Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11291988 - T.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 3&T. 4 Adopted this Order on November 29. 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers and Fanden ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal By Walnut Creek City Council From Decision 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 November 1, 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. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, explained the appeals before the Board and presented a brief status report on the matter. The Board continued to take testimony and the following people appeared to speak: Evelyn Munn, 1666 No. Main Street, Walnut Creek, Mayor, Walnut Creek, expressed concern with the Board of Supervisors doing planning in the City of Walnut Creek' s sphere of influence. She expressed concern with traffic issues, commenting on the recent passage of Measure C. Mayor Munn Also commented on the recent public hearings in Walnut Creek relative to the new draft General Plan for . the City of Walnut Creek and the growth management concept contained therein. Mayor Munn proposed that the City of Walnut Creek and the Board of Supervisors hold a joint meeting to discuss the planning at the Pleasant Hill BART Station, possibly leading to future meetings with both bodies as well as Concord and Pleasant Hill to, attempt to resolve the conflicts between the cities and the County on County development which impacts most heavily on the cities. She stated that the City of Walnut Creek accepts the fact that some development will occur at the BART Station but that they do expect to see these projects built in a way that the City is not negatively impacted and in a way that does not place the burden of traffic improvement on future decision makers, and that that Measure C monies should be used to solve old problems. She commented on Supervisor Schroder' s previously expressed need for regional planning. Supervisor Fanden discussed annexation of areas into the cities with Mayor Munn. Mayor Munn responded to Supervisor Fanden' s concern, commenting on growth management issues. Supervisor McPeak responded to the issue of a joint meeting commenting that it would be very productive. Supervisor Schroder commented on pending litigation with the City of Walnut Creek. ti John Truxaw, 1666 No. Main Street, Walnut Creek, City Attorney, City of Walnut Creek, commented that the pending litigation had possibly gotten in the way of regional planning. He commented that that was partially the reason behind Mayor Munn' s request that approvals on these projects be delayed pending such discussions that can be discussed outside litigation. He requested a letter that he had sent to the Board earlier today be placed in the record. Anush Nejad, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Concord, commented on traffic impacts in the corridor and discussion of a joint level staff traffic impact study concerning traffic impacts on Treat Boulevard and that such a study should be approved by the Concord City Council which has not had time to discuss the matter. Supervisor McPeak expressed concern with the delay in discussing the traffic study by the Concord City Council. Mr. Nejad responded to Supervisor McPeak' s concern, commenting that Concord did not want to proceed on its own with the study but rather have a joint effort with Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. Supervisor Schroder commented that it was incumbent if the Board and the City of Walnut Creek were going to meet to have the meeting quickly, expressing a need to resolve the matter as soon as possible because of the fiscal situation of the Redevelopment Area. Sanford Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, attorney, representing the applicants, expressed the desire of the applicants to go forward as soon as possible. He commented that the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan of the County are all consistent with these applications as is the General Plan of the City of Pleasant Hill in whose sphere of influence these properties lie. He requested that the Board proceed as soon as possible in making a decision on these matters. Supervisor McPeak expressed a need to proceed with the hearings in order to know the issues that should be addressed in a mutual discussion. Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency, responded to questions from the Board on traffic impacts and analysis, and referred to a letter dated September 27, 1988 reviewing information. He commented on the raft of traffic studies that have been done and that the contribution to traffic by the development at the BART Station is a very small percentage of the total traffic at the intersections addressed. Bill Hurl, Traffic Consultant, commented on review they had done at seven most critical intersections, and how density reduction would affect those intersections. Supervisor McPeak requested from Mr. Hurl clarification on the matter of her proposed reduction in density and the effect it would have on the Treat and Oak intersection. Mr. Hurl responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request. Supervisor McPeak addressed the issue of her proposed reduction in density in this area to be able to plan good job housing balance around the transit hub and take into account what has been the growth in the development in the region. She expressed a need for joint planning in the area and requested discussing this with the City of Walnut Creek and making a decision on the two projects in two weeks. Supervisor Torlakson commended Supervisor McPeak for the continuing efforts to address the issues. Supervisor Schroder expressed his intention to act on these two appeals before the Board prior to the end of the year and expressed a need to meet with the City and County quickly to resolve the issues. i The Board discussed possible dates for the meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Walnut Creek City Council. Mayor Munn invited the Board to meet with the Walnut Creek City Council at Park Place with the City of Walnut Creek to host the event. Supervisor McPeak moved to continue the hearings on the appeals before the Board to December 13 , 1988 at 2: 00 p.m. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearings on the appeals of the Walnut Creek City Council on the approvals by the County Planning Commission of Development Plans 3012-88 and 3019-88 are CONTINUED to December 13 , 1988 at 2 :00 p.m. I oereby certify tnct this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. �A B M X ATTESTED: / ,, Irl �y�-/ I R e d PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 0 ey .Deauty Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Department County Counsel City of Walnut Creek i