CASTRO VALLEY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR MARCH 24, 2003 (Approved as corrected April 14, 2003)

Transcription

1 CASTRO VALLEY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR MARCH 24, 2003 (Approved as corrected April 14, 2003) 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Ken Carbone, Jeff Moore, Ineda Adesanya, Roberta Rivet and Carol Sugimura. Councilmembers excused: Chair Andy Frank and Vice-Chair Dean Nielsen Staff present: Tona Henninger, Ron Gee and Maria Palmeri. There were approximately 60 people in the audience. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2003 Ms. Sugimura moved, Ms. Adesanya seconded that the Council approve the minutes of March 10, 2003 as corrected. The motion passed 5/0. 3. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Carbone announced that he would act as the Chair for tonight s meeting since the Chair and Vice-Chair are not present. There were no public comments TH ZONING UNIT - MARCHAND - Petition to reclassify from the R-1-L-BE-CSU-RV (Single Family Residence, Limited Agricultural, five acre minimum building site area, 100 feet median lot width, 30 feet front yard, Conditional Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle Regulation) District, to a PD (Planned Development) District, allowing a 1280 square foot secondary unit, on one site containing approximately acres, located at 8600 Oak Tree Lane, southwest side, approximately 340 feet southeast of Norris Canyon Road, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing County Assessor s designation: Mr. Carbone continued this item to May 12, TH ZONING UNIT AND TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 7370 HOFFMAN & VAUGHN FAMILY TRUST Petition to reclassify from a PD (Planned Development) District allowing Commercial Uses, to a PD (Planned Development) to allow nine residential units, on one site containing approximately 1.28 acres, located on Villareal Drive, south side, south of Clement Drive, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing County Assessor s Designation: 085A Mr. Gee presented the staff report. The proposal would allow for nine single-family residences on the site within the Palomares Hills Community. Each lot size has an area of 4,000 square feet. The applicant proposes the construction of 2,645 square foot, two story residences of either Mediterranean or Spanish architectural style. The site was originally approved with the intent of providing land for local commercial uses within the Palomares community. The previous developer indicated that a commercial development on the subject property was not economically feasible. In December 17, 2001, a different applicant submitted the 2151 st Zoning /Unit petitioning to rezone the property to a PD District allowing the construction of 15 townhomes on the same property site. Application was withdrawn on March 18, 2002 without consideration at the public hearing level. Based on discussions with the Fire Department, the current applicant s proposal includes an area on the northeast corner of the site to be quitclaimed by Alameda County in exchange for an access easement allowing the Fire Department access to the project s driveway. All other agencies are in support of the project.

2 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 2 Mr. Frank Vaughn, one of the owners of the property, stated that the property was purchased in October of last year. Shapell Homes originally owned the lot. For five years the parcel was zoned residential, then it was changed to commercial. It has now been vacant for the last 18 years. This lot sits between the Palomares Clubhouse and the Fire Station. The previous owner proposed putting 15 homes on this lot and the plan was not welcomed by the community. The residents of this area were also given a chance to purchase the parcel but felt that the asking price was too high. We first approached Mr. Sawrey-Kubicek at the Planning Department for his input on what the best project would be for this parcel. Mr. Vaughn stated that this project addresses all concerns related to traffic, pedestrian safety, parking and architectural design. The minimum lot size for this project is 4000 square feet. The average lot size for this area is 4300 square feet. We feel that this size is a good compromise. We have taken into consideration the surrounding neighborhood and tried to achieve a balance. We feel that we have an attractive project, which will add to this neighborhood. Mr. Ray Wilson, resident at Mollie Court, has lived across the street from the proposed project for the last 20 years. Mr. Wilson stated that he does not think that putting more homes on this lot is a good idea. The clubhouse has regular activities and it does not have enough parking for the people coming to use the clubhouse. People have to park on the streets; it is hard for the residents surrounding this clubhouse to find parking. There is also a safety concern with the children crossing the street to go to the clubhouse. The best use for this parcel would be additional parking. Mr. Carbone asked Mr. Wilson if the neighbors had attempted to buy this parcel. He stated that there were meetings with the surrounding residents and the majority voiced their wish to have this parcel not developed but he is not aware of a group wanting to purchase this property. Ms. Susan Thompson, resident at Palomares Hills, stated that she has collected over 100 signatures against this development. She stated that 8 out of 9 people she talked to were against this project. This whole area was developed under a master plan. This particular parcel was zoned commercial so that it could be developed as a mom & pop store to benefit the community. Mr. Bob Baptiste bought this parcel from Shapell for $500,000, he wanted to sell it for $600,000. We wanted to meet with Mr. Baptiste and express our desire to develop this parcel as a parking lot and park. We want something good for the community. The developer wants to make money, but this is not the appropriate place for this development. These are substandard size lots for the neighborhood. Mr. Carbone asked Ms. Thompson if she is working in getting the money to purchase this property from the developer. Ms. Thompson stated that when Mr. Baptiste owned the lot he wanted to sell it for $600,000 and the residents felt that it was unfair. We are willing to work with the developer towards the purchase of this lot. Ms. Carol Ellis, resident at Palomares Hills, stated that she lives three houses down from the proposed project. We did not know the property had been sold by Shapell until Mr. Baptiste had meetings with the community in regards to his proposed project and the whole community came out against his project. The clubhouse has parties all the time. There is a lot of noise, the lights are very bright to prevent vandalism, and if the homes are built right next to the clubhouse the future owners might want to put restrictions on the use of the clubhouse. It would be unfair to restrict the use of the clubhouse. This project will impact local schools. The parking is not enough for the future residents of this project. The parking will be overflowing into the streets, adding to the congestion when activities take place at the clubhouse. The other issue is the traffic coming up Villareal Drive, people drive 50 miles an hour on this street. This is a blind corner, the situation will be worse once this development is finished. It will be like playing Russian roulette trying to come out of this development. There are a lot of other places to make money, this is not the right place for this development.

3 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 3 Ms. Dorothy Falconer, resident at Palomares Hills, lives at the third house from this development. She will be personally impacted by this project. This project will be sandwiched between the fire station and the clubhouse. She has spoken to the firemen at the station and they have expressed how difficult it is to get out of the station because of the traffic on this street. There is also the issue of line of sight. Drivers always speed on this street, these homes will only add to the traffic problem. No one in their right mind would think of putting more homes on this parcel, it will just make things worse. The association did not get a chance to vote on purchasing this property. Mr. Larry Carrillo, a business owner and a Palomares Hills resident, wanted to speak in favor of the project. This is a volatile situation. This same issue came up 7 years ago, the residents did not want to pay Mr. Baptiste $600,000 for the lot. We live in America, developers do not buy things to donate to the community. At the time 90% of the residents were against buying the property. The developers live in Palomares. They have a good project and the use for the land is appropriate. To have a 7 Eleven in this location would not be a good idea. The issues of traffic, parking, these are all issues the developer can address. These developers are not greedy, they are trying to do what we all try to do in America, they are doing the right thing. Mr. Stan Poitras, resident at Palomares Hills, stated that he has been a resident of Palomares since 1985, and is in favor of this project. Even if the residents bought the parcel you would not be able to get a consensus from the group on how it should be developed. No one will ever come to an agreement. What belongs in this community is homes, nine homes is not going to impact the community or the schools. This lot should not be empty for another 18 years. Let these people build their homes. Mr. Bob Jones, member of the Palomares Hills Board of Directors, stated that this project should be mitigated, and the project should be harmonious with the other homes in this community. Mr. Jones main concern is that this project should fall under the same master plan for this community. He wants to make sure that the architectural style of the homes blends in with the surrounding homes. He also wants provisions for the upkeep of the maintenance of the exterior of the homes and that the landscape is installed before the project is finalized. These homes will be in close proximity to the clubhouse and will be directly affected by the noise, light, parking of the 60 to 70 parties that take place yearly in the clubhouse. County staff has to make sure that the conditions of approval for this project address the fact that they will be affected by the noise, parking, and lighting coming from the clubhouse. The clubhouse was there first and future owners should not restrict its use. The future homebuyers have to understand what they are buying into and that the clubhouse can t change its use. We are also concerned with the blind corner at this project, there should be traffic studies done to address traffic issues. Mr. Carbone stated that the clubhouse gets a lot of use and it would be beneficial to expand the clubhouse. It does not seem like a lot of money to invest. Mr. Jones stated that the property got sold from under them to Mr. Bob Baptiste, and that the residents never got an opportunity to negotiate and buy the property. We had a community meeting and asked if the residents wanted to contribute funds for the purchase of the property. Most people were not interested in contributing the funds. At the time it seemed that it was not going to happen. Whenever you ask people to raise fees, that is a real problem, most people in the association did not want the fees raised. Mr. Neil Gunther, member of the board for the Palomares Homeowner s Association and speaking as a resident of the area, stated that as Mr. Jones stated the residents were never able to come to a consensus on the fee increase to cover the cost for the purchase of the land. We have had numerous meetings for the last two years and could not come to a general consensus. The board did an

4 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 4 assessment of how much it would cost the residents in order to buy the property. It came to 10 to 20 dollars a piece. The cost was mentioned at the second meeting, most people did not want to pay a penny to buy the property. The board was never in a position to buy the property. If Shapell had the chance to change the zoning to residential maybe they would have built homes, the same kind of homes that the current owners are proposing. The developers own the land and this is a Shapell like solution to this parcel. Nobody wanted to pay for the property, there was no consensus between the residents when the raising of fees was suggested to buy this property. I do not disagree with the opinions expressed here tonight, but this is a Shapell like solution. Mr. D.J. Yu, resident at Palomares and five houses down from this property, also participated in major meetings in regards to this property. He stated that this property is between the fire station and the clubhouse, it is not suitable for a store or homes. The clubhouse has outgrown its use; the best thing would be to expand the clubhouse. The reason why a lot of people bought into this development was because of the clubhouse. This is a main attraction for most homeowners. Mr. Baptiste made a deal with Shapell; of course he would not sell it for less money than what he paid for the property. Mr. Yu has lived in this community for the last ten years. He stated that this will ruin the community. The new homes will be directly impacted by all the noise, traffic and activity at the clubhouse. The lot size of the proposed new homes is not consistent with the surrounding area. Yes, it is America but you cannot build a casino in Treasurer Island. Mr. Jerry Barney stated that there is a petition with 150 signatures on it that will be turned into the Planning Department against this project. The matter here is not just the rezoning of this property, but the revision of the original master plan for this community. The original developer in the 90 s had an obligation to have this parcel remain commercial. If this board joins this developer and recommends that this parcel be rezoned into residential, then you are depriving the community of a valuable asset and going against the original master plan. This parcel is only 1.2 acres; it is too small to pack all these homes on this parcel. This is the wrong thing to do; putting homes on this parcel is not for the public s interest. The clubhouse needs parking. This transfer of the property was clandestine. The residents had no idea that they would have to spend more money. The developer was supposed to develop this parcel for the community. These homes do not resemble the Shapell homes in this community. We do not need these homes on this parcel.. Mr. Frank Vaughn, the developer, stated that he has addressed all the issues with the various agencies in regards to this development Mr. Moore stated that he finds it interesting that this parcel has been vacant for so many years and that people had an opportunity to purchase the land but could never come to a consensus. Mr. Moore feels that the residential development is appropriate for this parcel. The extra parking for the clubhouse would be nice but it is not going to happen. Ms. Sugimura, stated that it is not the current developers fault that the clubhouse does not have enough parking. Mr. Carbone stated that the original development did not provide enough parking for the clubhouse and its potential use from the 1000 units that were built. The Five Canyons development is overrun with developer problems; this is the same scenario. This clubhouse does need additional parking, but on the other hand these homes will not impact the local schools. Mr. Carbone stated that there seems to have been an opportunity for the residents of the area to vote on the purchase of this parcel before opening it up for a residential development. Ms. Rivet stated that this is a good fit for the neighborhood, it is a residential development. Mr. Frank Vaughn, the developer, stated that last year there was a meeting with the community, and the overall response to the proposed development was positive.

5 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 5 Mr. Moore stated that $600,000 was not an unreasonable price for this property. Since the residents did not want to purchase it, this developer came along and bought the property. Ms. Rivet stated that it seems like the residents could not come to a consensus. Ms. Adesanya stated that the board should look at the development and think about making it less dense. These homes should be more compatible with the neighborhood. These homes are too close together. The community is being impacted by the lack of parking for the clubhouse; this development should not further impact the community with its density. Mr. Moore inquired county staff about the line of sight issue brought up by some of the residents. Mr. Gee stated that he spoke with the traffic engineer and that all issues had been addressed satisfactorily by the developer. Mr. Moore further remarked that future homeowners should be aware of the impact of the clubhouse and its activities on their homes and lives. There will be issues with parking, noise, lighting, and hours of operation. Mr. Carbone asked county staff if these lots meet the average lot size for the area. Mr. Gee stated that it meets the duplex average lot size. Ms. Adesanya stated that the lot size should meet the same standards of the homes across the street. Ms. Adesanya stated that she would be able to support the residential development but not this number of homes. Mr. Moore agreed with Ms. Adesanya. Mr. Carbone and Ms. Sugimura stated that they should meet the standards of the surrounding homes. Mr. Carbone asked the applicant if he would like to come back with revised plans since the consensus seems to be to recommend denial of the project. The developer asked for the procedure of what happens once the council recommends denial. After explanation developer asked the council to make the recommendation. Ms. Adesanya recommended denial, seconded by Ms. Sugimura, because of the density and number of required variances for the project. Ms. Rivet and Mr. Moore opposed the vote. Mr. Carbone recommended denial, breaking the vote. The motion passed 3/2. 6. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, C PAGARIGAN - that allows operation of a residential care facility for up to 44 beds subject to 23 conditions. A condition of approval requires that residents of Valley Manor Community Care Home that exhibit violence or participate in the harassment of neighbors be immediately discharged as described under the State of California government code. It has been alleged that the facility is not in compliance with the above condition. The subject property is located in an R-1-CSU-RV (Single Family Residence, Conditional Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle) District, at Apricot Way, east side, 70' north of Seaview Avenue, in the unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 84C The Chair continued this item to May 14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, C HILL - Application to allow continued operation of a veterinary hospital on a site containing approximately 0.22 acres in a C-1 (Commercial) District, located at Redwood Road, west side, approximately 280 feet south side of Lessley Avenue, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County bearing County Assessor s Designation: Mr. Ron Gee presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant wants to continue the existing operation of a veterinary hospital at this location. This project was originally approved in The Castro Valley Chamber of Commerce reviewed this project and recommended a ten-year renewal.

6 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 6 The applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Moore moved, seconded by Ms. Rivet, to approve conditional use permit per staff s recommendation. The motion passed 5/0. 8. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NORTHBROOK HOMES, LLC - Application to allow subdivision of one parcel into thirteen parcels on a site containing approximately 4.46 acres in an R-1-B-E-CSU- RV (Single Family Residence, 10,000 sq.ft. MBSA, Conditional Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle Regulations)District, located at 4642 Proctor Road, north side, approximately 600 feet east of Ewing Road, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing County Assessor s Designation: 084D Mr. Ron Gee presented the staff report. There was an earlier application for this parcel in 2001 to subdivide this parcel into 16 lots. The application was withdrawn. The applicant now wants to subdivide this parcel into 13 single family residential lots. The lot sizes would be an average of 14,880 square feet in area, with a range from 12,430 to 19,050 square feet gross and 10,990 to 18,250 square feet net area. Alameda County Public Works Agency and the Fire Department previously expressed concerned that the T turnaround at the north end of the access road may not be able to provide adequate turnaround space for large vehicles, including fire vehicles. However, the Fire Department stated that they may be amenable to a rounded T turnaround that provides room for fire vehicles to turn. Because of the existing topography, sanitary sewer will need to be pumped up to the Proctor Road sewer main. Drainage facilities and easements will be needed to direct water off-site. The project has an average lot size of 14,880 square feet per lot, which is consistent with the density of the surrounding residential area. Mr. Gary Brooks with Northbrook Homes shared with audience members and the council proposed plans for the project. Mr. Brooks referred to the drawings and stated that they have addressed concerns regarding parking, emergency access, turnaround, off street parking, home design and floorplans. He also stated that two of the homes were modified in order to fit better on the lots. Mr. Jack Abraham, resident at 4738 Proctor Road, stated that his property is adjacent to the proposed project. He has no objection to the project as submitted. Mr. Abraham stated that he is the president of the Orchard Homeowners Association, and years ago they had asked for a traffic circulation for the area to address traffic concerns. Some of the lots in the area have been developed and it has increased the traffic and caused some circulation problems on Proctor Road. He referred to the drawings of the project and his willingness to have a road cut through his property and get an agreement from the neighbors behind his property for an outlet through Redwood Road. He feels that this proposed road would resolve all traffic concerns in this area. The applicant stated that there might be a problem with some of the parcels behind Mr. Abraham s property as they have been been developed. Ms. Cindy Barclay, resident at 4843 Lodi Way, is not close to this project but is familiar with this project. She asked that council give consideration to this and other proposed projects in this area and the cumulative impact to the neighborhood. She stated that there have been a number of recent developments in the area, which have impacted traffic, schools, sewer, and water services for the area Mr. Sidney Haslam has lived in this area for 31 years on Parker Road. Mr. Haslam stated that there was a large development behind his property, which was not nearly as well planned out as this one. This developer has dealt with the surrounding area and the proposed lots conform with the average lot size for the area. The traffic is going to increase but not all residents will travel on Proctor. Change is hard

7 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 7 for all of us, especially for the longtime residents. We can t deny someone the right to develop their property. The developers have to be sensitive to the community. The idea of building the road to connect to Redwood Road would have worked 20 years ago; this would not be possible today. The cost of doing that would be prohibitive. This development is well thought out and will enhance the community. Mr. Joe Lasysky, resident at Oak Canyon Place, said the homes around this area go for one million or more. He asked if the developer could make the homes larger, since most homes around the area are larger than the ones he is proposing. He is concerned with maintaining the property values in his neighborhood and does not want the new homes to have a negative impact on his property value. Mr. Terry Sullivan, resident at Oak Canyon Place, stated that the plans are great, his main concern is with the retaining wall, and he wanted to know if the homes will be exactly built as they are shown. The developer stated that they designed the homes to fit the building pad and will be built pretty much as they are shown on the drawings. Mr. Sullivan asked if the trail access will be available to anyone or just the homeowners? Mr. Sullivan expressed his concern with having anyone access the trail and his concern with parking for residents out of the area. Mr. Pat Hassett just wanted to ask about the status of the approval for the project because he has not had a chance to study or comment on the project. Mr. Carbone stated that the council only makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is the final step on the process of this application. Mr. Jeff Moore and Ms. Roberta Rivet expressed that the proposed project is very nice. Mr. Ken Carbone stated that he is very concerned with all of these new projects that have a private street. Most County agencies do not have jurisdiction over these private streets; this can lead to many problems in the future with maintenance, parking and traffic. Ms. Roberta Rivet moved, seconded by Mr. Jeff Moore, that the Council recommend approval of the tentative map per staff s recommendation. Mr. Ken Carbone opposed. The motion passed 4/1. 9. MODIFICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MS-1752C - This is an application to modify an approved Site Development Review for the expansion of Safeway, by the redesign of the north wall and building facade and to allow installation of utility structures on the southwest corner of the roof, in the Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan - Subarea 7 (Central Castro Valley Boulevard/Redwood Road - Intensive Retail Core) District, located at Redwood Road, Suite 190, northwest corner of Castro Valley Boulevard and Redwood Road, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Numbers 084A and 084A Mr. Ron Gee presented the staff report. Safeway has installed new heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment on the rooftop near the southwestern corner of the store where it is visible from Castro Valley Boulevard. The large cabinet structure referred to as a PortaPak is located about 10 from the southern façade and 10 from the western façade. The ventilation tower is highly visible.

8 Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Page 8 The Castro Valley Chamber is concerned with the screening of the PortaPak and the changes from the original plan. The architect has suggested different options on how to screen the PortaPak from different design treatment to the wall and painting of the PortaPak to match the building color. The architect will share with council the various options. Yan Wong, the architect for Safeway, stated that they have been very pro-active in trying to address all issues related to the aesthetics of the building. They have met numerous times with county staff, the council members and the Castro Valley Chamber. Mr. Wong referred to the proposed changes to the aesthetics of the building and the screening of the unit. Mr. Wong shared various alternatives from design alterations to color options for the unit. He asked that council give Safeway the opportunity to finish and address all issues of concern in regards to the remodeling of Safeway. Mr. Al Chamorro, member of the Castro Valley Chamber, stated that at first there were concerns with the PortaPak being above the roof wall. The design Mr. Wong has shown has a better hip roof, which partly covers and conceals the unit. Members of the community were concerned with the fact that when heading west people could see the unit which did not make the building very attractive. Mr. Chamorro commended Safeways for coming forth and addressing the concerns of the community. Councilmembers agreed that the solutions presented would conceal the PortaPak. Ms. Rivet also asked if the unit could be painted to match the building. County staff referred to the drawing to illustrate the step down on the west side of the building. Mr. Jeff Moore moved, seconded by Ms. Adesanya, that the Council recommend approval of the modified site development review per staff s recommendation. The motion passed 4/ CHAIR'S REPORT: The Chair had no report. 11. COMMITTEE REPORTS: There were no committee reports. 12. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS, AND REPORTS: Ms. Henninger announced that the proposed changes to the Governance of Alameda County are being presented to the Transportation Committee today. Mr. Bob Swanson advised council members of the upcoming Unincorporated Services Meeting this coming week. Supervisor Miley will be discussing the consensus of the various communities on the proposed scenarios on the Governance issue. He asked that council have someone present from the community to voice Castro Valley s wishes on the reorganization. 13. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS, AND REPORTS: There were no council reports. 14. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. NEXT MEETING DATE: APRIL 14, 2003