The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07241990 - H.4A r H. 4 cr THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 24 , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: See votes below NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On General Plan Amendment 1-88-CO, Rezoning Application 2791-RZ, And Development Plan 3007-88 , Hasseltine Best And Countrywood Congregate Care In The Pleasant Hill Area. On July 10 , 1990, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on a proposed General Plan Amendment ( 1-88-CO) from Single Family Residential Low Density to Senior Citizen: Congregate Care Designation; and the request by Hasseltine Best (applicant) and Countrywood Congregate Care (owner) to rezone 6 . 3+ acres of land from Planned Unit District (P-1 ) to Planned Unit District (P-1) ( 2791-RZ) with a revised preliminary development plan to increase the residential units of a proposed congregate care facility from 70 to 101, and for approval of a Final Development Plan ( #3007-88) for a 101 residential unit congregate care facility in the Pleasant Hill area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed project, describing the proposed project location, the recommended proposed access on Pleasant Hill Road, the proposed site plan, a schematic diagram for proposed landscaping, and he commented on errors in the conditions of approval in the packet before the Board today including conditions of approval for the development plan, that condition 4B should have been deleted and condition 4D should be modified to indicate that the design of the ravine crossing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Barry commented on a memo from Byron Turner, Community Development Department to Karl Wandry, Deputy Director of Community Development, dated July 23, 1990 regarding traffic generation, and he also commented on the Summary of Site Information that had been distributed to the Board. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the staff recommended approach for the proposed use of County surplus property relative to this project. Mr. Barry responed that the County would enter into a lease arrangment with the owners of the property and they would develop it for parking use on the site, and he described the configuration of the site. Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded on the legal procedures involved in using the surplus property. The following persons appeared to speak: Eric Hasseltine, 1350 Treat Boulevard 0210, Walnut Creek, represeting Countrywood Congregate Care, presented a comparison chart to the Board (no copy to the Clerk) , and commented on a brief history of the applications before the Board and on issues including the need for housing for the elderly, the request for increased density, compatibility of this use with the General Plan, minimal traffic impacts, access to the project, the use of the adjoining County right-of-way, and he requested approval of the project before the Board today. Kim Brandt, 180 Oakvue Road, Pleasant Hill, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, expressing concerns including the culverting of the creek for access onto the site, off site mitigation for the loss of ripparian habitat, opposition from the City of Pleasant Hill to this increased proposal, and she commented on making the only access on Pleasant Hill Road. Norman Van Hole, 10 Wildwood Place, Pleasant Hill, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, expressing concerns on access to the proposed project, availability of amenities, and the cost of living in this type of project. Supervisor McPeak questioned the use of an alternative site on Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Van Hole and Ms. Brandt and Supervisor McPeak discussed the use of an alternative site. R.W. Kimball, 3191 Diablo View Road, Lafayette, spoke on issues including his reasons for his previous opposition to the project, the modifications being proposed, and requested that the Board strike down the 68 unit plan and consider solely the 101 unit project and its advisibility. Patrick Harpole, 1664 Foothill Park Circle, Lafayette, spoke in opposition to the project, commenting on reasons for the inappropriateness of this location for this project, and requested approval for the 68 units with access on Pleasant Hill Road. Robert Stewart, 3124 Ramada Court, Lafayette, spoke in opposition commenting on the Environmental Impact Report, and on issues including protection of the scenic corridor. John T. Neavill, 3143 Ramada Court, Lafayette, spoke in opposition to the project on issues including traffic, and the inappropriatness of the location for congregate care. Barbara M. Thompson, 143 Maricopa Court #1 , Pleasant Hill, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Florence Pierson, 1720 Springbrook Drive, Lafayette, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Harry Coyle, 1654 Foothill Park Circle, Lafayette, representing Foothill Park-Diablo View Improvement Association, spoke in opposition on concerns including total incompatibility of the project on a building basis. Brad Howard, 3172 Diablo View Road, Lafayette, spoke in opposition. Marcia A. Howard, 3172 Diablo View Road, Lafayette, with Homeowners Association spoke in opposition and presented petititions in opposition. Elizabeth Schmidt, 1676 Foothill Park Circle, Lafayette, spoke in opposition. Daniel Wagner, 3187 Diablo view Road, Lafayette, spoke in opposition. The Chair read cards from the following persons who did not wish to speak: R. Henbury and Family, 3108 Del Oceano Drive, Lafayette, in opposition. Carol C. Lind, 3165 Diablo View Road, Lafayette, in opposition. Harold Lind Jr. , 3165 Diablo View Road, Lafayette, in oppposition. Mr. Hasseltine spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor McPeak commented on the Board' s long-standing commitment to senior housing and the compatibility of senior housing with single family areas. She advised that she was prepared to move the General Plan Amendment because of the importance to assure that the Board' s intent for land use is for Congregate Senior Care Housing and not for multiples, or some other use. She also advised that she could not recommend the change in density for the project. Supervisor McPeak moved approval of the General Plan Amendment. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification from staff on the additional traffic impacts relative to the additional units requested versus the original approval. Dennis Barry responded to Supervisor Torlakson commenting on a memorandum dated July 23 , 1990. The Board discussed various issues including the traffic impact concerns, circulation, access, building height, architectural design review, and visual impacts. Supervisor Torlakson offered a motion to the Board to approve the extra story with a condition that the parties, the City, the Homeowners Association and the neighbors involved in the process be notified of the Zoning Administrator hearings on the visual and architectural questions and that the traffic issue that Supervisor Schroder raised be referred to the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator to work out a solution on Pleasant Hill Road so as to preclude circulation on Diablo View Road. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. Dennis Barry clarified on both the General Plan Amendment and on the present motion that the General Plan Amendment is instructing staff to combine the amendment with the next of the four available yearly General Plan Amendments, and that the Board has expressed intent to approve the General Plan Amendment and combine it at that time, and that the motion on the project is an intent to adopt the rezoning so that when the findings are returned, staff could advise what the clarification of Public Works would be on the access issue. Supervisors Torlakson and Powers advised that was the intent of the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, and Torlakson NOES: Supervisors McPeak and Fanden ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution 90/688 is ADOPTED; and the Board has DETERMINED to amend the County General Plan and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to incorporate General Plan Amendment 1-88-CO into one of the four permitted amendments to the County General Plan which the Board will consider for adoption during the 1990 calendar year. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve rezoning application 2791-RZ and Development Plan 3007-88 as amended; and the Community Development Department is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate documentation for Board consideration. I Iwereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe Iso on the date shown. ATTESTED: q�; ��n PHIL CHE' R.Clerk of the Board upe rsand Cc nj Administrator Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Dept. — County Counsel By .Deouty Public Works-Steve Wright