Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07121988 - 2.7 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS + ra FROM: SUNNE WRIGHT MC PEAK C.JVJIC� Chair, Pleasant Sill BART Specific Plan Review Steering Committee �I r�hi DATE: July 12, 1988 �-�+1 ��� SUBJECT: Recommendations for Board Action In Response Zb The Review of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OB RECOMMENDATION(S) ! BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION The following are my recommendations for action by the Board of Supervisors following the required review of implementation of the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan: a. Adopt the traffic level standards for Central Business District (up to 95% capacity and service level E) as recommended by the General Plan Congress and Trans- portation Partnership Commission. b. Require the mandatory TSM program to include a network of outlying park-and-ride lots to ensure traffic reduction in all of central County as well as around the Pleasant Hill BART. c. Designate the use of the regional mitigation fee/program to: ( 1 ) assist with a contribution to I 680 freeway access proportionate to impacts caused by the project; and ( 2) address impacts on surrounding jurisdictions. d. Reduce planned density (FAR) for the specific plan by 500 ,000 square feet and direct the Community Development Department to negotiate with existing landowners to achieve consensus on implementation of this objective. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION Of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON 19 / 7 R APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER U. Supervisor McPeak reviewed the above recommendations in great detail. Board members expressed their respective views. Sanford M. Skaggs, P. O. Box V, Walnut Creek, appearing as attorney for Contra Costa Centre Association, advised that the Association opposed the recommendations with certain exceptions, one being that they recognize that the expenditure of funds generated by existing fees is within discretion of the Board, and that the park and ride lots are funded by sources other than new fees imposed upon the Association. He noted that the. Association does oppose reduction in density and change in the traffic level standards. He advised that he believed that any reduction in density would be a violation of at least the spirit of the public/private partnership which was formed to encourage development of this area. He advised that the Association recommends that the •Board deny each of the recommendations before it, with the exceptions previously noted. Terry Margarmm, Manager of the Joint Development Program for BART, advised that he shared many of the comments and opinions just made by Mr. Skaggs. He addressed the question of the planning issue, and advised that it is not fair nor reasonable for the County to violate the agreements in place. He also addressed BART' s role in the area. He advised that BART could not support in any way the thrust of the above recommendations made by Supervisor McPeak. Henry Clarke, Contra Costa County Employees Union, Local 1, cautioned that this County cannot afford to lose any money, and inquired if the recommendations made by Supervisor McPeak would cause the County to lose money. Supervisor McPeak advised that the proposal is not jeopardizing the current debt that the General Fund has outstanding to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Clarke urged the Board not to change its plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. Merle Gilliland, representing Wallace, Olson, discussed Supervisor McPeak'.s recommendations and the difficulty for the Contra Costa Centre in controlling regional traffic and the need for cooperation from abutting jurisdictions. He noted that the park and ride. lot concept is something that is 10 to 15 years down the line and not doable with the number of employees now working at the Centre. He agreed with Sandy Skaggs in opposing the reduction in density. Clarke Wallace, part owner of the Treat Corners Project, declared the problem is regional, and that the property owners in the Pleasant Hill BART area have done their share and more towards solving the traffic problem and it is not fair to come back and extract more. He urged the Board to seek a regional solution. Evelyn Munn, Vice Mayor, City of Walnut Creek, reviewed the traffic solutions that Walnut Creek has proposed, and Walnut Creek' s response to the regional traffic problem. Phyllis Roff, Walnut Creek, observed that the County and cities would not be in the situation they are in today if there had been a regional planning organization a long time ago. She urged passage of the half cents sales tax proposal for transportation. . Board members discussed the above recommendations, the concerns of the Contra Costa Centre Association, the need for regional planning, and the consequences of reducing the density. Supervisor Powers moved to deny Recommendations A and D and refer B & C to the Transportation Committee. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion. Chairman Schroder invited discussion from the Board members. Supervisor Torlakson urged breaking the motion into two parts because different aspects of the recommendation deal with different parts of the problem. He noted that he could support in concept Recommendations A, B and C but would like them sent to the Transportation Committee for further development of the details, and that Recommendation D needs to be referred to staff for further consideration, and to the committee that has been set up with the cities to explore it further. Supervisor McPeak seconded Supervisor Torlakson's substitute motion on Item D. Supervisor Schroder advised that he would vote for the motion, but in voting for the motion, he is not voting for a reduced plan density of a half million square feet, but will be voting for the fact that he is willing to sit down with. the individuals in the area, the property owners, and the developers and listen to open minded comments from the three cities, and to work together in a partnership. Chairman Schroder called for the vote on referring Recommendation D to staff and the committee with the cities. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: . Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: Supervisors .Powers and Fanden ABSENT: None Supervisor Torlakson moved to approve in concept and refer Recommendations A, B and C to the Transportation Committee for further discussion. Supervisor McPeak seconded the motion and requested that it include that those items .also be referred to the steering committee for further discussion. Supervisor Schroder objected to approving in concept and then sending to a committee. Supervisor Torlakson amended the motion to refer Recommendations A, .B and C to the Transportation Committee and to the Steering Committee. Supervisor McPeak seconded the amended motion. The vote on the amended motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors ,McPeak, Schroder and Torlakson NOES: Supervisors Powers and Fanden ABSENT: None VOTE OF SUPERVISORS see votes above for various motions UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Qcc: Community Development ATTESTED Transportation Committee Phil tchelo , Clerk of he Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy