2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City
Council Members | Calendar
of Events | Elections
A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 11:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, Brentwood, California, with Mayor McPoland presiding.
Beckstrand, Gomes, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor McPoland
Consideration of a Resolution establishing a Residential Growth Management Program to provide for the review and evaluation of residential growth in the City.
Mitch Oshinsky, Director of Community Development, stated this item had been continued from a previous Council meeting and there had been a Housing Subcommittee meeting to go over comments submitted by the developers. This program is an outgrowth of the General Plan Update efforts to control growth and maximize economic development in the City. This will control the annual number of new approvals for residential projects and raise the bar for the quality of new projects and the level of amenities the City can achieve by the use of the criteria in the plan. It will help the City reach the reduced population goals in an orderly and well-planned manner. He spoke regarding the program and the comments that were submitted by the developers.
John Stevenson, City Engineer, felt there should be a time limit on the exemption area of eighteen months. There was discussion regarding possible exemptions areas.
In answer to Councilmember Beckstrands question regarding the filings, Mr. Oshinsky answered there would be three filing periods instead of quarterly.
There was discussion regarding adding past performance of the developer as an evaluating criteria.
Mayor McPoland asked for clarification on unused allocations. Mr. Oshinsky stated that unused allocations would be voided and go back to Council for allocation. Dennis Beougher, City Attorney, recommended that if entitlements do not get used in one year they be rolled over to the next year. Councilmember Hill stated that would be for active approvals, but asked what would be done for allocations that were not approved. Mr. Oshinsky stated if the project is not approved by the City its allocations shall be deemed voided; voided or unused allocations shall be replaced in the annual allocation schedule where the Council may or may not choose to reallocate them.
Mike Leana, Chief of Planning, spoke regarding the exempt area in the Northwest Quadrant and the number of units in those areas; he gave a visual presentation that consisted of a map.
Councilmember Hill felt the boundary issue is being convoluted between the RGMP and the action taken regarding advanced engineering fees for the Northwest Quadrant.
There was discussion about the bonding amounts and the infrastructure. Mr. Stevenson stated there was approximately fifty million dollars worth of infrastructure that needs to be built and that meant the amount of bonds that needed to be sold was approximately sixty million dollars. The phase one improvements are going to be in excess of $30 million and in terms of tentative maps, the lot numbers that are expected in the Northwest Quadrant it would be about eleven hundred and fifty lots that bonds could be sold in January of next year for a bonding capacity of $20 million. Mr. Stevenson felt the developers would exceed that from their private financing because of individual responsibilities in town, and that would leave the City responsible for four to five million dollars. Mr. Beougher the City needed to look at expanding the exempt area and put a time limit on the exemption of the Northwest Quadrant of eighteen months because a unit that is approved in the tentative map stage in three years will not help put in the infrastructure that is needed now.
Mayor McPoland felt the expansion of the Northwest Quadrant should not expand past OHara Avenue and the infrastructure needed to be put in place as soon as possible.
Councilmember Hill asked that if the eleven hundred and fifty units were only going to yield approximately twenty million dollars, how far would the line be expanded to pick the money needed. Mr. Stevenson stated there is a limit to how far the line can go for the expansion of the exemption area. The City is going to have to get creative and limit the infrastructure that will be built. He stated his phase one concern is getting Lone Tree Way built and funded. He felt that if they were to expand the line to OHara Avenue the five hundred and twelve units that Pulte has contemplated and the other properties that are looking to develop he felt there was a way to get some improvements in that will service the area.
There was Council discussion regarding where the limits of the expansion should be. Councilmember Petrovich requested that the expansion of the exemption area be treated as a separate motion.
Guy Bjerke, Home Builders Association Northern California, felt there was a misunderstanding that an allocation equals a building permit; and allocation represents the ability to process an entitlement. He stated they dont believe that the ninety-day allocation process, if run concurrently with the discretionary approvals that all discretionary approvals would be done in ninety days; they are suggesting that both applications be submitted at the same time and be processed concurrently and that would save time and recommended Council use the developers language on the applicability paragraph. He requested Council maintain the exemption for age-restricted units. He felt that every developer would not want to enter into a development agreement to maintain flexibility. He stated they are very concerned about the program and about the period and that is why they are requesting concurrent processing.
John Johnson, Pulte Homes, 7031 Kohl Center Parkway, Pleasanton, requested Council put the wording regarding senior housing back into the program. He disagreed with staff on allocation evaluation and felt it needed higher points for that category.
Ron Nunn, Blackhawk/Nunn, 741 Sunset Road, requested Council keep the wording regarding age-restricted housing. He felt they should be age exempted because of the benefit to the community and the school district.
There being no one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed.
There was Council discussion regarding the exemption area. Councilmember Hill felt this program is a tool to help the City guide its growth in particular areas and he is willing to exempt a particular area in hopes that area will move forward and move ahead. He felt the line should be drawn at the Railroad tracks.
In answer to Councilmember Beckstrands question regarding the wording for the eighteen-month time limit for exemption, Mr. Stevenson answered that the key for the CIFP and the sale of bonds is the approval of a tentative map. In order to fund the infrastructure he needs as many tentative map lots approved as he can get in the next eighteen months, but that if it is drawn out longer than the infrastructure that is needed for the commercial site will not be done.
Councilmember Gomes asked about the elimination of Police personnel from the inclusionary housing.
Councilmember Hill stated that all City employees had been removed from the document and that the Subcommittee had decided that City employees are compensated at a market rate, where others that are listed are typically fall behind in the area of salaries such as fire fighters and teachers.
Councilmember Gomes felt that all City employees should be added. He felt that a having employees living in the community would lead to a faster response time if the commute was closer.
Councilmember Petrovich stated he would support a program that would pay closing costs and relocation costs. He stated he had a hard time placing employees that are getting paid market rate ahead of a farm worker.
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to expand the Northwest Quadrant exemption to include the area easterly to OHara Avenue; north to Neroly Road; west to the railroad tracks; southerly to the canal with the approval of a tentative map within eighteen months. Motion passed by the following vote:
Beckstrand, Gomes, Petrovich, Mayor McPoland
Council took a break at 12:35 p.m. and reconvened at 12:40 p.m.
There was further Council discussion regarding the draft RGMP program.
Councilmember Hill asked for clarification on the concurrent submittal. Mr. Oshinsky stated if they are submitted together but are both separate the allocation should be processed and the subdivision is going on its own track. Councilmember Hill asked if an applicant is a part of the allocation process and the application for submittal on the entitlements is going concurrently at the end of the allocation process; if an allocation has not been granted, just because they have decided to do a concurrent application for entitlement does not preclude the City from withholding on the entitlement map. Mr. Beougher stated the language states that if you dont have an allocation you can not get a project approved to go forward.
Councilmember Petrovich asked how long an applicant has to exercise their allocation by submitting a map and getting entitlements. Mr. Oshinsky stated that once an allocation is granted by the Council the applicant must file all required applications for all discretionary permits including environmental review with the Community Development Department within ninety-days from the date of an allocation by the Council; that is if they have not filed concurrently. If the tentative map is not approved the allocations go back into the next cycle. Councilmember Petrovich asked if that scenario happened in the last cycle, would it increase the next years allocations. Mr. Oshinsky stated that if it does not go forward in the third cycle then those unused units would go into the first cycle of the next year and increase that next years numbers by that amount. Councilmember Petrovich asked if the developer decides to give up allocations. Mr. Oshinsky stated those allocations would go back into the cycle.
Mr. Oshinsky stated the City does not require a development agreement unless it is a multi year project borrowing from future year allocations or if it is a project proposing amenities above the nexus.
There was further council discussion regarding exempting age-restricted housing.
Mr. Oshinsky asked for clarification regarding police employees. Council directed staff to add the wording public employees for inclusionary housing. Mr. Oshinsky stated the moderate remains stricken at this time. . He stated on page five criteria number two to delete wording such as parks or other public facilities and add that this would also be through a development agreement.
There was discussion regarding the rehabilitation of homes and the points that should be assigned to it. Mr. Oshinsky stated the points for that are being changed back to twenty points. Mr. Oshinsky stated the points for innovative design and product type the points are going to stay at fifteen. Councilmember Hill stated the past performance should have some significance in the decision. Council directed staff to have that at twenty points with past performance.
Councilmember Petrovich stated he was not opposed to a growth management plan, but he was opposed to this growth management plan. He felt this only applies to a small number of homes.
Resolution No. 2326
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Brentwood adopting a Residential Growth Management Program to provide for the review and evaluation of Residential Growth in the City of Brentwood
It was moved/seconded by Gomes/Beckstrand that the full reading Resolution No. 2326 be waived and that the same be adopted as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:
Beckstrand, Gomes, Hill, Mayor McPoland
Consideration of an Ordinance approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Development Agreement for a 57 acre medical/office/residential and retail Special Planning Area and Planned Development for John Muir/Mt. Diablo Health System, located on the south side of Balfour Road, west of existing Concord Avenue.
Mr. Oshinsky introduced the staff report and stated this matter had been continued from a previous meeting. The four issues that were focused on in the development agreement were the period for the start of construction; where on the east site the twelve acres would be allowed; the timing of when the retail use on the east site would commence; and the dollar amount of the right of way for the Bypass. The Council Subcommittee met with the applicant and staff to discuss these four issues.
Mr. Beougher discussed proposed changes in the Ordinance and the changes to section 4.08 of the Development Agreement.
There was discussion regarding the sale price of the right of way for the Bypass.
Councilmember Beckstrand asked about Conditionally Permitted Uses on the east site that state drive in/or drive thru uses. Mr. Oshinsky stated drive-thrus have been allowed with a conditional use permit and it would come back to Council. Councilmember Beckstrand asked if there was a plan for the residential area. Mr. Oshinsky stated the Planning Commission had approved a subdivision map for the project that splits it into six parcels; it did not include development standards or development layout those would need to come back later. Mr. Beougher stated it would also have to fit in with the RGMP. In answer to Councilmember Beckstrands question regarding mitigation fees, Mr. Oshinsky answered that this does not give them a break on the residential fees.
There was discussion
regarding residential development.
Tom Terrill, Representing John Muir Mt. Diablo Health Systems, spoke in favor of this project. He stated they would like to propose that April 15, of 2005 for the drop dead date or the opening of phase three of the Bypass.
Ken Anderson, President/CEO JMMDHS, stated he has been an advocate of this project and felt it was in the best interest to move as quickly as possible with this project. The current clinic in Brentwood has been much busier than their expectations. He felt it was important that the property get purchased so they can begin the planning process.
Councilmember Hill asked if the Brentwood operation was profitable. Mr. Anderson answered that it was. Councilmember Hill asked if they expect the operation in Brentwood to be profitable. Mr. Anderson stated the area of urgent care and the profitability would be in surgery once that starts at that facility and that their other facilities were carrying too much overhead and that was affecting their profitability.
There was discussion regarding the start date of construction within three years and the size of the building.
Ordinance No. 676
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brentwood approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration; general plan amendment, rezone and development agreement for the property located on the south side of Balfour Road, west of existing Concord Avenue/future Highway 4 Bypass
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gomes that the first reading Ordinance No. 676 being waived and that the same be adopted as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:
Beckstrand, Gomes, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor McPoland
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Fax (925) 516-5441