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
July 22, 2003

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, with Mayor Swisher presiding.

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

AGENDA REVIEW

Item 18 Additional information and clarification for Agenda Item 18.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gutierrez to approve the changes per Agenda Review. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

CITIZEN COMMENTS – None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approve minutes of June 24, 2003 and July 8, 2003. Pulled for further discussion

2. Approved Resolution No. 2924 approving the Joint Municipal NPDES Program Agreement to continue participation in the group program implementing the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

3. Approved Resolution No. 2925 to execute a contract amendment between Raney Planning and Management, Inc. (RPM) and the City of Brentwood to complete the required Environmental Impact Report for the Lone Tree Way – Union Pacific Railroad Undercrossing, CIP Project No. 336-3134.

4. Approved Resolution No. 2926 authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Agreement for Maintenance of State Highway 4 in the City of Brentwood.

5. Approved Resolution No. 2935 authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Reimbursement Agreement between the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency, City of Brentwood and CLL and Investments. Pulled for further discussion

6. Approved Resolution No. 2927 authorizing execution of an Option to Purchase Agreement and related actions with Joseph Titone and Ann Titone concerning parcels consisting of approximately 0.34 acres, identified as a portion of APN 019-110-048, generally located between Sand Creek and the new Sand Creek Road.

7. Approved Resolution No. 2928 approving the Final Map of Subdivision No. 8609, Garin Ranch, Signature Properties, located south of Chestnut Street and east of Garin Parkway, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.

8. Approved Resolution No. 2929 accepting the work performed by Delta Excavating, Inc., for construction of the Brentwood Boulevard Sanitary Sewer – Phase II, CIP Project No. 592-5910, and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

9. Approved Resolution No. 2930 authorizing the investment of City monies in Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and amending the authorized signatures.

10. Approved Resolution No. 2931 amending Resolution No. 2571 to change the authorization of certain City personnel access to sales and use tax records pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7056.

11. Approved Resolution No. 2932 amending Purchasing Policy No. 10-7 to update Fixed Asset description and dollar amounts.

12. Approved Resolution No. 2933 to amend Travel/Expense Policy No. 20-4.

13. Approved Resolution No. 2934 authorizing the City Manager to execute Purchase Orders or Contracts for the not-to-exceed dollar amounts listed for the attached list of vendors.

14. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 751 adding Chapter 15.04.150 to the City of Brentwood Municipal Code titled, “Section 904.2.1 of the Uniform Building Code amended”, requiring an automatic fire-extinguishing system on all commercial and industrial occupancies over 500 square feet in floor area.

15. Set the date of an appeal hearing on August 12, 2003 in order to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of an amendment to Planned Development No. 45 that established development standards for a 54.69 acre site, a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the site in 177 single-family residential lots and four remainder parcels, including a 3.35 acre park and a 0.97 acre site for a women’s and children’s shelter, located on the north side of Sycamore Avenue, on either side of the future Garin Parkway Extension (APNs 016-190-006 and 007), and also the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

16. Authorized the City Manager and the Economic Development Director to negotiate a contract for Architectural Services with Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (KMD) for the New City Hall Project, CIP No. 337-3139, and direct staff to return to Council with the negotiated scope and costs associated with the proposed services for Council review.

17. Rejected claim from Rick Melgoza.

18. Rejected claim from Michelle McDaniels. Swisher abstained

19. Rejected claim from Alicia Franklin.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Guteirrez to approve consent Calendar Items 2 – 4, 6 -17 and 19 as recommended by staff. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

Item 1 Approve minutes of June 24, 2003 and July 8, 2003.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve minutes of June 24, 2003 as recommended. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

It moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve minutes of July 8, 2003 as recommended. Council Member Hill absent and Mayor Swisher abstained. Motion carried.

Item 5 Approve Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Reimbursement Agreement between the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency, City of Brentwood and CL Land Investments.

Council Member Beckstrand noted that she would be abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest.


RESOLUTION NO. 2935

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND CL LAND INVESTMENTS, LP.

It was moved/seconded by Gutierrez/Petrovich to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2935 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Gutierrez, Petrovich and Mayor Swisher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Hill
ABSTAIN: Council Member Beckstrand

Item 18 Reject claim from Michelle McDaniels.

Mayor Swisher noted that he would be abstaining due to a conflict of interest.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gutierrez to reject claim from Michelle McDaniels. Council Member Hill absent and Mayor Swisher abstained. Motion carried.

Council moved to Item 27 under Old Business.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

20 Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision related to a Condition of Approval for the Arbor Ridge Apartment project. Public hearing continued to August 12, 2003.

Assistant Planner, Debbie Hill, stated that staff requested a continuance of the public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on the elimination or modification of one of the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission had voted to deny the request for a public hearing date that had been set on the appeal for this date. It had not gone to the Housing Subcommittee members for recommendation and staff requested that the public hearing be opened and continued to August 12, 2003.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved/seconded Swisher/Gutierrez to continue the public hearing to August 12, 2003. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

21. Consideration of an Ordinance amending the PD-11 Zone by creating development standards for an approximate 5-acre subdivision known as Harbor Heights, located generally between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard. Continued from July 8, 2003.

Mayor Swisher declared a potential conflict of interest and left the Council Chamber.

Associate Planner, Erik Nolthenius, presented a staff report and said the request was to amend the PD-11 zone to establish development standards for the Harbor Heights project proposed by KB Home South Bay Inc. The project was a five-acre subdivision and consisted of 66 single-family detached units and was located between Sycamore and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard. The Housing Subcommittee had reviewed the project on a couple of occasions and had considered a variety of development options for the site. The project had been a result of significant input from a variety of City departments and the Fire District regarding internal circulation and the overall layout of the subdivision. The request and tentative subdivision map had been considered by the Planning Commission and Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to PD-11 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Vice Mayor Beckstrand opened the public hearing.

Jim Schmidt, KB Home South Bay Inc., stated that he had the architectural details and that it was PD-11 zoning and KB Homes was making the change to go to single family zoning for the project.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gutierrez to close the public hearing. Council Member Hill absent. Mayor Swisher abstained. Motion carried.

ORDINANCE NO. 752

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD-11 ZONE BY CREATING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN APPROXIMATE 5-ACRE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS HARBOR HEIGHTS, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT, LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN SYCAMORE AVENUE AND SPRUCE STREET, EAST OF BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (APN 013-030-010).

It was moved/seconded by Gutierrez/Petrovich to waive first reading of Ordinance No. 752. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Mayor Swisher returned to the Council Chamber.

22. Consideration of an Ordinance amendment to PD-45 establishing development standards for a 54.69-acre site and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8534) subdividing the site into 177 single-family residential lots and five remainder parcels, including two park sites and a 0.97-acre site for a women’s and children’s shelter, located on the north side of Sycamore Avenue, on either side of the future Garin Parkway extension. Public hearing continued to August 12, 2003.

Associate Planner, Erik Nolthenius, noted that the project was known as Cedarwood and was considered by the Planning Commission on July 1, 2003, and recommended for approval to the Council. Since that time, staff had received appeal on the project and in order to consider them both at the same time, staff requested a continuance of the public hearing to August 12, 2003.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to approve continuation of the public hearing to August 12, 2003, for consideration of an Ordinance amendment to PD-45, as recommended by staff. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

23. Consideration of a Resolution joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct special assessment proceedings and levy assessments within the territory of the City of Brentwood and authorizing related actions.

City Manager, John Stevenson, informed that the program was a Statewide program used to prepay development fees and finance infrastructure fees. Where the City sold bonds to build or purchase infrastructure, this was for the pre-payment of fees and was a supplement to what the City already did and may not be used a lot and was helpful in commercial projects where there would be prepaid fees and instead of placing them in a ten-year program that the City would have to administer, it could be placed into a 30-year program that the City would not have to administer. All of the communities that participated in the program sold bonds once or twice per year. Staff suggested incorporating the program.

Bob Williams, RBC, stated that the program was sponsored by the California League of Cities, SEASAC and the authority was the CSCDA and the City was already a member.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Petrovich to close the public hearing. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

RESOLUTION NO. 2936

RESOLUTION JOINING THE STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS

It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Gutierrez to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2936 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Petrovich and Mayor Swisher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Member Hill
ABSTAIN: None

24. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Section 17.870.007(B) of the Brentwood Municipal Code relating to the effect of City Council action on Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

Community Development Director, Mitch Oshinsky, stated that the amendment was intended to streamline the process and offer Council more flexibility in dealing with zoning amendments. The existing Code stated that, on receipt from the recommendation of the Planning Commission on any proposed zoning ordinance amendment, and if the decision of Council was to modify the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the amendment could proceed forward until a report had been received from the Planning Commission on proposed modifications and the project would have to go back to the Planning Commission. The provision in the Code would force any zoning change to go back to the Planning Commission if the Council wished to make a change. Staff proposed that Council be given choices, and the choices would be that if a zoning ordinance came to Council and Council wished to make changes, Council could modify the recommendation of the Planning Commission in any manner that Council deemed necessary and approve the application with the modifications or refer the application back to Planning Commission for further review and analysis or Council could refer the application to staff for any further review and analysis. The change would offer Council the flexibility to decide from any of the three options.

Mayor Swisher asked for clarification and Director Oshinsky stated that this was not an appeal and that on a zoning ordinance amendment, Council was the final decision authority. The Planning Commission was the recommending body and any zoning amendment went to the Planning Commission first for a public hearing and the Commission made a recommendation to Council. If Council wished to make a different recommendation that Planning Commission did not consider, the Code currently stated that Council must send it back to the Planning Commission, which added more time to the process. He suggested that Council be given the choice and flexibility and if it was a simple matter, maybe it did not need to go back to the Planning Commission and it may be something that staff could handle. Council could also send it to the Planning Commission for additional information, which offered Council more flexibility.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to close the public hearing. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

ORDINANCE NO. 753

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RZ (03-10) WHICH AMENDS CHAPTER 17.8870.007 (B) OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE EFFECT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to waive first reading of Ordinance No.753 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

25. Consideration of a Resolution approving a Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) allocation for Braddock and Logan’s 311 unit project on 135 acres, located south of the Mokelumme Aquaduct, west of Lone Oak Road and north of the new Sand Creek Road extension. Applicant requests continuance to August 12, 2003.

Community Development Director, Mitch Oshinsky, stated that the item was a request for an allocation under the City’s residential growth management program for Braddock and Logan and was scheduled for public hearing. The applicant that was working on the project had a change in personnel and requested a continuance to the meeting of August 12, 2003.

Mayor Swisher opened public hearing.

Keith Schaeffer said he was annexed into the City approximately 18 months ago and Council Members had voted that the area would be ultra low and low density areas for ranchettes. He asked that the low densities remain.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Swisher to approve continuing the consideration of a resolution regarding RGMP to August 12, 2003, as recommended by staff. Council Member Hill absent. Beckstrand abstained. Motion carried.

26. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Chapter 5.24 of the Brentwood Municipal Code relating to Brentwood Cable Television.

City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, said that this was regarding proposed revisions to Ordinance 700 and the City originally modified the cable television franchise ordinance approximately 18 months ago and it was revised a month later. Subsequent to that, the City had negotiations going on with AT&T and now Comcast Corporation. He noted that the consultant was present to discuss proposed changes.

David Kinley, Kinley Associates, said he was consultant to the Telecommunications Subcommittee, particularly with respect to the revision of the cable regulatory ordinance and the review and possible renewal of the franchise presently held by Comcast Cablevision. The circumstances had changed regarding the factors for consideration. The revision for the regulatory ordinance was undertaken at the direction of the Telecommunications Subcommittee to accomplish first, changes in the ordinance to make it so that the draft agreement that the City had as a result of negotiations with Comcast, would not be inconsistent with the cable regulatory ordinance. There were other provisions that he recommended changing and that he characterized as editorial clarifications. There were two sets of changes recommended in the ordinance. If Council wanted to proceed with the informal negotiation process, which had not yet been completed, he recommended that Council act on all of the changes. Council was in a unique position and that was that the deadline for submission of a formal renewal proposal expired yesterday, with no formal submission by Comcast. He said he had a franchise renewal timeline, which he distributed to Council, to understand how the City had come to be in the position that he had never found another City to be in, which was that the City had the legal option of going forward and denying the renewal on the grounds that no proposal was ever submitted. If that was the way that Council wanted to go, he suggested that it was not necessary to make all of the revisions that were proposed. Council could table all the revisions or direct Mr. Kinley to come back with an item that dealt with only the editorial clarification provisions or Council could take no action. He said that the clock started ticking yesterday with the failure of Comcast to provide a formal written proposal and that was that Council must deny the proposal, even if one had not been submitted, within four months of yesterday. Once the four months lapsed, Council would have lost the right to that since the non-response by Comcast meant that Council was rejecting the renewal of the franchise. He submitted copies of the Summary Renewal Timeline to the Council Members.

Council Member Petrovich asked if the four-month provision referred to was written in the telecommunications act and Mr. Kinley responded that it was the Cable Act of 1992 and no changes had been made.

Consultant Kinley stated that he had attached to the Summary Renewal Timeline, renewal negotiation process terms adopted by Council November 26, 2003, in which guidelines were set up with Comcast for conducting the informal negotiations without either party loosing their rights under the formal process that was provided for under the Cable Act. He said what had happened, there were negotiations through approximately June 29, 2003 and a series of deadline extensions passed by the Council. The last one extended the deadline for the formal renewal proposal to July 21st, in anticipation of there being an informal agreement being reached before that time. On about June 30, 2003, Comcast submitted to subcommittee, changes that had been received from their headquarters office in Philadelphia. He said that there was a telephone conference call with the subcommittee and an agreement was reached with respect to everything except what Comcast wanted in the way of a change on the channel capacity of the system. The informal draft, required 860 megahertz channel capacity in two-way capability at the end of the rebuild. What headquarters from Comcast came back with was that they wanted 860 megahertz in the informal document and 70 analogue channels. Comcast headquarters said that they wanted a requirement for 750 megahertz and he deferred to Council Member Petrovich to describe the difference in what the total capacity of the system was. The Subcommittee instructed Mr. Kinley to tell the Comcast negotiator that it was unacceptable. On July 3, 2003, Mr. Kinley had received a phone call from Comcast local representative that said that Comcast headquarters had signed off on leaving the requirement at the larger number, which was 860 megahertz, which had been negotiated.

Council Member Petrovich asked who the representative was and Mr. Kinley responded that it was Kent Leecock.

Mr. Kinley had said to Mr. Leecock that on the instruction of the subcommittee, there needed to be a formal representative, either personally or in writing, for Comcast at the meeting of July 8, 2003, for the Council to move the deadline back from July 21, 2003 to sometime in August 2003 to complete the informal negotiations, the deadline for the formal renewal proposal. A letter had not been received by July 8, 2003 and no one from Comcast appeared at the July 8, 2003 Council meeting. As a result, the Council tabled the item at the last meeting, extending the deadline from July 21st to August 21st. Nothing was received from Comcast as of the deadline, yesterday, July 21, 2003.

Council Member Petrovich said that Council did not table it and did not act on it.

City Attorney Beougher said that Council denied staff recommendation.

Mr. Kinley said that the proposed change in the deadline was denied on July 8th. He said he had been informed that confirmation would be received either by yesterday or today, in writing, from Comcast, that they had accepted the 860 megahertz requirement.

Council Member Petrovich stated that he had spoken with Phillip Arndt last week and he had said he would get the letter written and signed by a divisional vice president.

Mr. Kinley noted that the issue before Council tonight was what to do, if anything, about the regulatory ordinance. Council could do nothing or could adopt the ordinance in its entirety if Council intended to accept the results of the informal negotiations process, which had not yet been completed or could instruct Mr. Kinley to deal only with the editorial clarification portions of the revisions and not the subsidy ones.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

Phillip Arndt, Government Affairs Manager for Comcast, apologized for what took place at the end of June and July because he was out of town on vacation and being a key person in this, he was not aware of the deadlines and timelines. He stated that he was not aware of the letter and the specific issue regarding the system capacity until last week, which was after the July 8, 2003 meeting and the time to turn the letter in. He said he had spoken with Mr. Kinley and Council Member Petrovich regarding the issue and a letter, one for each Council Member, regarding the Telecommunications Subcommittee, one copy of Mr. Kinley and one for the City. The letter stated that Comcast agreed to the language in the proposed franchise regarding system capacity of 860 megahertz and a two-way capable system and a minimum of 70 analogue channels. He announced that Comcast had completed the upgrade of the cable system in the City, which took place about two to three weeks ago. He had been present at the meeting following Memorial Day regarding the construction and the issues had been taken care of and Comcast had completed the upgrade and every area in the City should have an upgraded system, basically with the requirements of the proposed franchise. On behalf of Comcast, he recommended and asked Council to pass the revised ordinance. It was consistent with the proposed franchise agreement that Comcast had been working with Telecommunications Subcommittee. He apologized for the miscommunication on his part and on behalf of Comcast for not meeting the deadlines in the last two weeks. He submitted letters to Council.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Gutierrez to close the public hearing. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

Council Member Petrovich said that the Cable Television Act of 1992, with some revisions in 1996, set up rules, deadlines and procedures for formal and informal process on cable renewal. The City moved into a formal state of renewing the franchise and at the same time, continued to do informal negotiations. The deadlines and extensions were done to accommodate Comcast. He explained that the 860 megahertz meant was that it was a broad spectrum of frequencies where more information could be placed on a piece of cable and when going down to 750 megahertz, it was 110 less and if divided by six, it would tell you how many cable television channels that could potentially be used, not thinking about compression. He was uncomfortable with this because he believed that the system built in the City was built at 750 megahertz. The only way that could be determined was to have an engineering analysis done regarding the system and the City would have to hire someone to do the analysis. The City had four months and during the four month period, the City could go on informally and accept something or deny the proposal as submitted by Comcast, which was nothing to this date. During the four month period, if Council decided to do that, the City was on solid legal standings and could solicit other franchises and would not have to renew Comcast Cable Television Franchise. He said that with regard to the RO, he said that since there were four months to go, he recommended taking it off agenda this evening and referring it back to the Subcommittee to bring back at a later date either with changes for the clean up work minus the changes made specifically for the Comcast proposal that never made it to the Council or do nothing, which David Kinley had recommended, or revamp the whole thing. He recommended doing nothing at this point and returning the issue to the Telecommunication Subcommittee.

Council Member Beckstrand said she regretted being in this position and she said she agreed with Council Member Petrovich that Mr. Arndt was honorable and that he was on vacation and that Comcast management would allow something like this to fall through the cracks and be sure that someone was present at the Council meeting or a letter was received by either the Consultant or the City. She noted that there were hurdles with regard to the Cable Act and the need of the City to comply with it and it allowed the City and Comcast to be placed in a situation. She asked to have the recommendation of Council go back to the Telecommunications Subcommittee and make editorial changes in the regulatory ordinance as recommended and discussed with the Consultant and move forward into the next phase of the Cable Act and franchise negotiation processes.

Council Member Gutierrez agreed with Council Members Petrovich and Beckstrand to take it back to the Telecommunications Subcommittee and to see something completed. She said that it had boiled down to miscommunication and that she would like to see editorial changes made and then see it come back on the agenda.

Mayor Swisher asked for stronger language to fix the road if it were to be trenched.

Consultant Kinley commented that the fact that Comcast had missed a key deadline, for whatever reason, under the Federal Cable Act, placed the Telecommunications Committee in a vastly stronger negotiating position than there ever was prior to last night.

Council Member Petrovich noted that the City could now solicit other proposals for several franchises.

Mr. Kinley said that the City could not do that until they had dealt with and closed the formal renewal process and deny Comcast a renewal.

Council Member Petrovich said that other cable companies could come in and Mr. Kinley stated that they could come in anytime.

Consultant Kinley said that Council Member Petrovich had spoken about soliciting and he had problems with that. If Council wanted to deny the renewal of Comcast, in his opinion, Council had very solid legal grounds. He said he did not see how Comcast could get a court decision in their favor, if Council wanted to go in that direction. Council would need to take two steps and the first was to make a preliminary finding that the Comcast proposal that was never submitted, did not meet the community-related, community-interest in cable and then there would need to be a second, formal administrative hearing, in which Council would make findings that Council clearly had grounds for making now, that supported the decision and then Comcast would be allowed to come in and present evidence and testify. He said Council would need to go through a formal administrative hearing denying Comcast the franchise. So there were procedural steps to take before the City could solicit and after that, the City could solicit.

It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Petrovich to direct staff and the City Attorney to use the process described Mr. Kinley of denying the proposal that was not received and entering City into a formal negotiation process and directing the Telecommunications Subcommittee to rework the regulatory ordinance and bring it back to the City as a stand-alone document and then move forward from there in negotiations and franchise pursuits as outlined by the Cable Act. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

Council moved to Item 28.

OLD BUSINESS

27. Accept status report on Armstrong Road landscaping to install sidewalk and landscape for Armstrong Road behind Grupe’s Subdivision No. 7736.

Item 27 taken out of order following Item 19.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, noted that there had been concerns reported by citizens regarding landscaping on Armstrong Road. The condition on the subdivision was to have a majority of Armstrong Road improved as part of Phase VI and a portion of Armstrong and the railroad improvements, except the portion from Walnut Boulevard to the first intersection as part of Phase II and IV and the portions to be improved as part of the remaining residential subdivision along Balfour Road. The project also had a condition to do some improvements on Walnut Boulevard on the south end of the project where East Contra Costa Irrigation District could cross Walnut Boulevard and those improvements were being worked on when Engineering encountered difficulties with more improvements required by the County to do beyond the City limits, which involved expensive improvements regarding the Maintenance Yard on the west side of Walnut Boulevard. The cost of the improvements was going up and the City negotiated with the developer that, instead of spending money on Walnut Boulevard, which would not improve circulation, the developer would improve Armstrong Road. Most traffic was on Carnegie Lane and there were houses fronting on it and a lot of complaints about traffic and speeding so the City worked with the developer and came up with some solution that allowed the City to use the money that was supposed to be spent by the developer on Walnut Boulevard on improving circulation in the subdivision, Armstrong Road in the north end, extending southerly and extended Armstrong easterly to allow more access from the area. This would improve circulation throughout the project and based on how much money was available the improvements were limited to pavement widening or pavement with curb and gutter storm drain. There was still a portion of Armstrong on the east end that was not completed due to lack of funds and there was still landscaping left to do and was part of Phase VI improvements. He said he believed that there was not development proposed on Phase VI. The concerns received were to install more landscaping on Armstrong Road between the six-foot high soundwall on the east end of the project and the same thing on the south end of the project, there was a portion where there was no landscaping along Armstrong Road.

Council Member Gutierrez noted that the options were to improve the road by light and landscaping District or wait until Phase VI was built.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, informed that the complaint had come from the east side, which was the Belvedere Subdivision and staff had provided an estimated cost of $64,690 for the landscaping. Lighting and landscaping fees could not be used to develop it and could be used to maintain it once it was installed. South of segments II and IV in the Kaufman and Broad development, there were also places that were not landscaped and to be fair, he said that both of them were $65,000. There were a number of these pockets around the community and if Council directed, staff could inventory the areas and return back to Council with the information.

City Manager, John Stevenson, said that if Council wished to have staff move forward with any of the areas, part of the instruction to move forward could include a benefit district so that the cost the City would expend to install the landscaping, and if a benefit district was done when Phase VI developed, the City could be reimbursed by the developer of Phase VI as was originally intended.

Mayor Swisher said he believed that this was a must if this were to be approved.

In response to Council Member Petrovich, Director Bronzan said that what the City Manager had presented as far as an assessment district would be the recommended option.

City Manager Stevenson suggested that Council could direct staff to do an inventory of all the areas throughout the City that were similar and could ask to have those areas prioritized or handled over time. Council could direct staff to prepare plans and obtain the bids necessary to do construction and at the same time, prepare the benefit district and direct staff to bring that back to Council.

Council Member Gutierrez asked where the funds from the benefit district would come from and City Manager Stevenson responded that the cost for construction would initially come out of City funds and when the benefit district was developed, the developer would reimburse City funds.

Bob Hipskin said he lived in the area and that it had been used to dump trash and excess materials and was an eyesore. He said the area looked good from Walnut Boulevard and from Armstrong Road, it was sad looking and that there were three or four trees that needed re-staking upon entering Armstrong Road off of Balfour Road.

Carrie Ann Schmidt said she was concerned about the trash being dumped in the area and the teenagers that ride skateboards and scooters. It needed to be landscaped due to safety concerns.

Mayor Swisher recommended looking at the whole City, taking inventory and prioritizing sites. The sites needed to be placed in budgets in the next couple of years and could be placed in benefit districts to recuperate some of the costs.

Council moved back to Public Hearing Item 20.

28. Continued consideration of an ordinance adding Chapter 8.40, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling, to Title 8 Health & Safety of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

Solid Waste Superintendent, Jon Carlson, said he recommended approval of a construction and demolition recycling ordinance to require 50 percent recycling of construction related materials for projects exceeding $75,000 in value. He noted that the form to monitor compliance was streamlined and reiterated that the construction demolition ordinance was practical and staff was working on getting it into place before a mandated version was implemented by the State in 2004. Staff felt it was in the best interest to pass the ordinance now in order to meet local, special conditions and he recommended approval of the ordinance.

ORDINANCE NO. 754
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADDING CHAPTER 8.40 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING, TO THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to waive first reading of Ordinance No.754 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

CITIZEN COMMENTS – None.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

Mayor Swisher announced his attendance at Millie Greenberg’s swearing in today as Supervisor to District 3.

Council Member Petrovich announced that on August 18, 2003, the Wheel Chair Foundation Golf Tournament would be held at Brentwood Country Club and Ed McMahon, Steve Largent and Willie Mc Covey would be there.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – None.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Petrovich to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Hill absent. Motion carried.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 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