Synopsis of Pleasant Hill City Council Meeting July 17, 2017

Below is a synopsis of the >5 Hr long Pleasant Hill City Council Meeting on July 17, 2017 where over the objection of the vast majority of the >100 concerned citizens present and >30 speakers who spoke out against the CarMax, the Pleasant Hill City Council voted unanimously to approve the proposed CarMax facility.  Please note that all City Council Meetings are filmed and made part of the Public Record.  The entire Council meeting can be found here: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/1132/Meeting-Videos.  Below are short clips of the Public Hearing.

Members of the Pleasant Hill City Council that were present:

• Michael Harris, Mayor
• Tim Flaherty, Vice Mayor
• Sue Noack, Council Member
• Ken Carlson, Council Member
• Matt Rinn, Council Member

1. After initial Public Comments were made regarding the lack of transparency regarding publishing the date and time of the proposed CarMax Public Hearing, Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill City Mayor, responds to the audience.




2. After the standard Pleasant Hill Staff Presentations to the City Council, CarMax representatives were allowed to do a presentation.  Here, they describe the philantropic arm of CarMax called "CarMax Foundation".  Although the Foundation has contributed approximately $5 million per year for a total of about $30 million in total grant funding since the inception of the charitable organization, per the Foundation's own website at foundation.carmax.com, the last big donation was in approximately 2015, with most of the total funds going to national organizations and to the community surrounding the CarMax headquarters in Virginia.  Although much appreciated, donations to local communities surrounding CarMax dealerships cap out at $1000 with matching funds of $10 per hour.  The CarMax team goes on to describe how wonderful the City of Pleasant Hill is.




3. A Pleasant Hill Resident who has 30 years in the automobile and car sales industry warns the Pleasant Hill City Council about putting a CarMax in a Residential Community.




4. The proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax will be placed amongst student housing, low income housing and disabled housing.  Here, a mother of a Pleasant Hill Resident who resides at a facility for the Mobility Impaired and Disabled testifies on behalf of her son, who is nonverbal.  The facility for the Disabled is located across from the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax.  Given the proximity, she pleads with the City Council to consider alternative ideas.




5. Another Pleasant Hill Resident of the facility for the Mobility Impaired and Disabled located across the proposed CarMax also requests that the Pleasant Hill City Council consider their needs and to evaluate alternatives to the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax.




6. Pleasant Hill City Mayor, Michael Harris, poses a question of how a CarMax can be justified so close to student, low-income and disabled housing.




7. Pleasant Hill City Mayor, Michael Harris, poses a similar question of how a CarMax can preserve the character of the neighborhood.




8. Despite the Mayor's questions and The Pleasant Hill City Council questions to the CarMax team, including their lawyer, on basic operations and basic statistics on traffic and volume of business to gauge the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the CarMax team refuses to answer these simple questions.




9. After all of the testimony was complete and after CarMax threatened to not come to Pleasant Hill if the project was not approved in its entirety with minimal conditions, Council Member Sue Noack responds by accepting the entire proposal and starting to suggest simpler conditions of approval.




10. Prior to the vote, Vice Mayor Tim Flaherty addresses the audience, the majority of which opposed the approval of the CarMax project, noting that this was the first time such a strong showing came to a Council meeting, and then calling the audience's actions and right to protest, "juvenile".



11.  Despite hours of testimony and the overwhelming opposition to the proposed CarMax project, the Pleasant Hill City Council then unanimously voted for the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax, in which they:

1. ADOPTED the resolution of findings and CERTIFIED the EIR,
2. ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
3. APPROVED the PUD Rezoning and PUD Concept Plan Amendment, and
4. APPROVED the Development Plan Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Review Permit, and Sign Permit

Pleasant Hill Accepts Draft EIR despite Controversial Issues

The Draft EIR for the Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax lists 5 potentially controversial issues, including:

• Aesthetics, Light and Glare
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Noise
• Traffic and Transportation
• Water Quality

The Draft EIR states the decision-makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR and address any objections raised in these comments.  However, the Draft EIR notes that decision-makers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations or suggestions presented in the comments and can certify the Final EIR without needing to resolve disagreements.  In certifying the Draft EIR, the Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission and Pleasant Hill Planning Commission has accepted the findings of the Draft EIR, despite the inadequacies that were pointed out in many public comments and has thus, set Pleasant Hill on a path the accepts the potential consequences of having a CarMax facility at this particular location.

Listed Impacts from the Draft EIR for the Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax

These are the potential impacts as listed in the Draft EIR.  Those issues not listed were not considered impacts in the Draft EIR and are not listed below.  Both the Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission have accepted these potential impacts.

• The project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
• The project may violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The project may have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources.
• Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources.
• Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources.
• Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project may damage or destroy previously undiscovered human burial sites.
• The project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
  
  i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
  on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
  Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
  area or based on other substantial evidence of a
  known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
  Special Publication 42.
  ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
  iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
  liquefaction.
  iv) Landslides.
• The project may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
• The project may be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
• The project may be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
• Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies.
• The proposed project may alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and contribute runoff to downstream storm drainage facilities that would result in the potential for flooding or otherwise exceed the capacity of drainage systems.
• The proposed project may locate structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
• Implementation of the project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
• The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Map of Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax in Relation to Nearby Schools

Map of Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax in Relation to Nearby Schools

This is a satellite map of the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax in relation to nearby schools.  The Draft EIR expects further degradation of traffic patterns around the Contra Costa Blvd collidor and does not propose any mitigation for student movement patterns in Educational corridors for the nearby Valhalla Elementary School, Valley View Middle School, College Park High School, and Diablo Valley College despite increases in vehicular and truck hauler traffic attributed to the proposed CarMax.  Hauler trucks will use Chilpancingo Pkway and Old Quarry Rd for ingress to and egress from the CarMax property, the same roads used by college students driving into or from campus or walking to or from nearby apartments, condos, and houses.

Pleasant Hill Planning Commission Approves Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Project

On June 29, 2017, at the Public Hearing for the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax, the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission by unanimous vote has approved the Development Plan Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development District Rezoning and Associated Concept Plan and has certified the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Report Program with several conditions of approval.  All residents in attendance at the Public Hearing voiced disapproval of the CarMax project, which was noted in the public record.

All Pleasant Hill Planning Commmission Agendas, Meeting Minutes, and Videos are matters of public record and are required to be accessible.  Please feel free to browse the video on Pleasant Hill's online archive located here: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/1132/Meeting-Videos

Also of note, here are the members of the Planning Commission, who by Pleasant Hill rules are required to be residents of Pleasant Hill:

• Bill Bankert, Chair
• Diana Vavrek, Vice Chair
• Dave Mascaro
• Allen Vinson
• Robert Abbott
• Heather Phillips
• Steven Schramm

Pleasant Hill Planning Commission Lectures Audience During Special Hearing

On June 29, 2017, a Special Hearing of the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax project was held by the Planning Commission.  After dozens of public comments were made against the proposed Pleasant Hill Carmax, the Commissioners took the unusual step to lecture the residents in atttendance.  One of the long standing Commissioners who has served for over a decade stated to the audience that was filled with teachers, professors, attorneys, business owners, accountants, doctors, psychologists, nurses, engineers, parents, and retirees, that the issue was so complex and the financials were so great, that the audience could not begin to comprehend the intricacies of the project.  Another younger Commissioner went on to state that although there were misgivings and strong concerns that the project did not fit the neighborhood and had its impacts, this Commissioner was being "compelled" to approve the project due to the finances.

All Pleasant Hill Planning Commmission Agendas, Meeting Minutes, and Videos are matters of public record and are required to be accessible.  Please feel free to browse the video on Pleasant Hill's online archive located here: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/1132/Meeting-Videos

Please note, given the number of residents who made public comments, the Special Hearing on June 29, 2017 is over 4 hrs long.

Also of note, here are the members of the Planning Commission, who by Pleasant Hill rules are required to be residents of Pleasant Hill:

• Bill Bankert, Chair
• Diana Vavrek, Vice Chair
• Dave Mascaro
• Allen Vinson
• Robert Abbott
• Heather Phillips
• Steven Schramm

Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Highway Signage

Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Pylon Sign

Simulation of the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Pylon Sign as viewed from Contra Costa Blvd and from I-680.

Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission Approves CarMax Proposal

On June 28, 2017, at the Public Hearing for the proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax, the Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission by unanimous vote has approved the Architectural Review Permit, Sign Permit, and has certified the Draft Environmental Impact Report with 6 conditions of approval.  All residents in attendance at the Public Hearing voiced disapproval of the CarMax project, which was noted in the public record.

Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission Responsible for this Project:

• Karla Moseley, Vice Chair
• Richard Stanton
• John Hart
• Jill Bergman
• Ken Craig

Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Car Lot Lighting

Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax Car Lot Lighting

Computer Simulations of Lighting from CarMax Car Lot as Viewed from Surrounding Neighborhoods

Draft EIR for Proposed Pleasant Hill CarMax

The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Pleasant Hill, CA CarMax is now available:

Draft EIR: https://ca-pleasanthill3.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/16456
Draft EIR Appendices: https://ca-pleasanthill3.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/1249

Contact Information: For further information regarding this project, contact Troy Fujimoto, Project Planner, City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division, (925) 671-5224 tfujimoto@pleasanthillca.org

Proposed CarMax Architectural Elevations

Proposed CarMax Architectural Elevations

CarMax Proposed in Pleasant Hill

CarMax Auto Superstore Proposed for Pleasant Hill, CA

3D Rendering of Proposed Pleasant Hill, CA Carmax

Address: 65 and 71 Chilpancingo Pkwy, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Phase I Proposal:

• A sales office with an approximate area of 10,030 square feet
• A service center with an approximate area of 6,150 square feet
• A private car wash with an approximate area of 936 square feet
• A private belowground fuel tank with a capacity of 4,000 gallons
• A presentation room building with an approximate area of 1,708 square feet
• Car lifts with a capacity of 10,000 pounds and an assumed weight of 2,000 pounds
• Asphalt and Portland Cement concrete paved parking and drives
• Site masonry walls
• Underground utilities
• Landscaping
• Customer/employee parking lot—159 parking spaces
• Outdoor vehicle display area—2.27 acres
• Drainage improvements

Phase II Proposal:

• Reconditioning Service Building with an approximate area of 24,100 square feet
• Final Quality Control (FQC)/Auctions—the Carwash building would be expanded by an
  approximate area of 1,429 square feet for a total of 2,365 square feet.
• The vehicle staging area would be expanded in Phase II to include an additional approximately 15,681 square feet

Pleasant Hill Staff Responsible for Project:
Troy Fujimoto, Project Planner, City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division
(925) 671-5224, tfujimoto@pleasanthillca.org


Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission Responsible for Project:

• Karla Moseley, Vice Chair
• Richard Stanton
• John Hart
• Jill Bergman
• Ken Craig

Pleasant Hill Planning Commission Responsible for Project (all Pleasant Hill residents):

• Bill Bankert, Chair
• Diana Vavrek, Vice Chair
• Dave Mascaro
• Allen Vinson
• Robert Abbott
• Heather Phillips
• Steven Schramm

Pleasant Hill City Council Members:

• Ken Carlson
• Sue Noack
• Matt Rinn

Pleasant Hill Mayor:

• Michael Harris

Pleasant Hill Vice Mayor:

• Tim Flaherty