Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01281986 - T.10 T.10 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 28 , 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Cherry Lane area of Walnut Creek This being the time for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission with respect to appli- cation by Hofmann Company and Perma Built Homes to amend the land use element of the County General Plan to allow multiple family structures in the 21 to 35 dwelling units/acre and 70 to 80 dwelling units/acre range for a portion of the area, and also to allow for some commercial use along the north side of Treat Boulevard, said area being bounded by the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad Right- of-way, the BART line to the west and north; Walnut Creek Channel to the east and Treat Boulevard to the south; immediately easterly of the Pleasant Hill BART Station area; and James Cutler, Chief of Comprehensive Planning, Community Development Department, described the area and the proposed amend- ment to the general plan, and reviewed the staff' s recommendation. Mr. Cutler advised that an Environmental Impact Report had been prepared and processed and that the County Planning Commission had found it to be adequate and completed in .compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State guidelines and this County' s processing procedures. The Chair declared the hearing open and the following per- sons appeared: John Wyro, 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, repre- senting Perma-Bilt Homes, applicant, reviewed the proposal and advised that his company had worked very closely with staff, the County Planning Commission and neighbors and had modified and worked out problems. He advised that he did concur with the staff report and commented that "Area B" seemed to be very controversial. He urged that it not inhibit the progress of the rest of the general plan amendment which is not nearly as controversial, stating that Area B should not affect the rest of the General Plan Amendment. Eric Hasseltine, representing Hofmann Company, P. 0. Box 907 , Concord 94522, applicant for Parcel C, commented that the subject general plan amendment comes with the recommendation of staff and the County Planning Commission and is totally consistent with the Specific Plan. He urged the Board to approve the general plan amendment, commenting that Parcel B has no impact on his firm' s proposed project. Evelyn Munn, 35 Sandra Court, Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek City Councilperson, commented that this is a high sensitivy develop- ment that provides no infrastructure considerations, and advised that the City Council supports its staff' s recommendations for traf- fic mitigations and roadway improvements as set forth in the January 24, 1986 letter from the City of Walnut Creek. Harley Goldstrom, 1666 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, representing the City Council of Walnut Creek, also referred to the January 24 , 1986 letter from the City, and advised that the Council 1 is concerned about future traffic impacts on area residents. He stated that the City is attempting to address those problems in its own process and urged that the County also investigate any or all possible means of traffic mitigation in this area. Robert J. Devengenzo, 2991 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, pro- perty owner in Desco section of Area B, who stated he disagreed with staff' s recommendation with respect to the impact on Cherry Lane from the proposed developments of Perma-Bilt & Hofmann Company. Curt Blomstrand, 3687 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 100, Lafayette, representing Desco Investment, advised that he was working with a group of 7 property owners on the Northwest corner of Cherry Lane and had assembled a piece of property fronting 300 feet on Las Juntas and 325 feet on Cherry Lane with thoughts of going multiple family, stating that he believed in the housing jobs balance for this area. Steve Stone, 2987 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, requested that Area B be included in the general plan amendment to provide equal treatment for property owners on his section of Cherry Lane. Carroll H. Johnson, 1227 Las Juntas Way, Walnut Creek, who stated that he faces directly onto Las Juntas, is impacted by traffic and is involved with the Desco Group and is looking for a chance to make a few dollars. Rick Spencer, 1229 Las Juntas Way, Walnut Creek, expressed his concern about impact of additional traffic and advised that his driveway enters onto Las Juntas. Wallace Santos, 2965 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, repre- senting himself and Josephine P. Vette, commented on various ways to buffer single family residences from high density and suggested that Area B should be scaled down to protect the single family residences; he also suggested a distinct transition from single to multiple family density, including buffers from traffic and noise. He further suggested that if there has to be a compromise, the single family area should be designated multiple, but to be rezoned it must 4 or more acres, with no compromise and no amendments. Doyle Heaton, 2960 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, owner of 2 acres at the end of Area A along the channel, who commented that these homes are unique and have been featured in the Oakland Tribune, and advised that he wants to continue to enjoy the rural lifestyle presently provided by the area. He further commented that he had built a park for the neighborhood. He suggested a scaled down project and provision for lots of trees. Ron Howard, 1217 Las Juntas, Walnut Creek, stated he lives in the Desco area facing out on Las Juntas. Lowell Dravenstat, 2989 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, pro- perty owner in Desco group, commented that no matter how much the residents value the rural lifestyle, the area will change in terms of traffic, density and noise. He recommended his area also be included in the change to multiple zoning. Frank Kohler, 2978 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, stated he agreed with staff and the Planning Commission to retain Areas A and B for low density, commenting that the B segment is critical to pro- tecting the A segment. Linda Kaplan, 1229 Las Juntas Way, Walnut Creek, commented that the majority of people in favor of the proposal live on Briarwood. They won' t have the immediate impact of traffic and noise, they have streets and natural buffer zones in between. Ed Dimmick, 1251 Sheppard Court, Walnut Creek, commented that the major problem is traffic, stating that it is appropriate to have development planned to minimize traffic impact. He suggested several possible traffic mitigations and the importance of pre- serving existing trees. 2 The Chair read comments from Dr. Peter Duncan, 112 Roble Road, Walnut Creek and R. K. Young 3050 Del Hombre Land, Walnut Creek agreeing with the appropriateness of the project. Mr. Wyro appeared in rebuttal, and responded to concerns raised by the speakers, including traffic mitigation measures. He assured the Board that the project would contribute to the solutions. The public hearing was closed and Board members discussed the matter. Supervisor Schroder commented that he was pleased to see the City of Walnut Creek agree with the County that high density development belongs in the Pleasant Hill Bart Station area, where there is public transportation and where jobs are being created. He stated that this is obviously a transitional area and, realizing that the specifics and concerns will be resolved and addressed at the development plan stage, it would be his intent to recommend that the Board indicate its approval of the proposed amendment, including Area B. He proposed that Community Development Department staff develop a text amendment that addresses the protection of the integrity of Cherry Lane, addresses the traffic mitigation as recom- mended by the City of Walnut Creek and those in the EIR, and addresses the accumulation of a certain number of parcels before development can take place. Staff should have this ready for the Board' s review on February 4, 1986 . Supervisor Schroder also requested that the text address the concern of Las Juntas Way traffic, and the concerns of the people living in Area B that wish to continue to live there in the single family mode of living and how they can be protected from development to the Southwest. He asked for time to address the concerns of staff rela- tive to the inclusion of the Leigh Court area, stating that he understood there was strong opposition from staff to include that very strong, stable, single-family area in the General Plan change of Area B. Supervisor Fanden expressed concerns about shadowing the existing homes. Supervisor Powers suggested a combination of density, fencing and the height of the buildings be addressed in order not to impact the adjacent property owners. Supervisor McPeak stated that there is the need to have a text before the Board to take into account their concerns, but she did not want to delay action on that portion for which there is no controversy. She stated that she did not think that the northern part of Area A is in transition and that those single family homes should be preserved as part of the housing mix. Supervisor McPeak stated that she was not prepared to sup- port all of Area B going multiple family at this point, that the DESCO assembly which is north of the Santos property may be appropriate to look at as an area for multiple family, but that the rest of it should remain single family. She commented that there are ways to handle the bufffering. She requested that the general plan text provide for protection of the mature trees on the pro- perty. Supervisor Torlakson concurred with the request for more time and information, and noted that he shared the concern about traffic voiced by the City of Walnut Creek and was pleased that the City had expressed an interest in working with the County on that issue. He hoped they will cooperate in looking at regional impacts on the commute traffic that is being created by office parks and help plan for those regional commute problems. Supervisor McPeak moved that the Board declare its intent to approve the proposed. General Plan Amendment and the recommen- 3 dations of staff on Areas C, E, F & G and the upper portion of Area B, and that the three-acre area on the upper part of B be proposed for multiple density, and that the remainder of B remain single family residential, as well as all of A. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. Supervisor Fanden stated she disagreed. Supervisor Schroder commented that it might be premature to do that inasmuch as the Board will be looking at mitigation and will be discussing with staff their reasoning relative to the lower portion. He commented that the proposal before the Board is a general plan change, not a specific zoning and that he can see in the future that the entire Area B would be in transition to multiple and therefore he would question having it in the general plan stage. Supervisor Torlakson commented that he did not have the motion in writing and thought it might be of benefit to wait and hold the motion a week, seeing. it in writing and having the staff report. Supervisor Fanden questioned whether there would be any exits on Cherry Lane. Supervisor McPeak agreed to defer decision on her motion and requested staff to come back with a written proposal and that the matter be placed on the agenda for decision next week. Mr. Cutler asked for clarification on the proposal to take the Treat Boulevard area out of Office Designation and include it as part of the multiple family. Supervisor Powers indicated there was no disagreement on the Board and would assume that it is multiple family. As recommended by Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that decision on the proposed general plan amendment for the Cherry Lane area is DEFERRED to February 4, 1986 as a deter- mination item, and staff is DIRECTED to prepared the appropriate text amendment. I hereby ce-Iffy tW,this tan true and correct copyof an action Taken end entered on the minutes of that- Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 2S 'U, 19k( - PHIL BAT ELOR,11,;-k of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By .., Deputy Orig. Dept: Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development County Counsel County Administrator Hoffman Company & Perma Built Homes 4