El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council
3769B San Pablo Dam Road, ES 94803 - Meetings 2nd Wednesday of each Month (7:00pm)
El Sobrante Library 4191 Appian Way, El Sobrante

Chair: Barbara Pendergrass, Vice-chair: Erica Peng, Secretary: Tom Owens, Treasurer: Hope Scott,
Members: Marilynne Mellander, Wendi Gosliner, Charles Marino, 1st Alt. Susan Swift

 

DRAFT  Minutes of Special General Plan Meeting held August 29, 2006

Pledge led by Marilynne Mellander
Meeting called to order 7:05 pm.
Note: Charles Marino absent.

Motion to change the order of the agenda to hear items SD3-9 first followed by items SD1 & SD2 – M(MM),S,P – 7,0,0

Public Comment:
Commend made that property owners would make better decisions than government entities. Personal property rights are very important.

Request for explanation of ESMAC duties and members terms was made. This was given by Barbara Pendergrass.

Question concerning limitations on business types along these two routes was asked. Answered that it was a possibility depending on how the district is set up. There will be two forums for further public information and input.

Question asked concerning the maps for the General Plan amendment being the same as the ones for the former redevelopment plan and which still includes properties that had actively requested to be excluded. General Plan amendment is required by law every ten years and has nothing to do with redevelopment. This is our chance to influence how our area may grow over the next ten years. This would not limit current property owners’ rights but would affect the future property buyers. The forum dates will be Oct 26th in the evening and Oct. 28th in the morning.

Comment made regarding the Medical Marijuana Club in regards to the sewer company and which was preferable. Desired to know how a few (minority) of people could block the licensing and permitting of a business.

Public member wanted to know that if the ESMAC and P&Z didn’t make the decision regarding the business licensing and permitting were there other meetings that the general public should be attending to have their input. The reply was for the City of Richmond the public should go to Richmond City Council meetings and for the county they should attend the Board of Supervisors meetings and county development meetings.

CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS:  Items CCI:1-3 pulled for Short Discussion.

SHORT DISCUSSION ITEMS :

CCI.1 Approval to set El Sobrante Cleanup Day as November 4th.
Susan Swift requested that she get some help in setting this up. Tom Owens, Marilynne Mellander and Barbara Pendergrass volunteered.
Motion to approve CCI.1 M(MM),S,P – 7,0,0

CCI.2 Thank you letter to Tim Jensen, Public Works for his comments on the Forest Green Draft EIR. Change affect to effect in second paragraph.
Motion to Send letter M(HS),S,P – 6,1,0

CCI.3 Authorize the cost of laminating the large Maps of Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road for marking during planning session. Cost was approximately $30-$40.
Motion to pay for lamination of maps. M(WG) – 7,0,0

SDI.3 Recommendation on where Public uses would be located.
Spaces for pocket parks and other open communal meeting areas.Near Boys and Girls club, block 3 and 12 on the map as identified by community development. Area between Boys and girls club and the library would be better as far as current use. Stated understanding that there wouldn’t be a rezoning for parks but just an indication of priority of where we’d like to have parks for potential purchase in the future.

SDI.4 Recommendation on where the Community Center would be located.
Defined as a location that community groups could hold meetings. Suggestion that near Boys and Girls club would be ideal but may have problems with noise due to fire station activity. Other suggested areas are near Canyon Pool or blocks 9 to 10. Further discussion listed problem with Canyon pool area due to traffic accidents in the area.

SDI.5 Recommendation on the location of a PI DISTRICT.
Defined as an area that had special building limitations such as height and building set backs with a character setting and/or desirability of business types. Special questions on this type of restriction in regard to churches were broached.
Land uses that would like to be encouraged: parks and safe places for bicycling where walking would be encouraged, greater variability it styles.
Land uses that would like to be discouraged: limit higher density housing, not to become another Emeryville where apartments and parking lots are the only things making it, apartment buildings.

SDI.6 Recommendation on location of Town Center.
Current location is proposed near Mechanics Bank (Block14). Potential for “circulation” block with parking. Include some open space for a town square type feeling. Include parking nearby. Another hub type area along Appian Way.  One suggestion was for the triangle to become our town center. Former location of Bowers’(sp?) department store was also mention as a possible location.

SDI.7 Recommendation on bicycle paths. Need trail marked.
Bicycling on Damn road is currently unsafe. Should included strong language for including bicycle and pedestrian safe pathways. Enforcement of speed limits is crucial if safety is to be considered.

SDI.8 Agree on recommendation for a reduction in Commercial and Residential density from the first plan due to the shopping centers located in Pinole and Hilltop Mall.
County has proposed a reduction in density of both commercial and residential and it was clear from this meeting that a further reduction be made especially in regards to apartment house densities.

SDI.9 Public comment. Limit 3 minutes per speaker.    
What’s happening to the development funds earmarked for police services (P6 district) and shouldn’t we allow for a police station (sheriff’s annex?) just need grater sheriff’s presence. How about a shared Police duties similar to Fire agreement (Richmond – Sheriff).
Restrictions for or against certain types of business would/could be included will be discussed at the next meeting with input of suggestions. While businesses may not be disallowed the county could require a conditional use permits which would increase the attention paid to what is occurring.
A strong recommendation was made that “local” control of the P1 District be maintained (ideally by P&Z or ESMAC) for the issuance/review of permits or exemptions rather than remote control by the county planning commission.
A statement for private property rights and a free market control of business types was made and indorsed by the audience present.
It was pointed out that total free rights for one party will impinge on the rights of another and therefore this is a balancing act and not an attempted to restricted private property rights but to balance the right of all property owners. It is also pointed out that this is not a restriction in many case but a relaxation of the rules that would allow more uses rather than fewer.

SDI.1 Explanation of the items needing to be discussed and the importance of a recommendation of mixed use by block.
Current general plan and current use and zoning are in conflict in many areas and need to be brought into agreement by law.

SDI.2 Review each Block for mixed use recommendations.
Eric Peng displayed a map displaying “current” planning use in zoning as compared real use. Current proposal is for a scattering of mixed use without any real organization. Recommended a more clustered approach to increase focus and viability of businesses where the clustering is currently already happening. A lot of the mixed use is along the triangle where traffic is already bad and need for parking is already desperate so that might not be an ideal area for it. Two areas of interest where also mentioned: Adachi’s (a thriving business that was already zoned out of El Cerrito and Garden Lane (a quiet neighborhood with an apple orchard that would be re-zone commercial or mix use). Might allow apartment complexes but would actually limit density (currently < 12units/acre).

Adjournment
Motion to adjourn – M(TO),S,P – 7,0,0
Meeting adjourned 9:22pm

Respectfully submitted, Tom Owens, Secretary, ESMAC

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS:

Meeting called to order 7:05 pm.

Motion to change the order of the agenda to hear items SD3-9 first followed by items SD1 & SD2 – M(MM),S,P – 7,0,0

Motion to approve CCI.1 M(MM),S,P – 7,0,0

Motion to send letter M(HS),S,P – 6,1,0

Motion to pay for lamination of maps. M(WG) – 7,0,0

Motion to adjourn – M(TO),S,P – 7,0,0

Meeting adjourned 9:22pm