2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City
Council Members | Calendar
of Events | Elections
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, with Mayor Swisher presiding.
Present: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich,
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 6:46 p.m. pursuant to
Government Code Section
Conference with Legal
Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Gov’t
Code § 54956.9 (a):
• Megan Casey v.
SBC Global Services, Inc., Pacific Bell, City of Brentwood, et
Closed Session adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
The meeting reconvened to open session at 7:01p.m. with no reportable action.
A. Proclamation Association
of Homeless and Housing Services – Merlin
B. Proclamation for CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FAIR WEEK.
C. Oaths of Office for Patrick McCarran and Saunie Fridley to the Arts Commission.
Mayor Swisher administered the Oath of Office to the two new Commissioners.
D. New Employee Introductions and Oath of Allegiance.
Item D Remove item from agenda.
Item 1 Responses to Environmental Comments.
Item 14 Revised Resolution deleting BPOA.
Item 15 Revised Resolution and Contract deleting BPOA.
Item 16 Remove Resolution concerning Public Safety Employees.
Item 19 Appeal Letter.
Item 20 Memo from Staff.
Item 28 Approve the appointment of City Council Members to the Ad Hoc Committee for participation in the selection of the architect to design the New City Hall Project and continued participation with the staff task force assigned to manage the project.
It was moved/seconded by Hill/Gutierrez to accept items per Agenda Review. Motion carried unanimously.
Clarence Juno said that he and his neighbors had written to Council regarding a section of wall along the new Fairview alignment. They had requested an eight-foot, masonry soundwall around the three properties and stub-outs for water and sewer. The Council had approved the request and after looking at the map, a small section of wall on the south of the properties would be left out of the plans and the section ran along the new Fairview alignment. No one in Planning or Engineering Departments seemed to be authorized to draw in the small additional section of wall and he asked Council to direct them to add it into the plans and be included into the current Fairview realignment.
1. Approved Resolution No. 2868 certifying and approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the 2003/2008 Capital Improvement Program for the City of Brentwood including street, park, sewer, water and other municipal improvements to be constructed during the next five years.
2. Approved Resolution No. 2880 approving the Final Map of Stonegate, Apricot Venture, Subdivision No. 8408, located south of Apricot Way and west of Fairview Avenue, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same. Pulled for discussion.
3. Authorized the City Manager to execute the attached Standard Payment Plan Agreement between the City of Brentwood and Sand Creek Business Center I, L.P., for three buildings identified as: Building #4, 171 Sand Creek Road, Brentwood, CA 94513; Building #7, 141 Sand Creek Road, Brentwood, CA 94513 and Building #8, 131 Sand Creek Road, Brentwood, CA 94513. Buildings #4, #7 and #8 are located on one parcel (APN 016-110-023).
4. Approved Resolution No. 2869 approving the Final Map of Subdivision No. 8421, Braddock and Logan, located north of new Sand Creek Road and east of Shady Willow Lane, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, accepting Parcel B with this Final Map, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.
5. Approved Resolution No. 2881 amending the “Renewal Negotiation Process Terms” to extend the tolling of the time requirements for “formal” renewal proceedings under Section 626 of the Cable Act from June 1 to July 1, 2003. Also approve an extension of the deadline for response to the City’s Request for Proposal dated September 4, 2002, from June 20 to July 21, 2003. Pulled for discussion.
6. Approved Resolution No. 2870 accepting public improvements, accepting
Maintenance Bond and releasing the Subdivision Performance and Payment
Bonds for Subdivision No. 8323, Brookfield Homes, located north of
Balfour Road in the Brentwood Lakes area.
8. Approved Resolution No. 2872 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Performance of Work Contract with American Asphalt in the amount of $54,234.40 plus a 10% contingency for water patch paving services.
9. Approved Resolution No. 2873 clarifying Ordinance No. 729 that implemented the tiered water rate structure and water rates for Fiscal Years 2002/03 to 2006/07.
10. Approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance 744 amending Chapter 17.480 of the Municipal Code by adding development standards for Subarea B of the Planned Development 30 (PD-30) Zone. This property is located on the northwest corner of Oak Street and the future northern extension of Garin Parkway east of Liberty High School. Pulled for discussion.
11. Approved Resolution No. 2874 authorizing the submittal of two grant proposals to the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the 2003/04 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program, fourth cycle, and authorizing the City Engineer to execute and submit all documents which may be necessary.
12. Approved Resolution No. 2875 authorizing staff to clear uncollectible water, sewer and solid waste accounts in the amount of $14,942.90.
13. Approved Resolution No. 2876 authorizing the closure of certain streets to facilitate the Annual Brentwood Cornfest.
14. Approved Resolution No. 2877 amending Memoranda of Understanding documents between the City and recognized bargaining units, Department Heads, Brentwood Police Lieutenants, and Mid-Managers for fiscal years 2003/04 through 2007/08.
15. Approved Resolution No. 2878 and introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 745 authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Brentwood.
16. Approved Resolution No. 2879 fixing the employer’s contribution under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act for non-sworn employees.
17. Approved an agreement for payment of Contract Services with Vineyards at Marsh Creek, L.L.C. for a Market and Economic Feasibility study by PKF Consulting for the proposed Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project located near Marsh Creek Road and the southerly extension of Fairview Avenue.
18. Approved an agreement authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement with PKF Consulting firm to perform a study of the potential Market and Economic Feasibility of a proposed hotel to be located at the proposed project Vineyard by Marsh Creek.
19. Set the date of June 10, 2003, for the public hearing regarding the appeal of Condition No. 42 for Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8633 and Design Review No. 02-26 Garin Ranch Mixed Use Project. Pulled for discussion.
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve consent calendar items 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11 – 18. Motion carried unanimously.
Item 2 Approved Resolution approving the Final Map of Stonegate, Apricot Venture, Subdivision No. 8408, located south of Apricot Way and west of Fairview Avenue, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.
Council Member Gutierrez asked for clarification regarding the Final Map.
City Manager, John Stevenson, said that there was an easement over the easterly 25 to 30 feet of the property, which was a public road, according to the public map. The developer was constructing the public road and Apricot was at an angle. In order to intersect Apricot at a safe angle, the developer was required to purchase the property to the east and dedicate it to the City and construct an off-site section of road. The developer had negotiated with the property owner to the south that took access off of it and it had been unable to secure the removal of the easement and the City had required the developer to file papers to allow the court to decide on the removal of the easement, prior to issuing building permits on the two affected lots.
RESOLUTION NO. 2880
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF STONEGATE, APRICOT VENTURE, SUBDIVISION NO. 8408, LOCATED SOUTH OF APRICOT WAY AND WEST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, ACCEPTING THE OFFERS OF DEDICATION SHOWN THEREON SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE SAME
It was moved/seconded by Gutierrez/Beckstrand to waive full reading and approve Resolution No. 2880 for the Final Map of Stonegate, Apricot Venture, Subdivision No. 8408. Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor
Item 5 Approved Resolution amending the “Renewal Negotiation Process Terms” to extend the tolling of the time requirements for “formal” renewal proceedings under Section 626 of the Cable Act from June 1 to July 1, 2003. Also approve an extension of the deadline for response to the City’s Request for Proposal dated September 4, 2002, from June 20 to July 21, 2003.
Council Member Beckstrand asked what Comcast was doing to address issues before moving forward in an extension of the negotiating time.
Phillip Arndt, Government Affairs Manager for Comcast, noted that construction had gone on as part of ugrading the system to offer advanced services such as high-speed data and advanced channel line up. He said that Comcast had worked with a contractor, Cablecom, for the system upgrade and the violations were committed by Cablecom. The violations were serious and he apologized on behalf of Comcast. Action steps proposed and were agreed to with City staff, were to take care of violations on any and all permitted worksites and taking that plan and moving forward with the upgrade.
Ed Marquetti, Regional Vice President of Engineering for Comcast, spoke about the action steps taken and the steps that would continue to be taken throughout the upgrade process. The locations that did not meet the approval of Comcast would be worked out with Cablecom to assure that the problems were corrected to meet the satisfaction of the City. All locations would have a final inspection and digital photos of before and after required would be required to assure satisfaction. All underground locations with issues would be dealt with in a timely manner to assure that there was a quality network to view for the residents.
RESOLUTION NO. 2881
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR INFORMAL
NEGOTIATION OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL FROM JUNE 1 TO
JULY 1, 2003
AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor
Item 10. Approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance 744 amending Chapter 17.480 of the Municipal Code by adding development standards for Subarea B of the Planned Development 30 (PD-30) Zone. This property is located on the northwest corner of Oak Street and the future northern extension of Garin Parkway east of Liberty High School.
Council Member Gutierrez asked if Subareas A and B were linked.
Chief of Planning, Mike Leana, responded that Subareas A and B were two separate projects with Subarea A being single-family and Subarea B being apartments. There had been a conditions placed on the Tentative Map for the single family product that required that prior to the issuance of the 75th building permit, a building permit had to be pulled for the apartment project. Western Pacific was proceeding and would be able to pull 74 permits and the apartment developer would be submitting detailed plans.
Council Member Gutierrez said she was concerned that single family homes would be built right behind the football field.
ORDINANCE NO. 744
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A ZONING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.480 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- 30 ZONE, AN APPROXIMATE 3.43-ACRE AREA LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OAK STREET AND GARIN PARKWAY AND EAST OF LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL (APN 019-091-001 AND 019-091-002).
It was moved/seconded by Hill/Petrovich to waive second reading of and approve Ordinance No. 744. Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
Item 19 Set the date of June 10, 2003, for the public hearing regarding
the appeal of Condition No. 42 for Tentative Subdivision Map No.
8633 and Design Review No. 02-26 Garin Ranch Mixed Use Project.
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich\Beckstrand to approve the date of June 10, 2003 for the public hearing of Condition No. 42. Councilmember Hill abstained. Motion carried.
20. Considered Ordinance No. 746 approving a Rezone (RZ 03-04) from C-1 to PD-41 with the establishment of specific development standards for an approximate 5-acre site known as Tri-City Plaza, located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue.
Council Member Hill declared a potential conflict and left the Council Chamber.
Associate Planner, Eric Nolthenius, explained that the request was to rezone approximately five acres of land located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue from a neighborhood commercial zone to a planned development zone PD-41 and to establish development standards for the site which was in the Tri-City Plaza. The Tri-City Plaza project had been approved by the Planning Commission on September 3, 2002 as a multi-tenant commercial development by way of a parcel map and a conditional use permit. The developer, Lucia Albers, had submitted an application to the City requesting that one of the parcels involved in the project be rezoned to planned development. Since Tri-City Plaza was a comprehensive project, he said that staff felt that all four parcels involved should be rezoned. Planning Commission agreed and on May 6, 2003, recommended that Council approve the rezone of the entire site with the establishment of development standards for each of the four parcels. An addendum to the originally environmental documents had been prepared for the rezone request in accordance with CEQA requirements. The recommendation was for the Council to approve the addendum and introduce an ordinance approving rezone.
Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.
Karen Rogge said she did not agree with changing the zoning and was not happy that the City was letting the applicant apply for a planned development for the neighborhood commercial site. It let the developers write their own development standards and pay more money to the City and did not change the impact that the development would have on the neighbors, parking and traffic. It did not change the impact of the gas station and that the mini mart would be allowed to sell alcohol until 2:00 a.m. or a drive through that would stay open until 2:00 a.m. The five acre commercial site would be a very busy development with lots of traffic and noise and would cause too much congestion in a residential neighborhood. She recommended that Council deny the PD-41 rezone and keep the C-1 zoning. As stated in the petition, the surrounding property owners had never wanted a gas station, drive through or car wash in the location and she did not want the property rezoned to a PD. She asked for a C-1 zone with permitted uses with no drive through or mechanical car wash and did not want access to the Fairview cul-de-sac for the commercial property. She said she had wished the property had been kept ranchette estates. If the rezone was approved and all uses permitted, she requested that time restraints be placed on operation hours of the gas station/alcohol sales and that no alcohol be sold from the drive-through. Conditionally permitted uses in the C-1 zone, such as restaurants and cafes, were restricted to sit-down uses and did not say how many seats were in the restaurant and excluded a drive-through restaurant. The drive-through was supposed to be an accessory to the mini mart and in the new staff report for the PD, Subarea A consisted of approximately 1.14 acres intended for the development of a gas station and convenience store, including a limited seating restaurant and accessory drive-through and was not permitted in a C-1 zone. If the drive-through was approved, she asked to prohibit a fast food chain and that it close at 10:00 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. She asked that the PD zone be denied.
Chris Mosser, commercial broker and development consultant, noted that site improvements and building improvement plans for the car wash, gas station and convenience store had been submitted. Plan check comments had been received back and were ready for second submittal. The final parcel map had been prepared and submitted, which would be brought before Council in the next few months for approval. Numerous tenants had called to potentially lease the office shop space and there had been inquiries for serious purchasers for Parcel B and prepared to place. The report by staff was an accurate summary and did originally request PD for the carwash parcel of the project and was applied for with the sole purpose of clarifying the zoning, for the carwash use only. Staff had expanded the project to include all four parcels and that PD and the language had been reviewed, the design review, tentative parcel map, entrance and exits and conditional use permits previously approved, would continued to be approved if Council voted for the PD. The only change to the approvals had been the court findings of granting a writ and revoking the original conditional use permit for the car wash. If Council approved the PD, the applicant would return and file a new conditional use permit for the car wash. If Council moved forward with the staff recommendation to rezone the project to PD-41, it served the original intent to continue to clarify the zoning for the car wash. The ingress/egress onto Fairview Court issue had continued to surface and there was the issue of safety and circulation. He said he felt it would be best addressed with full ingress/egress onto Fairview Court. He had worked with staff to secure an acceleration lane from the left turn from the center-most exit onto Fairview Avenue going south bound and they were not allowed to obtain that lane. A very small accepting lane was allowed and he said he believed it could be a safety hazard. Staff identified having an exit on Fairview Court to assist in relieving that potential issue. Planning Commission had made two key points in September 2002 regarding coming in on Fairview and how traffic would flow around the car wash and over to the office parcels and back to Parcel B area and they were concerned that the flow would not be good and it would be difficult to get around if there was not ingress/egress onto the court. Another Planning Commission point was if there was only exit, could people be stopped from coming up Fairview Court. He said that there was no way that it could be a one way street since there were three residents there that needed to access their property. Signs could be put up to only allow private vehicles. Based on the general plan EIR for the City, there were over 11,000 trips per day on Fairview Avenue and with ingress/egress would add an additional 26 vehicles per peak hour. The modification would allow morning peak traffic approaching the site from northbound Fairview Avenue to turn right onto Fairview Court and 26 additional vehicles would make the movement based on the approved permit. The volume of traffic was not significant to generate a significant level of noise based on the standards of the City noise ordinance and the general plan. The alcohol sale on the drive-through would be regulated by alcoholic beverage control, which would not allow alcohol sales on a drive through.
Fred Jacobson said that what was asked for in the original rezoning, which was only for the gas station parcel, was to clarify that the only issue the lawsuit involved was the mechanical aspect of the car wash and not the gas station, drive-through and subdivision map, which were all final and approved after lengthy public hearings. He said that there was nothing his or the proposal by staff that would change anything that had already been approved.
Dave Biddel said he was opposed to the rezoning of the Tri Valley Plaza from C-1 to PD-41 and asked Council to deny the rezoning change.
Richard Miller said he was the party that filed a lawsuit regarding the approval of the conditional use permit for the Tri-City Plaza project and found out that the car wash was an illegal use and the original plan for the shopping center would have uses for the neighborhood and car washes. Gas stations and drive through restaurants were not even discussed and he said he believed that Council was correct when they denied the zoning amendment to the C1 to include carwash and drive through uses. He said he believed that the mechanical car wash should not be built and asked for a better use of the land.
Sunny Goodier she was disappointed that the project kept resurfacing in the same form in spite of the active objections of the neighbors. A court order directed the City to apply zoning standards in a fair and equal manner and resulted in a move to change the zoning for the project from a C-1 to a PD in order to allow the developer to proceed as she had originally planned. She spoke in favor of leaving the zoning as a C-1 and to require the developer to adhere to the restrictions of that zoning.
It was moved/ seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to close the public hearing. Councilmember Hill abstained. Motion carried.
Council Member Gutierrez asked if restaurants, with or without a drive-through, could be approved under the conditional use permit for the C-1 zoning.
Associate Planner, Erik Nolthenius, responded that that under conditionally permitted uses, in the C-1 zone, restaurants and cafés were restricted to sit-down facilities only. It was site specific and only applied to this five-acre site.
Council Member Gutierrez asked if health and fitness clubs would be added under the existing and not the proposed zone.
Director Oshinsky said that once the amendment was made and Council had taken final action. The primary use was going to be the dining facility permitted with the conditional use permit and the drive through was an accessory use to the restaurant and the code allowed for the consideration of accessory uses.
Dennis Beougher, City Attorney, stated that the permitted uses could not be changed and there was no conditional use permit for parcel C and conditions could be placed on the site plan that related to the use, which accessed an issue related to the car wash and the other Parcels were vested and had a right to go forward.
Mayor Swisher asked if the subdivision map was final or if it would it have to go back to Planning Commission for approval.
Attorney Beougher said it would need to go back to Planning Commission for a conditional use permit even as the zoning being approved tonight required the car wash to be a conditional use permit and there was no use permit for the parcel. There needed to be a new application for a conditional use permit in order to come forward.
Mayor Swisher asked that with approval, could a condition be placed by the Planning Commission on closing Fairview Court.
Attorney Beougher responded that it would be a recommendation made to the Planning Commission and there was a nexus to that particular use.
Council Member Beckstrand noted that a question had been raised regarding a masonry wall at the end of a commercial site and there was a resident who asked to have the wall come all the way down to the intersection.
City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, stated that the portion of Fairview that was being realigned was under construction. The condition on the development was to install a masonry wall between commercial development and residential. The portion under question was not in front of or along the project and was farther south where it may be fronting to the aligned Fairview in the future. The City had acquired property on the south side of the project from Seeno and there would be remnant parcels left on the northeast side of the realigned Fairview. After construction was complete, the City would discuss with the adjoining property owners to either sell or exchange the acquired remnant parcels. He suggested speaking to the two property owners as part of the remnant parcels and there may be discussion of installing masonry walls.
City Manager Stevenson noted that Council could direct staff to work with the developer if there was interest in having the developer extend the wall.
City Attorney Beougher said it was more related to the City reconfiguration of Fairview than it was to place the burden on the Tri Valley Plaza.
Council Member Gutierrez said that it appeared that the intention of the initial complaints to keep the C-1 zoning as it appeared was to keep any developer from bringing into a neighborhood business that would create a significant disturbance to the neighborhood lifestyle. It appeared that the uses in the C-1 zone made it so that the mechanical car wash would have similar impacts to the already listed uses in the C-1 zone. She said that what should have been done was to provide an adequate buffer between the residents and the zoning. The development became a representative issue of whether or not to develop commerce next to a residence and the development was already approved and had a drive through as an approved use and would create noise and elements not wanted next to a neighborhood. The project had already been approved and could not be changed and if the request was denied, traffic congestion and non-desireable elements would be seen. The site would be a transit corridor and it would be expanded. She could not go back and change the general plan.
Mayor Swisher said he did not agree with Chris Mosser on Fairview
Court and it should be an EVA going out and would solve a lot of
the problems with the residences that were there and he said he understood
cutting down from 11,000 to 26 and there was a residential court
that went into a commercial center and was not safe and practical
and would be better as an EVA access into it. He asked that if this
passed, he asked to see it as a recommendation to the Planning Commission
to make it into an EVA. The residents would have the EVA for emergency
purposes, medical, fire and police and have the right to have the
appropriate barrier or a gate. The parcel was to be developed and
the Fairview realignment was happening and he was displeased about
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 03-04) OF 5 ACRES FROM C-1 TO PD-41, CREATING 4 SUBAREAS IN THE NEW PD AND ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE 4 SUBAREAS KNOWN AS TRI-CITY PLAZA, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LONE TREE WAY AND THE REALIGNED FAIRVIEW AVENUE (APN 019-060-053).
It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Petrovich to waive first reading of Ordinance No. 746 to approve the rezone to PD-41 with the condition that the Planning Commission take into advisement Fairview Court access. Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Gutierrez, Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
21. Consideration of Ordinance No. 747 adopting an annual water service standby charge on vacant parcels of land within the City limits.
Debra Galey, Engineering Services Specialist, said that the annual water service standby charge on vacant parcels of land was authorized by the California Government Code. The purpose of the charge was to assure availability of water service for future development of vacant parcels and the charge was levied on residential and commercial zoned property that was vacant and vacant parcels with entitlements, until a building permit was issued. Previous resolutions and ordinances that had established water service rates included a standby charge, which had been levied in 1990 and the most recent ordinance for water service rates did not include the charge. Approval of the ordinance adopting the charge would initiate the upcoming fiscal year water and sewer standby charges and tax roll.
Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.
Karen Rogge asked how the standby service charge would affect properties with wells and would it be something would need to be automatically paid if a person was already in a residence.
Debra Galey, Engineering Services Specialist, explained that the fee was on vacant parcels only and once a building permit was issued, the parcel was no longer considered vacant by the County Use Code and the fee would not apply. If the parcel was zoned agricultural, it was not assessable unless it was entitled. If it was zoned single family, commercial or any other residential or commercial zoning, it would be assessable if it was vacant, until such time as a building permit was pulled.
Mayor Swisher asked if this was something that was approved every year and was being paid on property taxes and Ms. Galey responded that it was if it was a vacant parcel.
It was moved/seconded by Hill/Petrovich to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 747
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING AN ANNUAL WATER SERVICE STANDBY CHARGE ON VACANT PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gutierrez to waive first reading and approve Ordinance No. 747 to adopt an annual water service standby charge on vacant parcels of land within the City limits. Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor
22. Consideration of an appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-05, Sand Creek Business Park Master Sign Program. The project is generally located north of Sand Creek Road and west of Highway 4/Brentwood Boulevard.
Assistant Planner, Debbie Hill, explained that this was an appeal of the approval by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit. Planning Commission had held a public hearing on the master sign program for the Sand Creek Business Park, located north of Sand Creek Road and west of Brentwood Boulevard. It had been decided at that meeting to approve the conditional use permit application as recommended by staff with the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the applicant to complete the screening roof top equipment, which had been an original condition of approval for the design review of the Sand Creek business park. The decision was appealed by Art Lorenzeni, President of Sand Creek Business Center, regarding the condition pertaining to rooftop equipment screening. He had requested that Council grant some relief in regard to the height of the freestanding directional signs and the percentage of sign area allowed on the face of the buildings as well as individual letter height. The screening of the rooftop equipment was originally a condition of approval for the Sand Creek Business Park design review and at the Planning Commission meeting, it was brought forth by the City Attorney, that there did not appear to be a nexus between the approval of the master sign program and the rooftop screening. The Planning Commission had voted to include the condition. The freestanding directional signage was originally proposed by the applicant at five-foot, six inches high by four-feet, eight inches wide and the City sign ordinance limited directional signage to four feet high by three feet wide and allowed a ten percent increase for master sign programs over this dimension. Any increase over and above the ten percent allowance, would require processing of a variance request through the Planning Commission. The approval of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission included limiting the signage to four feet by three feet sizes dictated by the sign ordinance. The distance of signage over the store fronts was approved at 60 percent of the leased phase and past experience with sign programs had shown that exceeding the limitation could and did allow for out-of-proportion signage and the approval of the Planning Commission included the 60 percent maximum. During a phone conversation with Mr. Lorenzeni, she said he had preferred the maximum letter height of 24” versus the 18” approved by the Planning Commission. The approved 18” letter height and 24” logo height, were consistent with the other approved master sign programs within the City. Community Development recommended that Council uphold the approval of Planning Commission and related conditions for Conditional Use Permit 03-05, which would sustain the action of the Planning Commission, with the exception of the deletion of the Condition of Approval No. 3, which required the screening of the rooftop equipment on advice of the City Attorney.
In response to Council Member Petrovich, Assistant Planner Hill said that staff recommended granting the appeal of the screening, upholding the Planning Commission, and approving the master signage program, eliminating Condition of Approval No. 3, which was the screening of the rooftop equipment.
Council Member Petrovich commented that he would like to have the rooftop equipment screened.
Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.
Art Lorenzini said he was in support of the staff and City Attorney recommending that Condition No. 3 be deleted. A master plan business park was being built and it would be nine buildings. Most of the buildings would not have street frontage and he said when someone entered the park, they would need to go in the direction of the business that they were looking to find and although the City allowed a four foot by three foot sign, a five foot by six foot sign was proposed, was he had seen them in parks in Pleasanton and he presented an example to Council. A free standing directional sign of 5’ 6” was proposed because the signs were set back and it would be easier to see them when driving. Only 10 to 25 percent of the tenants were visible from the street. Signs were limited to the address and the landscape made it necessary to increase the size of the sign and assisted in the architectural improvements on the property. Mr. Lorenzeni said that the signs attached to the building would be backlit with letter and would be in a brushed aluminum gold or a green that matched the colors on the building.
Jim Mog, Superior Sign Service, said that the criteria written restricted the tenants from being like the Round Table Pizza that had signs wrapped all around and code actually allowed it. He said it was being restricted to a primary and secondary frontage which made it so signs would not be wrapped around the building. The décor on the building gave tile points along the fascia and signage could not be placed over the tile and was limited to a window. He said he believed that City Code allowed more than 60 percent and he the criteria restricted the tenants from getting out of control. Tenants were allowed a maximum of two frontage signs if they had two frontages.
It was moved/seconded by Hill/Beckstrand to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Petrovich asked for an explanation regarding the screening.
Director Oshinsky responded that the roof top screening was a condition of approval on the construction of the building and was not connected with the signage. When an applicant would want to put up signage, Community Development could not link the two together but could enforce the screening condition that existed, independently of the signage.
Council Member Gutierrez noted that the applicant was concerned about visibility and she noted that there was not a significant problem with finding which tenant was in which building whether there was the smaller or larger version.
Mayor Swisher said he did not have a problem with the directional sign as proposed and needed clarification on the mixing of 18” and 24” letters based on the name. The backlighting was upscale and he expressed a concern about the aesthetics of the mixture within the letter sizes.
Council Member Beckstrand noted that when a shopping center was done, the City allowed businesses to bring in standard signage to place on the front of buildings and she said that this was a small adjustment to what would be a fairly uniform signage program and would not be overstated.
Mayor Swisher said it would be nice to find the way through the center.
Art Lorenzini said he was in support of looking at alternatives and did not want to provide an alternative to create a situation such as the Sand Creek Crossing Center, which was massive signage for a small amount of wall space.
Director Oshinsky informed that the Raley’s center was allowed to go up to 75 percent of the area where this and other projects were kept around 60 percent and kept the overall size of the sign to a limited area.
Assistant Planner Hill said it was a combination of the percentage of the leased frontage and the letter height. It would not limit the letter height if there were 60 or 75 percent of the leased frontage and it could end up with a 60 percent sign that had five-feet in letter height. It was the combination of both that limited the overall scope and size of the sign. If the leased, store-front building was occupied, that was where the signage would go and it was dependent upon the overall leased frontage that would be occupied in that building.
Director Oshinsky noted that there was a relation mentioned in the staff report to the 18” height used at other shopping centers such as Sand Creek, Brentwood Town Center, Technology Center and the Albertson’s Center.
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to grant the appeal by Arthur Lorenzini of the Sand Creek Business Center, Conditional Use Permit No. 03-05. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
23. Consideration of an Ordinance amending PD-20 to establish development standards for sub-area ‘B’ of PD-20 to accommodate a residential Assisted Living/Alzheimer’s Facility, to be located at the northwest corner of Concord Avenue and Ventura Drive (portions of APN 010-010-014 and 015).
Chief of Planning, Mike Leana, recommended amending PD-20 by adding Subarea B to accommodate an assisted living/Alzheimer’s facility conditionally approved by the Planning Commission. Subarea A was created to accommodate the ARCO gas station and additional uses in the area and a new PD-49 for the John Muir property was approximately 4.5 acres in Subarea B. The various uses permitted by right and conditionally permitted were approved many years ago and there were development standards for Subarea B and the development standards were created to accommodate to design of the Alzheimer’s assisted living facility.
Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Petrovich to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 748
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 20 ZONE TO ESTABLISH SUB AREA ‘B’ AND ADOPT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING/ALZHEIMER FACILITY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONCORD AVENUE AND VENTURA DRIVE (PORTION OF APNs 010-010-014 AND -015).
It was moved/seconded by Hill/Gutierrez to waive first reading of Ordinance No. 748 approving a rezone of five acres from C-1 to PD-41, creating 4 subareas in the new PD and establishing specific development standards for the 4 subareas known as Tri-City Plaza. Motion passed by the following vote:
24. Approve a Resolution authorizing Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District (“District”) designated employees to issue administrative citations relative to public nuisances and to abate such nuisances in emergency situations: and adopt an ordinance expanding what is a public nuisance to include the development, attraction or harborage of mosquitoes and other vectors that may carry virus or other diseases.
City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, explained that the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District had requested amendments to the definition of public nuisance and to allow enforcement of the City Code as it related to nineteen cities in Contra Costa County to allow them to control the West Nile Virus. The ordinance proposed, allowed for expansion without going to City staff for enforcement and the resolutions assisted in abating situations supporting the development, attraction or harborage of mosquitoes and other vectors.
Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Hill to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2882
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DESIGNATING EMPLOYEES OF THE CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTIRCT AS HAVING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS RELATIVE TO PUBLIC NUISANCES AND TO ABATE SUCH NUISANCES IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
It was moved/seconded by Gutierrez/Hill to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2882 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:
ORDINANCE NO. 749
25. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 743 amending the C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) zoning text to add health club facilities
as a conditionally permitted use within this zone and allow the text
to reflect language for similar uses. (M. Oshinsky/ D. Hill)
ORDINANCE NO. 743
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A ZONING AMENDMENT (RZ 03-05) TO AMEND THE C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONING TEXT TO ADD HEALTH CLUB FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THIS ZONE AND ALLOW THE TEXT TO REFLECT LANGUAGE FOR SIMILAR USES.
It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Hill to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 743. Motion passed by the following vote:
26. Approve a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2752 to clarify that if an applicant with property in the northwest quadrant area submitted a complete application by the July 6, 2003 deadline, the project would be exempt from the Residential Growth Management Program. (D. Beougher)
City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, reported that this was a resolution amending or clarifying previously adopted Resolution No. 2752 providing that projects in the northwest quadrant area shown in the map attached to the RGMP analysis would require approval of a tentative map by July 6, 2003. There were two applications that were currently in the process and then the Rose Garden, which had a longer processing time until July of next year, and would be subject to the clarification. He said that the applicant wanted to define whether a complete application was pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or whether they needed to approve the tentative map to be approved by the July 6, 2003 deadline. Under the Subdivision Map Act, staff sent out a letter that said that the application was complete and the question was if that was sufficient or whether the approval by the Planning Commission of the tentative map.
Council Member Petrovich noted that staff could not approve a tentative map, only Planning Commission and Council.
Director Oshinsky said that the deemed complete application had implications in the map act.
Council Member Petrovich said that an approved tentative map meant that a deadline could be extended.
Council Member Gutierrez asked what the advantages of not sending it to Planning Commission.
Director Oshinsky asked how Council would like to define it on the northwest quadrant and it did not make a difference on how the map act defined being deemed complete or approved tentative map or final map, it was what Council would like to use for the cutoff.
Council Member Petrovich noted that it could not be considered an approved tentative map because the applicant could come back and want to have 90 lots instead of 94 lots. Change the time if it needed to be changed.
Council Member Beckstrand noted that she was in favor of extending the deadline.
Patty Blumen 2801 O’Hara Avenue, spoke regarding the Blumen Ranch project and said that the application had been submitted October 7, 2002, and that she had been diligent in fulfilling all of the requirements. The letter of completion had been received May 19, 2003, and she was ready to go before the Planning Commission. She said it would be beneficial to her family to extend the deadline.
Israel Martinez, 526 Nottingham Drive, asked if the Blumen Ranch project would come back before the Housing Committee regarding inconsistencies on lot sizes.
Council Member Petrovich asked if there was any reason why the project would not come before the Planning Commission within the three-month time frame.
Director Oshinsky said that he did not anticipate any problem with that at this point.
City Manager, John Stevenson, said the application would get to the Planning Commission and did not mean that it would be approved.
Director Oshinsky said that if staff ran into a problem with the time line, they could return to Council for review and a possible extension.
City Attorney Beougher stated that the resolution advertised was to clarify that particular resolution and what was being clarified was that they would be allowed to be amended to October 6, 2003.
Mayor Swisher stated that the purpose of the RGMP exemption was to get infrastructure to the northwest quadrant.
City Attorney Beougher said staff could be directed to bring back a status report prior to October 6, 2003.
RESOLUTION NO. 2883
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION 2752 TO CLARIFY
THAT IF AN APPLICANT WITH PROPERTY IN THE NORTHWEST QUADARNAT AREA
SUBMITS A COMPLETE APPLICATION BY JULY 6, 2003 THE PROJECT WILL BE
EXEMPT FROM RGMP
27. Receive Informational Report from Staff regarding Commercial Zoning at the Northeast Corner of Balfour Road and Fairview Avenue.
City Manager, John Stevenson, explained that this was status report on a project that had received public comment and e-mail to Council even though the City Council, staff and Planning Commission had not received official submittal of an application. AIG Baker had come in to meet with staff over the past several months with discussion of a commercial project on the northeast corner of Balfour and Fairview. Staff had looked at preliminary sketches on the project and made preliminary comments and raised concerns to AIG Baker if and when they submitted an application. Staff suggested that AIG Baker hold preliminary meetings with the neighborhood to receive concerns regarding the development and there were two meetings held; one on May 12, 2003 and the other on May 13, 2003. There was a staff summary prepared of the May 13, 2003 meeting with approximately 50 residents in the neighborhood. The findings from both meetings were similar and included that the project was too close to the residents and residents were concerned if AIG Baker could guarantee that the plan they had seen would not change from what had been presented. Residents said they believed that the property should be homes as originally planned under PD-5 and asked how long until the plan would happen. He added that the residents did not wish to see a WalMart, Sams Club, CostCo or those types of development. There had been a comment made that the size of the building and the project might be O.K. and would depend on the uses. The residents requested upscale uses and a question had been raised as to why the general plan update changed on the 25-acres and not leave it at ten-acres. There were comments that it was too large for the area and residents asked if there would be truck delivery and restrictions similar to the restrictions placed on the Safeway site across the street. Residents asked where the truck route would be and with the increase in traffic, they asked how would safe access be provided for children going to school and they asked for a stop light at the intersection of Clearview and Balfour. The residents asked how pollution would be dealt with and what would the rear of the buildings looked like. There was a concern that the 100-foot wide park area was nice but the residents wanted more than grass and asked for rows of trees, a six-foot high berm and a six-foot minimum masonry wall between the commercial and existing residents. He noted that if an application were to be filed, there would need to be a zone change and a general plan amendment from General Commercial to Regional Commercial and include a tentative map application, a site plan application and would need to include a development agreement that would allow the City some control over tenants and tenants in the future that would require City approval and maintain an upscale type of tenant for the type of project.
In response to Councilmember Petrovich, Manager Stevenson said that the current zoning was ten acres.
Councilmember Hill said that he had not received one e-mail in favor of the project with this scope and scale. Residents seemed to be opposed to it and he believed that the community would not support the project.
Councilmember Gutierrez said she believed that there was a need for more of an upscale type of commerce.
28. Approved appointment of City Council Members Hill/Swisher to the Ad Hoc Committee for participation in the selection of the architect to design the New City Hall Project and continued participation with the staff task force assigned to manage the project. Added per agenda review
It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to add and approve the item of an AdHoc Committee for participation in the selection of the architect to design the New City Hall Project and continued participation with the staff task force assigned to manage the project. Motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS - None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
Council Member Hill noted his attendance at the ICSC Conference and his meeting with Donahue Schriber, developer of the Home Depot center. He said he believed that the City would be better for not having Mervyn’s and Target and there would be a better tenant mix. The City would see about 700,000 square feet of retail out of the project and was possible that the housing element portion from the southern end could be converted completely to retail.
REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Swisher requested that there be an RGMP update before the October meeting. He asked Director Oshinsky to bring the water softener ordinance to Council for possible repeal and asked Police Chief Davies to look at the fee for fix-it tickets for residents.
It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Gutierrez to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Fax (925) 516-5441