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

MINUTES
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2003

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: Council Members Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
Absent: Council Member Hill

The meeting adjourned to closed session at 6:46 p.m. pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 (a) with Council Member Hill absent.

CLOSED SESSION

Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54956.9 (a):
Bodine & Miller-Brentwood LLC v. City of Brentwood, City Council of the City of Brentwood et al., and Real Parties In Interest & Defendants, Lucia Albers et al. - Case No. N03-0129

Closed Session adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

The meeting reconvened to open session at 7:02 p.m. with all Council Members present. Mayor Swisher advised that there was no action to report from the Closed Session.

PRESENTATIONS

A. New Employee Introductions and Oath of Allegiance.

James Stephens Community Development Department
Angela Maier City Clerk/Parks and Recreation Departments
Cynthia Garcia City Clerk Department
Todd Koehler Police Department

B. A First Place Award for Focused Issue Planning from the American Planning Association for the City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Preservation Program was presented to Mitch Oshinsky.

AGENDA REVIEW

Item 8 Revised first page of the Resolution.

Item 14 Revised term limit to three years, ending December 31, 2005.

Item 20 Revised program fees for Youth Sports.

Item 22 Staff recommendation to indefinitely drop the item from the agenda.

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Petrovich to approve the Agenda Review as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

Mary Lopez said she volunteered at Los Vaqueros Interpretive Center and said that the Los Vaqueros Contra Costa Water District had programs not offered to the elementary schools because the City was not in the District boundaries. She asked if there was a way that the children could go to the educational center and use the facilities. She also requested that something be done to improve the senior citizen center.

June Fisher said he had moved to Sunflower Lane one year ago and there was a traffic problem and it was a dangerous street. Numerous cars use it and even though it was posted at 15 mph, people break the law driving through at 35 mph and he asked that something be done about it.

Homer Williamson said he lived on Sunflower Lane and that traffic used it as a shortcut and that there were approximately 1,400 cars per day on the street. The City had done traffic calming measures such as a raised crosswalk and a series of stop signs and the opening of Sand Creek Road had helped. It was somewhat tolerable but he was thinking about selling his home since other homes were to be developed at Fairview and would increase traffic. He said he believed that Traffic Engineering was considering a traffic light going in and that did not mean it would help the traffic situation.

Patrick Pecknoll said he lived on Country Glen and that the traffic dodged in and out of the streets to avoid stop signs. There were many children that lived on the block and the traffic was upsetting to the neighbors. He said he had heard that there could not be a stop sign on every street and that people drove 35 to 45 mph and there was no way to avoid hitting a child at that speed. Stop signs were important and he asked for help before someone was hurt.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approved minutes of May 13, 2003.

2. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 747 adopting an Annual Water Service Standby Charge on Vacant Parcels of Land within the City Limits.

3. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 748 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).

4. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 749 amending Brentwood Municipal Code Section 8.00.010 and 8.00.040 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.

5. Approved Resolution No. 2884 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in an amount not to exceed $86,744.00 for the relocation of Gas Transmission Line 114 on Fairview Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Lone Tree Way, to facilitate the construction of 4-60” storm drain lines across Fairview Avenue to the Flood Control Detention Basin; and approve change orders up to 15% of the contract amount for the Northwest Quadrant Infrastructure Project, CIP Project No. 336-3127.

6. Approved Resolution No. 2885 amending the Memorandum of Understanding document between the City and the Brentwood Police Officers’ Association (BPOA) for fiscal years 2003/04 through 2007/08.

7. Approved Resolution No. 2886 fixing the employer’s contribution under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act for sworn employees.

8. Approve a Resolution adopting new classification descriptions and compensation ranges for various classifications, effective July 1, 2003. Continued to June 24, 2003

9. Approved the use of City-owned properties and a Temporary Use Permit for CornFest 2003 on July 9 through July 14, 2003.

10. Approved Resolution No. 2887 accepting landscaping improvements for Subdivision No. 7705, Brentwood Lakes Unit 1, Lee Hancock Construction, Inc., located north of Balfour Road, west of Fairview Avenue and east of East Country Club Drive.

11. Approved Resolution No. 2888 accepting public improvements, accepting the Maintenance Bond and releasing the Subdivision Performance and Payment Bonds for subdivision No. 8209, Brentwood Lakes Unit 3, Brookfield Homes, located north of Balfour Road and west of Fairview Avenue.

12. Approved Resolution No. 2889 accepting public improvements, accepting the maintenance Bond and releasing the Performance and Payment Bonds for Subdivision No. 8305, Brentwood Lakes Unit 5, Brookfield Homes, located north of Balfour Road and west of West Country Club Drive.

13. Approved Resolution No. 2890 accepting public improvements, Maintenance Bond, releasing Performance and Payment Bonds for Subdivision No. 8374, Iverness at Brentwood Lakes, Brookfield Homes, located north of Balfour Road, along East Country Club Drive.

14. Approved appointment of J.E. Bryant to the Arts Commission for a three-year term ending December 31, 2005.

15. Approved Resolution No. 2891 memorializing the granting of the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-05 for the Sand Creek Business Park Master Sign Program.

16. Authorized the City Manager to send a letter to Senator John Burton concerning the John Marsh house funding

17. Approved Resolution No. 2892 approving and adopting the 2003-04 Prop 4 Appropriation Limit.

18. Accepted the resignation of Michael Kerchner from the Planning Commission.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Hill to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 – 7 and 9 - 18 as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 8 Approve a Resolution adopting new classification descriptions and compensation ranges for various classifications, effective July 1, 2003.

Council Member Gutierrez asked about the Housing Manager position and the requirements for a Spanish speaking service or whether the person would be bilingual or have a bilingual resource to support the Spanish-speaking community in need of affordable housing.

Council Member Beckstrand asked if the City could utilize someone with the requirements and salary established for the Arts Manager classification.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, responded he had looked at a coordinator level and found out that a coordinator did not have the skills to lead and develop and it started as more of a supervisor. In looking at successful arts commissions, there was traditionally an arts administrator or arts manager with a four-year degree in arts administration/museum management, instead of entry or middle level positions. He said the successful commissions he had seen would bring a person on at the level to develop and lead the commission, otherwise the commission would struggle. The commission had the capability of quickly generating funds necessary to support their activities. He recommended a manager level position, which would not be brought on for another year and would be included in the 2004/05 budget.

Council Member Petrovich noted that in proposing the fee, in-lieu of inclusionary housing, this was one of the positions that a housing manager would need to be hired in and he asked if the Council was in favor of the proposal.

Council Member Hill stated that the City was being more inundated with housing applications for funds, services and administration and he did not want to be in the housing business or administering housing as a City or Redevelopment Agency. He noted that the Redevelopment Analyst was spending a number of hours working on housing and he said he preferred to revisit the matter when it was time to spend the money.

Council Member Beckstrand said that she did not want the City to get into property management. In order to be successful with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Agency and affordable and inclusionary housing, she felt the position would take the burden off of the Redevelopment Analyst.

Council Member Hill asked if there was any reason to adopt the positions contemplated for hiring in 2004.

Council Member Gutierrez said it was very important to have an Arts Manager and it was a part of building a community and a community had to do with culture and whether it was accepted now or in the future, she said it was important for the City to have and Arts Manager.

Council Member Hill said he believed that it was the responsibility of the Park and Recreation Director and staff to guide and implement designs and overview projects and this added another layer of development review versus having an individual that had the capacity. He said he was not prepared to support the position.

City Manager Stevenson stated that the position was to start July 1, 2004 and he noted that during discussions with the Parks and Recreation Director, there was the concern of bringing in the position earlier. It could be looked at January 1, 2004 and to see how the economy and position were doing and it could be brought back as a mid-year budget adjustment if it was appropriate.

Mayor Swisher added that Council should hold off and approve it for next year if there were concerns about the position.

Council Member Petrovich commented that the item be continued for two weeks.

Council Member Beckstrand noted that the Arts Manager would eventually be needed and her concern was bringing an Arts Manager on at a manager-level salary too soon. She said she would still like to review the goals and objectives of the Arts Commission and how the person would be implemented in 2004.

Park and Recreation Director Bronzan said that most art commissions had a full time and maybe a part time staff member and the rationale in looking at a manager position was that if the City started with a lower position such as supervisor or coordinator, the person would not have the experience necessary when a manager was needed. If there was a supervisor on board and it was time for a manager, it was rare to be rid of the supervisor and replace them with a manager and arts commissions traditionally had one full time professional person.

City Manager Stevenson suggested removing the Arts Manager from the list and bringing it back in six months following an evaluation of the Arts Commission.

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Gutierrez to continue the Item 8 to June 24, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

19. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the 2003/04 - 2004/05 Operating Budget for the City of Brentwood.

Finance and Information Director, Pam Ehler, presented the 2003/04 – 2004/05 balanced budget. Adequate resources were available to fund the appropriations while ensuring that operating revenues covered operating expenditures and maintained adequate reserves. She noted that the State budget required facing difficult decisions such as loosing $1.5 million to anticipated State cutbacks. The two-year budget emphasized long-range planning, budgeting for results and fiscal responsibility.

Finance Director Ehler noted that key issues were that CalPERS health insurance was budgeted to increase by 20 percent each year and insurance costs were going up 31 percent as well as continued State budget threats. A newly implemented revenue was the Community Facilities District and there was State budget reduction of $1 million for the vehicle license fees, the RDA ERAF shift and no reimbursement for Peace Office Standard in Training (POST funds) and SB 90; and increased booking fees, which totaled a $1.5 million hit to the budget. There would be new sworn officers per year, a continuing contribution of $432,000 for fire and EMT, continuing support for the library of $97,000 each year and 3.3 percent for the annual Consumer Price Index. Operations for revenues for the City totaled $70.4 million for next year and 39 percent of the revenues were for the general fund, with the four enterprises totaling 31 percent; internal service funds 8 percent and redevelopment 12 percent. Operation expenditures totaled $68.9 million; general fund totaling 39 percent; enterprises 31 percent and redevelopment 11 percent. She added that the general fiscal outlook was strong and the general fund balance was expected to be $16.7 million in two years; replacement funds were $11 million and would ensure replaceable items for the City to continue support. The City was in the middle of a ten year fiscal model, which would provide new and stable sales tax for the City, long-term program on jobs-to-housing balance and employment opportunities. The City had a strong housing market and would increase property taxes and CFD revenues. The budget was balanced and projected two years of surplus in the general fund.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. 2893

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING THE 2003/04-2004/05 FINAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Petrovich to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2893 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

20. Consideration of a Resolution amending the 2002/03 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of Fee adopted by Resolution No. 2643 to include new rates for Parks and Recreation.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, informed that the goal over the next three years was to recover 50 percent of cost recovery for all of the youth programs; 75 percent for adult programs and any programs that could, within the market, bear the 100 percent recovery. He noted that there were four programs under youth sports, which were the pre-school basketball, soccer, in-door and out-door flag tag and he recommended the fees as they appeared in the agenda review.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved by Swisher/Beckstrand to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.


RESOLUTION NO. 2894

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING THE 2002/03 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE/COST ALLOCATION PLAN ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2643

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Gutierrez to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2894 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

21. Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on Design Review No. 02-06 requiring concrete tile roof material for Garin Landing’s Townhouse and Cluster Home Products, located north of Balfour Road and east of Brentwood Boulevard.

Council Member Hill declared a potential conflict and left the Council Chamber.

Senior Planner, Jeff Zilm, stated that Planning Commission had considered a Tentative Map and Design Review for Garin Ranch project by Signature to construct 105 townhouses and a 64-cluster home development next to a commercial project that had been approved. Both the townhouses and cluster homes were proposed with a composition shingle roofing material. The Planning Commission required the use of concrete tile because of its superior durability, higher quality and longer aesthetic appearance. The Design Review and Tentative Map had been approved by the Planning Commission with the addition of Condition No. 42 requiring the use of the concrete tile roof material, instead of the composition shingle. Signature had appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on the fact that the units were intended to be moderate priced homes and the tile roof would raise the cost of the home and make it difficult for homebuyers to afford to purchase it. Should Council elect to approve the appeal, staff would return to the next Council meeting with a revised resolution.

Council Member Petrovich asked about the homes in the area and what they were built with. Planner Zilm responded that homes located to the east of the project were built with concrete tile and to the north were composition/shingle and had been proposed by Signature to have composition shingle. In the Master Plan, there was originally to be apartments and it had been revised to cluster homes and townhouses. The Specific Plan stated that if it was a detached, single-family home, tile would be the appropriate use of roofing material.

In response to Council Member Petrovich, Senior Planner Zilm said that the cost estimate for concrete tile versus shingle could be several thousands to tens of thousands, depending on the size of the homes.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

Joseph Zawidski, Signature Properties, asked Council to allow Signature the use of shingles because of the cost differential. He said he believed that there was a misconception that shingles were a less expensive product used on less expensive homes. Signature had done houses in the $900,000 to $1.5 million range in Livermore, Pleasanton and Danville using composition shingle roofs. Moving past the three-tab shingle, which was standard on inexpensive homes, an architectural-grade shingle was used and had a 20 to 25, 30 to 50-year shingle, which was dimensional, and more attractive than a standard shingle. Architects worked to design a roof that was in harmony with the architectural style and craftsman and traditional style architecture usually showed a shingle roof as opposed to a tile roof. He said if Signature was instructed to always use tile on all houses, it would restrict the type of architecture that could be offered in the City. He asked for Council direction on the project and on future projects in the City and he asked that Council allow Signature to use shingle roofs.

In response to Council Member Petrovich, Mr. Zawidski said that the cost varied per unit and per the amount of roof and could be anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 and on a single-family detached house, it depended on the amount of ridge on the home and could be up to $10,000 and would be passed on to the customer.

Council Member Gutierrez asked if the shingle was as durable as the tile and Mr. Zawidski stated that it depended on the use. Tiles could crack and break and could deteriorate over 50 or 100 years. A composition roof would not last 50 to 100 years and a 30-year composition roof would last 30-years and hold up fairly well.

Council Member Beckstrand commented that Signature was looking at the 30-year rated roof and noted that there were materials that could be rated for 50-years.

Laine Lawrence spoke in support of the decision of the Planning Commission. She noted that the City had consistently required tile roofing as opposed to composition roofing and it was good for the City since they would not have to be replaced as often. She said it may not be less expensive for the property owner in the long term. She noted that the property would not be built for concrete roofing and down the road, if they wanted it, the property would not be built for it. If the property was for more affordable housing for the City, it should have been made before changing it from apartments into condominiums. She encouraged the Council to continue with City standards and not set a precedent.

Ray Shipley said that the cost for 75 to 100 years would be less expense overall for that dwelling over the life cycle of the home than if one had to replace the roof two to three times. He spoke regarding a quote about tile not looking appropriate for the type of house and tile used to be nonconforming to some different varieties of homes and that was no longer the case. There were adequate tiles out there that were various colors, shapes and look like slate and could be more functional at less cost than slate. He said he wanted to have quality homes in the City and did not want to compromise for less expensive homes over the more expensive homes and it should be the same and be fair for everyone. He had looked at asphalt shingles from the stand point that petroleum-based products were used and would end up in a landfill some day. That would not have to be done for tile because it could be ground up and reused.

Council Member Petrovich noted that composition could be ground up and used for road base.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Gutierrez to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Council Member Petrovich commented that he had recently replaced a 35-year old composition roof and it was taken, ground up, and used for road base. The 23-year old shake roof that he owned was in perfect condition and a concrete tile roof, after eleven years that had broken. Shake could look equally good and he asked not to rule out composition.

It was moved/seconded by Gutierrez/Beckstrand to deny the appeal of Condition No. 42 for Balfour Road, east of Brentwood Boulevard. Motion failed to carry by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand and Gutierrez
NOES: Councilmember Petrovich and Mayor Swisher
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Hill

No action was taken on the appeal and the Planning Commission decision stands.

Council Member Hill returned to the Council Chamber.

22. Consideration a Resolution to establish an interim off-street parking In-Lieu Fee for new projects and/or additions and expansions of existing projects located within the downtown area.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Swisher to remove the item indefinitely. Motion carried unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS

23. Second reading and adoption of 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.

Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner, explained that the ordinance was for the re-zoning of the Tri-City Plaza site from neighborhood commercial to planned development. No new issues had been raised since the first reading at the meeting of May 27, 2003 and he recommended adoption of the ordinance approving the rezone.
ORDINANCE NO. 746

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 Petrovich/Swisher to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 746 and approve second reading as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Gutierrez, Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
NOES: Councilmember Beckstrand
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Hill

24. Consideration of the City of Brentwood Park and Recreation Commission recommendation to deny a request for the addition of lights for after hour use of the City of Brentwood skate park.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, explained that in meeting with citizens, they had not been involved with the original construction of the skate park. Parks and Recreation held meetings with the citizens and made recommendations on how the public process worked, what it had resulted in and if they were interested, some of the things they could do to obtain support to change it. At the February 27, 2003 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, staff had recommended denying the request due to the original commitment to the neighbors around the pool and skate park and that it would not be lit. Security lights there were directed by Council to be added after starting construction since there was concern that after hours there would be no lights. There were four motion sensor lights that went on if someone went in after hours. As a result of a long discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission, there were a number of items that the Commission requested staff to research. The recommendation of staff was to deny the request because the lights were not included, out of respect to the surrounding neighborhood, because of limited funds and working to stay within budget. Since the neighborhood had been noticed regarding the Commission meetings on two occasions, that fact that no one showed up would indicate that the community was in agreement with the decision. There was one neighbor that spoke out at both meetings against the proposal, reminding the Commission that Council had made the promise that lights would not be added to the park. The Park and Recreation Commission recommend that Council deny the request to add lights to the skate park after hours.

Mayor Swisher said he believed that Council should stay with the recommendation of denial of the lights until Council received a consensus from the residents in that neighborhood in favor of lights.

Councilmember Gutierrez said she was in favor of allowing the children to skate longer and noted that there was 35 percent in support of the lights.

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Beckstrand to accept the recommendation of staff and deny the request for the addition of lights and after hour use of the City skate park. Motion carried unanimously.

25. Status report and Council direction concerning EBART planning for station locations in Brentwood.

Community Development Director, Mitch Oshinsky, explained that the City had looked at several alternative sites for locating an EBART station near the downtown area and a site had been selected in Special Planning Area B. The consultants for BART, Wilbur Schmidt and Associates, had started on preliminary planning for the general station location within Special Plan Area B and prepared two alternative plans. Site Plan A showed the platform close to Marsh Creek and the proposed Pinn Brothers project had been included on the plan and a proposed link to the EBART station that would use the existing Marsh Creek Trail. Site Plan B showed the platform further to the south. He said that BART felt that it was closer to the downtown area and more centrally located to the Pinn Brothers project and the issue would be for pedestrian access across the tracks. Community Development and Engineering were concerned about an at-grade crossing there for pedestrians and the cost of an overpass or underpass would be very expensive. Community Development would like to see the station a further to the north and use the pedestrian link on the Marsh Creek Trail. He requested Council comments and direction.

Director Oshinsky noted that BART had suggested an at-grade crossing, which had been done by BART in a number of locations and Community Development and Engineering had concerns about the at-grade crossing. There would be a park and wetland detention basin area and a trail that went along the rail road track.

Councilmember Gutierrez noted that having an open space area and a trail would urbanize the area.

Councilmember Hill said that the platform would not be accessible from the west site and would be accessible from the east side and one would have to cross from the west side under the tracks to the east side of the tracks to access the platform.

Ron Holmes, Wilbur Schmidt and Associates, commented that Site B presented by staff was an excellent site. The work was preliminary and as of June 30, 2003, there was no more funding available to continue the work on the project. The original plans were for TCRP funds to continue with the environmental impact report and the money had been frozen and was not available. There was money left for a feasibility study to identify available sites and how they could be developed. He would not rule out a crossing with a grade separation and either an underpass or overpass could be built with project funds and would not necessarily be placed on the City. It was too early to know what the costs and funding sources there would be to implement the project. Both Sites A and B would work and BART favored Site Plan B since it was a consumer friendly site and the land made it easy for people to move around. It was operationally efficient was a good location for BART and should be a good neighbor. The station would not back up to something undesireable. Site Plan A was in an open space area near the single family homes and further south would be closer to higher density housing, which BART looked at favorably. In the feasibility study, based on ridership, there was a need of 325 to 450 spaces and there was room for 650 to 700 spaces. Both concepts A and B could be implemented and the EIR needed to be completed. It was a very good site along the EBART system.

Councilmember Hill said, in looking at Site B, in comparison to Site A, the right of way of the path currently in place was not there for the creek system and he believed that the underpass would need to be upgraded to accommodate more appropriate standards. If BART was going through the construction phase, an appropriate under or overcrossing must be built. Site B, as it related to the location on the line, from the intersection of the railroad tracks and Central and the intersection of the railroad tracks and Sand Creek, Site B fit half way in between and the streets would not impact the queuing of the trains whereas the train to the north would have problems. The City would have to rebuild the underpass on either site and he preferred Site B over A.

Councilmember Beckstrand asked at what point BART would be ready to purchase the land and Mr. Holmes said he was not sure what the status was. If it was determined that this was the site for EBART, it could be planned for and a sign placed on the property or the property could be purchased for an interim park and ride. There were the issues of City commitment and finishing the EIR.

Councilmember Beckstrand asked if BART was willing to purchase the land and if it would be made a park ride until the year 2025 when they talked about bringing EBART to the City or if they would ask the City to fund it.

Mr. Holmes could not answer for BART and said that no commitments had been made but there had been discussions.

Councilmember Beckstrand said that BART wanted Brentwood to buy land and land bank it and she did not want to invest in land that EBART would not invest in. She needed to see something from them to believe that anything further would happen.

Mr. Holmes said that BART was working hard to obtain funds to complete the environmental impact report, which was a very important step in the process.

Mayor Swisher said that Site B would be preferable, noting that there were major concerns.

NEW BUSINESS – None.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

Chris Mosser requested a future agenda item on brokerage commissions, paid to brokers on City owned/leased land. He asked what the intentions of the City were for areas such as the parking garage and 31,000 square feet of retail shop space and local brokerage involvement with listing or representing tenants in the transactions.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS – None.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Councilmember Gutierrez requested the code of conduct be brought back as soon as possible and regarding citizen comments on Sunflower Lane and Country Glen, she requested being shown the staff proposal.

Councilmember Petrovich agreed that the citizen comment by Chris Mosser and code of conduct be future agenda items.

It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Gutierrez to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cynthia Garcia
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