Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11011988 - T.5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA T.5 & T.6 Adopted this Order on November 1, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hearing On Appeals By Walnut Creek City Council From Decisions Of The Contra Costa County Planning Commission Relative to Development Plans 3012-88 and 3019-88 In The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The Board of Supervisors on October 18, 1988 continued to this date the hearings on the appeals by the Walnut Creek City Council from the decisions of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission approving the request by Merle Gilliland (applicant) and Treat Corners Partnership (owner) for approval of two office buildings with a combined total of 375,000 square feet (Development Plan 3012-88) and approving the request by Lauren S. Ward (applicant) and Taylor/Ward Properties (owner) for an amended Final Development Plan for a six-story office building plus penthouse over a lobby and parking (Development Plan 3019-88) , in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Director, presented the staff report and recommendation that the Board accept the environmental . documentation as being adequate, deny the appeal of Walnut Creek and sustain the Planning Commission approval of Final Development Plan 3012-88 subject to conditions and direct staff to prepare the necessary findings for adoption. He commented that the basis for the recommendation is that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the Specific Plan and prior planning and development approvals that have been received for this property and that the approvals are consistent with the Dimick agreement. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification from staff as to the extent that the proposals that have been approved by the Planning Commission and referred to the Board are consistent with the Dimick lawsuit and to what extent are the approvals implementing conditions of that lawsuit settlement. Sylvano Marchesi, Deputy County Counsel, responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concern, commenting on his understanding that the proposals before the Board today on appeal were consistent with the settlement agreement. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the proposed density being consistent with the settlement of the lawsuit. The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared to speak: Evelyn Munn, 1666 No. Main Street, Walnut Creek, Mayor, Walnut Creek, indicated that her comments would apply to both the Treat Towers and Station Oaks developments. She commented on issues of concern including the City of Walnut Creek's primary concern that the Environmental Impact Report was deficient in analyzing and developing mitigation measures for the traffic that will be generated by the developments and that the Environmental Impact Report did not fully consider the regional traffic which has increased since the plans were adopted. She expressed particular concern with the intersections of Treat Boulevard and Geary Road with North Main Street, the I-680 on and off ramps at North Main and Sunnyvale and Treat with Bancroft Road. She commented on the City of Walnut Creek' s proposal that the 4 cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek along with the County jointly participate in preparing a comprehensive traffic analysis with mitigation measures for the entire Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific area plan. She commented that the City of Walnut Creek is looking at this matter as an opportunity to have the cities and the County begin serious joint planning efforts for lands along their common borders. She requested the Board of Supervisors defer its decision regarding these developments until the cities and the County are fully cognizant of the impacts of the Specific Plan developments and adequate mitigation measures have been developed and imposed on the development. She commented on the letter from Walnut Creek City Attorney, John Truxaw, dated November 1, 1988. Supervisor Powers expressed agreement with Mayor Munn' s suggestion of a serious joint planning effort between those local agencies that she had identified. Mayor Munn clarified her position on the proposal of a joint planning effort. Supervisor McPeak questioned Mayor Munn relative to the City' s objection to the Environmental Impact Report at this time and the lack of objection being filed at the time the EIR was certified. John Truxaw, 1666 No. Main Street, Walnut Creek, City of Walnut Creek, City Attorney, responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concern. He commented that the thrust of their challenge is not to the development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station per se rather that the Board does not have adequate information available to them through the EIR to tell Board members what the true traffic impacts of that project are as build out. Kevin Roberts, 1666 No. Main Street, Walnut Creek, City of Walnut Creek, Planning Director, responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request for specific details that were lacking in the EIR. He commented on issues including that the City does not believe that the studies were adequate in developing mitigation measures to relieve the traffic impacts that will occur at the I-680 interchange. He also commented that it would be easier for the cities of Pleasant Hill, Concord, Walnut Creek if there were one comprehensive traffic analysis and that along with representatives from the County, try to develop some mitigation measures that would mitigate the traffic impacts caused by the development. Supervisor McPeak inquired as to why this objection was not raised in the technical advisory committee on which Mr. Roberts represents the City of Walnut Creek or in the steering committee on which Mayor Munn represents the committee. Mr. Roberts responded to Supervisor McPeak' s inquiry. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification from Mr. Roberts as to the City of Walnut Creek' s position on assuming full responsibility for the traffic impacts the City of Walnut Creek generates on the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Mr. Roberts responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concerns, commenting on issues including traffic generated when the Golden Triangle was developed, the current update of the City of Walnut Creek' s General Plan, controlled growth and mitigation measures. Bill Hurl, Wilbur Smith Associates, commented on the traffic issues in the area. Merle Gilliland, P.O. Box 215, Moraga, representing the applicant Wallace Olsen Associates, reviewed the proposed plan as the Planning Commission approved the plan, and presented a brief history of the project. He commented on the exchange of uses between hotel and office between Area 10A and 10B as consistent with the settlement agreement with Mr. Ed Dimick relative to a lawsuit by Mr. Dimick on the approval in 1986 of the plan. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification from Mr. Gilliland on the reduction in square footage if any with the transfer. Mr. Gilliland responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request. Lloyd Hill, Hornberger, Wirstell Associates, San Francisco, commented on issues including the site plan for the project, pedestrian and parking access to the Pleasant Hill BART Station, and the traditional form of the architecture. Supervisor McPeak requested Mr. Hill' s comments on this traditional type of architecture versus what had been proposed earlier and commented that more thought should be put into the architecture. Mr. Hill and Mr. Gilliland responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concerns relative to the proposed architecture of the project. Michael Durkee, 1855 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, Attorney with McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown and Enersen of Walnut Creek representing Wallace Olsen, presented a box of documents he purported to be a representation of the County files on the project to illustrate the lack of a need for new documents, and commented on issues including the legal standards involved, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the exchange of uses in the two areas, and the lack of merit of the appeal. Mr. Gilliland concluded the presentation by referring to the approval granted in 1983, a bond obligation and assessment being paid upon, and requested that the project get under way. Lauren Ward, representing the Station Oaks project owned by Taylor Ward Properties and Sunspirit properties, commented on issues before the Board including two site plans, the market for hotels at the BART station area, and the application before the Board today to substitute an office building for a hotel. Jeffrey Heller, 985 Market Street, San Francisco, Heller and Leake Architects , presented to the Board a brief description of the changes that have taken place in the project. Eric Hasseltine, 2380 Salvio Street, Concord, on behalf of Homart Development and Taylor Ward, applicant, reiterated and clarified the request before the Board, presented a brief history of this project, and suggested that in terms of traffic balance and traffic impact that it makes sense to move ahead with the proposed modification and approve the project. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification relative to the comparison of traffic impacts of office space versus the hotel space. Mr. Hurl and Mr. Hasseltine responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concerns and discussed the traffic issues. Sanford Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, commented on legal issues including the letter to the Board from Reny and Thomas, and commented on the joint planning process between the City of Walnut Creek and the County requested by the City of Walnut Creek and urged the City of Walnut Creek not to litigate but to go forward in good faith with joint planning both in the County areas and the City area. Mayor Munn commented on the need for the County and the City of Walnut Creek to work together on planning matters in the future. Supervisor Schroder entered into the record the letter from Remy Thomas representing the City of Walnut Creek relative to the alleged inadequacies of the CEQA documentation. Supervisor McPeak commented on a request for some additional analysis of various ways in which traffic impacts could be further mitigated at the Pleasant Hill BART Station and on documents that had been submitted by Jim Kennedy and Bill Hurl that she wished staff to review and the comments and legal documents that had been submitted today that she wished staff to be able to review and she proposed a continuation of this matter to November 29, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearings on these matters are CONTINUED November 29, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. ; and the Community Development Department, Redevelopment and the traffic consultant are REQUESTED to provide additional analysis of how traffic impacts could be further mitigated at the Pleasant Hill BART Station as delineated by Supervisor McPeak. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on th date shown. ATTESTED: 1rP PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the oard of Supervi rs and Counv Administrator Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Department r By0� ,Beauty County Counsel City of Walnut Creek ! 4