City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 7:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER (06:59 PM)

Roll Call
Present: Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
Absent: Beckstrand

PRESENTATIONS - None (06:59 PM)

AGENDA REVIEW (06:59 PM)

Agenda Review Item 20
Motion: approve Agenda Review for Item 20
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
Absent: Beckstrand

CITIZEN COMMENTS - None (07:00 PM)

CONSENT CALENDAR (07:00 PM)

1. Approved minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of September 26, 2006 (M. Wimberly)

2. Set the public hearing date of October 24, 2006, to hear the appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding a condition of approval pertaining to trash enclosure locations for the City Block project (DR 05-27), generally located on the vacant land at the southwest corner of the intersection of Griffith Lane and Balfour Road, west of the In-Shape City fitness center. (H. Sword/D. Hill)

3. Adopted Resolution 2006-241 accepting the work performed by Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for Bid Package #22 Sitework at the New Police Facility, CIP Project No. 337-31420 and City Data Center, CIP Project No. 337-37090 and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. (K. Chew/M. Huber)

4. Adopted Resolution 2006-242 approving and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an Agreement between Suncrest Homes 25, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and the City of Brentwood for the acquisition of certain real property for street and other public purposes required for the Adams Lane Extension project, located between Lone Tree Way and Grant Street, just east of O’Hara Avenue and south of Anderson Lane. (B. Grewal/M. Sullivan)

5. Adopted Resolution 2006-243 approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with the State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) for purposes of implementing a California Cultural and Historical Endowment grant to fulfill long-term tenure requirements as modified for the John Marsh Home Rehabilitation Project, CIP 352-52340 (C. Bronzan/K. Wahl)

6. Adopted Resolution 2006-244 approving and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Quitclaim Deed terminating any interest the City of Brentwood may have in that portion of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of an Easement for Storm, Flood and Surface Water Drainage to Michael K. Rogge, . (B. Grewal/D. Galey)

7. Adopted Resolution 2006-245 authorizing the City Council to delegate to the State Route 4 Bypass Authority the authority to approve plans, specifications and project design for all segments of the State Route 4 Bypass Project on behalf of the City of Brentwood and declare that such approval by the Bypass Authority Board shall constitute approval by the City. (B. Grewal/A. Salam)

8. Adopted Resolution 2006-246 approving the Purchase Agreement and Grant Deed for the sale of property located at 385 Carrol Court at Sunset Industrial Complex and authorize City Manager or her designee to execute Purchase Agreement and Grant Deed to convey City-owned property. (H. Sword/G. Rozenski)

Council Member Brockman abstained.

9. Adopt Resolutions for annexation of territory into Community Facilities District No.’s 2 and 4 (CFD No.’s 2 & 4), and set a date of November 14, 2006, for the Public Hearing. 1. Adopted Resolution 2006-247 approving Annexation #3 Boundary Map to City of Brentwood Community Facilities District No. 2 (CFD No. 2). 2. Adopted Resolution 2006-248 approving Annexation #3 Boundary Map to City of Brentwood Community Facilities District No. 4 (CFD No. 4). 3. Adopted Resolution 2006-249 declaring the intent to annex territory to Community Facilities District No. 2, levy a special tax in such territory and set a date of November 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. for the Public Hearing. 4. Adopted Resolution 2006-250 declaring the intent to annex territory to Community Facilities District No. 4, levy a special tax in such territory and set a date of November 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. for the Public Hearing. (B. Grewal/D. Galey)

10. Adopted Resolution 2006-251 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Fire Protection Services with East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and authorize payment in accordance with the contract for the period of January 1 through December 31, 2006. (P. Ehler/D. Davies)

11. Adopted Resolution 2006-252 approving and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., formerly Linhart Peterson Powers and Associates, to provide plancheck services, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. (H. Sword/R. Kidwell)

12. Adopted Resolution 2006-253 approving and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Ratification Agreement and Amendment No. 1 thereto, but effective as of July 25, 2001, ratifying an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding dated July 25, 2001, as well as the agreement itself, by and between the City of Brentwood and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., formerly Linhart Peterson Powers Associates, consultant for building inspection services. (H. Sword/R. Kidwell)

13. Adopted Resolution 2006-254 expressing support for Proposition 84 Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (C. Bronzan/K. Wahl)

14. Adopted Resolution 2006-255 approving and authorizing the Chief of Police to execute a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Brentwood and the Contra Costa Operational Area Homeland Security Approval Authority. (M. Davies/B. Strock)

15. Adopted Resolution 2006-256 approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Contra Costa office of the Sheriff regarding the "Avoid the 25" program, and authorizing the Chief of Police to execute the MOU. (M. Davies/T. Hansen)

16. Adopted Resolution 2006-257 approving Amendment Number 1 to Employment Agreement between the City of Brentwood and Damien Brower, City Attorney. (K. Chew/B. Swisher)

17. Adopted Resolution 2006-258 authorizing the submittal of a grant application in the amount of $612,000 to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the 2006/07 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program, for funding of the Sand Creek Road Widening - UPRR to O’Hara Avenue, CIP Project No. 336-31680 (B. Grewal/B. Bornstein)


18. Adopted Resolution 2006-259 approving and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Grant of Easement with East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for the extension of Garin Parkway, generally located south of Sunset Road, north of Jennifer Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard and west of the current City limits. (B. Grewal/J. Ward)

CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS: (07:00 PM)

Motion: approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 18 as recommended. Council Member Brockman abstained on Item 8.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
Absent: Beckstrand

PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:01 PM)

19. Adopt a negative declaration for the establishment of zoning standards affecting approximately 109.37 acres within four existing Planned Development Zones. Introduce and waive the first reading for a rezone request (Rezone 06-12) to amend Planned Developments (PD) 26, 29, 35, and 58 to establish specific development standards for affected property located generally southwest of the intersection of Grant Street and Minnesota Avenue, north of Lone Tree Way between O’Hara Avenue and Anderson Lane, northwest of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Grant Street, west of Fairview Avenue and immediately north of Sand Creek Channel, and northeast of the intersection of Broderick Drive and Berry Lane. (H. Sword/T. Nielsen)

Assistant Planner, Tim Nielsen, presented a staff report and an overview of the project. The City initiated the Rezone request to add residential development standards to six areas within the City. Planning Commission and staff recommended Council introduce and waive first reading of the Ordinance.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

Walt Gaudinier resident in Planned Development 29, requested additional information on the project as it affected the Bonnie Lane residents.

Mayor Swisher stated Mr. Gaudinere should speak to the Planning Department.

Joan Douglas spoke on behalf of Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed, and conveyed suport of the rezone application of PD-35, especially the portion along Sand Creek and the 80-foot buffer along the length of the site, adjacent to the creek. She believed this was a key provision in both present and future developments and offered support in working with City staff, Planning Commissioners and City Council, as well as affected agencies, in creating a unique environment in the City. She recommended the following goals be implemented: wind the creeks to allow planting of trees in the channel and maintain flood protection; provide a buffer to protect the creeks by locating linear parks along the creek or otherwise setting back development; and paying for maintenance of creekside vegetation through a Lighting and Landscaping Development or other viable funding mechanism.

At 7:11 PM, Council Member Beckstrand entered the Council Chamber and joined the Council at the dais.

Motion: close the public hearing
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Motion: Adopt Resolution 2006-260 adopting a Negative Declaration for the establishment of zoning standards affecting approximately 109.37 acres within four existing Planned Development Zones for property located generally southwest of the intersection of Grant Street and Minnesota Avenue, north of Lone Tree Way between O’Hara Avenue and Anderson Lane, northwest of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Grant Street, west of Fairview Avenue and immediately north of Sand Creek Channel, and northeast of the intersection of Broderick Drive and Berry Lane.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Motion: Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 839 for a rezone request (Rezone 06-12) to amend Planned Developments (PD) 26, 29, 35, and 58 to establish specific development standards for affected property located generally southwest of the intersection of Grant Street and Minnesota Avenue, north of Lone Tree Way between O’Hara Avenue and Anderson Lane, northwest of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Grant Street, west of Fairview Avenue and immediately north of Sand Creek Channel, and northeast of the intersection of Broderick Drive and Berry Lane.
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance 839.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

20. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action regarding the Lone Tree Ranch project (GPA 06-01/RZ 06-06/DR 04-31/CUP 06-02), a proposed retail and restaurant development located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Gann Street (APN 018-080-022) filed by Kent Ipsen. (H. Sword/E. Nolthenius)

Mayor Swisher presented guidelines for the public hearing process.

Senior Planner, Erik Nolthenius, presented a staff report and said the public hearing was to consider an appeal filed by Kent Ipsen regarding the Planning Commission action of September 5, 2006. The Planning Commission considered the Lone Tree Ranch Project, known as Skipolini’s, and voted 2 - 2 after public testimony and discussion. The entitlements included General Plan Amendment from Ranchette Estate to General Commercial; a corresponding rezone; a design review and a conditional use permit for the Skipolini’s restaurant. The project had not been approved and Mr. Ipsen filed the appeal. He explained the project site and location. Staff had originally recommended approval to the Planning Commission believing the General Plan Amendment was appropriate, given the location along a major arterial, proximity to the railroad tracks and high quality design. The following two options were presented by staff: 1) Deny the appeal by passing a Resolution denying the project and each of the requested entitlements, or 2) Approve the appeal by approving a Resolution for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Resolutions for each of the entitlements and an Ordinance for the Rezone.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing and called the applicant forward to speak.

Tim Chapelle, Arcanum Architecture, presented an overhead regarding neighbors concerns view, smell, light, noise, and how the concerns were addressed. He said the view was reduced and re-oriented showing a single story element. He felt the design of the building protected the view. The issue of trash was addressed and the trash enclosures would be confined with six to eight foot walls and solid gates, with all cans having tops. Shielded lights would not overflow into the neighbors homes. With regard to noise, soundwalls had been extended on the whole property and the restaurant had been placed in the upper area with the retail building to be used as a seal from the main parking area. The current main source of noise was from traffic on Lone Tree Way and with the soundwall, the noise level would be reduced.

Kent Ipsen stated a condition of approval related to noise levels could be added by council. He spoke about neighborhood concerns regarding beer and wine. Lone Tree Plaza had a mini mart with beer and wine and a pre-approved full-liquor restaurant and a conditional use permit to have a liquor store. He felt the concern was not Skipolini’s pizza, which had only nine to eleven percent beer and wine sales and not one inquiry into the Alcoholic Beverage Control license. Skipolini’s was the 2006 award winner of the best family restaurant according to Parenting Magazine. He presented an overhead and spoke about the General Plan Amendment. The property owners between Gann Street and Tri City Plaza had requested, in writing, to have properties rezoned to commercial. All of the properties had been zoned ranchette estate and had been rezoned to commercial. He asked for the same consideration other developers had received over the last four years. He felt he had shown his commitment to the City.

Dana Dean, an attorney representing residents in Sterling Preserve, submitted correspondence. She felt there were cumulative impacts to changes in density, in the area of noise, and additional information was not in the record on environmental analysis. She said properties on Lone Tree Way had requested, in writing, the properties be rezoned to commercial. She felt there was a pattern of re-zoning that had not been properly analyzed and the cumulative impacts were left out of the noise impact analysis.

Walt Gaudinier said this was a first class restaurant. There were noise impacts across the street from the Blumen Ranch project. He asked Council to consider what would be good for the community. Mr. Ipsen was concerned about the community and wanted to see the community grow. He asked for consideration of the appeal to go through and felt it was vital to the community.

Erik Munns said he was patron and former employee of Skipolini’s Pizza. He believed it was a good, family-focused and community-involved business. He was in favor of the project. He had attended the Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2006 and had heard people speak about driving under the influnce and hurting children. The statistics had not been backed up and he asked Council to look at the facts.

David Fletcher, Sterling Preserve resident, stated the property would not work as ranchette estate and he did not believe someone would live next to tracks slated to be eBART. The property would be either unsightly or rezoned and he did not want to see the loss of the development. The development was classy and the owner had worked to make it pleasing and upscale and had worked with concerns. He asked Council to look at the project carefully and there would be a first class pizza place which would bring revenue to the City.

Bonni Bergstrom asked Council to look at the Skipolini’s issue strategically and was not undully influenced by the minority of a few in the adjacent properties. She asked Council to look at what was for the greater good of the neighborhood. It would draw sales tax revenues from adjacent communities. The City needed well-designed, family-friendly restaurants and commercial projects.

Phil Tonne, a patron of Skipolini’s since 1986, stated he had taken his son’s baseball and soccer teams there for team parties. Family was important and this was a family-friendly town. Skipolini’s was a family-friendly restaurant where families could go for quality time. There were not enough family-friendly restaurants in the City.

Irene Cleary said Kent Ipsen was her son in law and she had respect for him as a person and businessman. She felt a group of people had treated him with contempt and assasinated his character. She felt there was no other use for the property on Lone Tree Way except for commercial.

David Shuey, Mayor of Clayton, said Skipolini’s started in his town and it was a valuable asset in Clayton, Walnut Creek and Antioch. It was an opportunity to have it and he felt change was inevitable. The City needed income generating businesses and tax revenue to help schools and the general fund. The General Plan and zoning changes were part of a growing city. The owners had addressed every concern presented by the homeowners. He felt this project had been made worthy by Planning for consideration and approval.

Brenda Kiba said she was a 13-year resident and the City now had a lot of traffic and was noisy. She said Skipolini’s had hosted the Brentwood Swim Club and it would be nice to have an establishment. Skipolini was a family-oriented establishment and kids had a great time. She was in favor of bringing Skipolini's here.

John Manos spoke in opposition of the project and rezone and presented photos to the Council.

Sherry Gochez, resident of Sterling Preserve, spoke in opposition to the project and rezoning.

Claudia Piper she was concerned about children and cars. She believed the land should not be commercial.

Barbara Manos said she moved into her home and enjoyed the nearby conveniences but not so close as to to interfere with the integrity of the home. She felt if the plan was granted, the individual would have financial gain. The plan was beautiful, but the location was not right. There were homes along Lone Tree and land to develop into other residences. She asked Council to consider Skipolini’s to go to another part of Brentwood and not infringe on the neighborhood.

Maria Goyich said she had grown up in Clayton with Skipolini’s in her backyard and it was a wholesome family establishment. She would be happy to have Skipolini’s in her backyard again and it would also be a good source of revenue for a growing City. The applicant had done everything the City and Planning Department had requested. The mayors and council members of Antioch, Clayton and Walnut Creek support Skipolini’s and she hoped the City would do the same.

Tim Miller said he liked how the community was designed and the uniqueness of the City needed to be preserved. Even with noise and traffic, he was in favor of Skipolini’s He said he could not see anyone building a residence on the property and Skipolini’s was a family-owned business. He felt it was time to start giving preference to businesses that were locally owned and had a vested interest in the community.

Bonnie Carvahal said she lived in Sterling Preserve and spoke against the rezone of the property, not of Skipolini’s. She was originally for the rezone until July 2006. She said there were huge signs that had been posted by a resident in Antioch near the Skipolini’s. The parking generated more cars than were provided. She had never been told how many seats were in and outside of the property and she asked if Skipolini’s was in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The impact to the neighborhood would be extreme and she was not in favor.

David Dardenne spoke on behalf of Skipolini’s and said it was quality pizza and quality for family. He was tired of driving out of the City to get good food. He asked that Skipolini's be passed.

Steve Barragan said he was a neighbor of Skipolini’s in Antioch and said he never had any problems with the restaurant. Skipolini’s had been good neighbors and there was Police presence. There were no cars taking off and kids celebrated at Skipolini’s. He felt the City would miss out if Skipolini’s was not there.

Lindsay Saylor said she was in support of Skipolini’s. She lived in the Rose Gardens and was a teacher at a Brentwood school. She stated concerns about property values and did not want to see a bar, tavern or lounge across the street from her home Skipolini’s was a family restaurant. It was not a place to hang out and drink with people but was a nice looking, clean business and was perfect for the location.

Wendy Perry said she was in support of the project. She was a nearby school teacher and had taken her students to Skipolini’s. She couldn’t understand how an award winning, family restaurant had opposition. She had spoken to and received over 300 signatures on a petition of those in support.

At 8:22 PM, the City Council recessed.

At 8:32 PM, the City Council reconvened with all Council Members present.

Sue Burns said the City was a family oriented community and needed this type of restaurant. She was in favor.

Liz Beth Fletcher, resident of Sterling Preserve, stated not all neighbors were against Skipolini’s. There were not many restaurants in the City. Mr. Ipsen addressed items with residents and met with as many residents as were willing to meet. This would bring tax revenue to the City. It was a beautiful project and she was in favor.

Grant Kiba said he was concerned about development. He had visited Skipolini’s and it had quality and appearance and there was responsible ownership. He did not understand why people would be opposed to it. He was opposed to most development, which was inevitable in the lot, and this was something that would be good.

Shawna Alfano said her grandparents had owned property on Lone Tree, which had been sold and rezoned commercial. She was in favor of Skipolini’s and she asked to maintain the level of integrity. Skipolini’s was family oriented.

Kirk Steers said the City needed restaurants and tax income and it would benefit the community. He was in support of the project.

Karen Fergus said the location was not right and residents depended on the stability of the general plan. It would have a tremendous negative impact on the community. She asked why a businessman would buy a residental piece of property. If the City approved rezoning, it would send a message to developers. She expressed concern about liquor being served across from a residence and within close proximity to a park. She felt this was not an appropriate site for the project and asked Council to say no to the application.

Rogelio Martinez spoke about the general plan and said he was opposed to the project. His family was close to the proposed location and he was concerned. He believed the pizza parlour should be built downtown to draw people to the downtown area. He asked Council to stick with the general plan and asked the business be placed in a better location.

Helen Butler spoke about bringing life and encouraging businesses to come into the downtown community. She felt taking a residential lot and making it commercial was not the answer and this was an opportunity to bring business to downtown. She asked Council to not rezone the lot.

Jeff Butler said he felt the City had a charm residents were happy with and would benefit from a Skipolini’s. Mr. Ipsen could have purchased commercial property for the project and purchased residential instead. He was opposed to the location and said the project should either be downtown or on one of the commercial spots.

Scott Treff said he was opposed to the project. The current zoning created a buffer to the residental around it. When property like this was rezoned, it de-valued the downtown areas. The cities of Pleasanton, Danville, and Orinda had flourishing downtown environments. The project was beautiful and he asked for the project to happen on commercial property and asked what attempt there had been to help Skipolini’s into the general plan.

Ron Hardwick said he had organized neighborhood opposition to the project and hoped Mr. Ipsen would bring Skipolini’s to the City. He felt the City was not looking at the general plan and expressed concerns about the safety of the neighborhood since he lived across from the project and the strip mall could become a bar or tavern or a place that sold alcohol. Spot zoning was not in the interest of the City and he asked there be no rezone.

Jack Doria said he was a patron of Skipolini’s and said the establishment supported youth organizations and sponsorships. Skipolini’s gave back to the community and was a family oriented place.

Mason Hibbard said he had been an employee and patron of Skipolini’s. Current zoning of ranchette estates was not the best use of Lone Tree parcels. By amending the general plan, and rezoning the property, sales tax and property tax revenue would be provided for city and schools. He felt businesses and quality restaurants belonged on Lone Tree Way and asked Council to amend the general plan.

Clayton Perry said Skipolini’s was not an establishment where people drank heavily and said it would be a good idea to place the business on Lone Tree. The general plan was always changing. He presented a photo showing the project site and commercial areas and said this would not be a precedent-setting rezone.

Eileen Favalora, a patron of Skipolini’s, stated it had a family oriented atmosphere. She said Mr. Ipsen had done everything the City and neighbors had asked of him and she felt it would be fair to approve the project.

Dwayne De Faunt said growth and traffic were a part of life. He and his family went to Skipolini’s to relax and meet neighbors. He was in favor of the project.

Jon Zakas, a business owner in the City, asked what the highest and best use of the land was. Most of the City had been ranchette estates and had been rezoned. He had a large family and drove to Clayton or Walnut Creek to eat at places like Skipolini’s because it was a great family place.

Mike Bradley said he was in support of Skipolini’s and felt the property was a great spot for a strip mall and Skipolini’s. He asked for continued development.

John Goyich said the Lone Tree Ranch project made more sense than a single-family ranchette. He asked Council to consider the general plan amendment and allow the project to move forward. Skipolini’s was a wholesome type of place to take the family to, employed local teens and sponsored little league and soccer teams.

Star Steers said she was in favor of and asked Council to consider voting to apprve the general plan amendment to allow the LoneTree Ranch project. With regard to alcohol use, she said the conditional use permit would be of help if there should be problems. With regard to ingress and egress issues, Lone Tree was a commercial corridor and traffic issues would be re-visited. She felt the project would be great for the City.

Clark Rupp, owner of Straw Hat Pizza on Lone Tree Way, said he was not opposed to competition and asked that things be kept fair and equitable, in terms of the cost of business property, residential and commercial. He mentioned a concern for homeowners might be garbage, and said a dumpster should be far from people’s homes.

Anthony Bowman said he and his friends liked playing outside and he was concerned about alcohol being served and someone drinking and driving. He did not want anyone to be hurt and he was not in favor of the project.

The following individuals did not wish to speak, and submitted speakers cards in opposition to the project:

Mario Balinton
Carlotta Balinton
Marcus Balinton
Donna Haraguchi

The following individuals did not wish to speak, and submitted speakers cards in in favor of the project:

John Saylor
Dave Fogelstrom

Motion: Approve closing public hearing.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Council Member Beckstrand felt it was time for a comprehensive review of the general plan since it had been more than five years since the plan was adopted. She was in support of having a Skipolini’s in the City and preferred having the project downtown. She had discussed project concerns with the applicant and said Mr. Ipsen had addressed issues. She spoke about the importance of the general plan and said a should a change be made in the zoning, as part of a more comprehensive consideration of the area including properties between Lone Tree, Gann and the railroad tracks.

Council Member Gutierrez asked if there had been a situation where the general plan update had been made to rezone ranchette estates to commercial. She also asked when the next general plan amendment was scheduled.

Community Development Director, Howard Sword, said more comprehensive general plan updates had been approved, but not as a project application. The general plan amendment would be started in the next few months. The issue as to what the best possible zone was, would take some study and discussion by the Planning Commission.

Council Member Gutierrez asked about guiding the applicant toward the site.

Community Development Director, Howard Sword, said staff did not direct the applicant to the site. It had been chosen by the applicant and as applications were made, staff worked with the applicant and the neighborhood to mitigate impacts and make it the most acceptable project on the site.

Mayor Swisher said Mr. Ipsen had worked with staff on other parcels in town before purchase of the site.

Council Member Gutierrez said before she made any decisions, she asked how Council Members felt about land use, the General Plan Amendment and equity.

Council Member Brockman said the General Plan was required to be updated every ten years. The General Plan was there to be used as a map and direction and changed. The reason the property was zoned ranchette estates was because previous owners had wanted it that way and it worked in the General Plan in that corridor. Things changed in the area and it was realistic to change from ranchette estates to commercial and he did not have a problem changing the zoning. There was a six lane road, an underpass and improvements and he felt it was realistic to see the change as a General Plan Amendment to commercial. All of the neighbors along the front corridor wanted commercial. He wanted to work with what was equitable for the owners as well as the applicant. He spoke about alcohol issues related to the revised plan took away the Gann Street exit. It was a benefit to the City and he preferred to see the project downtown. He was in favor of the General Plan Amendment, the zoning and the project and believed it would be a nice buffer from the street.

Council Member Taylor had been to Skipolini’s pizza and had been out to the property. He said he was concerned about spot zoning and he asked for consistency. Businesses in the City had paid a lot of money for a commercial piece of property. All of Lone Tree Way should be rezoned so it was equitable for everyone. He was in favor of Skipolini’s.

Mayor Swisher said he sat on the subcommittee which had decided the ranchette estates were not feasable and felt no one would purchase the one acre parcel and build a large home on the lot. Mr. Ipsen had tried for the downtown area. Four years ago, it was very expensive to purchase residential property, and if Mr. Ipsen built there, it would cost him more money,and the equity issue was there. Mr. Ipsen had met with neighbors and there were many concerns worked on, but never good enough for the neighbors. Mr. Ipsen submitted the application after a lot of time and money. He felt Ranchette housing would not happen in the area, which could be zoned office, commercial, or multi family homes, since the State of California said the City needed more multi family housing for the Housing Element. The location was a prime area for multi family housing. He felt there needed to be spot zoning at times. He believed the neighbors would appreciate the project in the long run and said he would like to see the project downtown. General Plans were a great structure for the City and could be amended. He believed this was a nice development and would be a huge asset.

A discussion ensued among the Council Members and staff.

Council Member Taylor said he was reluctant to approve the project until the General Plan was updated.

Mayor Swisher said he did not agree the zone change had to be done in a mass with the whole area and the process needed to be friendly to all investors.

Motion: Upholding the appeal and project and adopting a Resolution adopting the the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Lone Tree Ranch project (GPA 06-01/RZ 06-06/DR 04-31/CUP 06-02), a proposed retail and restaurant development, located at the 1.72 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Gann Street (APN 018-080-022).
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion failed 2-3.
Yes: Brockman; Swisher
No: Beckstrand; Gutierrez; Taylor

Council Member Gutierrez moved to adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action regarding the Lone Tree Ranch project.

Council Member Beckstrand asked if Council would be interested in looking at the area specifically since the General Plan update would take too long. She asked staff to bring an evaluation of area forward.

Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, said it would be possible to do a small specific plan on the 20-acre parcel and bring that forward. If Council desired to see this subarea expedited, it could be accelerated.

Council Member Gutierrez asked what the best use for the whole area was.

Council Member Beckstrand asked to amend the motion to include what the best use of the area was and that a small specific plan on the 20-acre parcel be brought forward. She mentioned a poll been done by the neighborhood with the following two options: rezoning ranchette estates to commercial office zoning and not in favor of rezoning.

Council Member Gutierrez said she was in favor of amending her motion to include looking at the area specifically.

Mayor Swisher said this was not on the agenda to make the area a specific plan.

City Attorney, Damien Brower, said the discussion of a specific plan was not on the agenda. Before the Council, was whether or not to uphold the appeal or deny the appeal.

Motion: Adopt Resolution 2006-261 denying the appeal filed by Kent Ipsen, thereby denying the Lone Tree Ranch project, including GPA 06-01, RZ 06-06, DR 04-31, and CUP 06-02, for a 1.72-acre site located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Gann Street (APN 018-080-022)
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 3-2.
Yes: Beckstrand; Gutierrez; Taylor
No: Brockman; Swisher

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM STAFF - No action required (10:17 PM)

21. Informational Report on Subdivision No. 9098, Barrington Phase V, developed by Standard Pacific, located east of Brentwood Boulevard and south of Sunset Road; Final Map Approval. (M. Wimberly)

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS - None (10:17 PM)

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (10:17 PM)

Council Member Beckstrand asked for the area of Lone Tree, Gann Street and the railroad be brought back before the Council as a specific planning area in advance of the General Plan Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (10:21 PM)

Motion: approve adjournment.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Garcia, CMC
Assistant City Clerk

 

City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441
E-mail allcouncil@brentwoodca.gov