Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02041986 - 2.2 2.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 4, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: Supervisor Fanden ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning application 2610-RZ and Development Plan 3047-84 filed by Geneva B. Hook and Anthony J. Pucell , Pleasant Hill Area The Board on January 21 , 1986 closed its hearing and - deferred to this date its decision on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission with respect to the request of Geneva B. Hook and Anthony J. Pucell (owners) to amend the General Plan from multiple family residential-medium density to office, and to rezone land (2610-RZ from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (P-1) and approval for Development Plan 3047-84 for a 7-story office building totaling 179 ,275 square feet as Phase III of the Hookston Square, approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Hookston Road and Buskirk Avenue in the Pleasant Hill area. Supervisor McPeak advised that since the matter was heard two weeks ago, there has been much discussion and many meetings to review a way in which this approval can be conditioned such that guarantees can be made that traffic generated from it will be mitigated. Supervisor McPeak thereupon presented amendments to the proposed conditions of approval for DP 3047-84. Supervisor Fanden expressed concern with respect to traf- fic problems and the fact that the residents of the surrounding cities are considering no growth initiatives. Supervisor Torlakson referred to a January 23, 1986 letter from Councilman Beatty of Antioch agreeing with the concept of a proposed regional traffic mitigation fund. He observed that even though the infrastructure in Oakley or Pleasant Hill is not where we would want it, stopping proposals such as this is not going to stop the problems, but projects such as this will contribute a signifi- cant amount of money, perhaps beyond what their share would be if you went back and appropriated previous developments on a fair-share basis. Supervisor Torlakson urged the Board to consider further a condition that would require this project, and other office parks and subsequent projects that come before the Board, participate in a regional traffic mitigation fund that deals with the far-reaching traffic problems that are created by development such as the subject project. Supervisor Torlakson stated that he basically supports the project and the conditions outlined by Supervisor McPeak, but that he would like to see them in writing before voting on them. Supervisor Schroder commented that a regional traffic mitigation fund is a fine idea, but that he could never impose a regional fee on projects within the unincorporated area unless the cities also agreed to impose the same requirement. He stated that he agreed to the development of a traffic mitigation fund but it 1 would have to be equitable and reasonable and should not be only the business community, but also the residential community. He suggested that development may be part of the problem but that it is also part of the solution in that it helps to fund traffic mitiga- tion projects. Board members discussed further the conditions of approval prepared by staff following the Board' s January 21, 1986 hearing particularly TSM and how it can be implemented and whether it will encompass the exising project so that there will be traffic systems management for the whole area which is under the control of one deve- loper, as well as the provisions for a drainage plan and whether or not there is a transit fee. Supervisor Torlakson moved to add a condition that when a regional traffic impact mitigation fund is established, that this development be charged the standard fee. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion, although she stated she would not be supporting the project. The representative from Duffel Company argued that no one would lend his company money on the project with an open ended com- mittment for an undecided amount for a traffic mitigation fee, and suggested that hearings be held and costs ascertained and then create an ordinance to institute that sort of a fee on developers. Supervisor McPeak moved a substitute motion which would add Condition H as follows: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a report on the regional transportation impacts and its effects on the jobs housing balance. The substitute motion was seconded by Supervisor Schroder. Supervisor Torlakson spoke against the substitute motion. The vote on the substitute motion was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Schroder and McPeak Noes: Supervisors Fanden, Torlakson and Powers. Chairman Powers then called for a vote on Supervisor Torlakson' s motion to add a condition that the subject development be charged the standard fee of no more than 50 cents a square foot when a regional traffic impact mitigation fund is established. Supervisor Schroder spoke against the motion, stating that there must be a consensus among the entities that are doing the planning in this county. He urged the Board not to move ahead without a plan and without the cities and the development community being involved. He suggested that the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority would be the logical entity to organize a regional traffic mitigation fund. Supervisor Powers suggested that a time limit be put on the condition to the effect that if the cities do not agree to the fee and to participation in the the development of a regional traf- fic impact mitigation fund within one year, the condition would expire. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he desired to allow 18 months for the establishment of the fund and suggested that the motion be expanded to incude a policy direction for future projects to be conditioned in a like manner. Supervisor McPeak stated that she understood the motion to be for development of a city/county fund where there is a regional impact and the project has not provided for its own mitigation in jobs and housing, with a time limit of 18 months for establishment. She advised that she would like to see the motion in writing inasmuch as it had been amended several times. 2 The vote on the motion to add the above condition, as amended, was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers Noes: Supervisor Schroder Absent: None The Chair then called for action on the development plan and rezoning. As recommended by Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Planning Commission adoption of the Negative Declaration is AFFIRMED, the General Plan Amendment is APPROVED and that rezoning application 2610-RZ and Development Plan 3047-84 are APPROVED subject to revised conditions as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ordinance No. 86-16 giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning is INTRODUCED, reading waived and February 25, 1986 is set for adoption of same. In approving the aforesaid applications, the Board concurs in and makes the findings as shown in the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolutions 55-1985 and 58-1985. hereby nortify that!his Is a true and correct copy of an action takon and ontered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisor n t date shown. ATTESTED: 6 CC: Applicant PHIL BATCHELOR, Cle.-I of the Board Community Development of Supervisors and County Administrator Public Works Director County Assessor By CCC Fire Protection District .Deputtr 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3047-84: 1. Development shall be as generally shown on revised plans on file and shall contain no more than 170,219 gross square feet. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall incorporate parking lot changes and landscaping required by conditions of approval. 2. The owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement acceptable to the Zoning Administrator to be filed with the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The development shall meet all the requirements of the Flood Control District and Public Works Department and Building Inspection Department regarding drainage. 4. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted listing the number of plants and materials to be used, along with the size, to be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. Trees between the wall and the new parking lot shall be Coast Redwood. The approximate 20-foot spaces trees will be 36 inches. The remaining Redwood trees shall be a minimum of 24 inch box. 5. The automatic irrigation system shall be installed for the maintenance of the landscaped area. Pavement vents for air and water shall be provided at 2 feet on- center in the dripline of the existing oak trees. 6. The appropriate landscaped areas shall be protected from vehicular movement by a 6- inch concrete curb. 7. The landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy. S. All trees indicated on the maps and plans on file and indicated as being preserved shall be bonded in accordance with a tree bonding agreement acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. 9. A fence shall be provided consistent with Phases I and II as approved by the Zoning Administrator. A precast masonry wall set on drilled piers shall be installed to buffer adjacent residential development. The bottom of the wall will be imbedded approximately 6-inches into the earth to prevent sound transfer below the wall. Existing and proposed grades on both sides of the wall shall be shown. 10. All exterior light standards shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Twenty- foot high, high pressure sodium lighting fixtures, will be used in the parking lots. Incandescent "Bollard" lights will be used in the courtyard areas and shall be a maximum of 4 feet high. 11. All air conditioning units shall be located either below parapet level setback behind a parapet wall and out of direct line of sight in the project vicinity or behind patio fences or other approved screening. 3047-84 Pg. 2 12. A detailed courtyard and Hookston Road entry plan carrying out the existing theme shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. It shall incorporate the existing oak trees. 13. All trash or refuse areas shall be screened from view or enclosed. 14. All signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 15. Submit plans for architectural review and approval detailing the location of all utility boxes, poles, meters, valves, transformer areas, manholes and other appurtenances, including but not limited to gas, water, electricity, cable television, sewer, irrigation and telephone prior to the issuance of a building permits. 16. All utility meters, e.g., electric and gas, shall be enclosed or screened from view. No utility areas, etc., are to be located along the east or south property lines. 17. Any changes after the issuance of the building permit which would affect the exterior character of the proposal shall be re-submitted for architectural review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 18. No final occupancy shall be permitted until such time as the development has been approved by the Zoning Administrator for compliance to all conditions of approval. 19. Television antennas, microwave dishes or other long-range communication devices are considered to be underground utilities; therefore, no free-standing or roof- mounted communication devices will be allowed. 20. A maintenance schedule for existing trees shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will submit a transpor- tation system management program which may include but is not necessarily limited to: (1) establishment of van pools or a car-pool system; (2) provision of secure bicycle storage areas; (3) provision of BART and/or Central Contra Costa Transit Authority passes to employees; and (4) establishment of pay-parking areas. A. The transportation management program will be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. The proposed program will contain assurances for continuing operation for a period of two (2) years with an annual report as to its effectiveness to be submitted to the Community Development Director. During the two-year period, either the applicant or the Community Development Director may bring the program back to the Planning Commission for review to add, delete or alter any of the provisions and at the end of two years, the Community Development Director will bring this matter back to the full Planning Commission for its review. Documentation of participation and cooperation with the on-going efforts towards a transportation program at the BART Station area will satisfy this condition. B. The applicant shall submit a program to incorporate support uses which may further mitigate vehicular trips. 3047-84 Pg. 3 C. The applicant shall participate in the Pleasant Hill BART Development Area TSM plan or provide an alternative equivalent plan to achieve the same traffic trip generation mitigation. 22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a qualified tree expert shall inventory the existing trees to recommend mitigation measures for tree preservation and to evaluate necessary pruning and a written report submitted to the Community Development Department. 23. Building height shall not exceed 5 stories exclusive of the roof top mechanical equipment penthouse. 24. Variances to the parking ordinance are approved to allow a combined maximum of 50% compact stalls and to allow a combined ratio of 3.3 stalls per 1,000 net square feet of office. 25. The masonry wall shall be constructed as soon as weather and soil conditions permit. No construction is allowed without prior emplacement of the masonry wall. Land- scaping and curbing shall follow wall emplacement as soon as practicable. 26. Prior to any commencement of any site work the applicant shall submit a construc- tion time table. 27. The applicant shall agree to cooperate with the County establishing a program to meet child care needs and shall participate in the Pleasant Hill Bart station development area effort to implement the specific child care plan for all three phases of Hookston Square before occupancy of Phase III. 28. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. This includes the following: 1) Convey to the City of Pleasant Hill, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Hookston Road as required for frontage improvements. 2) Construct curb, 6-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening on Hookston Road. The face of curb shall be located 10 feet from the widened right of way line. 3) Install street lights on Hookston Road. The final number and location of the lights will be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 4) Relinquish abutter's rights of access along the frontage of Hookston Road, with the exception of a driveway entrances with the location, subject to approval by the City of Pleasant Hill. B. Comply with the non-frontage (off-site) improvements as follows: �U111J lJ� � � tl Lnl 3047-8,4 Pg. 4 1) Request the City of Pleasant Hill to declare within 60 days its intent to form the previously proposed assessment district and to design a circulation plan which will accomplish at least one of the following: a. A service level D within the general area with particular attention to improvements to Monument/Buskirk, Hookston/Buskirk and Hookston/ Bancroft intersection; or b. Total mitigation of Phase III traffic impacts such that service levels and traffic congestion are no worse than existing conditions as evi- denced through updated traffic and circulation data. 2) Petition the City of Pleasant Hill prior to the issuance at the building permit to include the Phase 3 properties in the proposed assessment district which will construct this area's ultimate traffic improvements. The scope of work of the district should contain the following improvements. a. Widening at Hookston Road to four lanes with left turn channelization between Buskirk and Bancroft. b. Closing Elmira Drive to through traffic. c. Widening of Buskirk Avenue between Shaw Road and Mayhew to its ultimate 48-foot section. d Or, in lieu of a,b,c above. Construction of the Bancroft Extension from Hookston North to Monument. 3) If the assessment district has not been formed (contract awarded) at the time of building permits for the building shall, then in lieu of condition 28 B (1) the applicant shall: a. Contribute $3.19/SF (amount to be adjusted January 1, 1986 by the State Highway Construction Cost index and annually thereafter) to the County for the purpose of area traffic improvements. Credit will be allowed for offsite traffic improvements. b. The County shall schedule appropriate public actions and hearings to recondition fees from Phases.I & II to be redirected from the Pleasant. Hill Assessment District to a County directed traffic mitigation plan for the area to achieve total mitigation of all Phase III traffic impacts. The level of service after Phase III shall be no worse than existing service levels and work towards achieving service levels D in the area as an overall goal. 4. Complete updated traffic reports shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assist in the determination of the adequacy of Condition 1 above. VERY 3047-84 Pg. 5 C. In accordance with Section 82-2.014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the .Subdivision Ordinance, unless exceptions are specifically granted. 1) Contributing $50,000 toward the construction of Line E of the Drainage Area 44B Plan will satisfy.this requirement. The difference between this contribution and the Drainage Area 44B fee for Assessor's Parcel No. 148- 090-004 will be reimbursed to the developer in accordance with the Drainage Area 44B Reimbursement Policy. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. E. Furnish proof to the County Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, or to the City of Pleasant Hill if appropriate, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off- site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Install all new utility distribution services underground. G. Prior to the issuance of building permits, deposit (with the County of Contra Costa) fees equivalent to $0.62 per square foot of office space generated by the development, designated toward transit improvements and Transportation Ma- nagement Systems for the. Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. This fee will be increased annually in accordance with the State Highway Construc- tion Cost Index. H. The applicant shall be required to pay a maximum of 5%/sq. foot towards a regional traffic mitigation fund if such a fund is established by the Board of Supervisors within 18 months from the approval of this project. DE:plp9rz 9/20/85 Revised 9/24/85 10/22/85 12/17/85 1/21/86 2/4/86 9/17/86 2.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 4, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: Supervisor Fanden ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: In The Matter of Hookston Square ) RESOLUTION NO. 86/56 General Plan Amendment ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RE- SOLVED that: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 55-1985 adopted by the Contra Costa County Plan- ning Commission discussing an amendment to the County General Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART area. On January 21, 1986 , this Board held a hearing on said amendment as discussed by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No. 55-1985. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at. the hearing !called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter and several persons testified on this matter. The public hearing was closed and the item was continued to February 4 , 1986 for decision. The Board hereby finds that the proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compli- ance with the California 'Environmental Quality Act and the County EIR Guidelines. The Board members, having fully considered this amend- ment, determined to amend the Pleasant Hill BART`',Station -Environs General Plan from Multiple Family Residential Medium Density to Office. The Board further directs the County Community Develop- ment Department to incorporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1986 calendar year as one of the four permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of an action taken Out;enterad on the mInatea of the 'Board of Suporvisore n the date s ATTESTgn: .4hown. /9.( PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of tete Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By ""'......-..,� .............Deputy Orig. Dept.: cc: Director of Community Development County Administrator Public Works Director County Counsel RESOLUTION NO. 86/56