HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091988 - S.7 S.7
TO- $OARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Sunne Wright McPeak Contra
CW
Introduced February 2 , 1988 , La
DATE: for Action on February 9 , 1988 nw" "1
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan �J
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACW.ROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator' s
Office and Community Development Department to take the
following actions:
( a) Notify the cities of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and
Concord, BART, and the Walden Homeowners Association
that the review of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific
Plan, begun in 1986, is still in progress and that we
request their continued participation.
(b) Report to! the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Review
Study Committee the feasibility of declaring a
moratorium on further approvals in the Pleasant Hill
BART Station area, the impacts of reducing planned
densities (FAR' S) , and the financial consequences of
such actions.
(c) Report to the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Review
Study Committee the necessary steps and feasibility of
immediately annexing the unincorporated area of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station to the cities of Pleasant
Hill and Walnut Creek in accordance with their sphere
of influence boundaries.
BACKGROUND
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is a very important and
critical area of central county. It is a major transit hub
with planned development for jobs, housing, child care, TSM
and infrastructure improvements. It is essential that all
interested parties be aware that the Board of Supervisors
initiated an early review of the implementation of the
Specific Plan ( as required in the plan) and that we invite
their continued participation. Further, it is appropriate
that we study all alternatives for completion of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan, including
radically reducing densities and annexation to the cities.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREISI*
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Board members discussed in some detail the proposals of
Supervisor McPeak as well as their desire to communicate with, and
work with, the Cities on this matter. Supervisor McPeak requested
that one more item be added to her recommended actions, that being the
issue of shared revenues. Supervisor McPeak also suggested that
TRANSPAC be involved in the discussion of the traffic problems.
Supervisor Schroder stated that annexing the unincorporated area to
the Cities has absolutely nothing to do with the traffic problem.
Supervisor Powers noted the letter on today' s agenda from
the Concord Chamber of Commerce ( Item 3 . 6 on today' s agenda) urging
the Board to seek input from neighboring jurisdictions when approving
future projects within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. He
suggested that before going beyond Item A of Supervisor McPeak' s
recommendations, that the Board obtain advice from County Counsel on
the implications of moratoriums and annexations where there are
development agreements in place and bonds issued. Supervisor Powers
also requested information on the impacts of procedures suggested in
items B and C. Supervisor Fanden agreed on the need for legal advice.
Supervisor Torlakson supported further dialogue with the
cities and the parties involved. He stated the Board had agreed to
review the traffic impact to see if the projects had more impact than
the Evironmental Impact Report' s predicted and that would have to be
very clearly established, but he did not support any concept of
annexation or discussion of that at this time.
Chairman Schroder stated that the way to pursue the
concerns of the cities and the residents in the area is to sit down
and put all the facts on the table and work together to resolve the
problems. He then advised that he had "request to speak cards" from
people in the audience, and he invited them to speak at this time.
Jay Dauphinais, 1535 Treat Blvd, spoke in opposition to the
proposals contained in S.7 on today' s calendar.
Bob Young, 3050 Del Hombre Lane, commented that the Pleasant
Hill BART Station is the most accessible station and that in his
opinion, the Board made a terrific decision when approving the Plan,
and that he did not 'see a problem any worse than that that was
generated by development in Walnut Creek and in Concord, and that he
was opposed to imposing a moratorium at this time.
Supervisor McPeak commented on the letter from the Concord
Chamber of Commerce ( 3 . 6 on today' s agenda) objecting to further
development in the Pleasant Hill BART Station area because it would be
competing with development in Concord. She stated that there is also
an attitude that development such as this should only occur within a
city. She noted that the other Board members had indicated that they
would not want to do anything until they had an opinion from County
Counsel. She proposed that the Board receive those opinions, that an
analysis be gathered and reported to the Review Committee, and also to
the Board of Supervisors if the Board preferred that. She commented
that she had spent more time on this project than anyone else had and
she invited Board members to share in the time spent and in the
responsibility, and suggested that perhaps there should be a joint
meeting with the full Board of Supervisors and the city councils.
She reviewed the work she had done in implementing the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Specific Plan and commented that what she was
proposing today was to study the options, and that she was of the
opinion that the question of annexation needs to be addressed and that
she was committed to the Pleasant Hill BART Station area being a part
of the City of Pleasant Hill. She asked that the Board support her
request and that the Board get a study or report on each of the items
outlined in her proposed order, and that in addition to reviewing the
feasibility and implications of annexation, the issued of shared
revenues be added to her recommended actions.
Chairman Schroder inquired if the Board members desired him
to follow through on the letter that he had written to the cities
requesting to be a part of the discussion group if they decide to go
beyond the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Review Study Committee.
Hearing no objection, the Chair declared that he would do so.
Merle Gilliland, resident of Contra Costa County and
representing one of the property owners in the area, appeared and
expressed concern on behalf of the Contra Costa Centre Association if
continuous discussions were to occur on the issues being talked about
today. He asked to be kept informed if there are joint meetings with
the city councils and requested permission to sit in and observe the
dialogue.
Chairman Schroder complimented the Contra Costa Centre
Association and Supervisor McPeak on the work they had done in
addressing the infrastructure problems and the social problems that
development brings about, including the day care ordinance.
Supervisor McPeak stated that it seemed that the Chair was
now supporting the independent third separate organization and
therefore she would encourage him to meet with the cities, and she
would request that he also take over and participate in, and chair,
the Review Study Committee and that she hereby resigned from her
position on that committee.
Chairman Schroder clarified the proposal to meet with the
cities as one being proposed by Evelyn Munn of the Walnut Creek City
Council, and stated that if she proposed it and the cities decide to
do it, the Board should be a part of the meeting. He thereupon
accepted Supervisor McPeak' s resignation.
Supervisor McPeak moved the recommendations she had placed
before the Board as item S.7 . The motion died for lack of a second.
As recommended by Chairman Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the recommendations of Supervisor McPeak and the letter
from the Concord Chamber of Commerce are REFERRED to County Counsel
for report; and the Chairman is REQUESTED to follow up on his letter
to the Cities of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Concord, offering to
confer with their representatives and to discuss concerns regarding
the Pleasant Hill BART Station area.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION -TAKEN
AYES: NDES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
A13SENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Counsel ATTESTED February 9, 1988_
Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BYDEPUTY
I
i
i
I