Attachment B-1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Attachment B-1
The proposed Carmax auto dealership would be located on approximately 9 .95 acres on the northern portion of the DV Plaza shopping center site and would include the following features:
• Approximately 18,824 square feet of building area for sales, service, car wash and presentation areas
• Associated parking lot and parking lot display areas, including new parking lot lighting
• Landscaping, fencing, drainage, grading, signage and related site improvements
• Demolition of existing structures
• Vehicular and pedestrian connections between the northern and southern portions of the site
A. Project Description
This is a study session to provide the applicant with the opportunity to introduce the Carmax project, respond to questions and receive preliminary input from the Architectural Review Commission and the public. A similar introductory study session was held March 8, 2016 by the Planning Commission. Since this is a study session, no actions will be taken by the Architectural Review Commission on the proposal at this time. The applicant plans to finalize the project plans after these introductory study sessions for further consideration by the City.
I. INTRODUCTION
Merlone Geier Partners, MOP X DVC LLC, 425 California Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104
Property Owner:
Carmax c/o Centerpoint (Amanda Steinle), 1240 Bergen Parkway, Suite A-250, Evergreen, CO 80439
Applicant:
Troy Fujimoto, (925) 671-5224, [email protected] Project Planner:
CARMAX AUTO DEALERSHIP - STUDY SESSION 61- 77 CHILPANCINGO PARKWAY PLN 16-0027
Study Session #1
April 7, 2016 staff report Architectural Review Commission
The General Plan land use designation for the site is Mixed Use. The Mixed Use designation allows for a variety of uses, in combination or independently, as determined by the City through the discretionary review process.
A. General Plan
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City has also planned a number of public improvements surrounding the project site, some of which were recently completed (Golf Club Road Bridge and related road, sidewalk and landscaping improvements) while other improvements are still in the design phase (Old Quarry Road roundabout and related road, sidewalk and landscape improvements) with construction anticipated to begin shortly. The City has been working with the property owner to coordinate on-site and off-site construction activities to the extent feasible (access points, walkways, driveway locations, etc.).
Merlone Geier Partners also recently obtained City approval for a new free-standing sign (50 foot maximum height) on one of the several parcels comprising the shopping center site (61 Chilpancingo Parkway). This sign is intended to substantially improve visibility and identity for the entire site. Merlone Geier Partners also recently demolished the two story office building that previously existed on this parcel.
The project site is made up of several parcels that were originally developed in the 1970's as a single shopping center. Various tenants have occupied the shopping center over the years (e.g. Safeway, K""Mart, Round Table, McDonalds, etc.). In 2008, this site was incorporated into a Redevelopment Project Area. However, in 2011, the State of California dissolved redevelopment agencies throughout the State eliminating local agencies' redevelopment powers. Over the years, ownership of the site has changed and future plans for the site have also evolved. The current owner, Merlone Geier Partners, recently received City approval for remodeling the existing shopping center on the southern half of the site, including: construction of updated facades and signage, new lighting, updated landscaping, a new dog park, various site improvements, and a new public trail running the entire length of the site from Golf Club Road to Chilpancingo Parkway adjacent to Grayson Creek. These improvements are currently under construction with completion anticipated in 2017.
B. Background
The plans also note a 2.02 acre future expansion area on the west side of the site that would accommodate future automobile dealership related activities that have not yet been determined. The preliminary analysis provided below is based on the conceptual plans provided. A more detailed analysis will occur when a complete development application is submitted for City review.
Carmax Auto Dealership - Stuuy Session PLN 16-0027 Page2
1. Ensure excellence of architectural design; 2. Ensure that siting and architectural design of structures, including their
materials and colors, are visually harmonious with surrounding
A. Purpose
III. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW
The purpose of architectural review is to evaluate the interdependence of property values and aesthetics, and to provide a method to promote sound land use development. More specifically, architectural review is intended to:
Zoning Uses North PUD Multi-Family Residential South RB - Retail Business Diablo Valley Shopping Center East RB - Retail Business Commercial Uses West MRH Multi-Family Residential
D. Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The portion of the site that is proposed for the Carmax use is approximately 9.95 acres and is currently developed with the vacant former K-Mart retail building and a stand-alone McDonald's restaurant. Access to the site is available from multiple roadways including Chilpancingo Parkway to the north, Old Quarry Road to the west and Cottonwood Drive to the east. Grayson Creek is located immediately west of the site. The project site also includes a separate parcel (approximately 0.37 acres) located on the east side of Grayson Creek which may include additional future development, together with a free-standing sign for the Diablo Valley Shopping Center as previously noted. The site generally slopes from west to east (towards Grayson Creek). APNs 153-300-001 through 003 and 153-270-001.
C. Site Description and Existing Land Use
The site is also partially located within Airport Safety Zone 4, the least restrictive of the four Airport Safety Zones -. This safety zone includes a height limitation of four stories for new buildings. Projects within Airport Safety Zones are referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for review and comment regarding consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and related regulations.
The site is located in the RB-Retail Business zone district (note: "automobile sales" is considered a conditionally permitted use in this zone district).
B. Zoning
Carmax Auto Dealership- Study Session PLN 16-0027 Page 3
Development Requirements Regulations (RB)
Minimum Yards (Setbacks): Front 25 feet Rear None required Corner Side 25 feet. Side None required Aggregate Side None required
Creek Setbacks TBD Maximum Building Height 35 feet Maximum Number of Stories 2Yi stories Maximum Lot Coverage 35%
Minimum Site Landscaping 25%
Maximum Gross Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 40%
Planting Areas and Additional Setbacks When located adjacent to Residential Zoning District, additional setbacks and planting areas are required.
Refuse Storage Area Required for project.
Parking 1 per 400 square feet of sales, office and lounge area
<Note: parking requirements may be modified based on a project specific 1 per 500 square feet of outdoor display area parking analysis. >
The project site is located within the Retail Business RB Zone District. As the plans are conceptual at this time, consistency with applicable development standards will be reviewed once more detailed plans are provided. The table below summarizes applicable regulations within the RB Zone District.
A. Development Regulations
IV. ANALYSIS
development and with the natural landforms and vegetation of the areas in which they are proposed to be located;
3. Ensure that plans for the landscaping of open spaces conform with the requirements of Section 18.115. 0 I O.B and that they provide visually pleasing settings for structures on the site and on adjoining and nearby sites, and blend harmoniously with the natural landscape; and
4. Prevent excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, and preserve natural landforms and existing vegetation.
5. Ensure substantial compliance with City-wide design guidelines.
Cann.ax Auto Dealership - Su.uy Session PLN 16-0027 Page4
The project will. retain the existing general circulation pattern of the site with modifications to the interior parking lot circulation. North-south circulation would be on the eastern edge of the property, with an east-west access from Cottonwood Drive at the southern end of the site. Three access points would be provided from adjacent roadways. The existing access from Cottonwood Drive
B. Site Planning
Development Requirements Regulations (RB)
Small Car Spaces No more than 50%
Bicycle Parking 1 bicycle space plus 2% of the vehicle parking space requirement.
Motorcycle Parking Space One
Parking Access from Street One driveway allowed if there is less than 200 lineal feet of street frontage, two allowed if over 200 lineal feet of street frontage.
Parking Lot Landscape Median Strip 50 foot long landscape median strip required if access to a parking lot greater than 25 vehicles.
Parking Lot Design Standards: Note: the portion of the site used for outdoor auto display area is not considered a parking lot subject to these design standards. These standards will be applicable to required customer and employee parking lots.
Driveway Width 25 feet
Screening 3 foot high fence facing residential at front yard.
Outdoor Lighting Structures Maximum 24 feet in height.
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping 10%
Perimeter Parking Lot Landscape For parking lots up to 100 feet in depth - 5 Width feet wide.
For parking lots that exceed 100 feet in depth - 10 feet wide.
Minimum Landscape Planter Width Trees - four feet. No trees - three feet.
End of Parking Aisle Landscaping End of each row of parking separated by landscaping, sidewalk or other similar means.
Tree Requirement One tree for every three parking spaces.
Carmax Auto Dealership - Study Session PLN 16-0027 Page 5
DG l. l. i - A larger setback should be provided for structures when located near deeper creeks.
DG 4.a - Parking areas should be well-designed and safe.
DG 4.c - A balance of parking should be provided at the front, side, and rear of the site without dominating the entire frontage.
DG 4.h - Parking lots along the street frontage should be screened with landscaping.
DG 1.b - Buildings, roadways, and parking shall be sited to preserve existing heritage, protected, and mature trees to the greatest extent possible.
DG 1.c - Buildings should be located toward the front of the property and large expansive parking lots at the front of the property should be avoided.
DG 1 f- Parking should be concentrated at the rear and sides of the site.
DG 1. h - When located next to residential uses, the site should incorporate increased landscaping, increased setbacks, fencing, and appropriate building orientation to provide an adequate buffer between residential and non-residential uses.
Non Residential Design Guideline (DG) 1. a - The arrangement of structures, parking and circulation areas, and open spaces should recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, character, and materials.
Potentially Applicable Design Guidelines
Tash and recycling facilities are proposed within the parking lot, however, no design details are provided at this time. No other information is provided at this early stage in the review process pertaining to any other mechanical equipment for the proposed project.
Mechanical/Trash Facilities
The proposed project includes 142, standard-sized, customer/employee parking spaces. The preliminary plans do not note any bicycle, motorcycle or electric vehicle parking. Landscaping is proposed within the customer/employee parking lot, however, compliance with parking lot development standards will be assessed when more detailed plans are submitted.
Parking/Circulation
The buildings would be located south-centrally on the site. The car display area is proposed for the northern end of the site, fronting Chilpancingo Parkway. The employee and customer parking lot would be in the eastern portion of the property. The remaining, potential expansion area, is designated for the southwest comer of the property.
would remain, a modified access off of Chilpancingo Parkway is proposed and two access points off of Old Quarry Road would be provided (one of these would be restricted access only).
Carmax Auto Dealership - Su.uy Session PLN 16-0027 Page6
DG 2. c. i - Building facades should incorporate architectural features, change in elevation, insets and projections to discourage monotonous facades, long straight-line building fronts, plain box shapes, and barren exterior treatment
DG 2.a - The scale and mass of a new development should be consistent with neighboring developments without overwhelming through disproportionate size or design that is out of character.
Potentially Applicable Design Guidelines
The project proposes a contemporary design with the use of painted CMU block in combination with stucco coated exterior. The proposed color palette includes neutral tones, with trim incorporating lighter colors than the darker color proposed for the walls of the building. The majority of the building would have a height of approximately 24 feet. The elevation of the building facing the parking lot and outdoor car display area includes a horizontal bank of windows and doors at the pedestrian level, while the remaining building elevations are broken up through the use of vertical pilasters and horizontal layering of building colors. The majority of the building would have a flat roof with a parapet, except for the entrances to the building which would also have blue peaked roof features. These entrances would be delineated with vertical features, similar to a porte-cochere and painted a lighter color to further highlight their locations on the building.
C. Architecture/Design
DG 8. h. iii - Fully screen roof top equipment from public views
DG 8.h.iv - Screening for roof top equipment should use architecture that matches the overall building design.
DG 8.h.vi - The style, material and color of enclosures should be similar to those of the main structure.
DG 8. h. v - Trash enclosures shall screen trash containers on all 4 sides to the full height of the container.
DG 5. a. i - Site access and internal circulation should promote safety, efficiency and convenience. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians should be avoided.
DG 5.a.v - Decorative pavement should be used at entries and for pedestrian crossings throughout the parking lot.
DG 5.a. vi - Service facility access should minimize conflicts with vehicular and pedestrian movements. Access should be provided along the least used portions of the site.
DG 5.b.ii - Direct access from public streets should be provided to entries.
DG 5.b.vi - Pedestrian walkways should be safe, visually attractive, and well defined by landscaping and lights. Use of decorative pavement is encouraged in hardscape areas; at a minimum it should be used to delineate crossings.
DG 8.a - Fully screen all service facilities from the public street and adjoining properties. Screening should match the design and material of the main building.
DG 8.d - Solid, permanent materials (concrete, metal, etc.) should be used for service facility enclosures.
Carmax Auto Dealership- S .. _Jy Session PLN 16-0027 Page 7
Currently, lighting details are not specified on the project plans. New lighting is proposed throughout the site, particularly in the outdoor car display area. Further review of proposed light standards and associated photometrics will occur when lighting details are provided to ensure adequate lighting is provided throughout the site and that off-site lighting effects are minimized.
E. Lighting
DG 6f - Existing heritage and protected trees shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible and the loss of mature trees shall be minimized where possible.
DG 6.t - Encourage the use of alternative sources of water (rainwater, recycled) where possible for irrigation.
DG 6.u - Landscaping shall emphasize native and water-efficient plants.
DG 6. a - Integrate landscaping into site development and building architecture to ensure a complete project.
DG 6. c - Select landscape materials and plants that are appropriate in scale and function with the site and for the site conditions.
Potentially Applicable Design Guidelines
A combination of chain link fencing, solid walls and a guard rail are proposed to secure the perimeter of the service areas and outdoor car display area. Further design details will be provided when a later submittal is made by the applicant.
It is not clear which existing trees are proposed to be removed, however, based on the proposed site plan, it is expected that the project will propose the removal of many of the existing trees on site.
The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan at this time. The plan shows new landscaping and trees to be located within the employee/customer parking lot, with additional trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the site. The plans also do not show any landscaping for the potential future phase expansion area at the southwest comer of the site at this time.
D. Landscape/Tree Removal
DG 2f- Architectural detail should continue on all four sides of the building.
DG 2.n - Roof top equipment shall be screened from all views. The screening material should have materials and colors that complement and blend with the building. The finished screening solution should not appear "tacked on" to the building.
DG 6.s - Public art should be incorporated into larger projects and should be located in high visibility locations.
DG 6.s. ii - Artwork can be integrated into the building design in addition to freestanding structures.
DG 2.e - The architecture should have variations in form, building details, and siting in order to create visual interest.
Cannax Auto Dealership - Study Session PLN 16-0027 Page 8
SG C.4 - Signs should be designed to reflect the setting where they are located. For example, the symmetry and scale of a street-oriented sign would be different than that for a parking lot or pedestrian-level sign. ·
Sign Guideline (SG) C.2 - Signs should reflect and complement the architecture and design theme of the building or site, and should not "stand alone" as an overt attempt to gain pedestrian or motorist attention.
Po~entially Applicable Design Guidelines:
The preliminary plans show wall signage on the building. It is not clear at this time whether the proposed sign area will comply with ordinance standards. The type of signage and methods of illumination have not been finalized· at this time. It is also expected that monument signs will be proposed, however, no further information related to size, numbers, or location of any monument signs has been provided at this time.
H. Signs
Due to the preliminary nature of the plans, no engineering comments are provided until more detailed plans are submitted by the applicant. However, it is expected that relevant engineering topics would include right-of-way improvements, easements, ADA accessibility, grading, FEMA/flood/drainage, stormwater retention, site visibility, vehicle movements and circulation.
G. Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to specify these measures prior to final ARC review (e.g. vehicle charging station, recycled materials, high efficiency windows and mechanical equipment, alternative insulation, sustainable building methods and minimizing stormwater runoff).
F. Sustainable/Green Building Methods
DG 7.a - Lighting levels should be minimized to preserve the night (dark) sky.
DG 7. b - Light fixture design should be compatible and relate to the design and the use of the principal structure on the site.
DG 7.d - Height of light poles should be appropriate for the project and surrounding environment.
DG 7.e - Parking lot lighting should be in scale with the project, yet provide adequate lighting for safety and visibility purposes.
DG 7 f - Light sources should be shielded to prevent glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties
DG 7.g - Wall pack glare should be shielded and minimized.
DG 7.h - All pedestrian and vehicular areas shall be well-lit for safety and security.
Potentially Applicable Design Guidelines
Carmax Auto Dealership - S 1.uJy Session PLN 16-0027 Page9
Location Map Conceptual Plans Surrounding City Public Improvement Projects Study Session and Scoping Meeting Public Notice Public Comments
Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E
VII. ATTACHMENTS
Conduct the study session, receive input from an· interested parties and provide preliminary design feedback on the project.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
This is an introductory study session to present the project and receive preliminary input from the ARC and the public regarding design-related issues. As the plans are refined and finalized, the project will be brought back before the ARC for further consideration. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for this project and circulated for public review and comment in the coming months. The project will require review by the ARC, Planning Commission and potentially by the City Council.
V. SUMMARY
SG F.1 - The design, materials, construction, and installation of signs should reflect a high quality visual appearance.
SG J.1 - Lighted signs should minimize glare to pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists.
SG L.5 - Sign Base: Every monument sign should have a decorative base or pedestal. Low-profile flowers or shrubs should be planted surrounding the base.
SG L. 6 - Design: The materials, colors, textures, finish, and overall design of the monument sign should strongly incorporate the same design features from the associated building or the architectural setting.
SG C. 6 - Although an advertising medium, signs are to be also considered as architectural elements. The design of any sign should be visually consistent with the associated building's architectural features, such as exterior colors, finish detailing, lighting, windows, and other design elements.
Carmax Auto Dealership - Stu"1Y Session PLN 16-0027 Page 10
Attachment A
N
W*E s
N.T.S.
LOCATION MAP CARMAX
PLN 16-0027
Project Location
I J
' i -~-~i I f I l
' \
Attachment B
PLEASANT HILL, CA IT _!_--f~~ l , ......... li~I l!JCICAYJ~ Sant~! : : ~i PLEASANTON CA (925)225-0690
'CARmax~ ----
I] -0 11 OJ ~ :I: Ic:: )> )> )> - -j g U\ /{) <51'~~ -i-O"lllll~~lj\l c1~~~m lll ~ 7\ ~~~:;= Q~8l:ll -umQ --1 -0 JO J{l - --Im- f:':~0:5[Rm::-z ~~3'.~Z rn w z r~~ z l> ('\ (j\ lll l> <i' II ~~(i\ g~ ~~m o><m()
-0 ~5 z z~ /ll r o Ul II rti :r l> rz Z::I: 0 r )> ::< o \J (j\ /ll -0 -j z
(j\ :r 5 )> z -j
0 I] z /{) t; ~_Qi Qi_-~ cr--C) x J:\IV--.1 0 ~() '.<\ Jl () (ll 0>(5U>--C>...._ UTtvUl i:~< 5' ~ ~ ~Q>G'~~U\ )> )> )> "1\jl6
lJl Ul U\ !{:~~~!{: ('\('\('\ m --n -n "Tl
o
(;; " (JI -=\\'. b ~ I ~' m ~'.
~ "ll m µI -j
x z o z IJ ;o )> m ~ m ~ -<. x ll'
~ Fil es ;:!! (ii ~
(/) 0 > r: ro
0 2QJ
~"O -n liiiil o~ rri @ ~~
w mCiJ ....... liiiil l}jg co i:::=o )>< "3
~~ g ~ :i:O en Fz liiil
LC J)
-: t----; I
r ' ~\,
\\.
i \ "',.l___j __ /
--- - -- ---- ------------
[
,,_ >.-.
"
! ' /
.1~ :I ;·
I f
I f
i l
=
/
I/ I I
I I
" 0
~~ ~§":?
H n ;tJ _,~ Ii)>
~"' U)
U)
~§ I
)>
U)
m r 0 ·3 z
rom c
0
m )> Ul
-I ;a
~ ;tJ(/l
I -I
-l~m u I
- )> ;u ~~:::;
{!l;<
(/) 0
@~ rn Sl<>
~g H
_J
1! (/) "'U .!_,
\8 ~~ ~iii
~
~~ &; mj1
<>:r j
0
H~ 0
1: ;o ~ ~
8~ H ~~
.:;u U) ;;; ~ ~~ @~ I ~ ~ (/J
I ~~ ~ n rn m *~ U)
)>
-I U) -I
:-< IP
I~ ~ I~ t ! :
! ~ I i
~ "mi !-tr ~I :~~
CAR max m ~ CARMAX PLEASANT HILL ~ ~ -0 r ----- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS ~; c
J~i (") I )> 0 STORE NO. XXXX PLEASANT HILL, CA ~ PLEASANT HILL, CA 8~~ m
;.~ --
;~·--.0.-. Q-
• 0
~;~., !a
.,
II ~
CAR max ---- STORE NO. XxXX PLEASANT HILL, CA
CARMAX PLEASANT HILL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS
PLEASANT HILL, CA
·J_·. · 1 ,
·-:·; ...... ': .f .. I' , . ,
I 1~~1111 CAR max lff 11 PH ~·~.
CARMAX PLEASANT HILL ~§H ... , . r ----- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS r\J STORE NO. XXXX PLEASANT HILL, CA ~m PLEASANT HILL, CA ~m
.. !I . --_~ ...
-.t .. I
........... '
· .. · ...... ·.· .: · <§:§> .·· . . . . . N,~- ..
.... ~ l·. '. 'l·:·.- ..
· .. ·-1 .. · .. . . '.·
l_·.· ··J.··.
- ... -
~11~· l188 .. 1i1 @~ ~ + • ~ § ~ ce
·•.,.
Attachment C
Attachment D
( (
Greg Fuz Zoning Administrator
For information, call Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner, at 671-5224 or [email protected].
A STUDY SESSION will be held by the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION starting at 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, April 7, 2016 in the Large Community Room, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time. No action will be taken as this is a study session only.
A STUDY SESSION on the proposed project and SCOPING MEETING for the preparation of a DEIR will be held by the PLANNING COMMISSION starting at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, March 8, 2016 in the City Council Chambers, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time. No action will be taken as this is a study session only.
In addition, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15082, the City will conduct a public scoping meeting at the Planning Commission study session to solicit written and oral comments from interested parties, responsible agencies, and any other interested persons, organizations or agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that will be prepared for the project.
• Associated parking lot and parking lot display areas, including parking lot lighting
• Landscaping, fencing, drainage, grading, signage and related site improvements
• Demolition of existing structures
The proposed project includes:
• A Carmax automobile dealership including approximately 18,824 square feet of building area for sales, service, car wash and presentation areas
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that study sessions will be conducted by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission to review conceptual plans for ~ proposal by Carmax c/o Centerpoint to redevelop the northern area of the DV Shopping Plaza at 61 - 77 Chilpancingo Parkway, Assessor Parcels 153-300-001 through 003 & 153-270-001. The property is currently zoned RB - Retail Business and is approximately 9.95 acres.
PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION CARMAX AUTO DEALERSHIP
61-77 CHILPANCINGO PARKWAY PLN 16-0027
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL NOTICE OF
STUDY SESSIONS & SCOPING MEETING
Attachment E
( (
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive • Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000 •FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
4. The DEIR should discuss how the property is adjacent to Grayson Creek, which is owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (FC District). It should discuss possible impacts related to the FC District's use and access to the Grayson Creek right-of-way for maintenance of Grayson Creek.
3. The applicant should include discussion in the DEIR about originating hydrology and hydraulic calculations to the City that prove the adequacy of the in-tract drainage system. and the downstream drainage system. Given that there is no increase to impervious surface and that it is likely the existing infrastructure will be used, it is assumed there should be no effect to the downstream system.
2. We recommend that the City of Pleasant Hill (City) condition the applicant to design and construct storm drain facilities to adequately collect and convey stormwater entering or originating within the development to the nearest adequate man-made drainage facility or natural watercourse, without diversion of the watershed. No runoff should flow directly to the creek over the access road.
1. The DEIR should include discussion about using drainage area fees as mitigation for drainage impacts. This project is located within Drainage Area 89 (DA 89), for which drainage fees are due in accordance with Flood Control Ordinance Number 2002-40. By ordinance, all building permits or subdivision maps filed in this area are subject to the provisions of the drainage fee ordinances. Effective January 1, 2016, the current fee in DA 89 is $0. 76 per square foot of newly created impervious surface. The drainage area fees for this development should be collected prior to issuing building permits.
We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Carmax development at DV Plaza southeast of the intersection of Chilpancingo Parkway and Old Quarry Road. We received the notice on February 29, 2016, and we submit the following comments:
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:
RE: Carmax at DV Plaza Redevelopment #PLN 16-0027 Our File: 3089-06 153-300-001 (North)
Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner City of Pleasant Hill Public Works and Community Development Dept. 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
March 29, 2016
Julia R. Bucrcn, ex officio Chief Engineer Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Chief Engineer
.W Contra Costa County . Flood Control
.,,~~---..!
& Water Conservation.District
c: Mike Canson, Flood Control Tim Jensen, Flood Control Teri E. Rie, Flood Control Marsha Brown, Finance (APN 153-300-001) Greg Fuz, City of Pleasant Hill Mario Moreno, City of Pleasant Hill Amanda Steinle, Carmax ck: Centerpoint
1240 Bergen Parkway, Suite A-250 Evergreen, CO 80439
CMS:cw G:\fldctl\CurDev\CITTES\Pleasant Hill\3089-06\APN 153-300-001#2 DVC Plaza NORTH\NOP Comments ~Mar2016.doc
Craig M. Standafer Civil Engineer Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
We appreciate the opportunity to review projects involving drainage matters and welcome continued coordination. If you have any questions, please call me at (925) 313-2018 or e-mail me at [email protected].
8. The DEIR should include a section that discusses the FC District's 50-year. plan. The plan encourages local communities to plan for and modify flood control channels to incorporate natural features. This project and others within the City may be good opportunities to implement creek restoration and environmental enhancements. The City should continue to require developers to incorporate natural features into creeks and channels.
7. The DEIR should note that the FC District has a flowage easement that extends from the top of the channel bank to approximately 200 feet west. The flowage easements are recorded in 60440R364 and 67200R582. Permanent structures may not be built within these easement areas without performing a hydraulic analysis. We understand Carmax does not plan to do this. A parking lot, as proposed, is an acceptable use of the flowage easement.
6. The DEIR should discuss the joint-use trail/access road. It appears necessary for the developer to grant an access easement to the FC District for entrance to the proposed joint-use road.
5. The DEIR should include discussion about the development that is located on the same parcel located to the south of Carmax. The DEIR should discuss how this development affects the continuity of maintenance of Grayson Creek from the western bank.
Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner March 29, 2016 Page 2 of 2
cc: ALUC Commissioners
Enclosures
Sincerely,
.,- \ ~-.L --~~::--~~"
Jamar Stamps - ALUC staff
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 674-7832 or e-mail me at [email protected]. Again,_ thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and the ALUC looks forward to reviewing the Draft BIR.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for a prosed "Cannax" Auto Dealership. Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") staff provided a review and determination (attached, dated August 25, 2015) of the DVC Plaza redevelopment project, which is essentially located on the same site as the subject project. In general, the review criteria applied to the redevelopment project is applicable to the proposed automobile dealership. However, the issues identified in the August 25, 2015 ALUC letter primarily regarding the proposed tower-sign as it related to height and Buchanan Airport Safety Zone B-3 have been resolved and should not be an issue for the subject project.
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:
RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report "Carmax" Automobile Dealership File #PLN16-0027 61 & 65- 77 Chilpancingo Parkway Assessor Parcel Number(s): 153-300-001; -002; -003 and 153-270-001
Troy Fujimoto, Project Planner City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
March 29, 2016
Victoria Mejia Business Operations Manager
Kara Douglas Assistant Deputy Director
Phone: 1-855-323-2626
Maureen Toms Deputy Director
30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553
Jason Crapo Deputy Director
c/o Department of Conservation & Development
Aruna Bhat Deputy Director
John Kopchik Director
Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Commission
( (
1 Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2000) 2 Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Buchanan Airport Compatibility Policy 5.3.5.(a)
Safety Compatibility Criteria: The subject site is within Buchanan Field's Safety Zone 4 ("SZ- 4") (Exhibit B), as defined in the Plan (Figure 3C). Land use intensity is not limited in SZ-42
other than that buildings shall not have more than four habitable floors above ground. In addition, above ground storage of more than 2,000 gallons of fuel or other hazardous materials is
Noise Compatibility Criteria: The proposed project falls within the Commercial and Industrial: offices, retail trade' land use category of the Buchanan Field Airport Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 3A of the Plan). The subject site is within the 55-60 dB (Exhibit A) Buchanan Field Noise Contour (Figure 3B of the Plan). The proposed project would be considered "normally acceptable," where "noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon indoor activities. "
Airport Influence Area: The subject property lies within the Airport Influence Area ("AIA") of the Buchanan Field Airport.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject application. The applicant is requesting a review and determination of consistency with the Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("Plan") for the proposed redevelopment of the DVC Shopping Plaza in the City of Pleasant Hill ("City"). The Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC" or "Commission") relies on the Plan, as well as applicable state and federal regulations to review airport and adjacent land use development proposals. After reviewing the information provided (full set of proposed project plans dated July 23, 2015), ALUC staff finds the following:
Re: Redevelopment of Diablo Valley College ("DVC") Shopping Plaza File #PLN15-0162 61 & 66-93 Chilpancingo Parkway and 180-280 Golf Club Road Assessor Parcel Number: 153-300-001; -004 and 153-270-001
Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner City of Pleasant Hill Public Works and Community Development Department 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
August 25, 2015
Phone: 1-855-323-2626
Maureen Toms Deputy Director
30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553
Jason Crapo Deputy Director
c/o Department of Conservation & Development
Aruna Bhat Deputy Director
John Kopchik Director
Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Commission
Page2
ALUC staff recommends the applicant obtain a Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Obstruction Evaluation to determine if the proposed project is an obstacle, obstruction or hazard as it relates to protected airspace, and mitigation measures to alleviate such hazards. The obstruction evaluation can be obtained at this link: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/extemal/portal.jsp. Any obstruction reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations which receives a
The exception would be the proposed 65-foot "pylon sign" located on APN 153-270-001, which is the portion of the project site closest to the end of Runway 1 L and partially within SZ-3. The proposed sign site is at approximately 2,436 feet from the end of Runway IL and at approximately 30 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), creating a total structure height of approximately 95 feet above MSL. This may conflict with future Part 77 approach and departure surfaces and potentially penetrate Buchanan Field's protected air space.
Airspace Protection Criteria: The project is within Airspace Protection Surface (Runway IL Approach Surface 34: 1) as shown on Figure 3D of the Plan. Proposed building heights are up to 31 feet. A majority of the proposed project site is approximately 3,000 to 4,000 feet away from the end of Runway 1 L. Given the distance of the proposed site from the end of Runway 1 L, most of the project as proposed clearly would not obstruct Buchanan Field's protected airspace.
Future site plans should delineate the location of SZ-3. The project only proposes a new building pad for a future building which currently would not conflict with the Plan. However, the City should be aware that any proposal for this site should be forwarded to ALUC staff for review.
( d) Aboveground storage of more than 2, 000 gallons of fuel or other hazardous materials is prohibited.
(c) Residences, children's schools (through grade 12), hospitals, and nursing homes are specifically prohibited.
(b) Buildings shall have no more than three habitable floors above ground. However, if a building is proposed to have more than two habitable floors above ground, then the project shall provide for a disaster management plan to facilitate the rapid evacuation of building occupants in the event of an aircraft accident involving the building.
(1) Fast food restaurants, major shopping centers, theaters, and other places of public assembly typically do not comply with this criterion, but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and/or other mechanisms.
(a) Land uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125 people per acre.
5.3.4. Safety Zone 3
A small portion of APN 153-270-001 (north east comer) is within SZ-3 (Exhibit C). The criterion for SZ-3 is provided as follows:
prohibited. The proposal would not directly conflict with the Buchanan Field Airport SZ-4 policies.
3 Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2000), Chapter 2 - Countywide Policies Page j
cc: ALUC Commissioners
att: Exhibit A - Buchanan Noise Contours Exhibit B - Buchanan Safety Zone 4 Exhibit C - Buchanan Safety Zone 3
Sincerely,
~-)~~-~ Jamar Stamps - ALUC staff
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 674- 7832 or e-mail me at [email protected]. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed project.
Based on reviewing the information provided, ALUC staff has determined that while the proposed project may be generally consistent with the applicable compatibility criteria, sufficient detail is not available to find the project fully consistent with the Plan. Therefore, ALUC staff recommends the applicant request an FAA Obstruction Evaluation. Once this evaluation is complete, please forward the F AA's final determination to ALUC staff so that the next steps can take place accordingly, which would be ALUC staff finding the project consistent with the Plan or scheduling the project for a full Commission hearing.
ALUC Staff Determination: The Plan provides that to enable better assessment of compliance with the compatibility criteria, "Any proposal for new development (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) more than 50 feet tal/"3 within SZ-3 may require review and a determination of consistency from the full Commission. The ALUC would rely on the FAA's Obstruction Evaluation to determine what measures are necessary to prevent potentially hazardous conditions.
Overflight: The subject site is located beneath one ofBuchanan Airport's flight paths where the presence of frequent aircraft overflights could potentially be annoying to people on the ground. However, since the use is not residential and conducted primarily indoors, it would be reasonable to conclude that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to prolonged cumulative noise levels and noise-related impacts.
Lastly, glare or distracting lights which could be mistaken for airport lights could pose a flight hazard and should be avoided at all times. There are no specific Federal Aviation Administration or ALUC standards for this type of hazard as they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In any case, outdoor lights should be shielded so they do not aim above the horizon.
finding of anything other than "not a hazard to air navigation" will require a formal hearing and review by the full Commission.
( (
e :J 0 .. c 0 t~ c» f/j ·- 0 e
N C+-< 0
i]
- N ~ 0
~]
C') I
N Cl)
N <-+--< 0
2) Each premise to be provided domestic service will require its own service connection and meter (Reg. 5.32.020).
1) Existing water infrastructure will need to be evaluated and any modifications will need to be designed and constructed at the Developer/ Owner's expense.
CCWD Comments:
e Fire and domestic services will require backflow prevention devices. The Applicant has been directed to contact Richard Broad to discuss the use of reclaimed water at this location.
• The Applicant must provide CCWD with new land rights (easements) for all relocated water facilities.
o Existing 8-inch main will need to be relocated such that it will not be fenced in on the property or located under the bioretention areas at the Applicants expense. Looping within the water distribution system must also be reestablished at the Applicants expense.
1331 Concord Avenue • Concord. CA 94520 • (925) 688-8000 • fax (925) 688-8122 • www.ccwater.com
The District will provide treated (potable) water services to the Carmax Automobile Dealership Project (per CCWD Code of Regulations Section 5) which includes the following components:
The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD/ District) is in receipt of the City of Pleasant Hill's request for comments related to the Carmax Automobile Dealership Project. Our understanding of the Proposed Project is that it will include Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the demolition of existing buildings, and the construction of new auto dealership facilities located at 61, 65-77 Chilpancingo Parkway, (APN's# 153-300-001, - 002, -003, & 153- 270-001). The Proposed Project is located entirely within the service boundary of the CCWD.
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:
Subject: Comment Letter for the Carmax Automobile Dealership Project (#PLN 16-0027)
Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Sent via Hard Copy & Email: [email protected]
General Manager Jerry Brown March 23, 2016
...... CONTRA COSTA -======~WATER DISTRICT - -
Board of Directors Joseph L. Campbell
President
Lisa M. Borba Vice President
Bette Boatmun John A. Burgh
Connstance Holdaway PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
MAS/mlc
·rl/~L(J tulc11 Mark Seedall Principal Planner
Sincerely,
Should you require any further clarification on the District's comments, please contact Richard Broad/Engineering Department at (925) 688-8013.
I 0) The District has adopted a plan to address the ongoing drought conditions in California. Further information on the drought and its impacts on water allocation and new service connections can be found on the District's website at www.ccwater.com. It is recommended that all plans, particularly irrigation and landscape plans, be reviewed by the District to ensure consistency with the District's drought management plans. If the project or property is not within the District's Treated Water Service Area, please contact the municipality providing service to understand how you may be affected.
9) The District recommends Applicant submit an application for service or an application for a "Shotgun" estimate for this project, so that the District can provide a more detailed analysis and review.
8) Further information and answers to a number of frequently asked questions regarding water service and District regulations can be found on the District's web site at www.ccwater.com.
7) Relocation of public facilities must be performed by District forces.
6) Water service will likely require backflow prevention devices, which could reduce water pressure. Proper planning is necessary to ensure backflow prevention devices are located appropriately. ·
5) Relocation and/or abandonment of District facilities may be required which will require a quitclaim of the existing easements. Easements for proposed facilities may also be required.
4) A separate fire service may be required for each building or premise (Reg. 5.24.030).
3) A separate meter for landscape irrigation may be required (Reg. 5.32.020).
_ Troy Fujimoto City of Pleasant Hill March 23, 2016 Page2
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials • Contra Costa Health Plan • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers •
• Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • ---
cc: Joshua Slattengren, Environmental Health Specialist II Josephina Lopez, Environmental Health Specialist II
Joseph G. Doser, R.E.H.S. Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
These comments do not limit an applicant's obligation to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 692-253 5.
Sine~/
3. Some auto dealerships provide food or beverage service to their customers. The applicant should contact the CCEHD Plan Section to determine if any proposed food or beverage service would require a retail food health permit, in which case a plan review by CCDEH is required.
2. Any abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) and septic tanks must be destroyed under permit from CCEHD. If the existence of such wells or septic tanks are known in advance or discovered during construction or other activities, these should be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed pursuant to CCEHD requirements.
1. A permit from CCEHD is required for any well or soil boring prior to commencing drilling activities, including those associated with environmental investigation and cleanup, and geotechnical investigation.
The Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) has received a request for agency comments for the above referenced project. The following are our comments if the project is served by public sewer and city water:
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:
RE: File No. PLN16-0027 (Proposed Carmax dealership) 61 & 65- 77 Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill APN 153-300-001, 002, & 003; 153-270-001
Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner City of Pleasant Hill Community Development Department 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[j)~©~OWEn lfl1 MAR 07 2016 l!J
PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF PLEASANT Hill
March 3, 2016
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
MA.RILYN C. UNDERWOOD, PHD. REHS 2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200
Concord, California 94520 Ph (925) 692-2500
Fax (925) 692-2502 www.cchealth.org/eh/
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & HAZMAT OFFICER
WILLIAM B.WALKER, M.D. HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
CONTRA COSTA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RANDALL L. SAWYER
JGD:tf
Troy, Please find our comments on proposed auto dealership development. Please enter these in the public record. Thanks, John Meade [email protected] 925-682- 7621
John Meade <[email protected]> Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:12 PM Troy Fujimoto PLN 16-0027 Carmax Auto Dealership Comments PLN 16-0027 Pleasant Hill DVC Plaza.docx
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Troy Fujimoto
John F. Meade
Regards,
After comparing the types of traffic this used car lot is expected to generate, similar to the car
dealerships nearby in Concord (Diamond Blvd, Market Street auto row), I strongly recommend that
restrictions be placed in the Conditional Use Permit prohibiting vehicle deliveries using "car haulers"
during the hours of DVC operational overlap Monday-Thursdays. In addition, off-loading from these
"car-haulers" must be prohibited from parking on the public streets, as there is a serious safety issue
this would present on adjacent roads. This is a serious issue on the roads on the Concord Auto Row, and
those roads are wider with parking shoulders. The development should identify egress and appropriate
on-site car-hauler locations.
As a longtime local resident (30 yrs.) who has used Chilpancingo and adjacent roads daily, I am very
concerned from a traffic impacts perspective that this development is likely to exacerbate. As is well
known, the DVC traffic Monday-Thursday already severely over-tax the roads adjacent to the
development.
Mr. Fujimoto,
PLN-16-0027 Carmax Auto Dealership, 61 & 66-93 Chilpancingo & Golf Club Road
Planning Commissioners, PH.
And
Sr. Planner, City of Pleasant Hill
Mr. Troy Fujimoto
(925)682-7621
2253 Lake Crest Ct.
Martinez, CA. 94553
John F. Meade
1
Dorothy
Thank you for your assistance.
I will submit a signed page (original) this evening.
I am providing the attached for this evening's Study Session and Scoping Meeting. Please provide a copy to the Planning Commissioners.
Greg-
High Importance:
Dorothy Englund < [email protected]> Tuesday, March 08, 2016 4:35 PM Greg Fuz Troy Fujimoto; Diane Bentley CarMax Study Session and CEQA Scoping Meeting CarMax Study Session and CEQA Scoping Meeting.docx
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Troy Fujimoto ~---------------- .
1 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378{c}.
A. September 2008 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Diablo Valley College Plaza and Hookston Station Amendments to the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan.
Before summarizing some of the environmental impacts for the proposed DV Plaza development project, including the CarMax dealership proposed for the northern portion of the project site, I want to call your attention to previous CEQA studies, reports or other documents that may contain information relevant to your review and evaluation:
During the many study sessions and hearings on the development of DV Plaza, members of the public and public agency employees expressed concerns about potential environmental impacts. The records of those study sessions and hearings are a good place to start in determining whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Page 1of11
As you may know, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAt Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq., "applies to 'projects' that ... involve governmental authority." A CEQA "project" includes "the whole of the activity which may require one or more governmental approvals, rather than to each separate governmental approval."! Therefore, the City should have scheduled this Study Session and EIR Scoping Meeting several months ago, before the City held study sessions on the Diablo Valley Plaza (DV Plaza) use permit, architectural review permit, master sign program permit, and pylon sign permit for the proposed development.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide preliminary comments regarding environmental impact issues for the proposed CarMax project.
Honorable Chair Bonato and Commissioners,
Re: Study Session & EIR Scoping Meeting; PLN 16-0027 Carmax Auto Dealership, 61-77 Chilpancingo Parkway
Attn: Jim Bonato and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Pleasant Hill 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA
March 8, 2016
Dorothy Englund 150 Wyatt Circle Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
March 8, 2016 Planning Comr .. .sion Study Session and Scoping Meeting
C. Environmental Impact Reports or studies performed in connection with the development of SubAreas I and II of the Crossroads and the Buskirk Widening Project. These environmental studies and documents contain useful information pertinent to the proposed redevelopment of DV Plaza. The two shopping centers share much in common and the issues are similar. For example, both shopping centers were:
Page 2of11
CEQA requires agencies to consider cumulative impacts and future projects that are probable. The Old Quarry Road Improvement project and the proposed DV Plaza development project will have cumulative impacts that carry significant risks of potential adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA will require consideration of both projects in the initial study and in the EIR.
The Old Quarry Road Improvement Project is included in the May 2, 2014 2014-19 CIP CEQA document. The analyses of the various CIP projects may be helpful in preparing the EIR for the DV Plaza development project, including the CarMax dealership proposed for the northern portion of the site.
B. May 2, 2014 City of Pleasant Hill FY 2014-19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget.
Therefore, the City must evaluate any subsequent projects in light of the 2008 EIR, as weli as subsequent projects or activities that were not examined in connection with the 2008 EIR such as the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project.
It is important to note that the DVC Plaza and Hookston Station Amendments to the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan EIR is a program-level environmental assessment that evaluates the potential physical environmental effects of implementation of the proposed amendments, as a whole. With respect to individual development projects that may be proposed within the project areas, Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that subsequent activities should be examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared, consistentwith Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, any development proposals undertaken within the boundaries of the project areas must be approved individually by the City of Pleasant Hill and undergo their own project level environmental review, in compliance with CEQA.
Furthermore, the 2008 EIR states:
The City may be able to use some of the information and analysis included in the September 2008 EIR such as the plan to provide 300 residential units (an alternative to the proposed CarMax project).
March 8, 2016 Planning Comrr .. _ ... ion Study Session and Scoping Meeting
This report may provide useful in considering alternatives to the proposed car dealership at DV Plaza. The report provides information on DVC Plaza (one of four possible hotel sites included in the PKF Consulting study titled "Market Demand Analysis: Proposed Hotel, Pleasant Hill, CA").
Page 3of11
E. December 22, 2014 "Feasibility of Non-Residential Uses 100 Mayhew Way, Pleasant Hill," prepared by Robert Burke, Mayhew Properties; Bill Karr, TRI Commercial; and Greg Hugo, TRI Commercial
Jn this tentative ruling by Superior Court Judge Zuniga (that became the final ruling), the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) was required to "hold new and fair hearings" as a result of due process violations. The Judge also granted the Writ in N07-1518 regarding the "request to augment record ... concerning City's plans to widen Buskirk" ... as the "Buskirk Widening Project" was before Respondent."
D. August 4, 2008 Tentative Ruling in Pleasant Hills Property LLC Et al vs. Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission (Case N07-1518)
• Impacted by road improvement projects Both shopping centers sold the land needed to proceed with the City's road improvement projects (the Buskirk Widening Project in the case of the Crossroads and the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project in the case of DV Plaza). Both shopping centers lost parking spaces as a result of the road improvement projects.
The segmenting of the DV Plaza development project was discretionary as the City could have processed all related development proposals and all applications for development simultaneously rather than segmenting or piecemealing the project and the applications.
The segmenting of the Crossroads development project was unavoidable given the different owners with different plans and timelines for the development of their respective properties.
• Developed in separate phases
• Designated "mixed-use" in the General Plan with the intent of providing mixed use housing and retail on the respective project sites.
The Crossroads was added to the Redevelopment Plan in 2000 and DVC Plaza was added to the Redevelopment Plan in 2008. The City approved EIRs for each shopping center just prior to amending the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan in 2000 and 2008.
• Included in the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornn .... sion Study Session and Scoping Meeting
2 See page 2 of 7, "Property Marketing," December 22, 2014 "Feasibility of non-Residential Uses 100 Mayhew Way, Pleasant Hill."
ii. Circulation System Map The 2003 Circulation System Map is out-of-date and should be updated to reflect current traffic levels, truck routes, etc.
A car dealership conducts much of its business in the car lot, outside of the main building. Therefore, it is necessary to determine what measure of intensity (i.e. floor area ratio to include square footage of the outdoor car lot) must be applied to a car dealership use.
a. General Plan i. Maximum Allowed Intensity of Use
In the case of DV Plaza, the City should re-evaluate the General Plan's maximum allowed intensity of use that all projects must follow. The General Plan measures intensity of commercial projects based on the project's floor-area-ratio.
Page 4of11
The City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance have not kept up with the proposed development of our City and with DV Plaza in particular. The City has allowed development projects to determine the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (or the City's interpretation of the relevant goals, policies, ordinances and code sections) instead of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance determining which projects are allowable and appropriate.
1. Land Use and Planning
Based on research and review of the aforementioned records, and many other records and information reviewed in connection with the many study sessions and hearings for the DV Plaza redevelopment project, the City will want to consider the following potential adverse environmental impacts:
This study may also provide useful information to the City when considering alternative uses for the DV Plaza development project (northern portion of the site).
F. September 4, 2014 "Market Demand Analysis: Proposed Hotel, Pleasant Hill, CA" by PKF Consulting.
The report also states, "The City staff stated that retail or a hotel uses are preferred because of the economic impact and tax revenue-generating potential of those uses."[sic]2
The December 22, 2014 100 Mayhew Way report concludes that housing is a viable alternative (and in the case of Mayhew Properties, the only alternative) to commercial, retail or office use.
March 8, 2016 Planning Corm .. .sion Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Page 5of11
Part of CarMax's business is selling used cars to other broker/dealers. Therefore, the City will need to evaluate whether the City can allow this "wholesale" function in the Retail Business District or whether CarMax can run an exclusively retail operation in the DV Plaza location.
Schedule 18.25.020 also includes a separate use category for Automobile, vehicle/equipment wholesaler. Wholesalers are not allowed in the Retail Business District.
b. Zoning Ordinance i. Schedule 18.25.020 "Land Use Regulations"
Schedule 18.25.020 includes "Automobile, vehicle/equipment sales and rentals in the "Retail Business District" and indicates a use permit is required.
If the City continues to postpone approval of a Mixed-Use Ordinance and required comprehensive reviews of the 2003 General Plan, the Citv will continue to approve significant new projects that are not consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element is a required element in every general plan. Neglecting this element and allowing projects to determine the General Plan creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the validity and import of the City's General Plan - our local Constitution.
The City has been working on a "Mixed-Use Ordinance" at the behest of the State Housing and Community Development Department ever since the City approved the "current" 2003 General Plan. And, the City has not performed a comprehensive review of the 2003 General Plan every five years.
Parts of the General Plan indicate that the "mixed-use" designation includes a housing component. Other parts suggest that any combination of uses (i.e. mostly commercial with a token office use in an otherwise 100% commercial building} could qualify as mixed use.
iii. Mixed-Use Designation The General Plan designates some properties as "mixed-use," which entitles those properties to a greater floor-area-ratio than that provided for other districts.
The current project appears to be turning Golf Club Road, Old Quarry Road, and possibly Chilpancingo Parkway into truck routes to accommodate massive, car-hauler trucks (67' WB trucks}.
March 8, 2016 Planning Comn •• sslon Study Session and Scoping Meeting
The City's routine reliance on Community Development Program 25.5 is inadequate. If the City doesn't first determine whether the project is located on, or in close proximity to, a recorded archaeological site, the City cannot make a finding that the project will not have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource.
Furthermore, the Chairperson recommends that an archaeologist and an Indian Monitor be present during any earth-moving activity. Construction workers may stop work if they discover human remains during excavation. However, they are not trained to look for specific changes in soil, objects, or other conditions that may indicate the presence of a significant archaeological site.
Page 6of11
The City should honor the Chairperson's request that the City obtain an archival review of the area before making any CEQA findings. That mitigation is required by Community Development Program 25.6.
The City did not consult the Chairperson prior to finding the pylon sign "project" exempt from CEQA. Furthermore, to the extent the City is allowing significant excavation to proceed (i.e. along the Old Quarry Road driveway cutouts), the City has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of loss of significant cultural resources.
The City received a request for consultation from the Chairperson of Indian Canyon (representative of the Oh lone tribe). Assembly Bill 52 became effective July 1, 2015 and requires meaningful consultation if local Native American tribes request consultation.
2. Cultural Resources
The City of Pleasanton may be a useful comparison because they recently processed a development application for CarMax and likely completed an EIR in the process.
The proposed CarMax project will be the City's first major car dealership. The City will need to carefully evaluate the City's municipal code and other cities municipal codes if those cities have experience with car dealerships.
The City will need to determine if this section also applies to companies who are automobile retailers rather than wholesalers.
Section 18.25.150 includes additional use regulations for vehicle storage facilities. This section applies to wholesalers who store vehicles, but it is not clear that this section applies to retailers who also store vehicles.
ii. Section 18.25.150 Vehicle storage facilities
March 8, 2016 Planning Comm.ssion Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Some residents have commented on the noise from car-hauler trucks. The City will need to determine the frequency of deliveries, the delivery times, and the noise associated with those deliveries (trucks with warning back-up sounds, cars turning on and off, etc.)
Page 7of11
4. Noise
a. Car-Hauler Trucks
Lighting may create aesthetic or other problems if CarMax is open late at night.
The car dealership will create several aesthetic issues such as how to shield the view of the car lot from residents across the street on Chilpancingo Parkway (Grayson Creek Apartments) and from residents west of Old Quarry Road.
b. Car Dealership
CEQA allows consideration of economic issues to the extent those issues create secondary environmental impacts. The Applicant has held that the sign is necessary for the economic success of the DV Plaza Shopping Center and the CarMax lease is reportedly contingent on the pylon sign. Therefore, cumulative and secondary impacts. of the pylon sign must be considered as part of the CEQA analysis.
The CarMax project should not proceed unless the City resolves remaining issues concerning the pylon sign as the sign is intended to provide freeway visibility to CarMax and no freeway visibility to any other Shopping Center tenants.
Members of the Architectural Review Commission who voted to deny the sign permit were concerned about how much of the sign would show above the building planned for the site. The entire SO feet will be visible heading south on Contra Costa Blvd. if the building is delayed (or never built}.
The City should find ways to mitigate the adverse impact of the sign such as requiring the building on the same site at 61 Chilpancingo Parkway to be approved and constructed before the City allows the sign to proceed. Alternatively, the building at 61 Chilpancingo could be constructed at the same time as the sign.
a. SO-foot Pylon Sign Members of the public have commented extensively on the adverse impact of the pylon sign on the aesthetics of the area - particularly given the location at one of the City's Gateways.
3. Aesthetics
March 8, 2016 Planning Comm. .on Study Session and Scoping Meeting
3 See Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3, Figure 38. 4 See Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3, Table 3A. 5 Ibid.
Page 8of11
The City will need to obtain a traffic impact study to determine the impact a car dealership will have on traffic and circulation. The City will need to include recent traffic studies for all roads in the vicinity of the project (accidents, LOS ratings, etc.), and possible highway traffic as well, as part of the traffic impact study.
5. ·Traffic and Circulation
Construction activities will likely create noise levels in excess of the City standards - particularly the pile driving and the road work in the area along Old Quarry Road. The City will need to evaluate how to mitigate the construction noise to acceptable levels.
c. Construction
The City will need to perform an acoustic study and check with County ALUC Staff to determine whether outdoor sales of automobiles is appropriate for this location or if those sales "should be discouraged."
The land use is acceptable on the condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that windows can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discouraged.5 [Emphasis added]
The Buchanan Field Policies state:
Retail trade within that noise contour is rated "marginally acceptable."4
ii. Impact on workers DV Plaza is located within a 60-65dB "noise contour" of the Buchanan Field Airport.3
b. Outdoor Sales i. Impact on residents
The City will need to evaluate the typical sounds/noises associated with CarMax. An acoustic study should be performed at the property line (as required by city code) to ensure noise will not exceed the acceptable levels indicated in Schedule 18.50.060.
March 8, 2016 Planning Comrnls .... on Study Session and Scoping Meeting
The City must evaluate the changes to the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project which appear to be engineered to accommodate CarMax trucks at the expense of the Improvement Project. The City must determine the extent to which those changes adversely impact pedestrian, resident and worker safety and aesthetic and other environmental concerns.
Emails between engineers suggest medians must be made narrower, parking spaces eliminated, curbs rolled, etc. and that the trailing truck tire may need to roll off the sidewalk or off of a median in entering or exiting the site.
a. Car-Hauler Truck Accommodations
Page 9of11
iii. Driveway cutouts Driveway cutouts are significantly larger than the cutouts for the existing shopping center (increasing from 68 feet to 100 feet or more to accommodate the turning radius of the larger, 67' WB trucks). The larger driveway cutouts may require installation of a signal at the driveway so pedestrians can safely cross and cars aren't waiting for one wave of pedestrians after the next to cross the intersection before cars are finally able to enter or exit the shopping center.
ii. Reduction in Lanes from Four to Two The reduction in lanes is likely to create a traffic gridlock at certain times of the day. This will become an even bigger problem if buses do not have a large enough area at bus stops to pull to the side of the roads and allow vehicles to pass. In that case, cars will experience significant backups on Golf Club Road as well, as they wait to enter a very congested Old Quarry Road.
i. Buses The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has expressed concern about impacts to two bus stops on Old Quarry Road. It is not clear whether the City has addressed those concerns.
This "Improvement Project" appears to be moreof a "CarMax Road Improvement Project" than a project designed to encourage and enhance pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Several emails between engineers indicate the "Road Improvements" are being made to accommodate 67' WB trucks instead of pedestrians and bicycles. Specific health, safety and welfare concerns follow:
a. Old Quarry Road Improvement Project
The City will need to evaluate environmental impacts from each of the following:
March 8, 2016 Planning Comrmssron Study Session and Scoping Meeting
And, on February 2, 2016, Craig Standafer, Civil Engineer with the Flood Control District indicated that they "cannot be certain if the sign footprint and its foundations are located outside the easement area."
Page 10of11
For example, The Contra Costa County Flood Control District requested an application for trail improvements that would require a CEQA review. The City advised the Developer that the City would assume the applicant role so the CEQA review wouldn't be required in connection with the remodel of the southern portion of the site.
Several agencies have expressed concern during or shortly after the City's approval of various parts of the DV Plaza Development Project (i.e. the remodel of the southern portion of the site and the pylon sign project).
7. Other
c. Construction The City will need to ensure construction activities that produce dust, toxic contaminants (grinding of asphalt, etc.) include mitigation measures to minimize these environmental impacts.
b. Traffic gridlock on adjacent streets If Old Quarry Road is reduced to two lanes, staff will need to find some way to mitigate the traffic gridlock so pedestrians and residents in the area of the proposed project are not exposed to significant levels of carbon monoxide.
6. Air Quality a. Car-Hauler Trucks
Staff will need to determine the frequency of deliveries as well as the typical emissions from larger trucks such as those used to haul cars.
c. Construction CalTrans has, in the past in connection with the Crossroads development, advised the City that a traffic impact study is required under certain circumstances (depending on the impact of construction and/or future operations on highway traffic). It is not clear whether the City performed any such review or analysis in advance of the City's approval of the remodel of the southern portion of the site. If not, the City should contact CalTrans and determine what steps, if any, are necessary given the project is already underway.
b. Additional Traffic from Customers The traffic impact study should evaluate scenarios with and without a pylon sign. If the pylon sign isn't expected to generate additional traffic, the pylon sign is not necessary to the success of DV Plaza.
March 8, 2016 Planning Comrrus .... on Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Page 11of11
Dorothy Englund
Sincerely,
Thank you for your consideration.
As always, I am more than happy to answer any questions or provide additional information upon request.
The City appears to have fallen behind in completing a CEQA review of the entire DV Plaza development by segmenting and deferring consideration of the CarMax Dealership apart from the comprehensive development project as a whole. However, there's still time to rectify the situation and ensure the City finally considers and addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the DV Plaza development project - including those impacts associated with the Old Quarry Road Improvement project.
* * * * * * *
To the extent the City was unable to address and resolve these issues prior to the approval of any previous applications submitted in connection with the DV Plaza Development project, the City should make sure to do so in connection with the current CEQA study.
March 8, 2016 Planning Commiss.on Study Session and Scoping Meeting
The draft environmental impact report should look at other CarMax businesses in other cities to compare the intensity of the operations, the size of the parcel(s) that comprise the site, the proximity to residences, setbacks, parking, etc.
2. The CarMax in Pleasanton is situated on a site that is about double the size of the proposed 9.9 acre site in Pleasant Hill (and includes about 300 more parking spaces than allowed in Pleasant Hill).
One alternative might be to separate the retail and wholesale business locations. The wholesale side of the business (car repairs, auctions, etc.) could find another location in the Light Industrial or Commercial District where wholesale automobile sales are allowed to operate.
The wholesale operation is not allowed in the retail district. And, the wholesale operation is likely to result in additional, or cumulative, adverse environmental impacts (e.g. traffic and circulation involving the large car hauler trucks as well as emissions from those trucks). Therefore, it is necessary to consider the future, Phase 2, wholesale operations as well as the Phase 1 retail operations.
1
The draft environmental impact report should focus on the project as a whole (retail and wholesale) rather than segmenting the project by the individual applications.
1. The Applicant mentioned two development phases. The first phase will entail an application or applications for the retail side of CarMax's business. The second phase will entail an application or applications for the wholesale side (broker/dealer car sales at auction) of CarMax's business.
Based on the CarMax presentation at the March 8, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session and Scoping meeting, I am providing the following additional comments to supplement my March 8, 2016 letter to Chair Bonato and Planning Commissioners:
Troy-
From: Dorothy Englund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:29 PM To: 'Troy Fujimoto' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Greg Fuz' <[email protected]> Subject: DV Plaza Development Project - Additional Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
Troy- Under item 2, I should have said "and includes about 300 more parking spaces than the number of spaces currently proposed for the Pleasant Hill CarMax" rather than "allowed." Thank you- Dorothy
Dorothy Englund < [email protected]> Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:07 PM Troy Fujimoto Greg Fuz RE: DV Plaza Development Project - Additional Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
2
Dorothy Englund
Thank you for your consideration of these issues, and the issues previously identified in my March 8, 2016 correspondence.
6. The Applicant mentioned storing hazardous materials (such as fuel) above ground during Phase 1. No more than 2,000 gallons of hazardous materials are allowed above ground in Airport Safety Zones 3 and 4. Therefore, the City will need to check with the County Airport Land Use Commission staff to determine what hazardous materials are included in the 2,000 gallon limit (i.e. just fuel, or are oil, antifreeze, or other hazardous chemicals included in the 2000 gallon limit).
5. The Applicant mentioned that they meet with the Police to ensure they are working together to safeguard the cars on the car lot. The City will need to analyze the number of police calls or the impact on police forces for other cities, or other jurisdictions, to determine the extent to which other CarMax businesses impact limited public services such as police services.
Finally, the traffic impact study will need to evaluate the project with and without the pylon sign.
Additionally, the "road diet" that reduces Old Quarry Road from four lanes to two lanes will increase congestion and will potentially encourage cars to choose an alternate route such as Contra Costa Blvd. That area is prone to accidents given the stop and go traffic and congestion along Contra Costa Blvd. So, the City will need to obtain a traffic impact study and evaluate the LOS at key intersections and accidents to determine the impact of reducing Old Quarry Road from four lanes to two lanes and the impact of CarMax moving to DV Plaza.
Furthermore, if truck deliveries or pickups occur at night, the City will need to evaluate the adverse impacts from noise. Noise generators create more of an adverse impact at night when it's generally quiet and peaceful and residents are trying to sleep.
Also, if car hauler trucks enter DV Plaza via the 110 foot driveway, traffic may back up on both sides of Old Quarry Road (and even onto Golf Club Road and Chilpancingo Parkway).
4. The City has apparently not performed any CEQA analysis regarding the Golf Club Road improvement project. Plans have changed significantly since the City determined the project was exempt from the Federal Environmental Protection Act. The driveway north of the roundabout has increased from 68 feet, to 85 feet, to 110 feet. That will impact pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. The Applicant noted that they will not be sharing parking with the shopping center. Given the loss of at least 11 parking spaces due to the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project, staff will need to determine whether the southern remodeled portion of the DV Plaza project meets the minimum required number of parking spaces in the municipal code. I don't believe development projects are allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces. And, if the City can find some way to approve reduced parking spaces for the southern portion of the site, the Applicant will likely need to obtain a variance or other permit to reduce the amount of parking.
Based on a very brief review of the Pleasanton CarMax, it appears the Pleasant Hill site is too small to accommodate CarMax.
I also recommend that staff determine what percentage of total sales revenue is retail sales and what percentage is wholesale sales.
Don Avelar Chief Service Scheduler
Sincerely
Q II I ;}./1'~ vi~
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 925-680-2085.
To coordinate any temporary closures or relocation during the project, please contact our Dispatch Center at (925) 680-2020.
We request to be notified at least one week prior to any temporary closures or temporary relocation of any bus stops or roads for this project.
We request our bus stop to be identified on the plans and to remain open during the construction of the Cannax project.
The County Connection has an existing bus stop on Northbound Old Quarry Rd before Chilpancingo Pkwy (behind K Mart Buiding before existing driveway). There are already plans by the City of Pleasant Hill to relocate this bus stop closer to the intersection as part of their Old Quarry Rd Project.
Clayton • Concord • Contra Costa County • Danville • Lafayette • Martinez Moraga • Orinda • Pleasant Hill • San Ramon • Walnut Creek
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cannax Automobile Dealership, PLN 16-0027
March 8, 2016
liS)le ©le H W fen lfl1 MAR 1 o 2016 IYJ
PLANNING OiVISION City of Pleasant Hill CITY OF PLEASANT HILL Planning Division 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Attn: Troy Fujimoto, Senior Planner
2477 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520-5326 {925) 676-1976 countyconnection.com
()Junty()Jnnection
1 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378(c}.
A. September 2008 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Diablo Valley College Plaza and Hookston Station Amendments to the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan.
Before summarizing some of the environmental impacts for the proposed DV Plaza development project, including the CarMax dealership proposed for the northern portion of the project site, I want to call your attention to previous CEQA studies, reports or other documents that may contain information relevant to your review and evaluation:
Page 1of11
During the many study sessions and hearings on the development of DV Plaza, members of the public and public agency employees expressed concerns about potential environmental impacts. The records of those study sessions and hearings are a good place to start in determining whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.
As you may know, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq., "applies to 'projects' that .. .involve governmental authority." A CEQA "project" includes "the whole of the activity which may require one or more governmental approvals, rather than to each separate governmental approval."1 Therefore, the City should have scheduled this Study Session and EIR Scoping Meeting several months ago, before the City held study sessions on the Diablo Valley Plaza (DV Plaza) use permit, architectural review permit, master sign program permit, and pylon sign permit for the proposed development.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide preliminary comments regarding environmental impact issues for the proposed CarMax project.
Honorable Chair Bonato and Commissioners,
Re: Study Session & EIR Scoping Meeting; PLN 16-0027 Carmax Auto Dealership, 61-77 Chilpancingo Parkway
Attn: Jim Bonato and Members of the Planning Commission
March 8, 2016 PLANNING DMSION
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL City of Pleasant Hill 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA
Dorothy Englund 150 Wyatt Circle Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
March 8, 2016 Planning Comrm. ,.Al
Study Session and Scoping Meeting
C. Environmental Impact Reports or studies performed in connection with the development of SubAreas I and II of the Crossroads and the Buskirk Widening Project. These environmental studies and documents contain useful information pertinent to the proposed redevelopment of DV Plaza. The two shopping centers share much in common and the issues are similar. For example, both shopping centers were:
Page 2of11
CEQA requires agencies to consider cumulative impacts and future projects that are probable. The Old Quarry Road Improvement project and the proposed DV Plaza development project will have cumulative impacts that carry significant risks of potential adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA will require consideration of both projects in the initial study and in the EIR.
The Old Quarry Road Improvement Project is included in the May 2, 2014 2014-19 CIP CEQA document. The analyses of the various CIP projects may be helpful in preparing the EIR for the DV Plaza development project, including the CarMax dealership proposed for the northern portion of the site.
B. May 2, 2014 City of Pleasant Hill FY 2014-19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP} Budget.
Therefore, the City must evaluate any subsequent projects in light of the 2008 EIR, as well as subsequent projects or activities that were not examined in connection with the 2008 EIR such as the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project.
It is important to note that the DVC Plaza and Hookston Station Amendments to the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan EIR is a program-level environmental assessment that evaluates the potential physical environmental effects of implementation of the proposed amendments, as a whole. With respect to individual development projects that may be proposed within the project areas, Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that subsequent activities should be examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared, consistent with Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, any development proposals undertaken within the boundaries of the project areas must be approved individually by the City of Pleasant Hill and undergo their own project level environmental review, in compliance with CEQA.
Furthermore, the 2008 EIR states:
The City may be able to use some of the information and analysis included in the September 2008 EIR such as the plan to provide 300 residential units (an alternative to the proposed CarMax project).
March 8, 2016 Planning CommL _Jn Study Session and Scoping Meeting
This report may provide useful in considering alternatives to the proposed car dealership at DV Plaza. The report provides information on DVC Plaza (one of four possible hotel sites included in the PKF Consulting study titled "Market Demand Analysis: Proposed Hotel, Pleasant Hill, CA").
E. December 22, 2014 "Feasibility of Non-Residential Uses 100 Mayhew Way, Pleasant Hill," prepared by Robert Burke, Mayhew Properties; Bill Karr, TRI Commercial; and Greg Hugo, TRI Commercial
Page 3of11
In this tentative ruling by Superior Court Judge Zuniga (that became the final ruling), the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) was required to "hold new and fair hearings" as a result of due process violations. The Judge also granted the Writ in N07-1518 regarding the "request to augment record ... concerning City's plans to widen Buskirk" ... as the "Buskirk Widening Project" was before Respondent."
D. August 4, 2008 Tentative Ruling in Pleasant Hills Property LLC Et al vs. Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission (Case N07-1518)
• Impacted by road improvement projects Both shopping centers sold the land needed to proceed with the City's road improvement projects (the Buskirk Widening Project in the case of the Crossroads and the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project in the case of DV Plaza). Both shopping centers lost parking spaces as a result of the road improvement projects.
The segmenting of the DV Plaza development project was discretionary as the City could have processed all related development proposals and all applications for development simultaneously rather than segmenting or piecemealing the project and the applications.
The segmenting of the Crossroads development project was unavoidable given the different owners with different plans and timelines for the development of their respective properties.
• Developed in separate phases
• Designated "mixed-use" in the General Plan with the intent of providing mixed use housing and retail on the respective project sites.
The Crossroads was added to the Redevelopment Plan in 2000 and DVC Plaza was added to the Redevelopment Plan in 2008. The City approved EIRs for each shopping center just prior to amending the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan in 2000 and 2008.
• Included in the Pleasant Hill Commons Redevelopment Plan
March 8, 2016 Planning CommL Jn Study Session and Scoping Meeting
2 See page 2 of 7, "Property Marketing," December 22, 2014 "Feasibility of non-Residential Uses 100 Mayhew Way, Pleasant Hill."
ii. Circulation System Map The 2003 Circulation System Map is out-of-date and should be updated to reflect current traffic levels, truck routes, etc.
A car dealership conducts much of its business in the car lot, outside of the main building. Therefore, it is necessary to determine what measure of intensity (i.e. floor area ratio to include square footage of the outdoor car lot) must be applied to a car dealership use.
Page 4of11
a. General Plan i. Maximum Allowed Intensity of Use
In the case of DV Plaza, the City should re-evaluate the General Plan's maximum allowed intensity of use that all projects must follow. The General Plan measures intensity of commercial projects based on the project's floor-area-ratio.
The City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance have not kept up with the proposed development of our City and with DV Plaza in particular. The City has allowed development projects to determine the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (or the City's interpretation of the relevant goals, policies, ordinances and code sections) instead of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance determining which projects are allowable and appropriate.
1. Land Use and Planning
Based on research and review of the aforementioned records, and many other records and information reviewed in connection with the many study sessions and hearings for the DV Plaza redevelopment project, the City will want to consider the following potential adverse environmental impacts:
This study may also provide useful information to the City when considering alternative uses for the DV Plaza development project (northern portion of the site).
F. September 4, 2014 "Market Demand Analysis: Proposed Hotel, Pleasant Hill, CA" by PKF Consulting.
The report also states, "The City staff stated that retail or a hotel uses are preferred because of the economic impact and tax revenue-generating potential of those uses.''[sic]2
The December 22, 2014 100 Mayhew Way report concludes that housing is a viable alternative (and in the case of Mayhew Properties, the only alternative) to commercial, retail or office use.
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornm.. vl1
Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Part of CarMax's business is selling used cars to other broker/dealers. Therefore, the City will need to evaluate whether the City can allow this "wholesale" function in the Retail Business District or whether CarMax can run an exclusively retail operation in the DV Plaza location.
Page 5of11
Schedule 18.25.020 also includes a separate use category for Automobile, vehicle/equipment wholesaler. Wholesalers are not allowed in the Retail Business District.
b. Zoning Ordinance i. Schedule 18.25.020 "Land Use Regulations"
Schedule 18.25.020 includes "Automobile, vehicle/equipment sales and rentals in the "Retail Business District" and indicates a use permit is required.
If the City continues to postpone approval of a Mixed-Use Ordinance and required comprehensive reviews of the 2003 General Plan, the City will continue to approve significant new projects that are not consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element is a required element in every general plan. Neglecting this element and allowing projects to determine the General Plan creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the validity and import of the City's General Plan - our local Constitution.
The City has been working on a "Mixed-Use Ordinance" at the behest of the State Housing and Community Development Department ever since the City approved the "current" 2003 General Plan. And, the City has not performed a comprehensive review of the 2003 General Plan every five years.
Parts of the General Plan indicate that the "mixed-use" designation includes a housing component. Other parts suggest that any combination of uses (i.e. mostly commercial with a token office use in an otherwise 100% commercial building) could qualify as mixed use.
iii. Mixed-Use Designation The General Plan designates some properties as "mixed-use," which entitles those properties to a greater floor-area-ratio than that provided for other districts.
The current project appears to be turning Golf Club Road, Old Quarry Road, and possibly Chilpancingo Parkway into truck routes to accommodate massive, car-hauler trucks (67' WB trucks).
March 8, 2016 Planning Commi, Jrt
Study Session and Scoping Meeting
The City's routine reliance on Community Development Program 25.5 is inadequate. If the City doesn't first determine whether the project is located on, or in close proximity to, a recorded archaeological site, the City cannot make a finding that the project will not have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource.
Furthermore, the Chairperson recommends that an archaeologist and an Indian Monitor be present during any earth-moving activity. Construction workers may stop work if they discover human remains during excavation. However, they are not trained to look for specific changes in soil, objects, or other conditions that may indicate the presence of a significant archaeological site.
The City should honor the Chairperson's request that the City obtain an archival review of the area before making any CEQA findings. That mitigation is required by Community Development Program 25.6.
Page 6of11
The City did not consult the Chairperson prior to finding the pylon sign "project" exempt from CEQA. Furthermore, to the extent the City is allowing significant excavation to proceed (i.e. along the Old Quarry Road driveway cutouts), the City has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of loss of significant cultural resources.
The City received a request for consultation from the Chairperson of Indian Canyon (representative of the Ohlone tribe). Assembly Bill 52 became effective July 1, 2015 and requires meaningful consultation if local Native American tribes request consultation.
2. Cultural Resources
The City of Pleasanton may be a useful comparison because they recently processed a development application for CarMax and likely completed an EIR in the process.
The proposed CarMax project will be the City's first major car dealership. The City will need to carefully evaluate the City's municipal code and other cities municipal codes if those cities have experience with car dealerships.
The City will need to determine if this section also applies to companies who are automobile retailers rather than wholesalers.
Section 18.25.150 includes additional use regulations for vehicle storage facilities. This section applies to wholesalers who store vehicles, but it is not clear that this section applies to retailers who also store vehicles.
ii. Section 18.25.150 Vehicle storage facilities
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornm.. ..,n Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Some residents have commented on the noise from car-hauler trucks. The City will need to determine the frequency of deliveries, the delivery times, and the noise associated with those deliveries (trucks with warning back-up sounds, cars turning on and off, etc.)
Page 7of11
a. Car-Hauler Trucks
4. Noise
Lighting may create aesthetic or other problems if CarMax is open late at night.
The car dealership will create several aesthetic issues such as how to shield the view of the car lot from residents across the street on Chilpancingo Parkway (Grayson Creek Apartments) and from residents west of Old Quarry Road.
b. Car Dealership
CEQA allows consideration of economic issues to the extent those issues create secondary environmental impacts. The Applicant has held that the sign is necessary for the economic success of the DV Plaza Shopping Center and the CarMax lease is reportedly contingent on the pylon sign. Therefore, cumulative and secondary impacts of the pylon sign must be considered as part of the CEQA analysis.
The CarMax project should not proceed unless the City resolves remaining issues concerning the pylon sign as the sign is intended to provide freeway visibility to CarMax and no freeway visibility to any other Shopping Center tenants.
Members of the Architectural Review Commission who voted to deny the sign permit were concerned about how much of the sign would show above the building planned for the site. The entire 50 feet will be visible heading south on Contra Costa Blvd. if the building is delayed (or never built).
The City should find ways to mitigate the adverse impact of the sign such as requiring the building on the same site at 61 Chilpancingo Parkway to be approved and constructed before the City allows the sign to proceed. Alternatively, the building at 61 Chilpancingo could be constructed at the same time as the sign.
a. SO-foot Pylon Sign Members of the public have commented extensively on the adverse impact of the pylon sign on the aesthetics of the area - particularly given the location at one of the City's Gateways.
3. Aesthetics
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornrm, .in Study Session and Scoping Meeting
3 See Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3, Figure 38. 4 See Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3, Table 3A. 5 Ibid.
The City will need to obtain a traffic impact study to determine the impact a car dealership will have on traffic and circulation. The City will need to include recent traffic studies for all roads in the vicinity of the project (accidents, LOS ratings, etc.), and possible highway traffic as well, as part of the traffic impact study.
5. Traffic and Circulation
Construction activities will likely create noise levels in excess of the City standards - particularly the pile driving and the road work in the area along Old Quarry Road. The City will need to evaluate how to mitigate the construction noise to acceptable levels.
Page 8of11
c. Construction
The City will need to perform an acoustic study and check with County ALUC Staff to determine whether outdoor sales of automobiles is appropriate for this location or if those sales "should be discouraged."
The land use is acceptable on the condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that windows can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discouraged.5 [Emphasis added]
The Buchanan Field Policies state:
Retail trade within that noise contour is rated "marginally acceptable."4
ii. Impact on workers DV Plaza is located within a 60-65dB "noise contour" of the Buchanan Field Airport. 3
b. Outdoor Sales i. Impact on residents
The City will need to evaluate the typical sounds/noises associated with CarMax. An acoustic study should be performed at the property line (as required by city code) to ensure noise will not exceed the acceptable levels indicated in Schedule 18.50.060.
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornm.. _,n Study Session and Scoping Meeting
The City must evaluate the changes to the Old Quarry Road Improvement Project which appear to be engineered to accommodate CarMax trucks at the expense of the Improvement Project. The City must determine the extent to which those changes adversely impact pedestrian, resident and worker safety and aesthetic and other environmental concerns.
Emails between engineers suggest medians must be made narrower, parking spaces eliminated, curbs rolled, etc. and that the trailing truck tire may need to roll off the sidewalk or off of a median in entering or exiting the site.
a. Car-Hauler Truck Accommodations
Page 9of11
iii. Driveway cutouts Driveway cutouts are significantly larger than the cutouts for the existing shopping center (increasing from 68 feet to 100 feet or more to accommodate the turning radius of the larger, 67' WB trucks). The larger driveway cutouts may require installation of a signal at the driveway so pedestrians can safely cross and cars aren't waiting for one wave of pedestrians after the next to cross the intersection before cars are finally able to enter or exit the shopping center.
ii. Reduction in Lanes from Four to Two The reduction in lanes is likely to create a traffic gridlock at certain times of the day. This will become an even bigger problem if buses do not have a large enough area at bus stops to pull to the side of the roads and allow vehicles to pass. In that case, cars will experience significant backups on Golf Club Road as well, as they wait to enter a very congested Old Quarry Road.
i. Buses The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has expressed concern about impacts to two bus stops on Old Quarry Road. It is not clear whether the City has addressed those concerns.
This "Improvement Project" appears to be more of a "CarMax Road Improvement Project" than a project designed to encourage and enhance pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Several emails between engineers indicate the "Road Improvements" are being made to accommodate 67' WB trucks instead of pedestrians and bicycles. Specific health, safety and welfare concerns follow:
a. Old Quarry Road Improvement Project
The City will need to evaluate environmental impacts from each of the following:
March 8, 2016 Planning CommL _,n Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Page 10of11
And, on February 2, 2016, Craig Standafer, Civil Engineer with the Flood Control District indicated that they "cannot be certain if the sign footprint and its foundations are located outside the easement area."
For example, The Contra Costa County Flood Control District requested an application for trail improvements that would require a CEQA review. The City advised the Developer that the City would assume the applicant role so the CEQA review wouldn't be required in connection with the remodel of the southern portion of the site.
Several agencies have expressed concern during or shortly after the City's approval of various parts of the DV Plaza Development Project (i.e. the remodel of the southern portion of the site and the pylon sign project).
7. Other
c. Construction The City will need to ensure construction activities that produce dust, toxic contaminants (grinding of asphalt, etc.) include mitigation measures to minimize these environmental impacts.
b. Traffic gridlock on adjacent streets If Old Quarry Road is reduced to two lanes, staff will need to find some way to mitigate the traffic gridlock so pedestrians and residents in the area of the proposed project are not exposed to significant levels of carbon monoxide.
6. Air Quality a. Car-Hauler Trucks
Staff will need to determine the frequency of deliveries as well as the typical emissions from larger trucks such as those used to haul cars.
c. Construction CalTrans has, in the past in connection with the Crossroads development, advised the City that a traffic impact study is required under certain circumstances (depending on the impact of construction and/or future operations on highway traffic). It is not clear whether the City performed any such review or analysis in advance of the City's approval of the remodel of the southern portion of the site. If not, the City should contact CalTrans and determine what steps, if any, are necessary given the project is already underway.
b. Additional Traffic from Customers The traffic impact study should evaluate scenarios with and without a pylon sign. If the pylon sign isn't expected to generate additional traffic, the pylon sign is not necessary to the success of DV Plaza.
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornrm, ... n Study Session and Scoping Meeting
Page 11of11
Dorothy Englund
Sincerely,
Thank you for your consideration.
As always, I am more than happy to answer any questions or provide additional information upon request.
The City appears to have fallen behind in completing a CEQA review of the entire DV Plaza development by segmenting and deferring consideration of the CarMax Dealership apart from the comprehensive development project as a whole. However, there's still time to rectify the situation and ensure the City finally considers and addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the DV Plaza development project - including those impacts associated with the Old Quarry Road Improvement project.
* * * * * * *
To the extent the City was unable to address and resolve these issues prior to the approval of any previous applications submitted in connection with the DV Plaza Development project, the City should make sure to do so in connection with the current CEQA study.
March 8, 2016 Planning Cornrm. .n Study Session and Scoping Meeting
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code§ 21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18). Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. § 800 et seq.) may also apply.
The Native American Heritage Commission has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code§ 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a)(1)). In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE).
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:
RE: SCH#2016032002, Carmax Automobile Dealership, Contra Costa County
Troy Fujimoto City of Pleasant Hill Public Works & Comm. Dev. Dept. 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
PLANNING DIVlSION CITY 0 PLEASANT HILL
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373~3710 Fax (916) 373~5471 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov Twitter: @CA_NAHC
March 21, 2016
STATE OE CALIFORNIA
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation
2
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.2 (b)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (b)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (c)(1 )).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe
may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.2 (a)).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.1(b)).
a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code§ 65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.1 (b)).
a. A brief description of the project. b. The lead agency contact information. c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code§ 21080.3.1 (d)). d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on
the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code§ 21073).
Some of SB 18's provisions include:
3
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code§ 65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_ 14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf
The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may be found on line at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/1 O/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (d)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
111. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate
management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code§ 21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a nonfederally recognized
California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)).
f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code§ 5097.991 ).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (e)).
monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (a)).
3. Contact the NAHC for: a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the
Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
4
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca. gov/resources/forms/
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code§ 65352.3 (a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for
preservation or mitigation; or b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that
mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
5
~~~ Sharaya Souza Staff Services Analyst cc: State Clearinghouse
Sincerely,
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
Related Documents
