Loading...
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