasible mitigation measures related to these impacts as identified in the DEIR. Only the following mitigation measures have been rejected by the Board as being a infeasible for the reasons specified in Section IV above and S arized below: • Limitsignage to one on each new building and no additional signs on existing buildings if they would exceed one. Signs should have a degree of uniformity in appearance to foster a sense of identity within the station area. This mitigation measure is rejected as commercial unreasonable and economically infeasible. • Mitigation measures related to the Treat Boulevard widening project are rejected as legally infeasible because the project is outside the jurisdiction of the County, • Mitigation measures related to the North Main Street realignment at Oak Park Boulevard are rejected as legally infeasible because the project is outside-the jurisdiction of the County,, VI, Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the Prol2osed.SRecific Plan Amendment The EIR discusses eight alternatives to the Specific Plan Amendment,the adoption of which would,in some cases,avoid some of the significant environmental effects listed in Section V above. No studied alternative was found to be environmentally superior in the EIR, The EIR indicates that the environmentally superior alternative would be one in which mitigation incorporated.measures are The adopted Specific Plan Amendment adopted - most to the mitigation measures as discussed above, The Board has already considered the alternatives to the Specific Plan when the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted and no further action is required at this time. The findings adopted by the Board on October 6, 1998 with regard to the Specific Plan Amendment alternatives are incorporated herein by this reference-, VH- Statement of Ovenidin'g Considerations Through the Redevelopment Plan Amendment,the Board and the Redevelopment Agency have secured substantial social, economic and other benefits (described in detail below), which allow the Board and the Redevelopment Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which Statement deems infeasible certain alternatives and which finds acceptable any remaining significant environmental impacts. Through the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program adopted in these findings,the Board and the Redevelopment Agency have attempted to avoid or mitigate to a Less-than- 320\08\22001 8.1 A-39 JL95073 significant level all Redevelopment Plan Amendment impacts,and to otherwise consider, address, and resolve all of the environmental.concerns raised during the public process. To the extent that a significant'.impact remains unavoided or not mitigated.to a less than-significant level, it is determined,that such avoidance or mitigation is infeasible because of the specific I. social,economic,and other reasons_set forth in-this Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 et. seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations,the*Board and Redevelopment Agency make the following statement of overriding considerations: The Redevelopment Plan will have certain significant impacts which will not be fully mitigated by the identified mitigation measures, as identified inPart V of these Findings. The Board and Redevelopment Agency have carefully considered the proposed.Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the associated unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and hereby identify the environmental, economic, legal, social,technological, and other benefits of the Redevelopment Plan.Amendment: A. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan,in combination with themitigation measures,will provide the County and the Redevelopment Agency with financial and legal resources that would otherwise not be available to the community to complete the planned projects in the Project Area and to eliminate blighting influences in the Project Area, related to vacant and underutilized lots characterized by various physical and economic unpaireddeficiencies, substandard public improvements, property values, and private sector disinvestment, among other adverse physical and economic conditions. B. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will provide legal and financial resources to achieve goals and objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan in the Project Area that have not otherwise been achieved and are not foreseeably achievable by the private sector without redevelopment assistance,related to the provision and*improvement of affordable housing, the provision of enhanced public improvements, and the enhancement of local business development. C. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment cannot fiil.ly resolve the impacts of growth in the Project Area already otherwise ...,.L...orized in the General Plan and the Specific Plan. However,the Redevelopment Plan can provide legal andfinancial means that would otherwise a not be available to the community,1114 q NL=tv,for mitigating a material portion of those impacts by requiring and and/orfinancially supporting certain mitigation measures VWUut public:improvements in connection with new development in the Project Area which will reduce adverse impacts. D. Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, in combination with the mitigation measures.,will contribute to the physical and economic revitalization of the local business-commercial segments of the Project-Area economy,which currently suffer from underutilization and decline-or stagnation of business activity. The revitalization of the local business and commercial segments of the Project Area economy will, in turn,benefit the County and the local community by providing employment opportunities., needed public infrastrucfiue,retail and service facilities, and expanded sales tax revenues, 3 20\08\2200 1 8.1 A-40 :1950173 E. Adoption,and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, in. combination with the.mitigation measures,Will contribute to rehabilitation, expansion,,and preservation of-decent,safe, and sanitary affordable and market-rate housing in the Project Area. The programs of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment include the use of tax increment-revenue to fund: (1)housing rehabilitation loans and grants; (2) assistance for the construction of new affordable rental and ownership housing units; (3)first-time homebuyer assistance; and(4) fuiancial assistance for segments of the community with special housing needs. F Adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment will provide for the collection of tax increment revenue for concentrated utilization within theProjectArea to adhieve the goals, objectives and results outlined above, as authorized by-the CommunityRedevelopment Law. The above outlined benefits are a brief summary and overview of the specific benefits of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment identified and documented throughout the record,with particular reference to the Report to Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Plan itself. The Board and Redevelopment Agency have weighed the above-benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment against the unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the EIRG The Board and Redevelopment Agency hereby find -that the unavoidable impacts have been reduced to the extent practicable by the inclusions of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Programand determine that the benefits.described above outweigh the risks and adverse effects and,therefore,, determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are "acceptable." END OF DOCUMENT 3 20\08\22001 8.1 A-41