HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07121988 - T.6 T. 6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order. on July 12, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Report on status of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Specific Plan.
This being the time for a report by the Community
Development Department staff on the status of the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan, and also a report from the Pleasant Hill
BART Specific Plan Steering Committee;
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development
Department, reviewed the concept of the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Plan.
James Kennedy, Director of the CCC Redevelopment Agency,
reviewed the infrastructure, the number of square feet of office
space, the mitigation provided and the creation of the Redevelopment
Agency and an assessment district as implementation devices and to
finance the improvements.
Mr. Kennedy reviewed the Steering Committee Process and the
requirement for a review at the time approvals exceed a million square
feet of commercial space.
Bill Hurrell of Wilbur Smith Associations reviewed the
traffic studies, the transportation mitigations and expected traffic
impacts of development within the area. He advised that the studies
were conducted under the guidance of a technical advisory committee
which included representatives of the staffs of the County Public
Works Department and the CCC Redevelopment Agency, BART, and the
cities of Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, and during the final stages
of the Phase II report, representatives of the City of Concord had
joined the committee.
Mr. Hurrell advised that all. studies conclude that Treat
Boulevard will be overloaded and that Interstate 680 freeway ramps in
the project area will be congested. He further advised that the
results also support the conclusion that traffic problems are of a
regional nature and cannot be handled simply by provision of local
transportation improvements.
Supervisor Powers inquired with respect to vested rights
to entitlements and also development agreements where part of the
development had not yet occurred.
Mr. Kennedy discussed the projects with development
agreements which are not yet built, as well as the fact that repayment
of the tax increment notes is dependent on future tax increment
growth.
Supervisor McPeak in referring to the letter the Board had
received from the City of Walnut Creek dated July 7, 1988 asking for a
moratorium on further development approvals in the area encompassedby
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, pending completion
of the mandatory review required by the specific plan, requested
clarification on the projects on which there is final approval, vested
rights and development agreements.
Mr. Kennedy responded with a review of the projects .
Supervisor McPeak commented on the traffic studies initiated
in the spring of 1986 as called for in the specific plan and requested
the Board to determine whether or not that review has been completed
as mandated. She inquired if the Board members had any questions or
what additional information they might want to be able to complete the
review.
Supervisor Powers inquired what additional information, in
Supervisor McPeak' s judgement, would be required.
Supervisor McPeak stated that in her opinion the information.
has been generated, that the purpose of the review was to look at
whether or not the plan as being implemented met the objectives.
Supervisor McPeak advised that she had prepared_
recommendations for the Board' s consideration and to act on at a later
date. She indicated that she had shared the essence of these
recommendations with the review steering committee on Friday, but
there has been no discussion and consensus developed on them. The
recommendations are as follows:
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 Transportation 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.
Supervisor Powers commented that he would need time to
consider the results of the study and to consider the recommendations
of Supervisor McPeak.
Board members discussed the recommendations in some detail,
as well as the issue of regional growth and regional traffic.
Chairman Schroder commented that Supervisor McPeak' s
recommendations would need deliberation and stated that the review as
required by the Specific Plan could be considered separately from
Supervisor McPeak' s recommendations and any subsequent changes to the
Plan.
Supervisor McPeak moved that a formal decision on the status
of the review and action on her recommendations be placed on the
determination agenda for July 19, 1988. Supervisor Powers seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously.
Supervisor McPeak requested that an immediate response be
prepared to the July 7, 1988 letter from the City of Walnut Creek
discussing further development approvals, with copies to be sent to
the full Board.
Supervisor Fanden requested that Jim Kennedy of the
Redevelopment Agency and County Counsel meet with her to provide her
with a better understanding of the whole process, and to review some
of the implications of the recommendations and discussion of today,
including the issue of whether development as provided in the Specific
Plan would provide sufficient tax increment to retire any agency debt
obligations.
i::c Eery c f:-tlty Met nets Is a true and cc rreci copy of
art action taken and antered on the mlraWOS At the
Board of Supero ors on the date shown,
ATTESTED: � / Cp_�
PHIL BATCH L R, lerk tAa� a rt�
of Su.g�ervlsors a d Cr)unty Addmli,'�°r;4;or,
Dcouty
cc: Community Development
County Counsel
County Administrator
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Transportation Committee
Contra
Supervisors Tom Torlakson and Robert. I. Schroder C� a
DATE: June 14, 1988 County
SUBJECT: Caltrans' Request for Reconstitution of the I-680/24,Task Force
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATION
The State Department of Transportation District 4 (CALTRANS) has requested that
the County' s I-680/24 Task Force be reconstituted as an advisory committee to ,
CALTRANS. CALTRANS District 4's rationale for the request is that they would in
like the Task Force members advise them on the development of CALTRANS' traffic
management program for the I-680/24 interchange reconstruction.
It is CALTRANS's understanding that the Task Force's charge,was to facilitate the
completion of the environmental process in a timely manner. However, the
Transportation Committee' s understanding of the Board' s intent was that the Task
Force was to bring the I-680/24 interchange project back on schedule in terms of
both the environmental process and the actual construction of the project.
Based on the Board' s intent and in light of CALTRANS' request, the Transportation
Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. add to the I-680/24 Task Force's original charge and mission by having the
Task Force provide oversight to CALTRANS' in the development of a program to
.minimize the traffic delays during the reconstruction of the I7680/24
interchange.
2. direct the co-chairs, Supervisor Robert Schroder and Supervisor Sunne McPeak,
to consider changes to the constitution of the Task Force, if they deem it
necessary to meet CALTRANS' request.
3. authorize the Chair of the Board to send a letter informing CALTRANS of the
change in the Task Force' s current charge and mission.
Continued on attachment: X Yes Signature:
_ Recommendation of dmi ni strator _ Recommendat:i.on::::o,f,-� Boa_rd:-Committee
Approve Other:
Signature(s):
Action of Board on: June 14, 1988 Approved as Recommended x Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF, AN ACTION TAKEN
x Unanimous (Absent '— ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
Attested Q /y Mfr s
Orig.Div. : CDD/TPD PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cc: CALTRANS, 04 AN UNTY A M ISTRATOR
I-680/24 TASK FORCE MEMBERS By
CAO
CDD
DPW DEPUTY. CLERK
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No direct impact on the County's operation. Staff support will be needed to ,
continue the Task Force' s charge of ensuring the completion of the I-680/24
interchange reconstruction in a timely manner and oversight of the development of
the traffic management program.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
Caltrans has requested that the Task Force serve as its Traffic Management
Advisory Committee in developing a program to minimize the traffic delays during
the reconstruction of the I-680/24 interchange.
It is the Transportation Committee's understanding that-the Task Force' s charge
was to facilitate the completion of the environmental process for the I-680/24
interchange reconstruction project. Further, it is also the Transportation
Committee' s understanding that the overall intent of the Task 'Force is to ensure
that the I-680/24 interchange reconstruction is completed in a timely manner,
since the schedule for its completion in recent years had been revised constantly
in the State Transportation Improvement Program.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
CALTRANS will not have the benefit and oversight that a policy committee can
provide in helping CALTRANS formulate a Traffic Management Program, as well as
provide oversight to ensure that the project is completed in a timely manner.
i.
- II
�I